CHARLES FLYNN Free Energy Generator

[Doc]

I came across this step by step process to produce an energy generator without any moving parts.

The YouTube link is: YouTube - Free Energy - Power Generator
It contains a combination of the Meisner circuit with the Flynns magnetic amplification circuit.

Additional info is the US patent 6246561 of 2001.

It appears to be relatively simple to build, BUT has anyone done it yet?

[Matthew Jones]

Looks like an MEG to me. There is also this one:
Electromagnetic convertor with ... - Google Patent Search

Peter Lindemann pointed me to that one. It is similar in the fashion of being motionless.

Its probably feasible but like T. Bearden says, they are hard to tune and set up, lots of variables.

Cheers
Matt

[Joit]

I dont think that it works in any way, sounds more like a theoretical sleepless Night what he got, and trow some things together.
It is not that simple, as some just figure for some Devices.

[Harvey]

I have done some superficial FEMM modeling of the flux switching portion of this Flynn circuit, as have others.

It has been found that when the proper size and material core, proper number of windings and off the shelf magnets of sufficient strength, it is possible to switch 1.2T of flux in the output sections with as little as 0.006A (6mA).

Therefore, this design would seem to have merit - however the simulations also indicate that the Flynn setup has losses associated with each winding and there are four windings.

It is one of those things, that when one person builds it and demonstrates it to self run, then everyone will build them. But until that occurs, we all remain skeptical.

This is why the experimenter is so valuable to the progress of any technology - because without the builders the evaluators will have nothing to evaluate but numbers to be erased or forgotten. The real world often deviates from the Ideal. We tend to imagine in perfection dismissing all imperfection or unknowns. But reality is fraught with both and these are the real hurdles that must be cleared to make progress.

Important factors to this design:

High permeability low coercivity core
Wide flux path
LOW resistance windings
Minimize drive power

[Ted Ewert]

It doesn't work. At all. Don't waste your time with it.
It doesn't work because Faraday's "law" is incorrect. Part of the proof of this is that nobody has had any success with the Flynn device or with the MEG. I don't care what Bearden or Nauden claim, they aren't telling you the truth.
You can send flux from a permanent magnet through the core of a coil all day, change it back and forth as much as you want, and you still won't get one milliamp of current for it. This is because the flux from a permanent magnet, and that produced by a coil with an alternating current, are different!
There has to be a differential in phase between the voltage and the current in a transformer before there is any induction into the secondary. This is the real prerequisite. A phase difference in the electricity in turn creates a differential in phase between the B and the H fields. A phase differential in the magnetic flux is the key to producing any power through induction.
When there is no differential, as in the flux from a permanent magnet, there is no induction as is the case in the Flynn device and the MEG.
You won't learn this in school, but extensive experimental evidence has proved this point. Bearden is full of crap, IMHO.

Ted

[Doc]

My primary point in starting this thread is that of all the so called "free energy" devices out there, this one not only appears simple enough, but someone has actually provided a step by step video process, albeit theoretical, to make one. Something I have found to be quite rare. With all this information there is almost no evidence either for or against that anyone has experimented with this device.

Is it because the theory doesn't hold water or is it because it appears too simple to work.

Whenever someone comes up with a design, they either patent it (Why bother) or they start selling plans of it, but there is never or very little feedback of these "machines" ever working.

For the love of GOD when are the inventors out there going to realize that IF ever you produce a "free energy" device you are not going to change the world (if you patent it) and neither are you going to get rich.

The only way you will ever change the world is if you place your working plans out in the open for everyone to replicate, free of charge, just as you received the information, free of charge. Has history not taught us that any inventor that has a brilliant epiphany was never able to change anything except his life span on this planet.

[Ted Ewert]

My primary point in starting this thread is that of all the so called "free energy" devices out there, this one not only appears simple enough, but someone has actually provided a step by step video process, albeit theoretical, to make one. Something I have found to be quite rare. With all this information there is almost no evidence either for or against that anyone has experimented with this device.

Is it because the theory doesn't hold water or is it because it appears too simple to work.

I have built both the Flynn version and the MEG, and many other variations besides. None worked at all. I'd try it with the magnets in, then take them out and replace them with steel: no difference.
The theory I explained above is the result of hundreds of hours of building and experimenting. If Faraday's Law actually worked as stated, we'd be rolling in free energy.
I don't mean to imply that magnets can't produce lots of free energy, quite the contrary actually, just not through those types of devices.
Magnets are permanent energy generating devices just sitting there. The problem is that they are normally in a state of balance, where no excess energy can be harvested from them. What the Flynn unit can do is teach us about redirecting magnetic flux, which is the key to unbalancing and unlocking the power in magnets.

