Slashdot Mirror
Self Contained Power Source?
McOSEN writes "Your Server Cabinet could have a 100% self sustained power source. It's called Parallel Path Technology and it's being coined as a revolution in the magnetic motor industry. From Segways to Vacuum cleaners to Server Cabinets. The article talks about the technology but doesn't exactly lay out specifics."
From TFA:
1. It's a motor, not a generator. It sounds like it could be a neat motor, but it's still not a generator.
2. "The technology claims to be able to increase magnet motor efficiency substantially, even over the 100% barrier."
That's right folks! It's perpetual motion machine!
So, this is about a motor that makes claims that are pretty universally accepted to be impossible. The poster, of course, is affiliated with the site hosting the page, so he really should have read the article the same way I did. Even if he didn't, maybe ScuttleMonkey should have.
I would be more annoyed, but this fits ScuttleMonkey's past science articles. Could someone send him a few pop-sci introduction texts, so we can stop having the Electric Universe, perpetual motion, and other fringe theories on the frontpage as science?
I hear this was developed specifically for the new Phantom gameconsole and online service. I cant wait to get duke nukem whenever going on that baby!
I thought they were called squirrel cages. And they're not perpetual, someones gotta feed the squirrels!
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
"Lisa, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
Yet another 'Coming Soon' thing that will always be 'Coming Soon'
Did someone forget entropy?
Electric motors are already 80-90% efficient, while this might make it closer to 100% it won't go over, unless someone discovered some new laws of physics. Given that they attempt to make the claim of greater than 100% I suspect the entire thing is full of crap.
So the first lines of the article basicly claim it's a perpetual motion machine, and than later in the article it says this is impossible. Wonderful when even the articles contridict themselves. I really enjoy the part where they state that they recieved a patent, like it actually means something.
Imagine a beowulf cluster made out of vaporware
Those who live by the sword, get shot by those who live by the gun...
Why is it that every new PMM for the last two decades has involved permanent magnets? Is there some kind of mad-scientist cabal that decrees these things? Will the fashion turn to something else soon, like, I don't know, materials so bouncy that they rebound with more energy than they hit the surface with? (Name that classic SF story.)
Seriously: Editors, please shitcan perpetual motion machines before we have to waste precious seconds on them. When a real PMM is possible, you'll know it's happened because suddenly the universe will have stopped working properly, and you'll be instantaneously and very thoroughly dead.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
Mod parent down, he is high and posting crap.
Bra-vo /. Not only is the story utter crap (greater than 100% return on input energy), but the headline has absolutely NOTHING to do with what's in TFA.
Why are we bombarded by these nonsense articles? This sort of thing should be recognized as B.S. by even a reasonable competent High School student.
RTFA submitter, all they claim it to be is a higher efficiency electric motor. No self contained power source....
From TFA:
The technology claims to be able to increase magnet motor efficiency substantially, even over the 100% barrier.
It may be described primarily as a motor, but if it could generate excess power then it would also be a "self contained power source." Of course, it can't, but TFA does imply that it is one.
If I'm reading the text of their patent correctly, it's not for the motor, but for the magnet assembly used in the motor. Maybe I'm missing something, but even with that limitation the patent looks pretty weak. Doesn't it cover just about any use of permanent magnets in a variable configuration to modify a magnetic field?
Anyway, this looks like another in a long line of "use permanent magnets to make a perpetual motion device" concepts.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
I love how the "Lab" in the picture looks a whole lot like a kitchen.
The CB App. What's your 20?
"... in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
Whoo, signature!
DesireCampbell.com
"The article talks about the technology but doesn't exactly lay out specifics"
The one true statement in the post!
What's it got to do with "Server Cabinets"? Absolooly... nuthin'.
If you like exotic motor designs, check out these "thin gap" motors. These brushless permanent magnet motors can reach 90% efficiency, which is very impressive. The windings are made from thin copper plates rather than round wires. These are real. You can order them.
