Lockridge, or 2x Von Siemens ?

[Hiwater]

Ok, Hiwater. I need to understand : not yet a self-runner, right ? You have to hook a battery, isn't it ? Please forgive my questions, but I prefer to be sure, rather than making assumptions... Or I'd be amazed

No by far not a self sustained m/g device. It take 5 years to get this far. Like Mbrownn said it can run on AC or DC. The brushes can be set to run on only AC OR DC. Battery can be used, but the armature has to be pulsed. There has to be a transformer action for the generator coils to work properly.

Maybe you can help follow the links Mbrownn provided.

[marseye]

Ok, the Siemens machine had the auto-excited type.

Here, a page about the electro-magnetism and the inductive current machines (in French, too long for me to translate, but using an online translator shouldn't confuse too much).

It's quite interesting, with most type represented, "old school" drawings. The auto-excited inductive phenomenon is explained, here again, by the residual magnetism of the inductors' soft iron core, which is enough to produce more electric strength as soon as a movement of the rotor is initiated ; and that feeds the electro-magnets to the max...

What puzzles me stil is that one doesn't need any real magnets to produce electricity. That info simply reinforce my faith in the re-discovery of the Lockridge device.

In my mind now, and since we're certainly talking now of a DC system , then maybe : gen part / resistors (coil 1 & 2) / capacitor / output (through resistor-coil 3 : to loads (of which : the motor part).

Or the motor part has enough with the whole BEMF of reverse electric sign (stator + electro-coils, all in series, as with the Siemens dynamo), hence the polar arrangement S/N///N/S (/// being the case's slots, like cells in batteries ?)

JB said that 2 of the 4 field coils are bigger than the other pair...

Rhaaaaaaa ! I want to know !!!

[mbrownn]

Ok, the Siemens machine had the auto-excited type.

Here, a page about the electro-magnetism and the inductive current machines (in French, too long for me to translate, but using an online translator shouldn't confuse too much).

It's quite interesting, with most type represented, "old school" drawings. The auto-excited inductive phenomenon is explained, here again, by the residual magnetism of the inductors' soft iron core, which is enough to produce more electric strength as soon as a movement of the rotor is initiated ; and that feeds the electro-magnets to the max...

What puzzles me stil is that one doesn't need any real magnets to produce electricity. That info simply reinforce my faith in the re-discovery of the Lockridge device.

In my mind now, and since we're certainly talking now of a DC system , then maybe : gen part / resistors (coil 1 & 2) / capacitor / output (through resistor-coil 3 : to loads (of which : the motor part).

Or the motor part has enough with the whole BEMF of reverse electric sign (stator + electro-coils, all in series, as with the Siemens dynamo), hence the polar arrangement S/N///N/S (/// being the case's slots, like cells in batteries ?)

JB said that 2 of the 4 field coils are bigger than the other pair...

Rhaaaaaaa ! I want to know !!!

I wont give you it all in one post, it would be very hard to take in, but try to imagine this.

Imagine the coils on the stator as transformer coils, two of them set at 180 degrees, and the armature act as the primary of the transformer. The other two coils have many more turns and are the secondary. Now if we put AC or Pulsed DC into the primary windings, We get AC in the secondary windings. This is one of our outputs. The motor turning is a second output. Then as a result of the armature sweeping at least one of the secondary coils we have a conventional generated DC output which is a third output for one input.

Increasing the current in the armature and primary field coils, Increases the transformer action and induced current in the secondaries, this also increases the torque and the generated current.

Does this make sense to you?

[marseye]

(...) Does this make sense to you?

Yep, it does. But seems to me that this tranformer still needs big current to work.

----------------------------------------------

The following is out of the main present subject, just about a dc motor-transformer effect, for the record :


I've been playing for long now with a dc 4-12v 2 magnets poles motor with 3 commutator segments (and as much drums) [dc drill type].

I had rewound it a star armature : all the ending terminals were connected to a ring belonging to the upper shaft, which was electrically connected to the frame by the shaft through the roll-bearings , thus making the frame a 3rd "permanent" contact (the 2 firsts are the brushes).

Having sanded the edges of the cover that holds the brushes, it can be rotated easily). But then, the maximun usable values (or it would burn down) was around 6v - 1.5amps. I generally fed it with 3 to 4 v.

