It is currently Fri May 26, 2017 9:14 am



Welcome
Welcome to imhotep's labs

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. In addition, registered members also see less advertisements. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join our community today!


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Was the Lockridge device the original parallel path moto
PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 1:15 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:48 pm
Posts: 1016
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 27 time
No I think modern capacitors will be fine at lower voltage


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 
 Post subject: Re: Was the Lockridge device the original parallel path moto
PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 1:30 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:48 pm
Posts: 1016
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 27 time
This is the basic 2 pole schematic although I have a few permutations to try for the 4 pole as shown by John Bedini in Energy from the vacuum.

The magnets will be placed left and right

I have purchased a 4 pole starter motor and will get the slots machined as soon as I can. My problem is finding suitable magnets, U magnets can be used on the outside as an alternative to c magnets internally

I will wind two poles, bifilar, with 18# wire.

I really do believe this will work, can anyone give me feedback please.


Attachments:
2polestalock1.JPG
2polestalock1.JPG [ 74.79 KiB | Viewed 874 times ]
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was the Lockridge device the original parallel path moto
PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:39 am
Posts: 3
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Im workin on it :) there are some good articles on parallel path motors by Joe Flynn on the Rex Research site...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was the Lockridge device the original parallel path moto
PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:21 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:48 pm
Posts: 1016
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 27 time
I look forwatrd to your input.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was the Lockridge device the original parallel path moto
PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:44 am
Posts: 397
Has thanked: 6 time
Have thanks: 12 time
Is that recovery only?

I don't get it, sorry.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was the Lockridge device the original parallel path moto
PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:27 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:48 pm
Posts: 1016
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 27 time
The drawing is a simplified 2 pole Lockridge circuit with both the motor and recovery circuit. I won’t know the position of the recovery brushes until I build and test it.

I suspect that it will not quite reach unity, this is why the Lockridge device was 4 pole. The question is, do I build the 2 pole and learn from that or go straight to the 4 pole? My mind says do the 2 pole my enthusiasm says go build the 4 pole.

I am trying to work out id there will be any difficulties with the 4 pole. I suspect there will be more problems with saturation with the 4 pole and the magnets will have to go on the outside of the case.

This is what I think everyone has missed. The Lockridge device was a parallel path motor.

We don’t know what its power consumption was but its output was 300w. Based on my research I would guess that it was running at about 5-600 watts but I’m sure it would get quite hot at that power. Maybe the Lockridge device was bigger physically than my motor and could dissipate more heat.

I know that I will have to balance the input with the magnetic power, that’s why im trying to get jetijs involved as he has had some experience with this on his parallel path motor.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was the Lockridge device the original parallel path moto
PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:29 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:48 pm
Posts: 1016
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 27 time
The drawing is for my two pole design. (Sorry about the quality, my 10 year old laptop isn’t powerful enough to run CAD)

Red = North
Blue = South

We take the stator, remove two opposite poles and then machine a slit in the case at this location. The other two opposite poles are connected NS NS, in a regenerative model these will be bifiler wound to facilitate recovery feeding back to the source.

Two C magnets are then placed across the slits observing the polarity shown.

The rotor is wound with non-interconecting coils but otherwise normally. Sort of a star configuration.

The brushes will be set up so that the on time will occur, timed as shown in the drawing. These brushes will also switch the stator coils on as the motor will be wired as a universal motor. The brushes will not be 180 degrees apart but slightly less than this and adjusted to give the required pulse time at the optimum speed.

The comutator will have unused segments between each coil so as to provide an off time.

This is the basic motor setup. It is not imperative for the motor to be in overunity as far as speed and torque are concerned as there will, I believe, also be gains in the recovery and generation.

In recovery of the input, using bifilar coils on the stator poles, I believe there may be increased potential due to the increased flux provided by the magnets although I have never tested this. Recovery may also be possible to some extent from the rotor by connecting a second set of brushes to the adjacent rotor winding.

In the generation, I am still a little confused, I see it as the backEMF/Recovery spike will be in the same direction as the generation in the rotor coil so will assist generation but I may be wrong there. Again I believe that the potential in the generation will be increased due to the extra flux provided by the magnets.

I believe that the parallel path motor is half of a Lockridge device, the other half being the rotor windings and recovery system.

I hope you understand my explanation and also hope you can help me with understanding the things I am having trouble getting my head round.