Ted

BTW, I share your frustration.

[Harvey]

It doesn't work. At all. Don't waste your time with it.
It doesn't work because Faraday's "law" is incorrect. Part of the proof of this is that nobody has had any success with the Flynn device or with the MEG. I don't care what Bearden or Nauden claim, they aren't telling you the truth.
You can send flux from a permanent magnet through the core of a coil all day, change it back and forth as much as you want, and you still won't get one milliamp of current for it. This is because the flux from a permanent magnet, and that produced by a coil with an alternating current, are different!
There has to be a differential in phase between the voltage and the current in a transformer before there is any induction into the secondary. This is the real prerequisite. A phase difference in the electricity in turn creates a differential in phase between the B and the H fields. A phase differential in the magnetic flux is the key to producing any power through induction.
When there is no differential, as in the flux from a permanent magnet, there is no induction as is the case in the Flynn device and the MEG.
You won't learn this in school, but extensive experimental evidence has proved this point. Bearden is full of crap, IMHO.

Ted

With all due respect, if what you say were true then permanent magnet (PM) motors, PM generators and Magnetos wouldn't work.

The H Field associated with electromagnetism in the Flynn magnetic circuit for us as experimenters represents that field produced by the input coils. Since these are coils, they are inductors and the voltage and current phase is shifted in them accordingly.

The B Field in that magnetic circuit represents the combined flux density produced in and around the core by the input coils, the magnets and the output coils collapsing fields. It is a vector which changes direction according to the H field vector produced in the input coils. Because the B field is a composite in this case, it will continue to exist without any power applied by virtue of the PM's. It should be noted here that the field in these cases are Vector Fields and therefore represent different magnitudes and directions for many of the points in the 3D space comprising that field.

The H and B fields are very contextual and if we do not include the context with which the terms are used then in can lead to some confusion. Interestingly, a contextual chart has been provided showing the alternate names for both B and H here in this section of the Magnetic Field article on Wikipedia. You can see from this chart, that I have applied the H to the magnetizing field as applied by physicists and the B to the flux density as applied by electrical engineers. I do this because that is how I separate the fields in my own work, from a source perspective. When a source of a magnetic field acts to magnetize an object, even its own core then I view that as an H field while the magnetic flux induced in that object is what I consider to be the B field. This is why we say that PM's have a B field, because first, an H field is used to create them. Confusingly, once the B field exists, it can be used as an H field to magnetize a new object.

Some have tried to separate the terms by attaching specific attributes to them. For example, using Gauss's law of magnetism this section states that B Field lines never end because they are present inside of a material and this section states that an external H field terminates at the induced poles of the object and a different H field of reverse direction exists internally. I say whatever paradigm works in your mind to keep the math equations relating to this in the proper perspective. When you see a formula for electromagnetic interaction that includes both the H and B fields, you need to have the concept well in mind as to what the author of that formula is specifically referring to by those terms.

I think much of the confusion arises from different authors, such as Faraday, Maxwell, Ampere and Gauss using these terms in different ways within their respective equations. And now with SI trying to homogenize the terms into a comprehensive format while giving certain credit to specific pioneers in the field i.e Tesla vs. Weber, we have more things to evaluate. But hopefully the SI process will result in a solid standard in the future that removes any doubt as to what H and B mean without the need for contextual validation. It may require rewriting the works of former authors in an SI format to solidify it all.

Cheers,

[Ted Ewert]

Ok, if B field and H field are too confusing for you we'll just stick to flux.
A change in flux DOES NOT guarantee induction through anything. A square wave will pass very nicely through a transformer even though during the DC portion of the wave there is no change in flux. Conversely, I can reverse the flux through a coil core with a permanent magnet and get absolutely no induced current in the coil. I have done this in numerous ways, and here is one of the experiments I did:



