Overunity Machines

Quote from: Greg GKP on Oct 05, 2024, 12:45 PMHello UFO,
              Here is a link to a youtube video of John Bedini explaining the function of the Lockridge device. It was , self runner, maybe some similar functions in Figuera device.

Hello to All,

Upon request, here is the Topic dedicated to the discussion of the Lockridge Device.

Thanks

Ufopolitics

Hello UFO,
                I understand the Lockridge device is a different design. The thing that stands out in the Bedini video is that when the brushes wore out and the user replaced them with off the shelf brushes it would no longer work.  Bedini explained that  the design of the brush was the key to make the device work.  The off the shelf brush needed to be modified , filed down to make it sit properly on the commutator.

Greg . For better effeciency the main brushes were narrowed down to fit the comm bars. Also if their were blank bars on the commutator the collapse goes back in to the other windings. And would burn up the commutator very quickly.

So my thought is their were two half brushes on one comm bar with insulation between them. Another aspect of the motor was if it wasnt pulsed at the main brushes. Their was another commutator added for pulsing to get the tri coil to work. In that case the brush was to be one commbar wide. If and when it wore down and became wider it wouldnt pulse the tri coil. Because it would connect both sides of the added commutator and wouldnt have the pulsed DC effect.

Hello,

IMHO, I do NOT believe that just by replacing brushes on a given device, whether by "off the shelf" or customized brushes, will prevent from an Overunity Machine to stop, radically working as it was before...

As it could drop in performance, because the angles (if that was the case) were altered to make new brushes contact...

But keep in mind that brushes are set within a Metal HOUSING, where a spring pushes them against commutator bars...it is normal that brushes wear out, as they are "consumables", however, not their Housings, nor their springs, unless spring's metal is "fatigued" because of prolonged heat...then needs replacement.

So, unless whoever was working on replacing the brushes was a RETARDED Moron, as He replaced EVERYTHING, including Housing plus seating plates, NOT considering brush-width or angles ...it should not be the cause.

Thks

Ufopolitics

Hello, here is a link that will take you to more information about the Lockridge Device.


www.rexresearch.com · LockridgeDevice · LockridgeDeviceThe Lockridge Device - Rex Research

 (http://www.rexresearch.com/LockridgeDevice/LockridgeDevice.html)

When you land on this page click on another link at the upper part of the page that has www.plasmashop as part of the link, a pdf will open . The link sits above the cutaway motor.

Hope this helps some who may want to try and replicate it.

Lots of information in that link. BEMF is sort of a governor in a regular motor or generator. Putting a load on a generator the magnetic feild (armature reaction) opposes the forward EMF. Tries to slow it down. Without this the motor side of the generator would increase in speed until self destructing.

The resistance of the light circuit and or generator circuit (tri coil) regulates the rpm. Light circuit and gen circuit all need to be matched to each other inside the case and outside the case. These motors will runn up over 10,000 rpm if you let them. The circuits regulate the speed with their own resistance. And use the armature reaction as an aid in rotation.

I was collecting information about this amazing motor, especially since a WWII veteran with whom I had the fate of working in the same team (auto electricians) told me about a similar self-propelled generator for a German portable radio station. Unfortunately, he did not see the insides of the generator, but he saw a demonstration of its operation in 1945 in Austria.

There is another machine from the 21st century (created in Rostov-on-Don /RF/) in the laboratory of physics professor Kanarev G.F. with the participation of electrical engineer Zatsarinin S.B.

I reprinted the description a long time ago on my website (use a translator to read):

Рекуперационный Мотор-Генератор Канарёв Ф. М - Over Unity Systems - Каталог статей - Free Energy Ukraine (https://ua-hho.do.am/publ/over_unity_systems/motor_generator_kanaryov/4-1-0-12)

The video shows that the motor rotates itself, does work by supplying energy to the electrolyzer and charging the batteries.

