CHARLES FLYNN Free Energy Generator

[Harvey]

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.
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.


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.

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

Irrelevant?
So, in your opinion, using a coil to move a magnet does not consume energy because the magnet can move itself back? Sorry, but you have made a gross error here. Not only does it consume energy, but in your application it consumes even more. Not only must it move the mass, but it also must push against the attraction of the magnet. So 100% of the potential energy stored at the 1" location is supplied by your input power.

The problem is, you think that energy is equal and it is not. That stored energy is only a minuscule fraction of what you are applying to the coil. Why to think it would be equal needs to be explained in full detail.

Passing a square wave through an transformer is a very simple thing when you understand the principles involved. Part of the problem with experimenters is that they tend to think in simple terms with the components they use. Thinking that a transformer is just two inductors wrapped around a core is a very simplistic thing and for many applications this simplistic approach is satisfactory. But when it becomes necessary to understanding the precise dynamics involved in passing energy from one winding to another, that is where experimenters often lose there solid footing on reality. Take for example the Pulse Transfomer. These transformers are made specifically for passing squared waveforms. If you remember from your studies that a square wave is the sum of all odd harmonics, you will understand quite readily why they pass through a transformer. Especially, when you consider that there is much more going on than just inductance. Notice in the link above that there is Cps. This is very high in bifilar wound coils and especially those made of square conductors that fill the voids normally produced by round conductors. This capacitance offsets the inductive delay and increases the rise time of the pulse. The Lp1 and Lp2 in the transformer play an important role in keeping the flat line up because they support the field when the change in current begins to stabilize across the top of the wave form. It is like dropping a magnet down a copper tube. The induction stops the magnet, which stops the induction which then moves again and the process repeats. The same is true with that inductance of Lp1 and Lp2. If you could view it with a fast enough microscopic oscilloscope, you would find small ripples across the top of your flat line where the current changes up and down holding the charge. And of course there are all the other factors there that play a part in the wave shape. Then, not even mentioned in that document, there are factors relating to variable permeability in a core material and effects of saturation, both of which can readily impact the wave shape passed through a transformer. For more on understanding the passing of square waves through a transformer see Pulse Transformers. So what do you think your coils would do with a duty cycle of 75% ON? Would it retain its square waveform?

You stated that there is no 'time issue' in your experiment. So have you completely dismissed the dv/dt equation then? What do you think would happen to your output if the on time of your wave form was increased to 2 hours? Would you still see a square wave on the output? Any one who has experimented with magnetics as much as we have will know right away that time is a BIG factor in induction. Just try moving your magnet across your coil real slow and see what the gives you even at 90°.

I have tried to help you understand why your tests failed to produce the effects you expected, and why you experienced something you did not expect (square wave transfer). It has little to do with the misapplication of Faraday's Law but more has to do with the specific dynamics of the system.

Try repeating the test with small mass magnets that you can oscillate at high frequencies and I guarantee you will be surprised at how different the exact same experiment becomes.

Also do my experiment with the magnet drop and prove to yourself that a change in flux density on the axial line of the core will in fact produce a voltage in your coil.

The reality is that the MEG and the FLYNN device will work as shown when properly configured. But as I have stated before, there are losses in the coils that work against any OU gain. There is absolutely no difference between the flux of a PM and that of an EM in a core. They are both identical at full potential. Where the two differ is in the building of the flux. The EM starts at zero, and builds the flux to full potential. The PM is always at full potential. What the MEG and FLYNN device do is provide a way of using the PM full potential to gradually build a flux change in one of the core legs while reducing the potential in the other thus effecting a flux density change in those respective legs using the 'always on' potential of the magnets. This effect is supported by simulations as well.

If you wish to experiment with this device I would like to make the following suggestion. Instead of magnets, use DC solenoids. You can then vary the PM flux by using a rheostat on the DC coils and tune in the best flux ratio for your core that you are experimenting with. Once you find the best value with your DC tuning, use a Gauss meter to measure the value in the solenoid coil and select magnets that match this value. Also, as I have stated before, seek out high permeability core material of a wide enough path to accommodate the flux of 3 sources; each magnet and the switching flux. I think the most common mistake made in this regard is a a bottleneck in the core material at the output transformers that results in pushing the flux outside of the material where it end-runs the entire winding through an air path.

[Ted Ewert]

I tell you what Harv, why don't you build a MEG, or a Flynn device, and be the first one to get it to produce all that extra energy your theories guarantee it will. That way we can all follow along as you show us stupid tinkerers how it's really done.

