Permanent Magnet Generator EVs?

My first Datsun (now Nissan) was the 510 manual, I bought it back in '75' for just under $3000. It cost me about $5 to fill up the tank and I'd drive around all week on that.

Nissan seems to be the only auto manufacturer out there that comprehends the need for a low end (economy) EV (electric vehicle).

EVs are still so limited, though. They use a, plus or minus, 1000 pound battery pack that only goes between 100 to 300 miles, at best, on a recharge that just seems to take forever to do. You can only recharge up at the few stations that are available, and those recharge stations are only available in the larger cities. Recharging isn't free, either. Those battery packs are really expensive to replace and I'm still not convinced they won't blow up. Worse, they really don't have any real cargo carrying capacity.

I heard that some automobile manufacturers were developing permanent magnet generators (PMGs), like Charles Flynn's 2001 patented one, to replace battery packs. PMGs weigh a fraction of battery packs, don't require recharging at all, last the life of the EV, and won't blow up.

Is Nissan developing a PMG-EV? If so, when do they plan to come out with it?


Dan

DATsunONE said:

I heard that some automobile manufacturers were developing permanent magnet generators (PMGs), like Charles Flynn's 2001 patented one, to replace battery packs. PMGs weigh a fraction of battery packs, don't require recharging at all, last the life of the EV, and won't blow up.

Click to expand...

Free energy machines are being reserved for the chargers. That way they can still make money out of you while putting the chargers anywhere without a need for electrical infrastructure.

It's a conspiracy. We could have had cars that go for 500,000 miles without any need for external energy in the 70's but the oil companies suppressed it. They have it in aircraft carriers now, and pretend it is nuclear energy.

They got the technology from the Space rabbits when they docked with their space station during the Moon shots, which is permanently located at a Lagrangian point on the far side of the Moon so we can't see it.

DATsunONE said:

...I heard that some automobile manufacturers were developing permanent magnet generators (PMGs), like Charles Flynn's 2001 patented one, to replace battery packs...

Click to expand...

PMG is the motor in an electric car, such as the Leaf, running in reverse. In other words the kinetic energy of the car is used to charge the batteries and thus slowing the car down, braking. PMGs will not replace battery packs. The energy needs to come from somewhere. The permanent in the name comes from the fact that these motors/generators have a permanent magnet in them, not that they permanently generate.

You can get more info here:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWrNzUCjbkk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
• http://chargedevs.com/features/a-closer-look-at-regenerative-braking/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_magnet_synchronous_generator" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_motor" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
• http://www.permanentmagnetgenerator.net/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

DATsunONE said:

...I heard that some automobile manufacturers were developing permanent magnet generators (PMGs), like Charles Flynn's 2001 patented one, to replace battery packs...

Click to expand...

I think I heard that Nissan was going to use a PMG but that Charles Flynn wouldn't issue a license for his physics-defying invention. So I'd look for a LOT of PMG vehicles to hit the market in either 2015, 2016, 2018, or 2021, depending on when the patent expires.

Unless Big Oil captures and suppresses the technology again, as donald says.

PMGs are not the same as the generators the Leaf currently uses that turn the kinetic energy from the movement of the wheels into electricity. Those generators are similar to wind turbines.

The PMGs, I am referring to, are all patented and are completely different from those (the Leaf wheel) generators. See, Charles Flynn's US Patent #6246561, June 12, 2001. In addition, all the patented PMGs are prototyped. If the inventor lets you, you can see them working. As for how they work, you would have to inquire from either the inventors or from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the agency that approved those patents. I believe that a description, sufficient for one versed in the art, is required to acquire an approved US patent. Thus, the PMG approved patents, themselves, such as Flynn's, for one versed in the art, should be sufficient to explain how they work.

It may be true that the oil companies (etc.) quashed many similar inventions, in the past. However, that appears not to be the case, any longer. Otherwise, PMG patents could not be searched or downloaded, which they are.

It may also be true that the US military complex kept similar inventions a secret, in the past. Again, that appears not to be the case, any longer. Otherwise, PMG patents could not be searched or downloaded, which they are.

Dan

mbender said:
"I think I heard that Nissan was going to use a PMG but that Charles Flynn wouldn't issue a license for his physics-defying invention. So I'd look for a LOT of PMG vehicles to hit the market in either 2015, 2016, 2018, or 2021, depending on when the patent expires.
Unless Big Oil captures and suppresses the technology again, as donald says."

