Lockridge Device - Peter Lindemann

[Positron360]

indicating either 1) an error in the model (most likely due to linear current/torque and constant terminal inductance assumptions - although the latter does not seem to have a very great influence on the net energy out - only on the discharge time

Apologies - the inductance has a mayor influence, depending on the voltages and capacitance involved. With low voltages and high capacitance the effect is greatly reduced as can be expected, leading to the incorrect conclusion.

After looking at a few data sheets it became clear that although building a permanent DC motor that can in theory have the correct combination of parameters, none commercial available models I have tested so far show any net gain, the best being about 90% efficiency. Finding a large enough torque (Nm/A) ratio is troublesome.

[Positron360]

A permanent magnet motor cannot work as a motor for a true Lockridge device as there is a requirement of the motor field coils to interact with the generator field coils in the same way as a transformer.

Thanks for the input. I was able to model net energy gains - indicating either 1) an error in the model (most likely due to linear current/torque and constant terminal inductance assumptions - although the latter does not seem to have a very great influence on the net energy out - only on the discharge time) or 2) that a similar effect can be obtained in permanent magnet DC motors using short duration high-voltage discharges far above the BEMF induced in the motor at the current rotating speed which is in turn limited by the use of a flywheel.

I will have to read up on why the interaction is required - nothing like the sort could be inferred from Electric Motor Secrets Part 2. The basic idea conveyed there as I understood it was pushing huge amounts of current through the armature to minimize the effect of the BEMF loss relative to the driving potential, and doing so in short pulses so that the wires do not burn up. I guess it was a very simplistic explanation, although it was implied that doing the aforementioned should be sufficient. If that is the case, it shouldn't really matter where your field comes from (coils or permanent magnets) as you are not trying to harvest any kickback from the field windings but only trying to pass high current pulses through the armature.

[mbrownn]

Hi all

I have created an Excel spreadsheet allowing for a parametric study to be done on the Lockridge device. It is currently limited to assessing the feasibility of using a Brushed DC permanent magnet motor, but I plan on adding other models in future.

I created it to assess which motors can be expected to work. Not all motors will work, and the possibility of it working appears to be a complex function of parameters such as torque constant (Nm/A), BEMF constant (V/rpm), terminal inductance and terminal resistance, as well of course the capacitance and the voltage range over which you discharge.The spreadsheet allows you to input all those values and see the results.

I will appreciate it if someone with basic knowledge of Excel and electric circuit models can verify the spreadsheet for any errors, but I do not think there should be too many.

The spreadsheet can be downloaded from Google Docs using this link. It is about 5.4MB in size due to numerical computations using a lot of cells. Select File - Download in order to use - it does not want to convert to Google Docs format.

Any feedback will be appreciated. I hope you find it useful in filtering suitable motors. As Peter mentioned, DC Shunt motors are probably the best since large permanent magnet DC motors are 1) costly and 2) get demagnetized when too much current is passed through - will try to model them next.

I will be happy to answer questions about the operation of the spreadsheet. If there is enough interest I will write a manual and step-by-step model derivation explanation.

Kind regards

A permanent magnet motor cannot work as a motor for a true Lockridge device as there is a requirement of the motor field coils to interact with the generator field coils in the same way as a transformer.

I am not sure I can help you with the spread sheet but here is something to consider.

The factors relevant to producing the spreadsheet are many

Motor efficiency

Transformer effect and efficiency

generator efficiency

In the motor efficiency you need to take into consideration that we are using a motor on pulsed DC, the losses are less than AC, add to that the gain of inductive kickback. This has the ability of making a very inefficient motor perform with apparent high efficiency.

In most motors the transformer effect is cancelled out. In the Lockridge device this is not the case.

In these calculations you will have an iron loss in each but in a lockridge device you will only have 1 iron loss as all the components are in the same device so this loss should not be counted each time. So in the case of the Lockridge, the transformer and generator will operate with greater efficiency than normal as the iron has already been saturated by the motor.