Ted

[Ted Ewert]

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.

Thanks for the kind words Doc, I appreciate it.
You're right, there are a lot of machines that aren't worth spit. Nevertheless, there are still some gems from time to time.
The only way I figured out what worked from what didn't was through building and testing. I also stopped jumping from one device to another and decided to concentrate on one type of machine. That helped a lot.
Trust your gut and don't let yourself get lost in doubt. Don't listen to all the noise here either.

Ted

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, Hi Ted. Hey i was just thinking and I may be misunderstanding the interaction between the primary drive coil and the secondary in your bifilar example, however do you think the primary still has the same counter emf induced action occurring when the magnets are repelled away. It seems like it would still be there , but maybe not, in view of your observations. I would like to hear your thoughts on this. By the way, good work.
peace love light
Tyson
Oh ya, and if its not there, then whats the whole deal with the attraction motor thread, this would do the job.

[Harvey]

I tell you what Harv, why don't you build a MEG, or a Flynn device, and be the first one to get it to produce all that extra energy your theories guarantee it will. That way we can all follow along as you show us stupid tinkerers how it's really done.

Ted

LOL

Actually, the classical laws involved (Faraday and by extension Maxwell) tell us just the opposite, that NO OU is possible because (as I have stated repeatedly here) there are losses in those four coils and the conservation of energy demands that no gain be produced unless at the expense of another energy source - something has to pay for it.

Now what exactly do you mean when you say "your theories" ?

Honestly, unless you've read something of mine from some other location, or under one of my other pseudo-names (like Food4Thot) in some blogspot somewhere , I doubt that you have any idea what my theories are.

Now Flynn and Bearden, they have theories and whether or not they work is yet to be proven - but from what I can see no person alive has yet come even remotely close to disproving their theories While several persons have given good evidence in support of their theories.

Magluvin for instance with his Orbonbon has demonstrated successful flux path switching as has J. L. Naudine with his 2SGen. These forms are each different than the MEG or FLYNN's specific geometry, but the underlying principles are the same and are shown to work - contrary to your experiments. What shall I believe, the experiments of one man, or two men?

As a fellow Experimenter, I find your comments somewhat strange. You come into the thread and tell us not to build this because in your opinion it does not work and you base your opinion on your own empirical evidence. But when I show where your experiments were flawed, which I see as constructive, you take a stance with me that is derogatory.

You make the statement that according to Faraday's Law we should be rolling in OU - I have no clue how or why you arrive at that conclusion. In all my years (over 40) in the electronics field I have never seen anything from his laws that would indicate we could get OU from an electromagnetic system. But, as always I am eager to learn new things - so please show us how you get that from his equations.

I have seen throughout the internet people performing tests and drawing conclusions based on those tests without properly ensuring that the test is a falsification test. Some have gone so far as to apply inductive reasoning and imagine in their minds somehow, that this qualifies as conclusive logic to substantiate their endeavors. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Real conclusions must be based on facts with no other possible explanation. As long as there are other possible explanations, a matter is not proven. Just because I have not seen a rock from Pluto, shall I conclude that Pluto has no rocks? Or, if I state that the side of the Moon that faces away from the Earth is missing and I do 100 tests looking through a telescope to prove it, can I say it is proven?

You think you have proven that the MEG and FLYNN's configuration don't work - but all you really have proven is that your tests failed to produce the desired outcome - in fact, your tests have very little to do with those two devices.

From what I understand, the MEG involves some sort of re-gauging, I haven't looked that deeply into it, but I did have a IEEE magnetics expert look at the patents and he said it was completely viable but extremely difficult to balance and implement.

I have looked at the Flynn configuration and as I said, it does have merit because nearly 100% of the flux can be moved between each outer leg giving, as I have stated, up to 1.2T of flux density change in each leg alternately. The two areas I see as potential pitfalls with that configuration is the winding losses and the demagnetization of the PM when the input windings are in opposition to them. Even though the flux has an alternate path, there is a demagnetizing potential across the PM.

My purpose of posting in this thread is to help others work toward succeeding if they choose to experiment with it. I saw your post as one telling them not to experiment with it and then when I evaluated your reasons I found them wanting and so I shared my findings. Whether others accept the findings or not does not really matter to me, but I know it will help them if they want to succeed at this particular endeavor. They can do the tests I have outlined and prove to themselves that I have been truthful with the facts.

