Lockridge Device - Peter Lindemann

[Peter Lindemann]

Stop Confusing Yourselves

Gentlemen,

1) Forget about the "starter motor" example I gave in the DVD (lecture). It was merely meant as an example of a series wound motor. I never said this was the best motor to use.

2) I told you I was NOT going to try to REPLICATE the Lockridge Device. I told you I was going to show you how to build a self-running system based on the principles of the "torque enhanced motor".

3) What I proposed in Post #170 is a stand-alone motor, run from BATTERIES, that can be made from an "off-the-shelf", permanent magnet field, DC motor, without the need of a machine shop.

4) The windings on the rotor end up to be "CUSTOM", as all you need is ONE SET OF WINDINGS through TWO SLOTS that are on opposite sides of the rotor and attached to TWO COMMUTATOR SEGMENTS on opposite sides of the commutator.

5) There is NO CAPACITOR in this design yet.

6) There is NO GENERATOR in this design yet, either.

7) There is a SECOND SET OF BRUSHES installed in the motor to capture the collapsing magnetic field and recover some of the input electricity. Right now, I am suggesting to apply this recovered electricity through a single diode to a second battery bank, like a Bedini system.

You people are welcome to make as many mistakes as you want, and I will not correct anymore of your speculations.

Science is not accomplished by "chat". It is only accomplished by building the experiment, running the experiment, and thinking deeply about the results. Then, and only then, is discussion useful.

Peter

[Mario]

Hi Peter, guys,

thanks for sharing all this information Peter, great stuff. I would think the recovery brush should switch ON as soon as possible right after the supply brushes are OFF, else part of the energy of the collapsing magnetic field will be waisted and not recovered.

Peter, on another note, am I correct to assume that with a rotor with iron poles more energy can be recovered as opposed to a rotor with magnets (be it in attraction or repel mode)?

regards,
Mario

[Superdave]

removed the post it is possible I have made too many assumptions.. ..

so to back up the armature winding would be lap ,wave or custom ?

my current armature is wave and I have not seen any Automotive starting motors that aren't wave wound

Thank you again for your time

[twoody01]

Changes to be made the starter motor.

Interesting. So the way a normal starter armature is wound would just cutting the connections be sufficient? Or do the wires actually need to be removed?

Peter

When looking at my starter motor I had the same question. One could cut the large copper winding loop at the end opposite the brushes for the windings you want to disable. If you make a mistake here you get a new starter motor. Then cover with epoxy and re-balance.

In your DVD you calculated the capacitor based on 1 power stoke per rev. With our current dialog the motor will have 2 power discharges per rev and no external commutator would be needed. Is this correct?

With this change will the capacitor be able to recharge and discharge at 2 per rev?

The generator will be turning at the same speed as the motor. I guess the increase in generator resistance will be offset by more power from the motor if the Capacitor can keep up. Maybe aided by sending the collapsing power back to the capacitor between power stokes.

Just thinking this through.

PS: Still waiting for the shop to finish my end plates and bearings.

[Peter Lindemann]

Confusing

[ATTACH]7460[/ATTACH]


hello all, this is my understanding so far for the armature windings

Superdave,

I find your image confusing, and not representative of what I am asking people to build. Please remove it so others aren't confused by it.

Thank you.

Peter

[Peter Lindemann]

Recovery Impulse is FAST

The recovery brush needs to be spaced farther away so only 1 commutator section touches 1 brush at a time. So yes they are isolated completely.

I don't know how fast the collapse is. Does anyone have any idea how crucial the spacing will be with the recovery brushes. Will we have much trouble catching it? Is it so fast that the spacing needs to be perfect or is it slower so when its up to speed we might have to connect 2 commutator sections together so we catch it?

Mark,

You are starting to GET IT!!! The recovery impulse is FAST, like the radiant spike in a Bedini SSG. The recovery brush spacing is important and should be precisely ONE COMMUTATOR SEGMENT away from the power brush so the "break and make" are as simultaneous as possible.

You are on the right track.

Peter

[Peter Lindemann]

YES, Complete Isolation is Desired

I'm a bit confused, do you mean that the recovery brush is not placed next to the power commutator or that one commutator section is skipped? John's diagram shows the recovery commutator is placed next to the power commutator. In John's diagram the brush would be in contact with both commutators in the transition between the two. However, if one commutator was skipped, it would completely isolate the power side from the recovery.

Tim

Tim, actually, you are NOT confused. Read what I have said about this carefully in Post #170. Ask yourself, "what is the goal?" and "what design features accomplish this goal?".

Peter

[Mark]

The recovery brush needs to be spaced farther away so only 1 commutator section touches 1 brush at a time. So yes they are isolated completely.