As we are not in a position yet to give figures, I fear your spreadsheet will be theoretical but over the next few months we may be able to fill in some of the blanks.

[Positron360]

Lockridge Device Parametric Study Spreadsheet

Hi all

I have created an Excel spreadsheet allowing for a parametric study to be done on the Lockridge device. It is currently limited to assessing the feasibility of using a Brushed DC permanent magnet motor, but I plan on adding other models in future.

I created it to assess which motors can be expected to work. Not all motors will work, and the possibility of it working appears to be a complex function of parameters such as torque constant (Nm/A), BEMF constant (V/rpm), terminal inductance and terminal resistance, as well of course the capacitance and the voltage range over which you discharge.The spreadsheet allows you to input all those values and see the results.

I will appreciate it if someone with basic knowledge of Excel and electric circuit models can verify the spreadsheet for any errors, but I do not think there should be too many.

The spreadsheet can be downloaded from Google Docs using this link. It is about 5.4MB in size due to numerical computations using a lot of cells. Select File - Download in order to use - it does not want to convert to Google Docs format.

Any feedback will be appreciated. I hope you find it useful in filtering suitable motors. As Peter mentioned, DC Shunt motors are probably the best since large permanent magnet DC motors are 1) costly and 2) get demagnetized when too much current is passed through - will try to model them next.

I will be happy to answer questions about the operation of the spreadsheet. If there is enough interest I will write a manual and step-by-step model derivation explanation.

Kind regards

[mbrownn]

Mbrownn, Standard 2 brush system, 1pos - 1 neg. As i understand it that would be 100 percent duty cycle. With out any modifications. Is this correct .
To change the duty cycle, Do you think we have to use just one blank commutator bar on the negative brush. Either in advance or retard of rotation. Advancing the blank commutator bar would give us more of a build up in the motor coil and armature before it is switched. Need some advice.
I did make the generator so both the brushes can be moved. The negative brush can be moved quite a ways against rotation and still motorise, but the pos brush seems like it has to be moved with roatation. Still working on that, to check out the possibilitys.
Another thing I was think is it just might be that the motorising circuit is in parallel with the gen circuit. While motorising the generator circuit is energised and charging the same time it is motorising. Much like a standard a standard generator motorizing. So many variables to check out.

With a lap wound (modern) armature you will always have 100% duty cycle no mater where you put the brushes and even if you remove a segment from the commutator. provided you leave the windings intact and use standard width brushes. Removing a segment and narrowing the Brushes will reduce the duty cycle by the amount of time that the brush is over the removed segment and that is all.

Wave winding gives us the ability to adjust the duty cycle from 0 to 100% by advancing or retarding one of the two brushes but only if the brushes are narrowed and the segments at either side are blank. electrics_158.gif (image)


Yes you are correct the generator circuit is in parallel with the motor circuit.

[Hiwater]

Duty Cycle

Mbrownn, Standard 2 brush system, 1pos - 1 neg. As i understand it that would be 100 percent duty cycle. With out any modifications. Is this correct .
To change the duty cycle, Do you think we have to use just one blank commutator bar on the negative brush. Either in advance or retard of rotation. Advancing the blank commutator bar would give us more of a build up in the motor coil and armature before it is switched. Need some advice.
I did make the generator so both the brushes can be moved. The negative brush can be moved quite a ways against rotation and still motorise, but the pos brush seems like it has to be moved with roatation. Still working on that, to check out the possibilitys.
Another thing I was think is it just might be that the motorising circuit is in parallel with the gen circuit. While motorising the generator circuit is energised and charging the same time it is motorising. Much like a standard a standard generator motorizing. So many variables to check out.

[mbrownn]

No, sorry for misunderstanding.

I refer to Peter.L video, and what he says about replication not to original device. So my question is if we do exactly what is told in L. DVD will it self run ?

No, Peter has been leading us through some of the principals in a way that we can learn from but as he said he does not know the order in which the things are put together. At that point I don't think Peter knew all the things that were happening in the device but maybe he did. I am slowly getting there, sometimes going off at a tangent but still getting there.