BTW, I did look at your motor over on the other forum - I think you'll find that your torque curves will increase dramatically if you apply the motive forces tangentially rather than in your current configuration. But I must say you have done some good work there on flux path switching

Cheers,

[Joit]

In all my years (over 40) in the electronics field I have never seen anything from his laws that would indicate we could get OU from an electromagnetic system.

Lol. I think if you had do, we would not need to tinker around here.
But there are still a lot op Gaps at the Theorie and pratices what you do at Electronic,
and after the main Experiments, what you 'can' do,
its mostly that they are avoiding the Paradoxon, to surely get no OU.
Therefor, we have to start at Zero again.

Back to the Topic, this Guy' Guru4you' in that Video more looks like as if he wanna fool Peoples
or another Attempt to proove, it dont works,
when he promise, this is how it works, and Peoples put effort in, to see, that it Dont.
He should pick a serious and normal Name, when he has good Intentions, but doesnt seems like he has them,
and show some practical Tests, not just a Pice of Paper, where something is scrawled on it.
Plus, he sounds like a German, and a smartass, and i know enough of them,
there is nothing behind.

For redirecting the Flux, you can do a simple Test, as i wrote in another Thread.
Take 3 Magnets with the poles face eachother, that they repell eachother.
take one at the left hand, one at the right hand, the third, place infront of you.
Now hold the 2 magnets left and right from the 3rd, and move them closer together as if you clap.
The 3rd in front of you (repel mode) will at a certain point move away.
That is with 2 Magnets earlier, as if you use only one Magnet to repel the other.
But you will see, it is at very close Distance, and it is not much, what the (ie North) Pole will be redirected.

Now when you redirect it as like in this Device above in the Vid, you will have,
as Ted mentioned, not much different Potential, just one Pole what runs in an other Direction.
Then you need to adjust the Coils at the Magnets, that they even can redirect it,
and not, that the Magnets are to Strong, that you cant with a weak coil,
or, you got a to big Coil, and only fire it trough the Body,
but the Flux from the Magnets is only pushed back.
Another Aspect is, your Core will lock like the PHM from E.L does, and provide a permanent Flux path,
then you would need to break the circle once,
that you can have a new Zero Potential, what you can saturate again,
that you have Potential.

The Flynn Device is good for, when you want use this PM Field,
when you want to push a Rotor or something,
where you have mechanical Work, but not for a inductive System.
Yawning, I really hate such 'Guru4you'-Guys.

[Joit]

And btw, i did once a quick and dirty Setup like this before a while,
as i found the Video, but it worked even more worse,
as if i use 4 Coils at a PHM and pulsed them in AC style, that the Flux change
at the Core from the Direction.
But with 'redirecting the Flux' it gave really bad Results with different Trials from Magnets and Coils, Pulsewidth and Duty Cycle.

There are better Experiments with a cutted Ringcore where a Magnet is placed into the Gap,
another coil, what creates the opposite Potential, and another Generator Coil wrapped around there.

_edit_ Forgot to mention, that This, what This Guy does, nothing has to do with CH. Flynns Work.
A shame, that he trows Dirt on his Name.

[Ted Ewert]

Hi Harvey,
All I'm asking is that you put your money where your mouth is. With all that experience and training I'm sure you could knock out a Flynn device in a few hours.
If you get one to produce any extra power, I'll be the first one to eat crow and build the exact same device for extensive testing and verification.
I don't want to hear any more excuses either, Show us how it's done Harv!

Ted


BTW, I've found through experimentation that you get a lot less torque tangentially than you do linearly, but then I've only got thirty some odd years in the business so what do I know.

[Ted Ewert]

Hi folks, Hi Ted. Hey i was just thinking and I may be misunderstanding the interaction between the primary drive coil and the secondary in your bifilar example, however do you think the primary still has the same counter emf induced action occurring when the magnets are repelled away. It seems like it would still be there , but maybe not, in view of your observations. I would like to hear your thoughts on this. By the way, good work.
peace love light

Thanks Tyson.
The secondary winding was included to record the electrical power induced into the windings from the core. It also acts as a transformer winding and will record the power induced into the core from the primary pulse.
This is so I could isolate the electrical effects of the magnets from the power pulse in the primary. I did two tests; one with the magnets being repelled and one with no magnets included. In both tests the only power induced into the secondary winding was from the power pulse. There was no difference in the waveform, voltage or current levels in either test. Therefore I concluded that the magnets produced no discernible electrical effects in this configuration.