(https://ua-hho.do.am/_pu/0/04447266.jpg).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOxbcSxUPnY

@rakarskiy 



I am sorry but that lousy 0:39 second's video does NOT prove absolutely nothing!...then I went into the guy's YT channel...and NOTHING ELSE, related to this motor.

I can make a better video than that...with much smaller battery, running for much longer time.

We can NOT be posting here these type of videos as we write all that motor does WITHOUT the proof on video, proper measurements, etc.

The Lockridge Device was very simple and basic, NO BATTERIES, just a pull on a rear cord attached to a small pulley on shaft, just like starting a small gasoline weed eater.

And one pull and motor start and keeps running at 5000 RPM's...while lighting 300 Watts light bulbs set.


Ufopolitics

I gave an example of a device that is made according to the parametric principle of pulse construction. By the way, experts from the Russian Academy of Sciences came to their laboratory to catch them falsifying data. (This work is already more than 12 years old). As a result, the experts did not find any contradictions to what Professor Kanaryov claimed; naturally, everyone went silent, as is customary in Russia. Recently I explained the principle of operation to one engineer who wanted to build something similar, but did not do so because of the impossibility of using cores from donors of standard motors. The engineer started experimenting with Park Jae-sun's patent, using standard parts from DC and AC motors.
 
Regarding the Kanarev-Zatsarinin motor, their diagrams and descriptions are freely available, we can say that this is a system without magnets with controlled windings on the rotor/anchor and stator. A more complex principle with windings on the rotor and stator than the parametric machine of Peter Lindemann, but the principle itself is general.

(https://ua-hho.do.am/_pu/0/s69869442.jpg)(https://ua-hho.do.am/_pu/0/s97559164.jpg)

(https://ua-hho.do.am/_ph/1/111580414.jpg)

Wind two windings on a cross-shaped core rotor and complete the stator in a circle with two obvious poles. The control is more complex and the winding system must be designed for motor and generator pulses. Get a parametric pulse machine.

Here is the first Kanarev-Zatsarinin engine, all they needed was a presentation and not evidence for YouTube viewers or movie theater viewers chewing pop-food.

UFO  The residual magnetisim has a lot to do with getting this MGD  ( Motor Generator Device) up and running from a stationary point. It increases as the rpm increases.

There is a lot of speculation that this device did run at 5000 rpms. Maybe it did. From what i found out was that the Tri coil is pulsed too fast for it too work at that speed. There is not much transformer effect for it to work properly.

Running too fast it all motor. The brush positions designate this. Same the other way it can generate but no speed.

Other than the motor coils. The other 2 feild coils need to be matched to the lights or the tri coil primary. Same with the other winding on the tri coil. It will either speed up or slow down. If it speed up lights dim. Slow down lights get brighter.

Just some things I have found out experimenting with this unit.

Hello All,

There was a while I wanted to post here, but I have been very busy...
Now I have a bit of a time...so here is my opinion related to the Lockridge Device.

First, I watched the whole Bedini's Video...and being very honest and blunt, besides admiring RIP John Bedini...and with all my due respect, in my opinion, his analysis and all working around of this device, were not done right and not deep enough in detail.
First thing we need to do is analyze the way Stators are distributed, which is what is completely different of any conventional Universal Motor that I have ever seen or Generator...


1-Green Line defines the two cut slots on outer housing, which are at 180º
2- Red V Lines define Angle between LARGER Stators, and goes from center of Housing to each Large Core.
3- Yellow V Lines define SMALLER Stator Coils Angle from center to each center of stators core.

Second, the way the Brushes are set, also, completely off, the way they normally work on any DC Universal Motor OR Generator.
1- Two Brushes are almost touching each other's, very close...after we spread the spring brackets all the way back.
2- Other Two Brushes are set at a wider Angle, however, not symmetrically set, related to Machine center housing or Stators.


The Armature (apparently, as they have said, had no modification), but just by "looking at it" it only falls into a "wild guess".
It required to be measured from different angles on commutator, more likely, the same angles that brushes are set on device...then powering armature and reading Fields Spreading limits.