Click to expand...

My reply:

I haven't spoken or contacted Charles Flynn, yet. It is my suspicion, from the many consulting contracts he has with various US Military Research Labs, that he is exclusively working with them. I also suspect that, if Flynn isn't licensing his technology to Nissan, he has already committed (in secret) to another automaker.

You are correct, it appears that a number of private research labs having been working on PMG prototypes (throughout the world) that they plan to come out with when Flynn's patent expires in 2021, which utilize his patented parallel positioning magnetic circuits. Some private research labs have PMGs that are so different than Flynn's that they will be coming out sooner.

Big Oil is not likely to capture or suppress the development of PMGs, any longer, even if they had done so in the past. The cat is out of the bag now and, continuing to quash the development of PMGs would only be like shooting themselves in the head to save their toe. Either China or Japan would come out with them (their own PMGs) and laugh, like Liberachii used to say, all the way to the bank.

I suspect that METI (the Japanese automakers, including Nissan) is putting on a good show; claiming to be all in on fuel cells, when in fact they are secretly committed to PMG development. China is also holding their PMG cards close to their chest.

Dan

The Space Rabbits have been messing someone's head up. :roll:

This ain't the place for your clap-trap. Thanks all the same. Byee...

DATsunONE said:

Is Nissan developing a PMG-EV?

Click to expand...

NO

Where did you get your training in thermodynamics?
Pick up a book some time.

smketner said; Where did you get your training in thermodynamics?

Click to expand...

Again, address your questions as to the validity of Charles Flynn's approved patent (#6246561, June 12, 2001) to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or to the inventor. I am neither. Nor, have I spoken to either. Nor, do I have any arrangements of any kind with either for anything.

It just seemed to me that such a generator of electricity could replace a battery pack in an EV. It never dawned on me that that patent, (Flynn's US Patent #6246561, June 12, 2001) was invalid. If you believe that Flynn's patent is invalid, and feel so strongly about that belief, and can prove it, then you should challenge that patent in a court of law. Until you or someone else does succeed in such a legal challenge, I am going to continue to presume (as I have every right to do) that Flynn's patent is valid.

In other words, I do not have to prove that Flynn's patent is thermodynamically sound to cite it. Until you or someone else proves that Flynn's patent is NOT thermodynamically sound, in a court of law, I will continue to cite it.

Dan

DATsunONE said:

smketner said; Where did you get your training in thermodynamics?

Click to expand...

Again, address your questions as to the validity of Charles Flynn's approved patent (#6246561, June 12, 2001) to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or to the inventor. I am neither. Nor, have I spoken to either. Nor, do I have any arrangements of any kind with either for anything.

It just seemed to me that such a generator of electricity could replace a battery pack in an EV. It never dawned on me that that patent, (Flynn's US Patent #6246561, June 12, 2001) was invalid. If you believe that Flynn's patent is invalid, and feel so strongly about that belief, and can prove it, then you should challenge that patent in a court of law. Until you or someone else does succeed in such a legal challenge, I am going to continue to presume (as I have every right to do) that Flynn's patent is valid.

In other words, I do not have to prove that Flynn's patent is thermodynamically sound to cite it. Until you or someone else proves that Flynn's patent is NOT thermodynamically sound, in a court of law, I will continue to cite it.

Dan

Click to expand...

There is no requirement that something that is patented work - or even follow natural laws. Can you show the Flynn concept is sound?

While I was reading this thread I came up with a better, more cost-effective solution: a portable EVSE that plugs into the car's battery pack. No more looking in vain for a working charging station! I'm currently (heh) refining the DCQC version.

You're welcome.

I just learned about, and am intrigued by Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage, which does work and has been put to very limited use in (local) grid stabilization. Of course, I doubt we'll see the cryogenically-cooled superconductors in passenger vehicles any time soon! LOL

Leftie: how much are you going to charge (heh) for (or from, heh-heh) your invention? ;-)

DATsunONE said:

In other words, I do not have to prove that Flynn's patent is thermodynamically sound to cite it. Until you or someone else proves that Flynn's patent is NOT thermodynamically sound, in a court of law, I will continue to cite it.

Click to expand...

Okay?