The coil had a steel core and was wound bifiler, with the second winding connected to a load through both a volt and current meter. I also had the waveform on a scope.
The primary winding of the coil was fed a low frequency square wave, with enough voltage to force the magnets away from the core about an inch.
The magnets were encased in plastic tubes so they wouldn't flip over.
There is absolutely no doubt that the core of the coil was polarized opposite to the magnets since it physically forced them away from the core. Then the magnets were attracted back to the core once it turned off. They consequently repolarized the core in the original direction according to their polarity. There was undoubtedly a change in flux.
Nevertheless, no extra power was measured on the meters or on the scope. The power into the secondary winding was identical with or without the magnets. This defies Faraday's law of induction and shows why the Flynn device, and the MEG, won't work. It also shows that even though a magnet is moving with respect to the core, no induction will take place until that magnet moves at some angle across the core.
This gets back to your statement that "if what you say were true then permanent magnet (PM) motors, PM generators and Magnetos wouldn't work."
What I said was that there had to be a change in magnetic phase before induction took place. In a generator, the action of a magnet passing by a coil induces current into that coil because there is such a phase differential caused by the motion of the magnet. The magnet will not induce any current into a coil if it travels straight at it (as in the example above). It has to move by at 90 degrees to the axis of the coil.
I encourage you to try the experiment outlined above, or something similar, and see this phenomenon for yourself.
I'm sure a smart guy like Bedini knew all about this problem when he gave the MEG to Bearden.

Ted

[Harvey]

Hi Ted,

I would be very interested in seeing the output data associated with your tests.

I do see some problems though in your assumptions.

1. You have incorrectly assumed that I am confused about the H and B fields in magnetics - probably because you have misread my comments where I have used the words confused and confusingly.

2. You have not included in your analysis the work performed in moving the mass of the magnets approximately 4 inches in total. This energy must be included in your output calculations

3. The assumption that a reversal of flux direction would somehow be responsible for an increase in power at a load applied to a bifilar secondary winding of a solenoid iron core transformer.

4. You have not addressed here in your comments the need for a change in flux over time. To be measurable, the change must occur above a specific rate for the materials used. If your frequency is so slow that it allows for the motion of the magnets in a tube, it could be too slow to measure the induced values.

While I am not the brightest among my contemporaries, I do have a reasonably sound understanding of the laws of electromagnetism. I also have good reason to believe that if kinetic energy is extracted from a system that it needs to be included in the calculations - especially where motors are concerned and your test apparatus is a reciprocating motor.

While Faraday's Law can be expressed as two different phenomenon I don't think this is where the problem is in your case. In your example, the flux is only changing in direction, not in magnitude and it is the magnitude change which results in density variance in the windings needed for transformation.

However, there are some things characteristic to your setup that could result in minor variances that could be measured. For one thing, the B field of the PM is not homogeneous, but instead arcs away from one pole to the other pole. This is exacerbated by the reversal of the primary winding current (or in your case the application of it) which magnetizes the core in the opposite direction and pushes the magnets away. When this occurs, there is some flux of varying density which passes through the end windings. But these will be very weak by comparison to the solenoid field, especially when the magnet is moved away at a distance where the B field density falls off at 1/x³ (that's cubed, not squared)

Here is an experiment for you to try:
Stand your coil so that the core is vertical removing the lower tube and magnet but leaving the upper tube in place. We are going to use gravity to accelerate the magnet. You may want to put a thin layer of foam or cloth between the core and the magnet to prevent chipping your magnet from the impact. Connect your scope to the coil windings and set it at a low V/div setting. The magnet will drop initially at 9.8m/s² but will accelerate slightly faster when the core begins to react to the incoming B field and magnetic attraction begins. You can use those times and your tube length to determine where to set your timebase on your scope. Drop the magnet and measure the vertical deflection (volts) on the scope. You'll want to do several drops to prove to yourself that this type of flux interaction does induce a voltage in the windings. If you measure no voltage, then your settings are either too high, your tube is too short or your magnets are too weak. Compare your results to the predicted results from Maxwell's equation. Are they different? If so, why do think that is?

Respectfully,

Harvey

[Ted Ewert]

Hi Harvey,
Sorry for the confusion over confusion. I just don't want to get bogged down in a battle over semantics. My main point is that the Flynn device and the Meg don't work as shown. My secondary point is my theory why.

2. You have not included in your analysis the work performed in moving the mass of the magnets approximately 4 inches in total. This energy must be included in your output calculations

Because it's irrelevant. There is no net loss in energy since the coil provides the energy to push the magnets away, and the magnets provide the return trip energy. It's very much like the gravity experiment you suggested.