There's some interesting work going on in motor electromagnetics, but the "greater than 100%" motor probably isn't it.
Bullshit detector overload!
This is Slashdot, for crying out loud. We're nerds, we don't fall for this idiotic screed even a high school freshman could debunk.
Ooooh, big words are scary! Stator, rotor, magnetic flux. Dammit, both the editor and article submitter should hand in their geek cards.
This guy does have a real patent, though. I don't know which is worse, the ignoramus patent examiner who allowed this one through or the baboon who posted it to Slashdot. Check the USPTO link here.Infinite Energy magazine runs out. Sure, I'm all for the occassional "Crystal Chakras Power Generates Excess Neutrons" story, but after awhile, it gets ridiculous.
Like many here, I read the article and got the idea that they were talking about a perpetual motion machine (could be the "The technology claims to be able to increase magnet motor efficiency substantially, even over the 100% barrier." at the beginning of the article that gave everyone that impression...), but the only place that I can find such a claim is from the author of the article...From the way it's written, it just doesn't appear that he knows what he is talking about.
I glanced through the patent at USPTO and it appears to me that what this is is a more efficient electric motor, not something that outputs more energy than is put into it.
-R
If I'm reading the text of their patent correctly, it's not for the motor, but for the magnet assembly used in the motor. Maybe I'm missing something, but even with that limitation the patent looks pretty weak. Doesn't it cover just about any use of permanent magnets in a variable configuration to modify a magnetic field?
Yeah, their pseudo-science is laid on thick, but it looks to me like a variant on the Lutec scam which is, funnily, always going to be ready "at the end of the year X" where X is whatever calendar year you are currently in. Check out their site. They even quote an anonymous but "notable" physicist, color me impressed:
http://www.lutec.com.au/
Anyway, this looks like another in a long line of "use permanent magnets to make a perpetual motion device" concepts.
Yup, no doubt.
Sailing over the event horizon
It's clear that the writer of TFA didn't understand much about what (s)he heard/read about this. I'm sure that the developers of the technology make no silly claims about greater than 100% efficiency. More likely, this is just an improvement on existing technology that gives, perhaps, somewhat better efficiency, or higher power in a smaller size, less weight for a given power, etc. Any of these would be good, but violate no physical laws.
BSA: "Would you like a free Software Audit"? me: "No, thanks. My software is all Free".
I really wish these kooks could separate the perpetual motion crap from reality here. They are not "over-unity", perpetual motion, or what have you. The do in fact obey all laws of thermodynamics. These motors are real and can deliver as much as 98% efficiency. We've seen them, they work. I was at the presentation recently by Boeing Phanton Works that featured these things. ..Chuck..
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
Hey at least they didn't claim it ran on Zero Point energy. My favorite current flavor of snake oil.
Obligatory UserFriendly strip:
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030922
This sig cannot be proven true.
How to make a small fortune in the stock market? Start with a big one.
Want to increase efficiency over 100%? Start with a motor that has 40%, make one that is 80% efficient - you got 100% increase!
I don't know if this is exactly the same concept I read about some time ago, but I heard about a patent using similar terminology. And while the claim is over unity power output (the patent I read involved no moving parts) the fundamental idea was to harness the degradation of flux in permanent magnets.
In other words, they are using a permanent magnet as a type of high-density chemical-free battery, releasing the energy that was required to magnetize the material in the first place. The magnets would eventually need to be replaced, and this was mentioned in the patent I read.
While I have doubts regarding the energy density of magnets compared to chemical means, and wince when beyond-unity is mentioned without special attention to the fuel source, I think that certain aspects deserve a little consideration, at least until we determine that it's infeasible to harness the demagnetization of a permanent magnet as an energy storage material.
Current electrical motors/generators are up to 99% efficient, and the loss is mostly in resistive loss in wire.
/. 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.
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
"Fix it"
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Is it reasonable to assume you can get more output power with better efficiency? Try this article titled
Increase Efficiency 10 Percent and Double Output:
I think the original poster/editor misunderstood the original claim...
