Slashdot Mirror

Disclaimer: I don't care to venture a guess at this point whether the design in question is actually an improvement over existing motor designs (though I am sure that it isn't more than 100% efficient like the article claimed).

However, I am curious as to where you observed them using a quadratic relationship between magnetic field strength and applied force. Is it the diagrams on Page 2 of their description? If so, the relationship they are using there is actually linear. The reason that four "units of force" are applied (as opposed to the two units without using the coils) is that the field strength from the coils matches the field strength of the permanent magnets, and thus doubles the overall field strength in the "circuit". Up to this point, I think their theory is reasonable (though I'm hardly expert in this topic).

The claimed advantage of their design is based on the concept (true or false I cannot say) that a coil in the "circuit" can act as a switch, redirecting the magnetic flux from the farther permanent magnet through the opposite armature, and thus complementing the combined field strength of the coils with the combined field strength of the permanent magnets (which must be equal for optimal efficiency). This seems simple enough, but it would be nice if some neutral expert observer could confirm whether or not it conflicts with any known physical laws. Of course, even if all of the theory checks out, that doesn't necessarily mean that they will be able to construct more efficient rotary electric motors with it. It might have other applications, though, particularly in the area of linear actuators (which are closer to their test apparatus in the first place).

hey everybody, stop for a moment and think (or, at least, google around) before you write. Nowhere does the original article, or the Flynn research team (AFAI could find), say that this enginge produces more energy than it receives.

(The original article says "You should not be able to get more out of a system than you put into it and when someone claims to have invented something which does otherwise, skeptics are quick to challenge the validity of any claim that appears to violate conservation." and "A Parallel Path motor uses magnets...this ability to manipulate the magnetic flux in the core of a motor is what provides the exponential increase in efficiency with Parallel Path technology.". The phrasing of the above may be misleading, but it is not saying that "A Parallel Path motor generates more energy than it consumes".)

What the tecnology is about is that a "parallel path design" can help keep the magnetic flow around the rotoro, right where it is needed.

And what about the "over 100% of efficiency" statement?
I have a true clear-cut example for you. I have recently bought a new heat system for my house; when I started browsing models, I came across the realm of "caldaia a condensazione" (english: see condensing high efficiency boilers)) that claim to feature up to 106.5% efficency.
Here the brainded ./er would say "106.5% efficency? Perpetual motion! That must be b.s.".
The intelligent one says "106%" w.r.t. what ?. In Italy, it is "106% w.r.t. the theoretical limit of a standard design of a boiler". So it is not b.s.

So, by comparison, I may assume that the "parallel path" design exceeds 100% of the theoretical efficiency of the "standard electrical engine design". And this is scientifically reasonable, and yet it does not mean that a "parallel path" design is a perpetual motion engine

Nonsense. The inventor clearly claims that the motor produces more energy than is supplied - see http://flynnresearch.net/tests_%26_results.htm

Given that the same page confuses force and energy, there's no reason on earth why anyone should take this seriously.

Anyone notice how the company logo looks a lot like those rearranging paper puzzles? Hmm.

There is NOTHING in this technology that has ANYTHING to do with "self-sustained server cabinet power." Roast the submitter! And the editor!

Flynn Research is developing electric motors. From the Flynn website

Parallel Path Applications

Fans, Medical Pumps, Hydraulic Pumps, Refrigeration, Disk Drives, Trolling Motors
Traction devices: Electric Vehicles, High speed rail, Lift Trucks, Golf Carts,
Battery operated equipment using motors or actuators,
Appliances Using motors or actuators,
Aircraft & Aerospace

What's more, TFA says Boeing Phantom Works has seen it, and backs it. Who do you think is more likely to be correct, Boeing engineers who have seen it for themselves, or Slashdot Armchair Experts? Read the patent. At least read the inventor's website, it's more likely to represent the actual invention.

Hell, even some Slashdot readers have seen it, and report that it exists, it really works, and it delivers 98% efficiency.

What's more, TFA says Boeing Phantom Works has seen it, and backs it. Who do you think is more likely to be correct, Boeing engineers who have seen it for themselves, or Slashdot Armchair Experts? Read the patent. At least read the inventor's website, it's more likely to represent the actual invention.

Hell, even some Slashdot readers have seen it, and report that it exists, it really works, and it delivers 98% efficiency.

After reading a bit of http://www.flynnresearch.net/magnetics.htm it seems to me TFA has it wrong; they do not seem to be claiming perpetual motion, only far greater efficiencies.(sp)

And if you'd looked into it a *BIT* more, you'd know that this technology (PPMT) has nothing to do with free energy or perpetual motion. Flynn has been done a profound disservice by the cited website. Check out his website for the real scoop. Nowhere in there does it say anything about free energy. What he has is simply a very efficient motor that can act as a generator when an *EXTERNAL FORCE* is applied to the shaft.

The cited web page is wrong, and if I were Flynn, I would be emailing them to explain that their title description is blatantly incorrect and is making him look bad. If anyone bothered to go to his website, they'd quickly be able to see that PPMT is grounded in basic magnetic physics. PPMT is not free energy or crap like that. It is workable technology that produces a very efficient motor.

http://www.flynnresearch.net/Parallel_Path_Technol ogy.htm

Current electrical motors/generators are up to 99% efficient, and the loss is mostly in resistive loss in wire.

There is no room for any meaningful improvement unless you claim to have more than 100% efficiency, and they do. Lunatic bin right here!

Current electrical motors/generators are up to 99% efficient, and the loss is mostly in resistive loss in wire.

There is no room for any meaningful improvement unless you claim to have more than 100% efficiency, and they do. Lunatic bin right here.!

I was curious as to what they based their claim on?

First, go to http://www.flynnresearch.net/ to se some details on this.

The answer is:
Just doctor up formulaes: Force is proportional to magnetic flux. Se http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ Look up 'amperes law', 'magnetic force' and 'Lorentz force'. As you can see they are all _linear_. I.e. F=B*k. (Force = Field times some constant. Flynn makes the relationship quadratic: F=B^2*A/2u.

To translate for /. readers: You have one C++ programmer, and you need more work done. Just hire one more programmer, and to your surprise, you get 4 times as much done.