Last thing would be to assemble motor and armature and try different points of powering armature using different combinations between all four brushes of Input the Positive and Negative terminals.
Finally, this is a completely Asymmetrical Machine, based on the way stators and brushes are aligned and forced to be set...as many diagrams should have been drawn related to Brush settings related to Stators and using different angles.

It requires enormous amount of work to first start by taking into an animated CAD basically the Stators, Armature and Brushes...the way is set...this is the more important part, IMHO.
Then later it comes all the outer components (peripherals), like the Inductor and the capacitor and lamps...

I believe that all this unusual and completely different components layout and structure, is where the mystery of replicating this machine successfully is centered at.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello again,
Now, here I will upload Four Videos of an Asymmetric Motor I designed and built (on My Asymmetric Electrodynamic Machines, on Energetic Forum) about 12 to 11 years ago...




However, this are based on Permanent Magnets on Stators...unfortunately, I never tried using Wound Stator Coils and Cores...my bad...but looking at the Lockridge, I have many new ideas of how this machine could have worked...

On these Videos I just put them here as reference...to -whenever I am done with Figuera Linear Tests- I will make a much deeper analysis about the Lockridge Device.

I believe this Machine (the Lockridge Device) is really fascinating...

My Design, outputs higher voltage than Input (DC)...however, there is some decay on amperage at output related to input...
However, all stators are Symmetrically aligned as are Brushes very different from Lockridge Device

And again, I have never seen any motor or generator that stators and brushes are set as this German machine was built.

Regards

Ufopolitics

1-Green Line defines the two cut slots on outer housing, which are at 180º
2- Red V Lines define Angle between smaller Stators, and goes from center of Housing to each Large Core.
3- Yellow V Lines define Larger Stator Coils Angle from center to each center of stators core.

Hello
I see positions 2 and 3 reversed because the stators are larger on the red line and vice versa for the yellow line
is this correct?

Quote from: bigeasy on Nov 10, 2024, 04:38 AM1-Green Line defines the two cut slots on outer housing, which are at 180º
2- Red V Lines define Angle between smaller Stators, and goes from center of Housing to each Large Core.
3- Yellow V Lines define Larger Stator Coils Angle from center to each center of stators core.

Hello
I see positions 2 and 3 reversed because the stators are larger on the red line and vice versa for the yellow line
is this correct?

Hello big easy,
Yes, you are correct, my fault, a typo...
Ufopolitics 

Hello All,

Here is an extended version (same video) but it allows a very good close up of brushes assembly, mounted on Housing.

Energy From The Vacuum : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/energy-from-the-vacuum/Energy+From+The+Vacuum/Energy+From+The+Vacuum+14+-+Lockridge+Device+-+Tom+Bearden+John+Bedini.avi)

And like I have written before, there are many WRONG descriptions from RIP John Bedini on that video...and I really hate to do this!!, because I loved John and all his work...but for sake of understanding without any wrong concept for everyone, it is better to Explain everything correctly, from an Engineering point of view, basically having the expertise on Motors-Generators required to do so.

1- My disagreement starts with the First drawing that Bedini makes on the Green Board:


This is a COMPLETELY WRONG start!!

And is only on PDF that Peter Lindemann wrote ( Cover Page (https://www.plasmashop.at/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ElectricMotorSecrets2-Lindemann.pdf) ), where we can see that clear image (IS NOT ON VIDEO):


As this Particular GEOMETRY is what OPENLY differentiates the Lockridge Device from any other SYMMETRICAL Motor EVER BUILT!!

2- Second are the Brushes INSTALLATION and SETTING, related to the Asymmetrical Stators Position...We can see clearly, that ALL Four Brushes are ASYMMETRICALLY SET!!

As it is understood, that IF Stators are Asymmetrically set, Brushes MUST BE ALSO, asymmetrically set!!


Later on, I will upload here a CAD reproduction of this brushes image, where I could "tilt" and get brushes to seat, where they go when we set them ALL Back, to meet Armature Commutator.

