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: Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:34 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:48 pm
Posts: 1016
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 27 time
Quote:
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?
The magnet is not to interact with the coils until the coil is energized and magnets’ flux path has changed.
Quote:
The coil should be as strong as the magnet?

I don’t know how strong the coils will have to be, I think just enough to cause the switch of flux should be enough
Quote:
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?

No we just put the magnet on the outside of the case so it bridges the split in the case. We place both magnets so that the north poles are facing the same coil.

Don’t worry about the generation side too much yet, we want to make the motor run in parallel path style first.

Its not like a Bedini, so the purpose of the bifilar coil is not for triggering only collection of the spike as a recovery of energy.
Quote:
Why do you think most efficient input would produce the most efficient BEMF output?

Yes, and Peter is working on that.
Quote:
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?

If we saturate the coils we decrease the efficiency. Both electrical and mechanical are important. Electrical efficiency will depend upon working our coils within their perimeters, mechanical will depend on getting the magnets operating as we wish.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 
 Post subject: Re: Was the Lockridge device the original parallel path moto
PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:44 am
Posts: 397
Has thanked: 6 time
Have thanks: 12 time
Thank you, so the rotor receive less influence from the magnet than the coil?

about electrical and mechanical output, on my stingo motor the most electrical output is not at the same tuning range as the most mechanical output.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was the Lockridge device the original parallel path moto
PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:09 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:48 pm
Posts: 1016
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 27 time
No. The rotor should receive as much if not more energy from the magnets as it does the coil.

I expect that this will be the case with this motor but what we want is best overall output


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was the Lockridge device the original parallel path moto
PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 4:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:44 am
Posts: 397
Has thanked: 6 time
Have thanks: 12 time
Ok, thanks.

Overall for what goal?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was the Lockridge device the original parallel path moto
PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2011 2:04 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:48 pm
Posts: 1016
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 27 time
A starter motor is a universal motor and is typically 1200W+ and has an efficiency of around 35% although many are more. It is relatively easy to rewind the stator coils but we do not have the space for the windings at the same power if we rewind it bifilar. We will have to have to have a lower power input, so If we have 1/4th the input that would be 300W+.

If I build a universal motor that consumes 300W and we have 105W of mechanical output. Recovery of input could easily be 105 watts or 35%, giving a COP of 0.7. Now if we make it parallel path which could be at least equal to the electrical input, effectively we will have a 600w motor.

Now mechanical power could be 210W, even if there was no gain in recovery, we will be into overunity as the recovery will be 105W giving 215W or a COP of 1.05.
I believe there will be an increase in recovery too but we have to build it to prove it. This is a proof of concept motor to prove that the Lockridge device could have been the original parallel path motor.

Maybe then, someone will pick up on this.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was the Lockridge device the original parallel path moto
PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2011 3:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:44 am
Posts: 397
Has thanked: 6 time
Have thanks: 12 time
mbrownn wrote:
A starter motor is a universal motor and is typically 1200W+ and has an efficiency of around 35% although many are more. It is relatively easy to rewind the stator coils but we do not have the space for the windings at the same power if we rewind it bifilar. We will have to have to have a lower power input, so If we have 1/4th the input that would be 300W+.
I attach a starter motor diagram. Which part should be rewinded?

If we only use two out of that many available, don't we reduce the output power as well?

Suppose the original has 20 coil, if we use 2, then won't we get 1/10 power from the original?

mbrownn wrote:
Recovery of input could easily be 105 watts or 35%, giving a COP of 0.7. Now if we make it parallel path which could be at least equal to the electrical input, effectively we will have a 600w motor.
This based to what kind of driving circuit? From what I remember, utilizing the recovery of input do not increase the efficiency. So even if we utilize the the recovery of input, the COP would still be 35% only from mechanical or may end up worse.


Or you have driver circuit that can increase efficiency with load?


Attachments:
Reduction_Starter_Motor_Diagram.jpg
Reduction_Starter_Motor_Diagram.jpg [ 135.2 KiB | Viewed 772 times ]
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was the Lockridge device the original parallel path moto
PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2011 4:09 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:48 pm
Posts: 1016
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 27 time
It’s the field coils to start with, we may be able to make it work with the standard rotor but that would be better rewound too (Re Peter Lindermann’s experiments).
WE do it one step at a time, I am going from 4 stator (field) coils to two and then I will run a test to see how the motor runs and what the recovery is like. We can then adjust and rewind as we go.
Recovering the input does not alter mechanical efficiency but does alter overall efficiency and COP. Feeding it to the source is a practical use for this energy, as it reduces the input while having no effect on the output but at the same time increasing the COP.
There is no driver circuit only the comutator, this is a very simple device.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was the Lockridge device the original parallel path moto
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 2:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:44 am
Posts: 397
Has thanked: 6 time
Have thanks: 12 time
mbrownn wrote:
It’s the field coils to start with, we may be able to make it work with the standard rotor but that would be better rewound too (Re Peter Lindermann’s experiments).
WE do it one step at a time, I am going from 4 stator (field) coils to two and then I will run a test to see how the motor runs and what the recovery is like. We can then adjust and rewind as we go.
Ok. Thanks
mbrownn wrote:
Recovering the input does not alter mechanical efficiency but does alter overall efficiency and COP. Feeding it to the source is a practical use for this energy, as it reduces the input while having no effect on the output but at the same time increasing the COP.
There is no driver circuit only the comutator, this is a very simple device.
I never know that is possible. Can you give example or experiment result of recovering the input?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was the Lockridge device the original parallel path moto
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 5:41 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:48 pm
Posts: 1016
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 27 time
When testing my Linderman rotary attraction motor, which has four independent coils, I used two coils to power the motor and in one test I used the second two coils for the recovery. In this imperfect circuit I was able to recover around 10% of the energy and feed it to the source. If the power coils were bifiler wound this recovery will be higher.
This is a possible lockridge device circuit using a star wound rotor using the regenerative circuit. In this system, any voltage in the capacitor greater than the battery voltage, will cause current to flow from the capacitor.This will beused before the battery is used, reducing the input power given by the battery.


Attachments:
2polestalock.JPG
2polestalock.JPG [ 73.72 KiB | Viewed 766 times ]
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was the Lockridge device the original parallel path moto
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 3:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:45 pm
Posts: 265
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
I Have s delco generator thart i slotted the case on two sides. I put two gen coils in from a golf cart motor to get an idea where to slot the case. I the took all the coils out and slotted the case , then put two starter windings from an old flathead ford engine, these are 6 volt. with the slots in the case the motor seems like it is more quiet and spins up nice. 5200 rpm. Each end has a bearing in the end frame.The starter windings are wired in series. Question ,What effect are we looking by putting magnets across the slots.Should these be the strong neo magnets? This i could test out pretty easily ,If I know what to look for. Thanks Curt.


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