I dont know how fast the colapse is. Does anyone have any idea how crutial the spacing will be with the recovery brushes. Will we have much trouble catching it? Is it so fast that the spacing needs to be perfect or is it slower so when its up to speed we might have to connect 2 commutator sections together so we catch it?

[dragon]

I believe he means that the recovery brush should be placed at a distance where the power brush leaves the commutator at the precise moment the recovery brush is in contact. This would be about 1 commutator section or a tiny fraction less.

I understand the connection in preventing arching as the power brush leaves, I'm not sure however, why it couldn't be closer. I'm sure with some experimentation the answer would reveal itself and that it would present itself as one of those slap in the forehead boy do I feel stupid moments.

As with anything, the best learning is by building it and making smoke...
________
fat woman Cams

[chasson321]

Peter

Dragon,
John G,

Your drawing is not correct. The brushes can only cover one segment of the commutator at a time, and the recovery brush is exactly ONE COMMUTATOR segment away from the power brush, so it engages at the exact moment the power brush disengages.

Peter

I'm a bit confused, do you mean that the recovery brush is not placed next to the power commutator or that one commutator section is skipped? John's diagram shows the recovery commutator is placed next to the power commutator. In John's diagram the brush would be in contact with both commutators in the transistion between the two. However, if one commutator was skipped, it would completely isolate the power side from the recovery.

Tim

[dragon]

Dragon,

You're thinking is generally correct, but in this specific case, you are not. I ran the experiment you recommend over 8 years ago and the output from the secondary set of brushes is very small. The reason is, as long as the power brushes can charge up the next set of windings, the magnetic field of the rotor cannot change very much to produce an output in the winding connected to the secondary set of brushes.

This is why I said to take the other windings OFF, so the power input becomes a PULSED event, with discrete ON and OFF operations. This allows for a much bigger recovery and OUTPUT.

John G,

Your drawing is not correct. The brushes can only cover one segment of the commutator at a time, and the recovery brush is exactly ONE COMMUTATOR segment away from the power brush, so it engages at the exact moment the power brush disengages.

Peter

I understand, that makes complete sense. I didn't consider the next coil in line as to what it was doing to the core. Thanks Peter, it helps when someone points out the obvious. ( forest and trees thing ).
________
Zoloft settlement info

[cwaugs]

Interesting. So the way a normal starter armature is wound would just cutting the connections be sufficient? Or do the wires actually need to be removed?

[Peter Lindemann]

Not Quite

If the charge battery is at or above the source battery voltage it can not pass through the diode. If the charge battery is at a lower voltage than the souce it will be pulse charged by the source and BEMF until the voltage levels out and exceeds the source.

It really wouldn't matter that the brushes were overlapped at that point, as long as there is a connection to the recovery brush at exit. At the moment the power brush is disconnected it offers a path for the BEMF through the recovery brush. Instead of a huge arc you get a controlled recovery path.

If you take it one step farther, remove all the existing windings and rewind it so each coil is separated or isolated from each other with the same 4 brush commutator then you have a continuous run, continuous BEMF recovery... add a couple more brushes and...... you also have a generator output.

Dragon,

You're thinking is generally correct, but in this specific case, you are not. I ran the experiment you recommend over 8 years ago and the output from the secondary set of brushes is very small. The reason is, as long as the power brushes can charge up the next set of windings, the magnetic field of the rotor cannot change very much to produce an output in the winding connected to the secondary set of brushes.

This is why I said to take the other windings OFF, so the power input becomes a PULSED event, with discrete ON and OFF operations. This allows for a much bigger recovery and OUTPUT.

John G,

Your drawing is not correct. The brushes can only cover one segment of the commutator at a time, and the recovery brush is exactly ONE COMMUTATOR segment away from the power brush, so it engages at the exact moment the power brush disengages.

Peter

[dragon]

If the charge battery is at or above the source battery voltage it can not pass through the diode. If the charge battery is at a lower voltage than the souce it will be pulse charged by the source and BEMF until the voltage levels out and exceeds the source.

It really wouldn't matter that the brushes were overlapped at that point, as long as there is a connection to the recovery brush at exit. At the moment the power brush is disconnected it offers a path for the BEMF through the recovery brush. Instead of a huge arc you get a controlled recovery path.

If you take it one step farther, remove all the existing windings and rewind it so each coil is separated or isolated from each other with the same 4 brush commutator then you have a continuous run, continuous BEMF recovery... add a couple more brushes and...... you also have a generator output.
________
GLASS SMOKING PIPES

[FRC]

Questions:

Wont power be transfered from the primary battery to the charging battery when the comutator is bridging both brushes at the same time?

Is this any different then a Newman motor other than the magnets and the coils are trading places? Except the problem that I stated in the first question which is easily solved with the Newman arangement.

I thought that the brushes were filed down on the original lockridge device so
that would not occur.

FRC