Well anyway, I could at least observe a transformer effect : feeding one brush and the case, there's always a slight higher voltage, approximately 1/4 higher, between the 2 brushes (but less output current, of course). They could light a low dc bulbs (little cars's lamps) better than directly to the battery while it ran the motor. Plus, of course, the motor's shaft was running (I used to fit to it the long middle of a cork wine stopper, as a flywheel).

I estimate the electric transformation efficiency was maybe around 70% (maximum, depending on the extra load; from the half "maximum" real capacity of the AA Ni-Mh batteries perspective ) for 3v. The torque stayed anemic. Speed is then irrelevant.

Any capacitor was worsening the efficiency. This configuration couldn't recharge any "external" cell (as much as the diode for it didn't help it neither). So; really, just here for the record.

[wantomake]

I wont give you it all in one post, it would be very hard to take in, but try to imagine this.

Imagine the coils on the stator as transformer coils, two of them set at 180 degrees, and the armature act as the primary of the transformer. The other two coils have many more turns and are the secondary. Now if we put AC or Pulsed DC into the primary windings, We get AC in the secondary windings. This is one of our outputs. The motor turning is a second output. Then as a result of the armature sweeping at least one of the secondary coils we have a conventional generated DC output which is a third output for one input.

Increasing the current in the armature and primary field coils, Increases the transformer action and induced current in the secondaries, this also increases the torque and the generated current.

Does this make sense to you?

mbrown,
No showing everything in just one post would take too much space.

What about some simple picture's or better yet a YouTube video of this transformer action.

A picture speaks a thousand words.....
wantomake

[mbrownn]

Yep, it does. But seems to me that this tranformer still needs big current to work.

----------------------------------------------

The following is out of the main present subject, just about a dc motor-transformer effect, for the record :


I've been playing for long now with a dc 4-12v 2 magnets poles motor with 3 commutator segments (and as much drums) [dc drill type].

I had rewound it a star armature : all the ending terminals were connected to a ring belonging to the upper shaft, which was electrically connected to the frame by the shaft through the roll-bearings , thus making the frame a 3rd "permanent" contact (the 2 firsts are the brushes).

Having sanded the edges of the cover that holds the brushes, it can be rotated easily). But then, the maximun usable values (or it would burn down) was around 6v - 1.5amps. I generally fed it with 3 to 4 v.

Well anyway, I could at least observe a transformer effect : feeding one brush and the case, there's always a slight higher voltage, approximately 1/4 higher, between the 2 brushes (but less output current, of course). They could light a low dc bulbs (little cars's lamps) better than directly to the battery while it ran the motor. Plus, of course, the motor's shaft was running (I used to fit to it the long middle of a cork wine stopper, as a flywheel).

I estimate the electric transformation efficiency was maybe around 70% (maximum, depending on the extra load; from the half "maximum" real capacity of the AA Ni-Mh batteries perspective ) for 3v. The torque stayed anemic. Speed is then irrelevant.

Any capacitor was worsening the efficiency. This configuration couldn't recharge any "external" cell (as much as the diode for it didn't help it neither). So; really, just here for the record.

Generally speaking it is accepted that motors require current to work. (I accept that some do work on voltage with little current) The Universal motor requires current, doubling the current doubles the torque etc. Similarly transformers do the same. Don’t be afraid of current unless it exceeds the capabilities of the windings. Not only that but our devices also require current.

I don’t know where the excerpt is from so cant really comment on it other than this. When we have multiple coils on the same magnetic circuit, they will interact provided their circuits are closed. Ie transformer interactions. These interactions can be blocked or exploited as required. If blocked your efficiency will likely be low and if exploited as in the induction motor then efficiency will be relatively high.

I have run 12v motors producing significant torque at 3 or 4 volts because I used the motors designed current.

If you have a 12v motor held at stall, it only takes 3 or 4 volts to produce rated torque, so only 3 or 4 volts are needed to do the work. If we eliminate BEMF we can run a 12v motor at full power at 3 or 4 volts. So the voltage above does not surprise me.

Capacitors generally have a poor efficiency, generally 50% so saying that capacitors reduce efficiency makes sense.

[mbrownn]

mbrown,
No showing everything in just one post would take too much space.

What about some simple picture's or better yet a YouTube video of this transformer action.

