Motionless Flux Lock (MFL)

[vidbid]

My inspiration for this design is from a number of sources.

1. https://www.google.com/patents/US6246561 Filing date: Jul 31, 1998*
2. https://www.google.com/patents/US6229422 Filing date: Nov 22, 1999*
3. http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapt3.html
4. http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...th-device.html

I release my drawing of the MFL into the public domain.

Regards,

VIDBID

* "Patents are only good for about 20 years from date of filing (not issue)" per Eagle Research. Eagle-Research:

[vidbid]

On / Off

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MZzosuvfvE4

This video really does explain how "to turn on" and "to turn off" magnets.

Regards,

VIDBID

[rosehillworks]

This is a very important concept, because very small amounts of energy if compressed in time when charging a small capacitor to a high voltage before discharge can result in high flux values turning the magnet on and off with extremely small amounts of energy.
If applied properly to a opposed piston compressor or pump the load can be fully decoupled from the input in relation to time!!!!

[vidbid]

This is a very important concept, because very small amounts of energy if compressed in time when charging a small capacitor to a high voltage before discharge can result in high flux values turning the magnet on and off with extremely small amounts of energy.
If applied properly to a opposed piston compressor or pump the load can be fully decoupled from the input in relation to time!!!!

That's interesting.

Regards,

VIDBID

[Matthew Jones]

This video really does explain how "to turn on" and "to turn off" magnets.

Regards,

VIDBID

I don't wanna divert the interest in this subject, What was done in the video with magnets can be done with iron. Leedskalnins PMM will act the same way.
If you charge in one direction then charge in the opposite the plate will fall off. You break the cycle, whether you pull it off or you change the direction momentarily. Of course with Robert Smith (RMS) thing you do not have to try to remove the iron either with force or gravity but its still the same effect.

As far the Flynn seems (maybe I am mistaken) the primary goal of it is not to rely on the magnetic flow for torque but also to sequester the CEMF into a permanent magnet. Since the Counter EMF is gone the motor is capable of doing more work for the same price.

As far as I can see RMS has jumped a little far ahead of himself, IMHO when correlating the two devices.

Matt

[rosehillworks]

I think the imprtant difference here is that the Leedskalnin motor and many others have the load locked to the armature while the input power is being imparted to the motor. In this device because it can be switched on and off allows the time required for the input to be much shorter then the time required to do work. The problem with trying to accelerate the mass of an armature in half the time with a capacitive discharge is that the force required to do this is squared. Everytime you half the time the mass has to accelerate the force required to do so is 4 * greater, however in this case accelerating mass to turn the magnet off or on is not required, this is what allows us to compress energy in time (use a capacitive discharge), and keep the total amount of switching power extremely low
I hope my explanation is understandable Thanks.

[vidbid]

I don't wanna divert the interest in this subject, What was done in the video with magnets can be done with iron. Leedskalnins PMM will act the same way.
If you charge in one direction then charge in the opposite the plate will fall off. You break the cycle, whether you pull it off or you change the direction momentarily. Of course with Robert Smith (RMS) thing you do not have to try to remove the iron either with force or gravity but its still the same effect.

As far the Flynn seems (maybe I am mistaken) the primary goal of it is not to rely on the magnetic flow for torque but also to sequester the CEMF into a permanent magnet. Since the Counter EMF is gone the motor is capable of doing more work for the same price.

As far as I can see RMS has jumped a little far ahead of himself, IMHO when correlating the two devices.

Matt

Interesting. Thanks for your comments.

The PMH device does present an interesting concept.

With respect to the ALNICO magnet / coil in combination with the Neodymium magnet, what strikes me most interesting is the ability of the ALNICO magnet to change its magnetic polarities, either to a NS or a SN orientation.

I believe you're correct about the Flynn device, that it's primary purpose is to generate electricity

The term Motionless Flux Lock is my attempt to pay homage to the idea that these devices, at least, the mechanical version of them, have an aspect of "locking" or "unlocking." The mechanical device I refer to is the mechanical switchable magnet. It would appear that Robert Smith's device is an electrical version of the mechanical switchable magnet.

Mechanical switchable magnets are commercially available. For example: 150 lb force Switchable Magnet

In order to distinguish my concept of the MFL from other similar devices, that is, other types of MEG devices, I wanted to select a unique term for my version of the device, hence, the term Motionless Flux Lock or MFL. The MFL is supposed to be a MEG-type of device, that is, the primary purpose of the MFL is to generate electricity.

I acknowledge that the use of term Lock in the term Motionless Flux Lock appears on the surface to be a somewhat misdirecting use of the term. That is until you know the back story.