Had to get out my hip waders just to get past the first paragragh. Another article with lots of Bull$hit Bingo words in it. The fraudsters love to play mind games containing magnetic fields and it's quick flux fixxer-upper. Small wonder that the geomagnetic poles are trying to swap ends, the North Pole has just about had enough of hearing about it, conned the South Pole into thinking that it's place is better.
Even the title reeks of faddish words. Remember last year's warm fusion fraudster? This year is mirroring Cell processors and the tech that it uses.
It makes me wonder who is really submitting these articles to Slashdot.
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
They're absolutely right. The submitter was wrong about the subject matter, and the subject matter obviously had many misonceptions about how the technology works (greater than 100% output... WTF?) But here is a look at how the technology actually works. It seems to be a motor that is simply more efficient, which is indeed a positive and achievable goal.
Working in a DevOps shop is like playing in a band made up entirely of keytarists.
As I understand it, the claim of above unity energy utilization in the articel summary is (of course) false and not being made for this motor.
What they are saying is above unity torque production. And here unity simply means the ratio with respect to a particular arbiratrily chosen standard. It's not a magic number. Just a way to avoid using units in the discussion.
Now what appears to be happeing is that if the rotor were stopped and one measured the torque on the rotor (or linear actuator) then you would find that this force was four times as high as a motor without the parallel path technology, running at the same current and the same number of windings.
Now we can see that this is sort of misleading. If we kept the current constant and the windings constant then the force or toruqe is higher in a non-moving rotor or actuator. But in a non-moving system one can, for the same current always increase the number of windings to increase the force. The ultimate limit comes from several practical realities. 1) increasing the windings increases both the impedance and residual reactance of the motor making it lossy and limiting it's frequency response. 2) The upper limit is reached when the magnetic flux is no longer contained by the ferrite. Both motors probably have a problem with #2 but the parallel path motor has fewer windings for the same level of force as a conventional motor.
Okay but that is still begging the question since were talking about non moving motor. adding in a permenant magent to boost the force is a lot like adding a spring to boos the force. You pay for it by the energy it took to load the spring.
Once this motor starts moving then one has to do a dynamic anayis to the flux collapsing as the rotor or actualtor moves is drawn into the field. What does this do the current in the motor? What does this do to it's complex impedance? I don't actually know the answers to those questions. The static analysis is simply bogus for concluding that. But if one were to maintain the "spring" analogy then it seems like one could not possibly be getting any net gain.
what this device does seem to be doing however is to make an assymetric pull on the acutator. that is it pulls on one arm of the motor with 4 times the torque and the other arm with no torque at all. That might possibly lead so some sort of alteration in the lead-lag curve of of the phase response of the motor at different speeds. If so it might somehow make a motor with a given amount of windings and ferrite optimally usitize it's material content better.
So if there is any gain at all here I suspect it lies with this latter effect. But I cant' do the analysis to be sure.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I wonder if the USPTO will make him create a working model.
Kernel Krunch - Part of a Complete OS
The energy stored in a permanent magnet (from rotated domains held from returning to their equilibrium condition) is called magnetic energy density, and is given in SI units of KJ/m^3. A more common unit used to be the Mega Gauss-Oersted (MGOe). T [1 MGOe = 8 kJ/m^3]. For most nifty permanent magnets, the KJ/m^3 value will be in the 20's to 30's. Now consider the volume of magnets that would fit in a motor you could hold in your hand, and thence calculate the energy density. Then calculate the effect of releasing ALL this energy in one minute, say of a 100mm x 10mm x 10mm magnet, releasing its 0.3 J in 60 seconds, for a whopping 0.005 Watts of power, leaving an unmagnetized lump of metal. Impressed?