A picture speaks a thousand words.....
wantomake

I hear what your saying but I dont think we need to go that far at the moment, besides im not sure how to do it. Maybe my son can help me

The simplest experiments are like the ones I told you about with a motor out of an electric drill. Lock the armature and power the armature in series with one of the field windings with AC (not too high a voltage, 12 to 24 is usually enough to see the effects). Then measure the voltage and current coming out of the other field winding and compare the input with the output. Then do the same with the armature free to rotate.

These basic tests prove transformer interactions as well as generation.

[marseye]

(...) Now if we put [AC or ] pulsed DC into the primary windings, We get AC in the secondary windings. (This is one of our outputs...)

Of course, bemf is released at the current flow interruption (for a coil in which a circuit is eventually opened), and it's of reversed sign. (Anyone who has an oscilloscope can see this, except that, for [a circuit closing/rising energy flow momentum + circuit opening/ falling energy momentum], one has to use a corresponding cap in order for them to be equivalent, at best).

I'm presently trying to get infos about induction, and more generally about transformers then. Since they're officially not 100% efficients, I'm currently in the process to try to perceive a difference between induction and commutation, in terms of efficiency... Will keep posted my (possible good) "comprehensions" up there...

Wikipedia (and its references) may be a first starter as a good helper...
("Mine", in French, seems to have deeper insights, compared to the English version... Will see.)

But, hey, as you made a remark about it , in the case of a "motor transformer", as you already said, there is the motor (the shaft's momentum) which is runing... May it compensate for the known losses (impedances) ? ... To be continued... (As much as the Lockridge device must generate first).

[mbrownn]

Lets look at John Bedini's Lockridge device and see if we can see anything that makes sense.

The case is split at approximately the 12 and 6 oclock positions. The coils are not laid out in a symmetrical manor and coils D and B appear to be wound in flat bar copper while C and A appear to be copper wire.

Naturally this would give a difference in the number of turns for similar sized coils, but we can also see that A appears much bigger than C

Lets assume their positions are correct.

I also assumed that the armature was a simple type and that it was wound across the horizontal plane 9pm to 3pm.

If we energise coil D the flux will pass through the armature but cannot return through the right hand side of the stator because of the slots in the case. The easiest path is through coil A and back to D This way only the left side of the stator is being used, and if coil D was pulsed with DC, coil A would have a form of AC induced in it though it wont be a sine wave. This is the transformer action.

If we energise the armature coil at the same time as coil D, but in attraction we have effectively increased the number of turns in our primary, but no torque is applied to the armature by coil D.

As the flux will pass around the armature coil and return through coil A, it makes a sharp bend around the armature coil. This flux prefers a more direct route and so applies a torque on the armature causing the armature to rotate anti clockwise.

As there is current in the armature as it rotates past coil A, It produces a current in coil A. ie it generates a current in coil A.

Thus from a pulsed input we achieve AC in coil A and apply a torque to the armature at the position of coil A. The current in the armature causes generation in coil A in the same direction as the first half of the transformer action.

What do we have?

Coil D only acts as an energiser and plays no part in the motoring of this device other than to produce a strong flux.

The generator is causing the torque and generated current in coil A at the same time. As there is no coil sweeping past coil D there is no BEMF in that coil. and lastly we have an AC current in coil A

The AC will be equal to the input in power less losses.

The rotational power is higher than the average 35% that is expected from a Universal type motor from which this design is produced because of reduced BEMF.

The generated power is equal to the rotational power less losses.

All this from one input.

Can you follow this?

[marseye]

(...)Can you follow this?

I think I can. Would have to experiment to grasp it fully, and I'm not equiped for that...



I'm thinking of the following : (in simple terms, simplistic logic)

The Siemens device shows that an induction takes place (creates a current) from the interaction between the shaft's coil moving in front of the electro-magnets.

Let's say that the Lockridge device's 3 external coils (trifilar) are intended as an impedance matchers ; for the sake of simplification, let's consider only 2 of them (pretending they do the job).

We know there is a big capacitor too, in th form of 2 copper layers. What can be the capacitance here ? 1, 2, 3... farads ?



