It is not a good OU thread without a bit of mystery

Well,  basically you are right but the problem is many members here either speak nonsense in a believe they have something good (but they don't) or simply tease people to have fun...  This is supposed to be an open forum for sharing and if someone has got a brilliant idea, he or she should either follow through it into a marketable (small or big, whatever) product or if he is not capable to do so then he should look for some help, advice etc (not money) to achive his goal.

rgds,  Gyula

Well,  basically you are right but the problem is many members here either speak nonsense in a believe they have something good (but they don't)

Exactly, so I do not want to post around pics from low quality sim with people around who may blindly copy or reproduce them and make OU research even more of a trashbin. The problem was that at the given moment I had no other way to send it to i_ron (PMs dont allow attachments).

PP Problems:

In static mode the parallel path model has a magnet strength gain of nearly four.

Yet several factors work to negate this in actual practice.

Primarily, the worst offender is that the flux will only switch, with the four times advantage, when the bar is fully aligned with the main bars.

I have prepared a simple chart from actual numbers to illustrate this fact... chart one. The gauss numbers are actually unreferenced milli volt numbers but are used to indicate the trend.

That is, the smallest distance is 1/8th of an inch that the bar has covered the main bars and the gauss is very weak at "45". The bars are in each case 1 inch CR steel so when the two bars are fully aligned, meshed, TDC, what ever term you wish to apply... then the Gauss has reached its maximum at the distance covered of ! inch.

In chart 2 we see the Kg's versus distance covered. In this case, on approach the Kg's are zero but the maximum pulling force to align the bar occurs just as the bar has covered the main bars by 1/8th of an inch. When the bar reaches full alignment the pulling force is zero. I am speaking of a rotary machine here, not the reciprocating model previously mentioned. So all same as any motor, when the poles are fully aligned, then there is no further rotational force left to operate said machine, understood?

But here we see the Achilles heal of Parallel Path machines. The maximum pulling force occurs just as the poles start to align but this is the period of minimum flux strength! And when the flux strength reaches maximum, at full alignment, then the 90 degree vector driving the machine in rotation has reached zero.

Maximum flux strength (our four times gain) = zero rotational drive.

Ron

Very good work Ron.
Nice detailed report and tests. Lol to see you probably print and scan these graphs.
Yes it's a shame that the magnet won't really switch that well when resistances like air gaps are involved. Well you 'could' switch them over big air gaps, only thing is that you will be needing much more input. Which more or less goes against the whole 'energy efficient' principle. I wouldn't surprise me if Flynn uses microscopic air gaps. Plus I think he only switches 'on' when the alignment is at least 25%+ established. So no open space switching when there is not yet much alignment. Drawback of this is that the attraction moment is very short, but than again the Flynn motor has many poles, so the attraction is more or less continuous. Plus it could be that he uses an initial input which is of much higher current to hard switch the magnets despite the less than optimal alignment, and then drop off current when alignment gets better. And then again, he is not stating over 90% efficiency on his site, but there could be other reasons for that.

Hello gyula,
no,I can not give the wished answer !
The Ferreira-patent-page was only listed to explain the incompetence to
answer the practical behaviour of the machine in contrast to the known
physical laws/formulas !

We have had a project member split and Mr. Ferreira later built greater machines using the band condensator effect ,
then for the company Envez Lda.:
http://servicosonline.inpi.pt/pesquisas/main/patentes.jsp?lang=PT
click "Entidade" next "continuar" following "Nome" filling with Envez now
click "pesquisa" and see:
PT104491 and PT104492

He is now fixed as soçio to this company Envez Lda.with one contract paragraph:
he can leave the company paying 1.000.000.000 Euros compensation !

Wih my kindest regards
                               CdL

More useful info on running this kind and similar motors:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9713.msg274579#msg274579

BTW, this is a drawing of the circuit I am using for running PPMM with unidirectional impulses:
http://servilo.website.pl/laboratorio/esploroj/rownolegle_strumienie/SRSM_1_1_impuls.png
I would really like to see you to try it too with your motor and show us oscilloscope tracee. Will you?

And here is a drawing of the circuit I am using for running PPMM as in the above video:
http://servilo.website.pl/laboratorio/esploroj/rownolegle_strumienie/SRSM_1_1_impuls.png

Hi Scianto,

Very interesting test, did you have to rewind your earlier PPMM coils or change something mechanically to run it with unidirectional pulses? (Because earlier the H bridge did polarity changings, right?)

In your earlier video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii6_mKO92Y showing the unidirectional pulses (when you used a function generator instead of the optical sensor)  you used power resistor as the load for the generated power, is this correct? There was one power resistor on the shelf (in head-height) for which you showed 22.8V and 1.92A (at RPM=8066) and there was another load resistor on the table what you hand switched in by the banana plug (8.7 Ohm?) this had 18.7V and 2.1A power dissipation: could you explain which power resistor was connected to where?  And at this RPM 8066 the input power was 40V at 3.6A from the power supply if I saw it correctly?

And in you latest video you utilized the generated power of the motor for running it, instead of dissipating it in the power resistors: here you used another PPM motor or you used the same one as before? (It is ok that the opto interruptor was used now instead of the function gen.)
My other question: In you schematic there is a battery shown that is charged from the motor coil and how you utilize the generated power for running the motor: it is not shown. Could you ellaborate on this?

Notice: You may wish to correct your schematic, the input Pin 2 of the MAX4420 is connected to the 12V battery positive line (opto transistor collector) instead of its emitter (or there is a collector resistor missing, that would be another solution if inverted switching is also good).

Very good job/videos!
rgds, Gyula

>> did you have to rewind your earlier PPMM coils or change something mechanically to run it with unidirectional pulses?
*
I made no changes.


>> Because earlier the H bridge did polarity changings, right?
*
Right.


>> you used power resistor as the load for the generated power, is this correct?
*
Yes.


>> There was one power resistor on the shelf (in head-height) for which you showed 22.8V and 1.92A
*
That one was to dissipate the recovered power (coming after the diode from the coil connected to the FET dren.


>> there was another load resistor on the table what you hand switched in by the banana plug
*
That one was connected to the parallel winding of the run PPMM stator coils. All the coils in the motor stator are bifilar. I used one wire to power the motor and the other was connected to the resistor. So the stator was used as a transformer.


>> at this RPM 8066 the input power was 40V at 3.6A from the power supply if I saw it correctly?
*
Yes, but the rpm reading has to be divided by 2, so it was 4033 rpm.


>> And in you latest video you utilized the generated power of the motor for running it, instead of dissipating it in the power resistors.
*
This is a different setup. Here the windings of the stator are all connected to the power source, so it does not work as a transformer, thus no resistor as transformer load as before.


>> here you used another PPM motor or you used the same one as before?
*
A different one, smaller and less powerful, the first version.


>> It is ok that the opto interruptor was used now instead of the function gen.
*
That is to make the pulsing at the right time according to the position of the rotor poles to the stator poles.


>> there is a battery shown that is charged from the motor coil and how you utilize the generated power for running the motor: it is not shown.
*
All is connected exactly as on the circuit drawing, no other connections. There is only one battery bank (3 x 12 V 7 Ah) running the motor (in fact, on the video it was substituted by the power supply on the left).
The generated power, half sinusoidal pulse, was powering the motor ONLY during the generated pulse. In other words, when the motor was working as an alternator, it was using it's produced power to turn the shaft.
This is my interpretation of the oscilloscope traces. I may be wrong, so I am making more tests to find out, what exactly is happening.

>> You may wish to correct your schematic,
*
That was an obvious error on the drawing only. Now it is corrected. Thank you.