Now, for those who are not familiar, how Brushes are set, and work, related to the Magnetic Field on Stators, on a SIMPLE, 2 Brush, 2 Stator Motor, please, I HIGHLY recommend reviewing my Topic:

The TORSION FIELD & EFFECTS (https://overunitymachines.com/index.php/topic,64.0/topicseen.html)

This Topic contains a PRECIOUS LEARNING TOOL, (referring to a "VIRTUAL LEARNING TOOL") that will help you all a LOT, to understand how Brushed Motors work...And this knowledge is NOT TAUGHT on ANY UNIVERSITY or Engineering School anywhere in the World!!

However, John Bedini keeps insisting that because the brushes were not replaced and/or filed properly, they will cause Machine not to work...Then he keeps showing that Brush width is EXACTLY the size of a Commutator Bar...Yes, we saw that...

HOWEVER, it is completely NOT RELEVANT!!...NOT for the Machine to completely STOP giving OU Results...Yes, I agree that it could cause some DECAY in PERFORMANCE, and THAT IS IT!!

And basically, related to this Machine, we have exactly TWO BRUSHES, (On the BOTTOM of above Image) which are "Literally" almost "RUBBING" each other, because being SO CLOSE.

Therefore, YES, I AGREE, that these TWO Brushes need to be FILED like He has shown on video, to prevent from touching when riding on top of the Commutator.

Now, is we look at the image above, and just in our minds, we rotate these FOUR Brushes BACKWARDS, we will have EXACTLY A "Y" Arrangement, given the bottom of Y is where the two brushes are.

Like I wrote before, I will make a CAD Drawing, taking brushes backwards...

EDIT  1: Unfortunately, as John Bedini firmly said on that video...that He will NOT release that Notebook Images and writings, until they get a "Workable Machine"...that never took place...and now all those precious notes, plus the only existing replication of that Machine...is gone.

And honestly, from the Approach that Bedini has shown on that video...He will NEVER, would have get it to work as an OU Machine!
I have not watched the Lindemann explanation (Secrets of Electric Motors Part 2, I believe), however, I have read on that PDF linked above, that He goes through the BACK EMF road...which is also, kind of wrong.

Regards

Ufopolitics

UFO. You put out a lot of good information here. From still shots from the JB dvd. The slots arent quite 180 degrees across from each other. One of the motor coils rest next to this slot. The one at the top of the inside of the machine you posted. I believe this could be for more generation. It changes the angle of flux thru the armature.

As far as the brushes 2 are for motoring, those are about 180 degrees across, The one on the right by it self is none other than a third brush. Like in the older third brush generators connected to one of the other 2 coils compensating or generating coils or connected in series with the bigger feild coil thru the pulse unit and on to the tri coil. Bothe these other coils aid in rotation to a certain rpm. If it runs too fast the generation side lowers it output. These coils use the armature reaction to aid in rotation. Thats why they are in the position in.

In my opinion Jb was talking about two different machines One for 300 watts house hold bulbs. One that was reverse engineered and sold to campers He pretty much said so by saying that head lights give off a lot of light.

Yes a very intriguing machine. SO simple in structure. Yet complicated to comprehend how all the parts work together.

Even the pole shoe width and diameter of the pole shoe are critical in this device.

You did a very good job of putting this info up Thanks. Hiwater.

Quote from: hiwater on Nov 10, 2024, 11:00 AMUFO. You put out a lot of good information here. From still shots from the JB dvd.

Thks Hiwater, my pleasure

Quote from: hiwater on Nov 10, 2024, 11:00 AMThe slots arent quite 180 degrees across from each other. One of the motor coils rest next to this slot. The one at the top of the inside of the machine you posted. I believe this could be for more generation. It changes the angle of flux thru the armature.

Yes, but not much away from 180, maybe 178º or 175º?...it is really not a big deal...maybe bad machining...or maybe the Stator was set closer than the other...again, bad machining.

Quote from: hiwater on Nov 10, 2024, 11:00 AMAs far as the brushes 2 are for motoring, those are about 180 degrees across

I am sorry, but I disagree...All Four (4) Brushes configure a "Y"...where bottom brushes are set next to each other, No brushes ever meet the straight linear 180 degrees.