Here's "my" possible wiring version (for now) : (in textual description, because my drawing attemps all were awfuls)

From the first leg of the capacitor,
connect the impedance matchin coil 1;
it outputs to the brush A to the shaft's coil 1, that outputs to the brush A',
which feeds the first field electro-magnetic coil.

There, already, when the shaft's coil is launched by hand in front of the field electro-magnet (external force) , should have been generated a current between cap's leg1 and field electro-magnetic coil pair 1's output (Siemens device principle).

Let's input the latter output to the second field electro-magnetic coil pair 2, which outputs to the shaft's coil 2 (through the brushes B-B', in attraction mode)

Let's finally output the brush B' to the impedance matching coil n°2, which ends in the second leg of the capacitor.

Now the capacitor is charged (at least by the bemf), ready to discharge.

The turning shaft exchanges again its coils to be exposed, which closes the circuit again, while the running shaft's momentum re-generates an additional electric burst again.




Conclusion :

As this whole serial cuircuit can be fed again by the now charged capacitor, it should "suffice" to find how to generate big enough in order to allow a compensating motoring action back.

The matter of permanent magnets is that they have permanent strong opposing field resistance to the shaft's coil which is "incoming from the wrong direction" (remember : for the Siemens generator to produce current, the coil must pass its corresponding field coil in "reverse direction").

But here, because we're dealing with electro-magnetic coils (thoses which opposes and attracts the shaft's coils), the commutation off-state moment helps further the non-impeded momentum of the shaft.

Anyway, because of the general induction, there's an augmented current burst due to the very nature of the external trifilar, adding to their impedance matching intention.

Does that make sense ?

I have nothing to try my idea for now (I don't have any suitable induction brushed motor at hand).

Let's keep in mind that the generated current must be enough for a motoring action AND feeding a moderate external load !

But we know that it's been made before... Don't we ?


(please pardon my gibberish)

[mbrownn]

I think I can. Would have to experiment to grasp it fully, and I'm not equiped for that...

Correct, its the only way to grasp what is happening.

The Siemens device shows that an induction takes place (creates a current) from the interaction between the shaft's coil moving in front of the electro-magnets.

Correct, standard generation .

Let's say that the Lockridge device's 3 external coils (trifilar) are intended as an impedance matchers ; for the sake of simplification, let's consider only 2 of them (pretending they do the job).

We know there is a big capacitor too, in th form of 2 copper layers. What can be the capacitance here ? 1, 2, 3... farads ?

OK

The capacitance is unknown as the gaps between the butcher paper and copper are variable in a hand made capacitor. I did do the calculations and the capacitance was smaller than I expected. I cant remember off hand what I came up with but it wasn’t even in the ball park based upon what I thought at the time.

Here's "my" possible wiring version (for now) : (in textual description, because my drawing attemps all were awfuls)

From the first leg of the capacitor,
connect the impedance matchin coil 1;
it outputs to the brush A to the shaft's coil 1, that outputs to the brush A',
which feeds the first field electro-magnetic coil.

Series wound?

There, already, when the shaft's coil is launched by hand in front of the field electro-magnet (external force) , should have been generated a current between cap's leg1 and field electro-magnetic coil pair 1's output (Siemens device principle).

OK

Let's input the latter output to the second field electro-magnetic coil pair 2, which outputs to the shaft's coil 2 (through the brushes B-B', in attraction mode)

You have lost me, which is the latter? Spell it out like you did in the last paragraph.

Let's finally output the brush B' to the impedance matching coil n°2, which ends in the second leg of the capacitor.

Now the capacitor is charged (at least by the bemf), ready to discharge.

The turning shaft exchanges again its coils to be exposed, which closes the circuit again, while the running shaft's momentum re-generates an additional electric burst again.

I dont get it because I cant visualise your previous paragraph, Please try again.

Conclusion :

As this whole serial cuircuit can be fed again by the now charged capacitor, it should "suffice" to find how to generate big enough in order to allow a compensating motoring action back.

The matter of permanent magnets is that they have permanent strong opposing field resistance to the shaft's coil which is "incoming from the wrong direction" (remember : for the Siemens generator to produce current, the coil must pass its corresponding field coil in "reverse direction").

But here, because we're dealing with electro-magnetic coils (thoses which opposes and attracts the shaft's coils), the commutation off-state moment helps further the non-impeded momentum of the shaft.