[mbrownn]

Sorry it was Goreggie not Redrichie who made the claim. The youtube video he had was deleted. I hope Redrichie is not offended.

Post # 710

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...demann-24.html

George

Goreggie

He never had anything, he just realized that the inductive kickback was additional to the input. Yes this is a key area of gain but that alone has not been enough to make self running motors, well not with the circuits he was running anyway.

I noticed that at that time I postulated the possibility of the Lockridge being run as a parallel path, I don't think it was but that is something we could add to it in the future. There are other tricks I have up my sleeve but I won't start to get into that until I have this motor I am building running. I am expecting the output to be too small from the generator at this point I could put magnets in and get what we want but that isn't the Lockridge. Be patient and we will get there, once we have the Lockridge proven we can add the parallel path and improve its COP further.

To sum up

I am close to having the circuit right and some of the values of the components and their interactions

The trifilar coil may or may not be required as Peter said in his video

I would say that I am over half way there and the rest is common sense when you understand what it is doing, that is the tricks are common sense to a great degree. lets call it tuning.

Sorry to tease but I want you guys asking questions, difficult ones, as these help me solve the problems that I haven't thought of yet. At the moment I can hear the crickets, lets have some noise.

[FRC]

I am not sure, if you lean more toward a Bedini/Watson device as Peter compares the Lockridge device to in the video, I am pretty sure it can be done that way. Otherwise, mbrown appears quite close to solving this and coming up with a workable solution.

George

[grizli]

If you look back through the posts here. Goreggie claimed to have it working,
he even went to CNN with it. Go back and read the posts and you decide. It
is not as simple as you say. This thread has been more about trying to figure
out how the original device worked. If we had one of these it would probably
easy to replicate. Instead it has been more of a journey of detective work
trying to figure it out.

George

No, sorry for misunderstanding.

I refer to Peter.L video, and what he says about replication not to original device. So my question is if we do exactly what is told in L. DVD will it self run ?

[FRC]

Sorry it was Goreggie not Redrichie who made the claim. The youtube video he had was deleted. I hope Redrichie is not offended.

Post # 710

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...demann-24.html

George

[FRC]

mbrownn

Well if the posts are not there then they have been deleted. It still used batteries and Matthew Jones said it was not the real thing but Goreggie tried to claim it was. I will try to look back through the posts to see if they are still there.

George

[mbrownn]

If you look back through the posts here. Redrichie claimed to have it working,
he even went to CNN with it. Go back and read the posts and you decide. It
is not as simple as you say. This thread has been more about trying to figure
out how the original device worked. If we had one of these it would probably
easy to replicate. Instead it has been more of a journey of detective work
trying to figure it out.

George

Where is that, I have never seen it?

[mbrownn]

Hi all!

May I be direct here :


Has anyone here made successful replication using this simple method?

I have seen NONE of, for example youtube videos . This device is quite simple, no replications.

If all this data is correct , than self-running motor-generators device would be reported, don't you think so ?

After all my research and experiments I am convinced that one video I have seen was genuine. Guess what? its not there anymore.

It is a simple device but it is complex in how it works, I think that is why most attempts fail miserably.

Study the effects of PWM this is the first clue, then transformers and finally generators. they all have quirks in how they work and the trick is to make the quirk of one device benefit the next and the only way to do this is put them all in the same case. This also has another benefit, three devices but only one set of iron losses.

I will be building and testing a 2 pole version over the next few weeks, I doubt it will run itself as the geometry of a standard motor isn't quite right but I will be able to do some measurements which will point in the right direction of the geometry and prove or disprove all the theory work I have done.

I like direct

[FRC]

If you look back through the posts here. Goreggie claimed to have it working,
he even went to CNN with it. Go back and read the posts and you decide. It
is not as simple as you say. This thread has been more about trying to figure
out how the original device worked. If we had one of these it would probably
easy to replicate. Instead it has been more of a journey of detective work
trying to figure it out.

George