[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
Joe Flynn's Parallel Path Magnetic Technology
Tim Harwood © 2003
There is a widespread opinion common to the mainstream academic community and also to various
alternative scientific forums, that some kind of exotic new physics will be required to design and
implement over-unity technologies. That is to say electrical motors, electrical generators, or other
apparatus, which produce an excess of magnetic force or energy above the value actually inputted.
However, this has recently been experimentally demonstrated not to be the case, as I have validated
myself in simple $20 experiments undertaken at home with parts bought from the local hardware
store. It is the purpose of this article to educate readers that with care, thought, and a little work, it
can be demonstrated that existing textbook physical law, freely allows for the extraction of excess
electrical energy from magnetic systems.
The credit for this ground breaking research goes to Joe Flynn, who has been engaged in magnetic
flux research for over 25 years now. His work is long standing, comprehensive, and in later years,
well funded. It is reported $7m has been spent to date, with over $1m alone developing a
revolutionary high performance magnetic motor. His equipment is validated, and apparently already
in mass production for select customers. Since many lines of research have been formulated and
explored by Joe Flynn, the following article presents only a brief summary of some of his best art
apparatus, but is nonetheless sufficient to convey the basic ideas, and provide a framework within
which one can undertake experiments.
Principals of Operation
The first illustration Figure 1 is taken from Joe Flynn's US patent 6,246,561, and explains a simple
magnetic force multiplication experiment, which forms the basis for the Flynn magnetic art. If the
windings on either side of the central magnet, which are normally connected in series, are properly
pulsed, the field of the permanent magnet in the center, will be diverted to the opposite side of the
core flux path provided. Or in alternative language, the side of the core that is pulsed, is
demagnetized, relative to the field of the permanent magnet used in the apparatus. This is
elementary textbook physics anyone can understand.
So what is surprising about this apparently simple apparatus, is that the armature on the side of the
flux core, will contain 1.75 times more units of magnetic force, than could be manifested by the
electrical input to the apparatus alone. Since the ability to arbitrarily move force from one point to
another is the basis for motion or work, however simplistic, we therefore have a basis for a system
that can be developed for practical technological purposes. Expressed in alternative language, we
also have the capability to engineer a time varying magnetic field, without the need for moving
parts, which will allow development of systems that output electrical energy. Both capabilities are
highly desirable, and offer substantial opportunity for technical development.
Expanding upon this basic experiment, there is a second simple and logical improvement in layout
illustrated in Figure 2, which should be obvious, but has been shown not to be the case. In this
instance, the pulse is centrally located, and a dual flux field layout employed, which both
demagnetizes the core relative to one magnet, and magnetizes it relative to the other. Since the two
actions are complementary, the input required to manifest the flux switching effect is halved,
therefore doubling 'efficiency.'
It should be noted that while the efficiency is doubled, the absolute output may not be significantly
improved. This is because the major weakness of this effect and technology is flux saturation of the
core, with values depending upon the specific properties of the B-H curve of the core material
employed, limiting the absolute output of both layouts the same.
The previous statements are not required to be taken on trust, and simple experiments have been
proposed by Joe Flynn, such that anyone can validate this effect for themselves. Figure 3 is a simple
experiment taken from the Flynn website, that can be used to validate the principals put forward in
this article.
An even simpler non electrical flux experiment was proposed by GM in the Parallel Path Egroup.
My apparatus is illustrated in Figure 4. It is no more than magnets and steel staple strips, bought
from a local hardware store for a total of under $10. The Parallel Path effect can be replicated with
identical apparatus, at only a slight increase in cost and complexity, with the addition of a simple
12v polarity reversible power supply, such as those commonly sold to power computer speakers,
among other household applications.
Conservation of Energy / Field Potential
One of the aspects of the Flynn technology people find most difficult to understand, is how you can
have a device that delivers 3.47 times more units of magnetic force than is electrically inputted, yet
not violate accepted principals of text book physics, as stated in the introduction. The key point here
is magnetic fields do not gain energy - they are conservative. You can only ever obtain less energy
from a magnetic field minus looses, than is in fact present. I feel this apparent puzzle can not be
better explained, than by reference to Joe Flynn's own analysis of the experiment presented in
Figure 3.
'
Since the Parallel Path System produced 3.47 times more force than the conventional system, with
the same electrical input, it appears to violate conservation, this is only true when observed from a
traditional view point. The system contains three flux producing sources (2 magnets and an
electromagnet) which together are capable of producing a far greater force than is actually
produced. All of the flux sources together can produce a force of 13.11 units, therefore in the
physical sense a loss of 1 - (9.01 / 13.11) = 31% is realized
.'
So the system is 347 % efficient, in terms of delivered magnetic force compared to net electrical
input, yet still conforms to the accepted physical principals of field conversation, by being only 69
% efficient, in terms of the fields present in the system. However surprising this result may appear,
the analysis presented is in outline correct, with the difference between fields present in the system,
and net electrical input, being the important concept presented.
Losses in the System
In order to optimise flux cores, an appreciation of the physics that underlies the transfer of flux
within a core is required. The normal magnetization curve, or B-H curve, is a mathematical
relationship between applied field intensity H, and resultant flux density manifested in the core B. It
varies according to core material, and the curve will shift, if there is a starting magnetism within the
core, such as that provided by the field of a permanent magnet. If the start magnetism is excessive,
the core is saturated, and will not properly respond to the applied force H. A simple B-H curve is
illustrated in Figure 5.
Hysteresis is a delay between applied magnetic force H, and resultant flux density B, that again
varies according to material type. It also manifests as a delay between the termination of force H,
and the manifestation of flux density B. So, the system will not turn on instantly, and will not turn
off instantly, in simple terms. This is because the magnetic memory of the core, means a flux vector
remains within it, even when the application of magnetic force H has been terminated. If we apply a
reversed force H to the core, the basic B-H curve is now expanded as in Figure 6, with the memory
effect also illustrated.
In order to return to the initial switched state, the remnance magnetism must now be overcome,
hence input once in operation, will be greater than that required for the very first pulse. The area
within the hysteresis curve gives a rough estimate for the amount of wasted energy, and along with
other conventional sources of losses resultant in flux transfer within a core, is what reduces the
efficiency of flux cores from maximum values of 2, or 4, down to values such as 1.75 or 3.47,
typically.
Motor Apparatus
Although numerous practical applications abound for this effect, electric motor design remains the
most outstanding opportunity. To this extent, again a few simple images, should be sufficient to
explain how the basic flux switching apparatus, can be turned into a highly efficient electrical
motor.
The first motor shown in Figure 7 is one I have proposed to validate the flux switching effect at a
most basic level. It illustrates the point made in the Flynn patent, that the armature of the core can
be removed, and replaced with a motor flux path. This first motor is not claimed to be highly
efficient, but it helps one to understand how the transition from simple flux core to motor takes
place.
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]