Slashdotters should stick to commenting on computer stuff and not venture into the realm of hardware, especially the stuff that involves physics, electric current and the like. In their ignorance, Slashdotters are forgetting (if they ever knew) that an exponentially increasing magnetix flux in a perpendicular field arrangement - as the article describes - will be able to couple with the zero-point energy of the normal space.
This is the energy associated with a prediction of quantum thoery which proposes that (and here I'm a bit fuzzy myself) at the very smallest length scales even empty space is filled with short-lived particles, constantly popping into and out of existance. The longevity of a particle (and its anti-particle) is inversly proportional to its energy - so a high energy 'creation' stays around for a very very short time, and vica versa.
Normally the total energy of a particle and its anti-particle is a zero since they cancel out but, as the theory goes, under the right magnetic flux density and orientation conditions the particle pair could be separated and their intrinsic energies harnessed - zero-point energy. It has always been recognised that this could be a tremendous source of energy - but it was thought that only in the heart of a sun do magnetic field conditions arise that could lead to this energy release (which is now how cosmologists explain the energy gap between that generated from a sun's internal nuclear reactions and that required to: i) keep a body as large as a sun that far above the ground, and ii) overcome friction as it moves through the sky).
What is amazing - and I must say somewhat implausible really - is that this team claim to have gathered enough magnetic flux to harness zero-point energy. But if this is true, then apparent perpetual motion is entirely possible. I say 'apparent' because zero-point energy is of course being added to the system, so it's not really perpetual since the universe will one day implode, as Galileo predicted, and the source of energy will cease.
I think the real question is how they managed to keep the magnetic flux cool during operation. Magnetic flux will decay into 'flax', a type of polymer, if heated beyond a critical temperature. This is where the sun gets its mass, but the same process could lead to problems with their design and really gum up the works.
Anyway, hats off to them. And to the poster for bringing this to everyone's attention - I wish I could detail and describe these technical matters with as much scientific accuracy and insight. And to the Slashdot editors for realising the important and singular value of this post, and not being too distracted by extraneous details that might - at first sight - seem nonsensical and rediculous.
http://www.lutec.com.au/
they just add a couple of magnets for extra power source. Magnet =~ extra battery.
Of course, the magnets will eventually run out...
it makes sense.
It's "The Big Bounce" by Walter S. Tevis, written in 1958. It's in the great short story collection "Where Do We Go From Here?" edited by Asimov.
s imov.html trstvs.htm
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/sf/books/a/a
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/sf/books/t/w
Actually Slashdot's traffic trippled just a couple months ago. At least among IE uses with the alexa toolbar installed.
Kind of weird, and annoying given how crappy this place has become. No one with any authority cares about the site at all. It's pretty lame.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
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.
You cannot get energy from magnets.
You can burn them.
Trust me, I work for the government.
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? ./er would say
"106.5% efficency? Perpetual motion! That must be b.s.".
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
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
are immediately dumped into the trash. Its not even journalism. When I went to high school, the school newspaper was better written. At least they would check the facts and care about accuracy (somewhat). EVERY article that I have seen from opensourceenergy has been debunked in about 20 posts on slashdot, and even before we have our morning coffee! Its that bad. Just... junk it. And senior mods need to sit Scuttlemonkey on their knee and explain the birds and the magnetic flux density to him.
Parallel Path is a quantum leap in electromagnetic motor technology
At least they're being honest. As a scientist would know, (and they purport to be scientists), a quantum leap is the absolute least amount something can move without standing still. And they didn't say whether it was a leap forwards or backwards.
So basically they probably mean that this is a tiny tiny step backwards for them. I'll can believe that.
It seems that the article is trying to say something to that effect with this sentence.
The claim could then be that the new motors provide better than 100% of the motive power possible of the equivilent conventinal electric motor. But I don't see where there is any data that would support that supposition - perhaps they provided it to the writer{s} but it was not correctly included in the article.
With current motors at around 80% efficiency I doubt there is room for the claimed x4 improvement. The math does not make sense to me. How can you have 220% more power ouput than your input?
a sp
r _efficiency.html
Just using the right motor for the right job is more important.