Quote from: hiwater on Nov 10, 2024, 11:00 AMThe one on the right by it self is none other than a third brush. Like in the older third brush generators connected to one of the other 2 coils compensating or generating coils or connected in series with the bigger feild coil thru the pulse unit and on to the tri coil. Bothe these other coils aid in rotation to a certain rpm. If it runs too fast the generation side lowers it output. These coils use the armature reaction to aid in rotation. Thats why they are in the position in.

Sorry, disagree again, wrong approach again...You need Two Brushes for Motor, yes, but you also need other Two for Generation. There is not a "third brush here"...it is 2=Motor, 2=Generator.

Quote from: hiwater on Nov 10, 2024, 11:00 AMIn my opinion Jb was talking about two different machines One for 300 watts house hold bulbs. One that was reverse engineered and sold to campers He pretty much said so by saying that head lights give off a lot of light.

Only one machine was recuperated from a Lockridge replication, then at the end of video he just pulls "off the shelf" another Dynamo from the same generation, just to compare Brushes width with Lockridge Device brush.

Quote from: hiwater on Nov 10, 2024, 11:00 AMYes a very intriguing machine. SO simple in structure. Yet complicated to comprehend how all the parts work together.

Even the pole shoe width and diameter of the pole shoe are critical in this device.

You did a very good job of putting this info up Thanks. Hiwater.

Thanks Hiwater

Ufopolitics

UFO...Yes 2 brushes  are generator brushes. What baffeles me is that one side of the armature is positive side the other side where the positive power comes in is negative side of the armature. More voltage on the positive side. closer to the positive brush the more voltage.

Where it shows the 2 brushes close together. The one on the left could be a positive motor brush and the 2 other brushes on the right side of that could be generator brushes.

I like your ideas keeps one thinking. Thanks.

Hello All,

Ok, like I have promised, here is the CAD over the Video Image...where I have recreated CAD Brushes and Pivot Brackets as rotating them, exactly from its rotating pins (red line cross).

And this is what we have:


Now, this is the REAL WAY Brushes are set, related to Commutator (Dark-Yellow Circle)
I have named A, B, C, D Brushes...and between brushes A and B, is where this space is left (gap), as when we see it from the other side:


What is left now (regarding to 2D CAD from real images), is to add all four Stators, related to Brushes...on the same drawing.

We will actually need a full 3D CAD, of this whole assembly, in order to have different views and then match them with the real images we have.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

Ok, so here is just the CAD without image on background...


On this drawing I have set all Stators according to images we all have seen on video, I was not only based on one single image, but multiple ones, at different views, which give me an approx. distance, angles as looking at it as a whole.

I have named S1, S2 as the smaller Stators with Coils in copper.

As larger Stators as S3, S4...with Coils windings in green.

Since we are seeing the whole Motor Assembly together, I will give you my opinion.

1-Stators S2, S3 and S4 look like they are set at their original positioning, approximately at 90º between them, as Factory OEM settings.
2-The Smaller Stators (S1 - S2) are the ones that have been modified.

According to all the views we have available, it seems ALL Stators Steel Cores have the same HEIGHT, and only on the smaller Stators they have cut the upper steel that is closer to the Armature, as well as their coils seems much smaller than Green Coils on S3 and S4.

Now, according to brushes and stators positioning...there are quite a few possibilities for connections of Motor INPUT Positive-Negative. We need to do this (on CAD FIRST) in order to set our magnetic polarities, and get motor to run.

And here, again, I will render my opinion:

1- We need to DISCARD the Positive-Negative INPUT to Brushes B & C...Why?

1a- Because they are too close, and so, these two brushes would be shorting out the Armature windings with MUCH LESSER Coils at that section of Armature that are included between B & C.
1b- And because of the above, the common sense calls for not doing it...because of such Strong and NARROW Field.