Regards,

VIDBID

[vidbid]

I think the imprtant difference here is that the Leedskalnin motor and many others have the load locked to the armature while the input power is being imparted to the motor. In this device because it can be switched on and off allows the time required for the input to be much shorter then the time required to do work. The problem with trying to accelerate the mass of an armature in half the time with a capacitive discharge is that the force required to do this is squared. Everytime you half the time the mass has to accelerate the force required to do so is 4 * greater, however in this case accelerating mass to turn the magnet off or on is not required, this is what allows us to compress energy in time (use a capacitive discharge), and keep the total amount of switching power extremely low
I hope my explanation is understandable Thanks.

It's an amazing explanation.

This is my favorite sentence in that explanation: In this device because it can be switched on and off allows the time required for the input to be much shorter then the time required to do work.

Regards,

VIDBID

[rosehillworks]

Vidbid
Thanks. I am just hoping that people understand the opportunities that can come from this, also the importance of decoupling the input from the load!!

[vidbid]

Vidbid
Thanks. I am just hoping that people understand the opportunities that can come from this, also the importance of decoupling the input from the load!!

You're welcome, Sir.

I agree.

The type of circuit to drive the input coils, I'm speculating, would need to be one capable of delivering properly-timed pulses to the coils.

(1) One pulse to cause a N-S orientation in the Alnico magnet, and

(2) Another pulse to to cause a S-N orientation in it.

Regards,

VIDBID

[Ted Ewert]

Been there, done that. I hate to be a wet blanket but it doesn't work! Magnetic flux from a PM switched through a coil does not produce electricity. I spent months trying to get a single watt out of a myriad of configurations; didn't happen. If it did, a simple Flynn device with a coil would give you power. Try it if you don't believe me.
As I said before, a phase differential between the voltage and the current has to be present to produce induction. Figure out how to do that with the magnetic field, such as moving the magnet does, and you'll have something.
BTW, nobody was more disappointed and unbelieving than I was.

Ted

[mbrownn]

Been there, done that. I hate to be a wet blanket but it doesn't work! Magnetic flux from a PM switched through a coil does not produce electricity. I spent months trying to get a single watt out of a myriad of configurations; didn't happen. If it did, a simple Flynn device with a coil would give you power. Try it if you don't believe me.
As I said before, a phase differential between the voltage and the current has to be present to produce induction. Figure out how to do that with the magnetic field, such as moving the magnet does, and you'll have something.
BTW, nobody was more disappointed and unbelieving than I was.

Ted

Hi Ted, Its only when the flux is moving or changing density that electricity is produced so with a device like this you will only get a spike at the moment of switching. If you were not operating at quite a high frequency I am sure the results were disappointing. Magnets are pretty much instantaneous with the flux jumping from one path to another. There is another possible method to create movement in the flux but its not relevant to this thread. It is how generated current is produced, we cause the flux to sweep the core of the coil. At this moment in time I cant think how we could do that using a device with no moving parts.

[vidbid]

Been there, done that. I hate to be a wet blanket but it doesn't work! Magnetic flux from a PM switched through a coil does not produce electricity. I spent months trying to get a single watt out of a myriad of configurations; didn't happen. If it did, a simple Flynn device with a coil would give you power. Try it if you don't believe me.
As I said before, a phase differential between the voltage and the current has to be present to produce induction. Figure out how to do that with the magnetic field, such as moving the magnet does, and you'll have something.
BTW, nobody was more disappointed and unbelieving than I was.

Ted

Thanks, Ted, for your input.

I find these statements enlightening: As I said before, a phase differential between the voltage and the current has to be present to produce induction. Figure out how to do that with the magnetic field, such as moving the magnet does, and you'll have something.

I believe Tesla had a device which was capable of doing something similar to that. I allude to that something in my report Analysis of the WITTS Generator in which I refer to Tesla's US Patent #381,970. In that patent, he says, "By the shifting of the poles of the ring A a powerful dynamic inductive effect on the coils C C' is produced."

Regards,

VIDBID

[Ted Ewert]

Hi Ted, Its only when the flux is moving or changing density that electricity is produced so with a device like this you will only get a spike at the moment of switching. If you were not operating at quite a high frequency I am sure the results were disappointing. Magnets are pretty much instantaneous with the flux jumping from one path to another. There is another possible method to create movement in the flux but its not relevant to this thread. It is how generated current is produced, we cause the flux to sweep the core of the coil. At this moment in time I cant think how we could do that using a device with no moving parts.

Good points. I never saw even so much as a spike, although I may have missed it. I wish I better understood the exact mechanism of induction. The relationship of B and H, time's influence, and the actual imbalance which produces electrical current. Then I could start working backwards.
BTW, I've used sine waves to try and vary the flux level with the same negative results. I've tested the effectiveness of this type of switching with a piece of steel on a spring to observe it moving in accordance with the switching signal. This is part of the reason I concluded that there is something else besides a mere change in flux going on with induction.

[rosehillworks]

I am looking at this purely from a mechanical point of view.
I realize producing energy by induction with this type of device may be incredibly difficult, but that does not have to stop us from using its mechanical potential.