Thanks in advance


Attachments:
Lockpp2.JPG
Lockpp2.JPG [ 89.92 KiB | Viewed 867 times ]
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was the Lockridge device the original parallel path moto
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:44 am
Posts: 397
Has thanked: 6 time
Have thanks: 12 time
I think you should try zmodeller. the 1.7b version.

Thank you for the explanation.

Agree with the possible saturation with 4 magnet pole.


The image is not 3D so it is rather hard to guess. I assume that the magnet never in contact with the rotor? Or else rotor would stuck in magnet in case no flywheel design. the rotor would act like magnetic bridge on two position. Bridging one south to the other north.

When the rotor act as bridge, wouldn't there be a magnetic flux change? How people usually capture this?


I think BEMF capture should be without trigger, only dumping need trigger to disconnect and charge the source.

When rotor passing the magnet, would there be voltage fluctuation in the coil?

How about collecting magnetic induction before the coil firing up?


While the coil turn on time is important for continuation/power, I think the time / angle of coil shut off trigger play important role on the type of radiant produced. shortest pulse may not be the best.


Sorry that I can suggest much.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was the Lockridge device the original parallel path moto
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:20 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:48 pm
Posts: 1016
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 27 time
We do not want any interaction between the magnets and the rotor except when we energise the coils and when that interaction takes place we want it though the coils.

The rotor is the magnetic bridge connecting the north and south poles of the magnets, but only in the energised position.

The magnetic flux in the rotor would be the sum of the two stator coils plus the two magnets. As the magnetism required to change the path would be equal to the attraction of the magnets north and south poles. the magnetic flux in the rotor would be twice that of the energy put in the coils. This should result in not only a doubling of torque but a doubling of voltage in the recovery.

It is not the position of the rotor that will result in any change it is the pulse in the coils. There will be no generation of electricity unless the coils are energised.

There is no trigger circuit; it is the movement of the rotor that will switch the current off and momentum that will turn it back on again just like a universal motor.

The switch on time and off time need to happen within a relatively short movement of the rotor, the BEMF should also aid rotation so we get two turning forces for the price of one just as Peter Lindermann had suggested in his rotary attraction motor. The difference being that we are able to capture the energy in rotor coils too.

For the most efficient running we need to have a pulse length just big enough to switch the magnets and not fully saturate the coils. This means that the coil design will be an important factor in producing maximum output.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was the Lockridge device the original parallel path moto
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:44 am
Posts: 397
Has thanked: 6 time
Have thanks: 12 time
mbrownn wrote:
We do not want any interaction between the magnets and the rotor except when we energise the coils and when that interaction takes place we want it though the coils.

The rotor is the magnetic bridge connecting the north and south poles of the magnets, but only in the energised position.
Sorry, I don't get it, the position when the rotor bridging the magnet is almost horizontal and energised position is almost vertical? Do the magnet drawing is what you expected the magnet should be placed?



mbrownn wrote:
The magnetic flux in the rotor would be the sum of the two stator coils plus the two magnets. As the magnetism required to change the path would be equal to the attraction of the magnets north and south poles. the magnetic flux in the rotor would be twice that of the energy put in the coils. This should result in not only a doubling of torque but a doubling of voltage in the recovery.
The coil should be as strong as the magnet?



mbrownn wrote:
It is not the position of the rotor that will result in any change it is the pulse in the coils. There will be no generation of electricity unless the coils are energised.
Supposed we have an U iron. We put the coil in the middle of the U. Then we put magnet in the U end but not closing the U, possibly on both end with different polarity, lengthen the U end. Then we close and open the U with another iron via the magnet end. Would there be power generation at the coil?

Wait, your rotor is a bar or a cross?


mbrownn wrote:
There is no trigger circuit; it is the movement of the rotor that will switch the current off and momentum that will turn it back on again just like a universal motor.
Yes, that is what I mean by trigger.

mbrownn wrote:
The switch on time and off time need to happen within a relatively short movement of the rotor, the BEMF should also aid rotation so we get two turning forces for the price of one just as Peter Lindermann had suggested in his rotary attraction motor. The difference being that we are able to capture the energy in rotor coils too.

For the most efficient running we need to have a pulse length just big enough to switch the magnets and not fully saturate the coils. This means that the coil design will be an important factor in producing maximum output.
Why do you think most efficient input would produce the most efficient BEMF output?

Is that certain? Shouldn't we aim to get higher BEMF power output vs electrical power input ratio, and not mechanical power output vs electrical power input ratio?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
suspicion-preferred