Anyway, because of the general induction, there's an augmented current burst due to the very nature of the external trifilar, adding to their impedance matching intention.

Does that make sense ?

I think I know what your getting at but I want to understand so please try to explain a bit like your explaining it to a child, then there is no assumptions and misinterpretations.

I have nothing to try my idea for now (I don't have any suitable induction brushed motor at hand).

Let's keep in mind that the generated current must be enough for a motoring action AND feeding a moderate external load !

But we know that it's been made before... Don't we ?


(please pardon my gibberish)

Dont worry about that, your theories can be tested verbally before you go to the expense of building something. Testing Ideas verbally is frowned upon by some, so if you get unnecessary criticism just ignore it.

The next stage will be so simulate it, there are several circuit simulators free on line. Dont try to simulate the whole thing, just each individual stage, one after the other.

Then when we have the concrete ideas we can choose a donor device and start to work with that. We would be coming from a position of understanding that way, far too many just jump in and try to make something and then dont understand why it does not work.

[marseye]

Hehe ! I knew my Gibberish could prove problematic

Series wound?

Yep : Inductive electro-magnetic dynamo can be wired series as well as parallels. Siemens' is series.

You have lost me, which is the latter? Spell it out like you did in the last paragraph.

Hehe, This I have modified several times to try to be less heavy... I should have prefered to stay unequivoqually understood instead (too, because i perfectly know that my English sucks, since I'm not a native nor regular practitionner of it - reading/understanding quite well is not writing/expressing near good).

So : "the latter" intended to mean "the last point of the series where we just had stopped to observe our generated current" ("latter", like in old patents describing mode), that's : the output of the field electro-magnetic coil pair 1

I dont get it (...) Please try again.

So be it.

Here's the whole rephrased attempt :

(This quote was augmented too)

The Siemens device shows that an induction takes place (creates a current) from the interaction between the shaft's coil moving in front of the electro-magnets.

Let's say that the Lockridge device's 3 external coils (trifilar) are intended as an impedance matchers ; for the sake of simplicity, let's consider only 2 of them (pretending they do the job).

We know there is a big capacitor too, in the form of 2 copper layers. What can be the capacitance here ? 1, 2, 3... farads ?
And let's suppose the shafts has 2 distinct rotor coils, attached each to 2 commutator's segments (hence a total of 4 commutator segments, for simplicity again here too).

Here's "my" possible wiring version (for now) : (in textual description, because my drawing attemps all were awfuls)

Connect the first leg of the capacitor to the impedance matchin coil 1 input;
The matching coil 1 outputs to the brush A to the shaft's coil 1, that outputs to the brush A',
which feeds the first field electro-magnetic coil pair 1 input


There, already, when the shaft's coil is launched by hand in front of the field electro-magnet (external force) , should have been generated a current between cap's leg 1 and field electro-magnetic coil pair 1's output (Siemens device principle).

So, let's output this current from the electro-magnetic coil 1 output to the second field electro-magnetic coil pair 2 input, which coil pair outputs to the shaft's coil 2 (through the brushes B-B', in attraction mode, which aims at assisting that which was impulsed directly by hand).

Let's finally output the brush B' to the impedance matching coil n°2, which ends in the second leg of the capacitor, and the loop is looped, so that the whole series is not a short circuit.

Hence the capacitor has current somewhere somehow to feed it, making it a pulsating battery ?

The turning shaft exchanges again its coils to be exposed, which closes the circuit again, while the running shaft's momentum re-generates an additional electric burst again to the whole series, the capacitor being quite at the electric center of the whole serie, thus dividing/balancing the electric circuit like it is , for example, in any dc brushed motor connected to a battery.

In that, it may be practical to remark a parallel with the motor/battery couple, figured out by the similar balance between attraction/repulsion of each of the device's halves.

Hey, nothing really new under the sun here, I know (and I was taught in school that a self sustaining device is impossible. But...)




Conclusion :

As this whole strictly series cuircuit can be energized again by the running shaft, because of its Siemens device's component which is the approximate half of our series, it should "suffice" to find how to generate a "big enough" energization in order to allow an helping compensating motor action back.

The inconvenience of permanent magnets is that they have effectively permanent strong opposing field impedance to the shaft's coil which is "incoming from the wrong direction" (remember : for the Siemens generator to produce current, the shaft's coil must pass in front of its corresponding field coil in "reverse direction").