There is a nice write up of it here;
http://www.psnh.com/Business/SmallBusiness/Motor.
and here;
http://www.advancedenergy.org/progressenergy/moto
(Another five minutes of my time wasted on google because some fool posted something without doing a bit of research first.)
The basic idea behind harnessing the power of a permanent magnet is related to the similar phenemona associated with the electrostatic force in electrons/protons, the nuclear force, gravity and other such seemingly permanent forces. All of them give the full appearance of being able to perform useful work in perpetua.
For example, two electrons, through electrostatic repulsion, will accelerate away from one another. It is impossible to dismiss that energy was required to cause this acceleration. Yet, the electrons do not diminish in energy, they do not loose any electrostatic potential and are in fact capable of continually doing this same magical feat indefinitely. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it will take some serious evidence to say it isn't a duck. The electrostatic force associated with an electron appears to have an infinite supply of energy to exert accelerating forces on other electrons. It is trendy to say that the electrostatic force of an electron is coupled to ZPE (Zero Point Energy), and through this coupling, it is able to draw from ZPE to keep it's electrostatic potential constant.
A permanent magnet appears to have the same properties (e.g. it is capable of exerting force to accelerate objects without decreasing in apparent energy). It is true that a permanent magnet has it's properties because of the alignment of atoms and that over time the work that the magnet is doing does cause atoms to re-align and therefore decrease the effectiveness of the magnet. But this is in no way can account for the massive amounts of energy that the magnet appears to be able to use during it's effective lifetime. One could even say that the molecular bonds that are holding the magnet together and keeping the magnetic flux lined up are themselves generating the energy, since those bonds are countering the large magnetic forces that threaten to realign the magnet so that it is no longer magnetic. Those molecular forces themselves do not diminish and continue to exert strong accelerating forces.
In summary, it is impossible to dismiss this phenomena. A permanent magnet is capable of performing work, as is simply evidenced in many different ways (although it does not appear to have been commercially realized - who knows why? Anyone have a tinfoil hat?). Electrostatic forces, molecular bonds, nuclear forces and gravity all appear to have a similar property of endless access to energy to perform work.
If you reply to this comment, please don't hand-wave and say your physics professor knows more than me. Think about this subject seriously. The basic wheelworks of nature do give the full and blantant appearance of constantly violating the law of conservation of energy. That should be something that anyone who considers themselves a skeptical scientist would like to understand better.
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
The power lost in the electromagnet in this scenario is only due to the resistance in the electromagnet. If you were to do this you would notice that the electromagnet would heat up and that heat would account for the energy lost from whatever energy source you used to power the electromagnet. This is the only power loss as long as the other levitating magnet is remaining stationary. Now for the electrons repelling each other; the energy comes from bringing the electrons closer together. So, in order for the electrons to repel each other again, some amount of energy has to be exerted in bringing the electrons close together again. Energy is completely conserved in this situation. Just remember... force is not energy. It also doesn't take a supply of power to maintain a force. While there are problems with our understanding of the universe, this is not one of them.
The power lost in the electromagnet in this scenario is only due to the resistance in the electromagnet. If you were to do this you would notice that the electromagnet would heat up and that heat would account for the energy lost from whatever energy source you used to power the electromagnet. This is the only power loss as long as the other levitating magnet is remaining stationary.
I am currently dumbfounded by two things. (1) That someone keeps modding these comments down, as the subject is intensely interesting and there is valid debate here, as I shall show (again). and (2) That I get responses like this one which are self-defeating, as I shall proceed to show.
As to your comment, above, let us try a simple thought experiment. Imagine two electromagnets sitting on a tabletop and oriented such that their flux will cause a repulsive force when the electromagnets are powered. Imagine that both of these electromagnets are attached to a platform that can move on the table (wheels, low friction surface, whatever). Now further imagine that we place them arbitrarily close together. When we apply power to the electromagnets, what happens? Obviously, the electromagnets exert a motive force on one another and move apart. The act of moving apart clearly uses energy.