Cheers,

Ted

[Harvey]

Hi Harvey,
All I'm asking is that you put your money where your mouth is. With all that experience and training I'm sure you could knock out a Flynn device in a few hours.
If you get one to produce any extra power, I'll be the first one to eat crow and build the exact same device for extensive testing and verification.
I don't want to hear any more excuses either, Show us how it's done Harv!

Ted


BTW, I've found through experimentation that you get a lot less torque tangentially than you do linearly, but then I've only got thirty some odd years in the business so what do I know.

Well I can see that you can lead a horse to water and then he wants you to drink it for him. Sheesh, try to help a guy figure out why his stuff keeps failing and this is the way he treats you.

I'll bet you don't use linear pressure on your wrench when you tighten your bolts do you? Here are some back to basics in understanding torque for you. The same principles that apply to tightening bolts apply to motor torque. If you have found something different by your experiments I guarantee you that your doing something wrong and with 30 years experience?

Well, I'll be helping those that actually want to succeed - when you realize I am correct on these matters (if you ever realize the truth) you can apologize for the way you have treated me in this thread. I won't be holding my breath though.

Now here is a guy that does experiments that work:
YouTube - Magluvin's Channel

Maybe we should be asking him what works and what doesn't instead.




ETA: For those readers that would like to go straight to the source on the FLYNN product line:
PPMT Products

A description from the Inventor as to how it REALLY works:
PPMT Technology

And a way to contact them if you have questions:
Flynn Research Contact Information

[Doc]

The spirit of this thread is livening up.

The debate continues between the doers and the talkers.
Who would you believe, a conversation between two theorists or between two doers who actually debate their measuring methodology.

I for one have go to the point where unless you have actually built the experiment and deduced for yourself the merits or not, then your theories are actually a waste of time... and your hot air is only contributing to global warming.

My sentiment is: Only when you built a device, should you then have the privilege to voice your opinion.

[Harvey]

The spirit of this thread is livening up.

The debate continues between the doers and the talkers.
Who would you believe, a conversation between two theorists or between two doers who actually debate their measuring methodology.

I for one have go to the point where unless you have actually built the experiment and deduced for yourself the merits or not, then your theories are actually a waste of time... and your hot air is only contributing to global warming.

My sentiment is: Only when you built a device, should you then have the privilege to voice your opinion.

I can take a hint. This is your thread Doc and as far as I can see its dead now.

Cheers.

[Ted Ewert]

I figured you'd wimp out Harvey because you're all talk. You think you're right because some textbook somewhere says so. Then you put on this condescending attitude like we're all a bunch of idiots if we don't line up in lock step behind your blinding intellect.
I'll suffer an attitude from guys like Dollard, because he's done the work, but not from you. If you want any respect around here you'll have to earn it, just like the rest of us.

Ted

[Harvey]

I figured you'd wimp out Harvey because you're all talk. You think you're right because some textbook somewhere says so. Then you put on this condescending attitude like we're all a bunch of idiots if we don't line up in lock step behind your blinding intellect.
I'll suffer an attitude from guys like Dollard, because he's done the work, but not from you. If you want any respect around here you'll have to earn it, just like the rest of us.

Ted

Quite frankly I'm well respected by persons that matter most and I could care less whether you respect me or not. But just to shut you up, here is an example of my work:
AEI Intelligent Technologies AEI-CP1200TX CompactPCI cPCI Dual 2 Port Gigabit Ethernet NIC Adapter

I did the entire design, multilevel board layout, prototype builds and all the rest of the hands on work required to bring that product to market. I have my company logo embedded in the power planes of those boards so you can hold it up to the light and see that it is my design. You'll note that it is a Compact PCI chassis design which conforms to IEEE standards. Not only is my work respected, but the product commands a good price even on today's market years later. Call the company and see what the price is for working product that is derived from my years of work and knowledge.

From what I can see so far, that is a difference between you and I. When I build something, I build it to work and I don't waste my time on things I know will not work. But I do spend time on things that 'may' work.

As far as I know, Flynn has not claimed any OU from his designs. Neither did Faraday - but De Palma did claim OU and Dollard and Lindemann were there with him at that time. Bruce is no longer with us, But Dollard is still around on this forum as is Lindemann.

So if you don't want to accept the truth from me, go ask someone else. They will tell you the same things I have - at least I know anyone who has done the work will - and I have definitely done the work.

[Doc]

I can take a hint. This is your thread Doc and as far as I can see its dead now.

Cheers.

That may be so, but at least it achieved its objective.