But here, because we're dealing with electro-magnetic coils (those which opposes and attracts the shaft's coils), the commutation off-state moment frees further (helps) the non-impeded "unplugged" momentum of the shaft.

Anyway, because of the general induction, there's an augmented current burst due to the very nature of the external trifilar, which is at least a double -coil that must react with both currents positive and negative when they're incoming from opposite directions, hence adding some more energy.

Maybe we can further hypothesize that the (remaining) third coil is the real impedance matching component.

Anyway, the very same problems must arise when trying to drive a motor and another distinct "external" generator through a belt... The Sciense says it can't be done. Some already proved the opposite, ie : the self sustained water pump system (video).

I'm just aiming here at further simplifying again (like the Lockridge device previously had) the same principle.

So, does my present understanding (yet) make sense ?

Here was my best output ! I'm quite confident in my wiring idea (but less of my English... Ok, I'm now stoping to apologize for being a french in France. But never fear to bash my phrasings, as long as you point out the correct sentences which feel "better").


Now is left to dimension the field electro coils according to their awaited own roles, and the trifilar and the capacitor. Not the simplest thing to achieve, is it ?

(...)your theories can be tested verbally before you go to the expense of building something. Testing Ideas verbally is frowned upon by some, so if you get unnecessary criticism just ignore it.

I don't fear no one, nothing, except of failing. It's certain that I profoundly prefer the sane collaboration of alike minds.

Thanks for your consideration.

[mbrownn]

Im still not sure, maybe its me, but there are things that you have said which are similar to what I have done, im still listening.

The pelton wheel device I have seen before and as a hydraulics engineer, I am confident it is a hoax.

Do you see similarities between the Siemens device and what I have posted? You mentioned attraction, is that the same way as I described?

I know in the descriptions put out by PL and JB, they talk about the trifler having one winding connected to the input and another to the output, but what output is not mentioned.

I have tested and discussed having the output from the generator feed through the armature and stator windings to compensate for load. If this also went through one winding of the trifler it could effectively assist the input from the source using a transformer action. If the third winding were shorted upon itself could it be that it would impedance match would provide sufficient to power the machine. Personally I don’t think it is enough.

Charging a capacitor through an inductor does appear to place as much energy in the capacitor as was discharged into the inductor, but this is only because the inductive kickback provides the second half of the energy. Could this be what the capacitor on the lockridge is for? I don’t think the capacitor is large enough unless we get to voltages in excess of 400v.

This causes a problem as the device itself seems to run off 4 volts.

If the trifler is impedance matching that would require a drop of 100x and increasing the amps by a similar amount. I am fairly certain that the wire of the trifler could could not carry such a current without instantly melting.

Is capacitive discharge part of it? I dont know.

I am not ready yet to run these trifler and capacitor tests although I know some of the other guys are trying a few things. Im still figuring out the full workings of all the windings in the motor case.

Keep the ideas coming and the odd sketch would help. maybe using "print screen" you could capture a basic circuit from a simulator. I have used this simulator applet to do that in the past. Circuit Simulator Applet

[marseye]

mbrownn,

From the picture of the JB's "possible" Lockridge you gave, I have some remarks :
- First, we're sure that THIS device... never worked as a Lockridge Device it was a failed attempt, dumped at JB by the eentually harassed people, after they've been scratching their heads for long before this).
- Secondly, if we think of a U magnet, we know that its poles are at the edge of each leg, with a parallel gap between the legs and their "bloch wall" on the rounded base of the u, right ?

Can we then say consequently that the two openings on the case sides could figure a similar configuration ? If yes, the electro magnets pairs may not be constituted what we're thinking the pairs are...

Follow me : on your picture, what if the brushes pairs 1-2 and 3-4 correspond to the field coils sequence : B-D / A-C ? Can you see the case openings between each stator coil pair as expressed here ? The "round base bloch wall zone" of the u magnet could then be figured by the cases' extremities ?



On another hand : you assumed that the rotor wiring was universal. If yes, you mean all of it's coils are globally "shunted" (the whole armature wiring is one thread, with the ending terminal joining back the starting terminal, like in the universal dc motors) ?