3. The assumption that a reversal of flux direction would somehow be responsible for an increase in power at a load applied to a bifilar secondary winding of a solenoid iron core transformer.

According to Faraday it is. That is not only a change in direction, but also a change in flux density within the core. The only thing that didn't change was the power output. I could have passed those magnets by the coil at 90 degrees at the same velocity they were traveling straight towards to coil, and they would produce a very measurable amount of power. Think about that one.

4. You have not addressed here in your comments the need for a change in flux over time. To be measurable, the change must occur above a specific rate for the materials used. If your frequency is so slow that it allows for the motion of the magnets in a tube, it could be too slow to measure the induced values.

The square wave duty cycle was the same duration as the magnets returning and repolarizing the core. I could see the the square wave on the scope and measure it's induced power into the secondary. The magnets were doing the same thing magnetically to the core, as was the square wave, according to Faraday and academia, yet it was not producing any power in the secondary. This is the point! The mere fact that I could see a perfectly formed square wave on the scope, across the secondary, should raise all kinds of red flags about Faraday's observations in and of itself. That the reversal and subsequent substantial flux flow through the core induces nothing in the secondary is also damning. There was no "time" issue in this experiment, either with the magnets or the bandwidth of the coil.
As I mentioned above, I have done many of these types of experiments, this just being one example. I have done experiments with magnets in closed loops, double loops, double coils and a host of other configurations. I base my conclusions on what I have consistently found as the result of these extensive experiments.
Might I suggest doing some actual experiments with magnets and coils yourself instead of relying on archaic theories. Experimental results always hold far more weight than academic assumptions.

Cheers,

Ted

[nvisser]

I have built both the Flynn version and the MEG, and many other variations besides. None worked at all. I'd try it with the magnets in, then take them out and replace them with steel: no difference.
The theory I explained above is the result of hundreds of hours of building and experimenting. If Faraday's Law actually worked as stated, we'd be rolling in free energy.
I don't mean to imply that magnets can't produce lots of free energy, quite the contrary actually, just not through those types of devices.
Magnets are permanent energy generating devices just sitting there. The problem is that they are normally in a state of balance, where no excess energy can be harvested from them. What the Flynn unit can do is teach us about redirecting magnetic flux, which is the key to unbalancing and unlocking the power in magnets.
Ted
BTW, I share your frustration.

Will this method of redirecting flux not work good to run a magnet only motor by changing the pole of the last magnet that normally cannot be past as it reach it, by means of a hall switch that triggers a coil by that magnet at the right time?

[Ted Ewert]

Will this method of redirecting flux not work good to run a magnet only motor by changing the pole of the last magnet that normally cannot be past as it reach it, by means of a hall switch that triggers a coil by that magnet at the right time?

The coil itself will create the little bit of push needed to get by the sticky spot, but you could also redirect some PM flux if you like.
I use these principals in the motor I'm developing right now. Take a peak if your interested:
Killer Motor - Page 4 - Heretical Builders

Ted

[Doc]

I have built both the Flynn version and the MEG, and many other variations besides. None worked at all. I'd try it with the magnets in, then take them out and replace them with steel: no difference.
The theory I explained above is the result of hundreds of hours of building and experimenting. If Faraday's Law actually worked as stated, we'd be rolling in free energy.
I don't mean to imply that magnets can't produce lots of free energy, quite the contrary actually, just not through those types of devices.
Magnets are permanent energy generating devices just sitting there. The problem is that they are normally in a state of balance, where no excess energy can be harvested from them. What the Flynn unit can do is teach us about redirecting magnetic flux, which is the key to unbalancing and unlocking the power in magnets.

Ted

BTW, I share your frustration.

Hi TED

You are a true champion, and I must add, probably one of the few who is in the thick of things actually taking many of these designs and seeing if they are workable, unlike the thousands of armchair critics who voice there 2 cents worth adding nothing but hot air.

There are 2 types of people in the world, doers and talkers, the world is full of talkers, thats why there is global warming...too much hot air from all their %#$&.

I must commend you as a doer, the world needs more like you.

My electronically challenged disposition has never stopped me from attempting to build some of the more credible proposals out there, but isn't it always the same, that the inventor always leaves out a few critical aspects that never allows anyone to be able to move past it, so instead of hope leaping on the horizon, we crawl back into our hole of disillusionment mumbling that "free energy" is just another myth...however for some ridiculous reason, holding onto hope that there may be a decent human being left on this planet that honestly and truly wishes to share his knowledge and make life better for billions who suffer under the strain of exorbitant energy costs.