HOWEVER, I DO NOT want to LEAVE this TESTING option OUT...and it depends on Armature resistance between these two points (B & C)...as Input would be around 12V.

There would be a lot of sparking, but for a VERY SHORT TIME Period for each Armature Coil Segment....So, it could be...also because ALL the rest of Armature would be generating an Output.
As it could also be, that these two brushes are connected in SERIES with the Outer Inductor, that way it will add resistance to this circuit.

Therefore, common sense calls for these two brushes (B&C) to be fed by same Electric Polarization, either two Positives or two Negatives.

When we do that (same electric input) on two close brushes...we are NOT generating any Field in between them, zero.

2- Now that we have set the same electric polarity to lower (B & C) then we can apply the opposite electric polarity to EITHER A or D.

For example, if we connect Negative on B, then Positive on A, then we will get a Magnetic Pole generated between A-B ANGLE, and this would be the lesser resistance path, hence a stronger Field. While the other BACK path offers more resistance then results in a weaker Field.
For Motor interaction we need to seek for closer Stator Poles, and we have the "gap" in between S1-S4...

As we could also apply the same method, but between Negative on C and Positive on D...

Anyways, there are a few possibilities to test here to get Motor running, by just connecting Two Brush Terminals, one Positive and other Negative DC.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello again,

Lastly, in an overall concept of how this Lockridge Device Machine, I believe it could work...

This is a completely Asymmetrical System, however, it differs from my Asymmetric Machines, simply because the part where the asymmetry was set on mine, was on the Armature, NOT on Stators positioning or size.

This Lockridge Device is connected to Two Capacitors, one is Electric (explained on video and made of copper sheets wrapped in between with Butcher Wax Paper) and the other is a "Magnetic Capacitor" or as we all know it...an "Inductor".

There is no "magnetic reminiscence" here to start generator output, BUT there is the Electric Cap, that connected in Parallel with Output Circuit, (Tank Circuit) will retain some current flowing.

Same as Motor, I believe by being connected with an Inductor of the kind shown, it would be able -by a fast spin- to start sparks on commutator.

As Both Circuits, Motor and Generator also interconnect between them...to keep motor running.

Also, this System needs a Load (the Lamps)...in order to close the generator circuit, and generate a field within, which will also assist on motor rotation.

Anyways, this is just my opinion...as all this needs further work, first, more theoretical, then on a real machine.
As I believe it could be done.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hi Ufo,

I have been following this thread with some interest.  I do like your analysis.  However in your last post  you made a statement I have to respectfully disagree with.  You stated there was no magnetic reminiscence to start generator output.  If a generator has been run before and had output then the steel core will retain some magnetic reminiscence..  In fact back in the days when generators were common on autos.before most of you were born generators had to be " flashed'  before they would start charging.  Depending on whether the  auto was positive or negative ground the proper voltage was applied to the field windings to magnetize them enough to get the generator to start charging.  You could in fact use the same generator for either positive ground or negative ground vehicles depending on what polarity you used to flash the field windings.

Respectfully,
Carroll

Quote from: citfta on Nov 10, 2024, 08:41 PMHi Ufo,

I have been following this thread with some interest.  I do like your analysis.  However in your last post  you made a statement I have to respectfully disagree with.  You stated there was no magnetic reminiscence to start generator output.  If a generator has been run before and had output then the steel core will retain some magnetic reminiscence..  In fact back in the days when generators were common on autos.before most of you were born generators had to be " flashed'  before they would start charging.  Depending on whether the  auto was positive or negative ground the proper voltage was applied to the field windings to magnetize them enough to get the generator to start charging.  You could in fact use the same generator for either positive ground or negative ground vehicles depending on what polarity you used to flash the field windings.

Respectfully,
Carroll

Hello Citfta,

Thanks for your comment, mostly appreciated, as always welcome!!
Yes, also agree 100% with your opinion.
I was specifically referring to a small magnet mounted on armature, like newer generators have.
But yes, definitively the steel on armature always maintain magnetic reminiscence as I believe also the stators as well.