My proposal is that the rotor coils are independant pairs, not connected with the others, with only 2 terminals : input AND output. Since I suspect the series of the Siemens device (generator) is going to feed the motor part, there certainly the transformer action that I've previously here described above as "irrelevant, just for the record" !!! I might have been wrong in such statement... But I have further tests to conduct now about it (with my 3 posts star wind motor, that I need to make again first, in order to validate some data that I'm hoping to find, now that I think I know what to look for. Unfortunately, this test will have real magnets, instead of electro-magnets. And as I have only a 3 poles rotor inside the two magnets stator, the two magnets will have to be the same polarity N-N or S-S... with a battery. But the voltmeter will be handy for what I'm looking for...).

But if that shows encouraging, it might be that we would possibly have the stator poles pairs made of a 2 field coils being the sames in each pair (S-S and N-N)... I have to go testing now.

[** I have an idea that some unbalance must exist and alternate..... ** A BIG and small field coils in pair for each 2 pairs is maybe relevant here !!! **]

For a simulation : I checked and doubt that the applet you're advising me can allow a motor schematic... Will see, or figure out something else maybe.

I'll keep here posted.

[mbrownn]

mbrownn,

From the picture of the JB's "possible" Lockridge you gave, I have some remarks :
- First, we're sure that THIS device... never worked as a Lockridge Device.

Correct, It was an attempted modification that never worked.

- Secondly, if we think of a U magnet, we know that its poles are at the edge of each leg, with a parallel gap between the legs and their "bloch wall" on the rounded base of the u, right ?

Maybe, magnets may be much more complex than that.

Can we then say consequently that the two openings on the case sides could figure a similar configuration ?

I suspect not, In my tests it became obvious that the splits in the case were there to separate two magnetic circuits. At least if it operates in the way I suspect

If yes, the electro magnets pairs may not be constituted what we're thinking the pairs are...

Follow me : on your picture, what if the brushes pairs 1-2 and 3-4 correspond to the field coils sequence : B-D / A-C ? Can you see the case openings between each stator coil pair as expressed here ? The "round base bloch wall zone" of the u magnet could then be figured by the cases' extremities ?

I did not not wire them like that, maybe you could try it.

On another hand : you assumed that the rotor wiring was universal. If yes, you mean all of it's coils are globally "shunted" (the whole armature wiring is one thread, with the ending terminal joining back the starting terminal, like in the universal dc motors) ?

A 4 pole universal type motor or generator would be a good donor device to get the parts from. Whether the field winding is shunt or series has not yet being established but as the current could potentially be 100+ amps I favour series to keep the current down a little. Standard armatures are a continuous loop and we know there was something unusual about the Lockridge armature. I used a simple armature with separate coils and no interconnectivity. As well as being relatively easy to wind, these armatures have no compromises like standard Lap and Wave wound armatures. They produce strong fields and do not heat up as fast as looped armatures. They arc and build up high voltages that can be harvested. Standard armatures are very difficult to harvest power from as the currents find it easier to pass around the armature than to go through brushes to a separate circuit.

My proposal is that the rotor coils are independant pairs, not connected with the others, with only 2 terminals : input AND output.

I agree either single windings or pairs.

Since I suspect the series of the Siemens device (generator) is going to feed the motor part, there certainly the transformer action that I've previously here described above as "irrelevant, just for the record" !!! I might have been wrong in such statement... But I have further tests to conduct now about it (with my 3 posts star wounded motor, that I need to make again first, in order to validate some data that I'm hoping to find, now that I think I know what to look for. Unfortunately, this test will have real magnets, instead of electro-magnets. And as I have only a 3 poles rotor inside the two magnets stator, the two magnets will have to be the same polarity N-N or S-S... with a battery. But the voltmeter will be handy for what I'm looking for...).

But if that shows encouraging, it might be that we would possibly have the stator poles pairs made of a 2 field coils being the sames in each pair (S-S and N-N)... I have to go testing now.

[** I have an idea that some unbalance must exist and alternate..... ** A BIG and small field coils in pair for each 2 pairs is maybe relevant here !!! **]

For a simulation : I checked and doubt that the applet you're advising me can allow a motor schematic... Will see, or figure out something else maybe.

I'll keep here posted.

I think there are differences between what I have done and what you propose. I will help if I can as it is always good to share knowledge so that it does not become lost or hidden in patents.