If I have to read another article about phone taps and men in black cars visiting them because of what they know...what utter garbage.

Someone with a credible background who is of good standing should start a thread about all the BS energy machines out there and give good valid reason why they are useless, and perhaps one that provides units that are definitely worth looking into with the excitement and vigor they deserve.

[Doc]

I wonder if this information would add to the debate...

Now, whether we like it or not, there is new information that forces us to throw this entire model of "flux cutting" and relative motion between conductor and magnet out the window, or at least subject it to dramatic changes. For MIT's own Dr. Bruce DePalma has reminded us that electric current can be generated with the conductor and the magnet moving at exactly the same speed - thus eliminating any possibility that the flux lines could be "cut." For if the magnet is moving, the flux lines should automatically be moving along with it in conventional theory. This bizarre and interesting means of generating electric current was actually discovered by famous pioneer physicist Michael Faraday on Dec. 26, 1831, but until DePalma came along, no one ever paid any attention to it.

DePalma's prospect is actually quite easy to prove, and he did so many times. To generate electricity without any "flux line cutting," you don't even need anything but one piece that rotates by itself – no "stator magnet" is necessary whatsoever. And that right there would stop most engineers in their tracks. It is believed that you must always have at least two pieces in a generator – the stationary magnet or magnets and the spinning rotor wrapped with wire. In Faraday's design, seen in the image above, he took a cylindrical magnet, shaped like a candle with both edges cut perfectly flat, and attached a thin piece of paper over its top edge. Over the paper he cemented on a flat, coin-shaped disc of copper that was several times wider than the cylinder. By its very nature, the copper could conduct electricity, if there was any electricity to conduct. Once cemented together, the two pieces thus had no choice but to spin at exactly the same rate, so no “flux cutting” could occur.

To Faraday's amazement and bewilderment, when he rotated this object he could extract an electric current from it, even though it was only a rotor – there were no other moving parts! There was a cylinder-shaped magnet and a coin-shaped conductor, and they were both moving at exactly the same speed. All he had to do was to attach a copper "brush" to the outside edge of the conducting disc and another "brush" to the metal axle that touched the center of the disc. These ‘brushes’ are just what they sound like; pieces of fine copper wire that can touch an object with enough force to conduct electricity, but also lightly enough to permit it to move. The two "brushes" were then wired into the opposite ends of a galvanometer to measure electric
current; and indeed, a current could be detected! (A galvanometer uses a needle that moves when electricity is passed through it. No one in the scientific mainstream will believe that this could work if you try to explain it to them, because it violates the “laws” of electromagnetic energy.

This obviously was a cause of great fascination to Faraday, but he had no means to explain it and thus nothing else was done with it. Here, we will suggest that the magnetic energy itself is like a fluid, and by "throwing" or “spraying” the fluid out to the far edge of the conducting disc through rotation, a current is generated. Essentially, the aetheric energy is being drawn in through the center of the disc and is radiated out the sides. If you could see the basic magnetic energy field as this was happening, it would look
like a donut-shaped sphere whose central axis was shared with the axis running through the disc. The radiated aetheric energy could be visualized in a similar manner as the water that flies off of a wet dog's body when it shakes itself dry, or the water that is pumped through a hose and released by a rotating sprinkler nozzle to water a person's yard.

In DePalma's case, he discovered that even having a separate conductor and magnet was not necessary to produce this effect. All he needed was a single strip of flat, magnetized material that could also conduct electricity. This strip was then fashioned into a flat, disc shaped spiral like a giant lollipop, such that one end terminated at the spinning axle and the other end terminated at the outside rim of the disc.
One pole of the magnet would be wound up into the center, and the other pole of the magnet would be at the outside edge of the spiral. By simply rotating this one-piece magnetic conductor, electric current could be
drawn from the disc.

So again, we are doing the impossible - rotating a one-piece magnetized conducting disc and drawing energy out of it. Now this is where the real problem for scientists comes up: time after time, DePalma was able to
show that these "homopolar" or one-piece rotating generators were actually superior in performance to the typical two-piece stator and rotor design that we discussed above. In fact, these generators were more than superior; they appeared to be impossible, as they created more electrical energy output than it took to spin them. It is from this simple and yet incredible principle that DePalma created his own "free energy" device, known as the N-Machine.