Is your assertion that the energy expended to impart a motive force to the experimental apparatus not originating in the electrical power used to energize the magnetic coils? Or, perhaps you believe that the only energy expended is expended when the aparatus actually moves? If your answer is the first one, then your argument is self defeating because that clearly violates the law of conservation of energy. If your answer is the second one, then let us add aditional parameters to our experiment and see what happens. Since you (in this case) are stating that energy is only consumed when the aparatus moves, let us place two rigid bodies with pressure sensors on the opposing sides of each electromagnet and re-run the experiment. In this case, the electromagnets will exert a motive force on one another, but the aparatus can no longer move. However, the pressure sensors will register presure (active compression) related to the imparted motive force. This constant pressure REQUIRES A CONSTANT EXPENSE OF ENERGY.
Do you disagree? If so, can you please explain how the electromagnets are causing a measurable compression of the pressure sensor without a constant expenditure of energy?
Now for the electrons repelling each other; the energy comes from bringing the electrons closer together. So, in order for the electrons to repel each other again, some amount of energy has to be exerted in bringing the electrons close together again. Energy is completely conserved in this situation. Just remember... force is not energy. It also doesn't take a supply of power to maintain a force. While there are problems with our understanding of the universe, this is not one of them.
It took me exactly 2 seconds to conceive of a simple thought experiment to prove you wrong. I am surprised that you didn't realize the same thiing when you were typing your response to me. I must assume that you are not actually thinking about this subject, but rather blinding regurgitating old, learned, conservation of energy religion. Here it is:
Imagine a closed system in free space with a large quantity of electrons freely *bouncing around*
Get the picture yet? Need help?
Ok, here is help: Those electrons don't have anyone pushing them together (e.g. they are not being accellerated, except perhaps by one another). However, over time they will have essentially infinite electrostatic interactions with one another, bouncing around infinitely, never loosing energy. But here is the kicker: Because of their interactions with each other, they will constantly be exposed to electrostatic acceleration which implies the expenditure of energy. Acceleration is not free. At no time does t
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
To elaborate on the magnet on the fridge analogy:
In its simplest incantation, work, or energy, equals force multiplied by distance.
Distance travelled: d = 0. W = F*d. Even lim(W, F->infinity) = 0 if distance travelled, d = 0. You can get energy out of the magnet only by moving it. Oh, sure - let's hold the magnet away from the fridge a centimeter, and let go. It moved - non-zero work! Except we had to expend energy to move the magnet that first centimeter.
And since I'm at it already:
- I won't mention the thermodynamics arguements many have already posted about
- It doesn't matter how many newtons of force a motor statically exerts - 1N or 1000000N - it's not linked to efficiency.
- The best way to measure efficiency is by a dynamometer. Versions I've worked with basically are generators which you directly hook up your test motor to. Knowing the properties of the generator (efficiency model, etc) you can figure out how much energy your motor is outputting versus how much energy you're putting into running the motor. You can find efficiency curves for any motor design you wish by spending some time with google. Why doesn't Flynn's website provide these? Don't give me any bull about patents; novel motor configurations are common.
- Despite its flaws, the peer-review journal system is still the most rigorous method of testing science. I don't need to search Science's website to tell you that "parallel path technology" will return 0 results.
- While racing solar cars, I've encountered motors running anywhere between 80 to 98% efficiency. That's efficiency defined in the traditional sense: mechanical power out divided by electrical power in. I found it funny that Flynn is trying to convince solar car teams to try out his motor design.
Give me some steel tubing, enough calculator solar cells, an electric lawnmower and my Swiss Army knife, and I'm sure I get farther in WSC2007 than Flynn. (Interestingly, the parallel path wiki says it can reduce solar cell surface area by 50%! Tell that to anyone who's raced a solar car and see how quickly they laugh)