For starters, having a patent is in no way indicative of a working device. The patent review process does not validate the practicality of devices or their operating principles, as much as I'm sure we all wish it did. Getting a patent for something does not mean that something can actually be built. So cite the patent all you want - it doesn't mean anything other than he's paid the fees and it's not immediately obvious that it's bogus.

Consider just one example: http://www.google.com/patents/US5675318" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - Please read that and let me know if you really think such a thing could actually be built and have it actually work.

Second, and perhaps most importantly, I don't see anything in the patent that suggests energy can be extracted from any of the devices described in it. It's a patent on methods to manipulate magnetic fluxes with some examples of devices that can be built. The claims specifically apply to improving efficiency of motors, not building any kind of device that magically outputs power.

The key here is "magically" - so many people, including yourself, tend to hide away any doubts about these devices in the fact that you don't really know anything about magnets. I liken this to homeopathic quacks citing quantum mechanics as the theoretical underpinnings of how their products "work." Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you get to insert whatever explanation you want.

But let us very hypothetically assume that you could build a device with some arcane arrangement of magnets such that the device not only produces enough power to overcome its own friction and internal losses, thus springing to life, but enough surplus power to be useful. Where does that energy come from? The answer is pretty obvious: the strength of the magnetic field is being reduced as power is extracted.

It's a direct analog to pumping water up a hill or tower, then letting the water flow downwards through a generator, and having that generator then power the pump plus residual output. If such an arrangement was built (and you certainly could build it) something, somewhere, is sneaking in extra energy.
=Smidge=

I think this board could use something akin to a graffiti-prevention apparatus itself! :lol:

It would save many of us a lot of time.

Leftie: how much are you going to charge (heh) for (or from, heh-heh) your invention? ;-)

Click to expand...

The first 100 buyers get it for $1500 dollars (Poppa needs a new Zero motorcycle). After that it will be expensive.

There is no such thing as over unity.

Again, I never communicated with Flynn or any of his staff.

I cannot show or explain Flynn's work, without his permission; and, I do not have Flynn's permission to do so. Nor, do I plan to acquire his permission to make such a presentation.

True; not all patents are valid. The inverse is also true; not all patents are invalid, either. I suspect that most patents are valid, though. Fraud and misrepresentation are actionable which kinda of puts a damper on getting funded, even if you do have a patent. It is my understanding that Flynn is funded but, I could be wrong for I did not actually call the United States Navy to verify that.

I would be extremely shocked to find out that Nissan has no intention, whatsoever, of ever checking to see whether Flynn's patent is valid. I suspect some of the other major automakers would not be so close minded.

If I had a PMG to present, you can bet that I would be able to show and explain it, scientifically. However, I would not waste my time, or divulge my secrets, to intermediaries; and, certainly not without a properly executed non-compete non-disclosure agreement, in place.

Communicating an idea invalidates a patent application.

Dan

DATsunONE said:

Communicating an idea invalidates a patent application.Dan

Click to expand...

The application, sure. But once it's been accepted you can talk about it all you want -- it's public knowledge at that point, FGS!

Regardless of what "the truth" is to any of this though, it's obvious that no one here (including yourself, apparently) has any idea what you're really talking about, let alone if Nissan or other manufacturer is "working on it". So since it's clearly all just idle speculation, I'm going to take donald's cue and say adios to this thread! Oy, veh.

Again; Flynn's patents are not mine. I do not have any of his prototypes or bench demonstrations to show or explain his work. I wouldn't even attempt to try to explain Flynn's work without his prototypes and bench demonstrations; or, without his permission.

All I wanted to know is whether Nissan reviewed Flynn's work. I don't see how that obligates me to having to show or explain Flynn's work.

If Nissan came back and said; "yea, we reviewed Flynn's work"; I'd ask what they thought of it?

If Nissan came back and said: "Na, we didn't review Flynn's work"; I'd ask why not? I mean, I'd be really surprised since, I've heard, the other major automakers are reviewing Flynn's work.

Where does it say, on this site, that you have to be a renouned physicist to ask questions of Nissan or to buy a Leaf?

Dan

DATsunONE said:

Again; Flynn's patents are not mine.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. You are advocating his work for a particular purpose; and this is the source of my objection, possibly other's as well.

This is not about Flynn or his patent. This is about you. You obviously think that this invention can be used to generate energy without fuel or source. I am challenging you, not Flynn, to explain where YOU think where this energy comes from.

Knowingly or not, you are advocating type-one perpetual motion.
=Smidge=