Regards

Ufopolitics 

Hello, friends!

I will express my thoughts a little about the possible solution of the German engineer in the generator (Lockridge). The main thing is that the researchers never managed to get a working model, and Bedini only expressed a version of a possible principle, but never launched the generator or did not give public information about this launch. This is a fact and start from it. In my practice, I have also seen DC generators and relay voltage regulators on cars. In the 40s of the last century, the simplest DC generators were mainly used, where there were two excitation coils and one pair of brushes.
(https://ua-hho.do.am/_fr/0/6569025.jpg)
(https://ua-hho.do.am/_fr/0/8526750.jpg)


In the photo (Lockridge) we see that the two coils on the stator have a different wire cross-section. There is also a high probability that they were added to the design as an addition or something was changed (shift relative to the cross-shaped arrangement, as in generators with four coils), probably had a purpose.
Secondly, the anchor that is described had no design changes (we do not know what was in reality).

The main thing is that the device had elements of both a motor and a DC generator, closed in series, and the load was connected in parallel to both the generator and the motor. which worked in self-propelled mode. Increasing the winding on some coils increases both the resistance and the number of turns, which entails an increase in the magnetic induction that the coil forms. Probably the solution should be very simple and ingenious.

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Nov 10, 2024, 07:16 PMHello again,

Lastly, in an overall concept of how this Lockridge Device Machine, I believe it could work...

This is a completely Asymmetrical System, however, it differs from my Asymmetric Machines, simply because the part where the asymmetry was set on mine, was on the Armature, NOT on Stators positioning or size.

This Lockridge Device is connected to Two Capacitors, one is Electric (explained on video and made of copper sheets wrapped in between with Butcher Wax Paper) and the other is a "Magnetic Capacitor" or as we all know it...an "Inductor".

There is no "magnetic reminiscence" here to start generator output, BUT there is the Electric Cap, that connected in Parallel with Output Circuit, (Tank Circuit) will retain some current flowing.

Same as Motor, I believe by being connected with an Inductor of the kind shown, it would be able -by a fast spin- to start sparks on commutator.

As Both Circuits, Motor and Generator also interconnect between them...to keep motor running.

Also, this System needs a Load (the Lamps)...in order to close the generator circuit, and generate a field within, which will also assist on motor rotation.

Anyways, this is just my opinion...as all this needs further work, first, more theoretical, then on a real machine.
As I believe it could be done.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello again UFO. Lots of information brought forth here.I like what you have proposed hers. I can say that the coil position of S2 does aid in rotation with the right resistance of the coil it self with the right resistance of the load. That coil position in the area of the armature where the flux changes direction I believe. What ever it is it does aid in rotation. Now S4 coil may need to be moved forwards or backwards (with rotation or against rotation) to get the right area of the armature so it wont slow the armature down. This depends on which way the motor is originally rotating.

Hello All,

Ok, now after going over the video I have found some more details that will give us more information...

For example, ALL the Brushes have adjustment settings to change their angles of Interaction with Commutator, by running within a slot, cut on the outer housing.

By adjusting the Brushes, we can:
1_ Have the Motoring side to either accelerate or reduce speed.
2- While on the Generator side we can adjust the Induction Output to increase or decrease.

Now let's see images:


On image above, we have a view of Brushes B and C, which are the lower ones that are closer to each other's. (I will get below the Front Brushes View again)
Now, on this image is a bit more of info...
Notice the MINUS SIGN (Negative) marking on the Bakelite Block?...as well as on the yellow masking tape?
Then notice that Brush C does not have any connecting nuts, just the tightening nut...so, it could be connected through an inner jump to Brush B, and by doing this we extend the Negative Input and able to regulate the Right-Side Field on Armature.




And on above image, we can see a Positive Sign written on Bakelite block on Brush A (I trust more these writings than the ones just written on a piece of yellow masking tape) as we can also see it on yellow tape.
As this Brush also have the sliding-adjusting cut slot.




On above image we see Brush D...and this image ALSO have a PLUS SIGN (+) and a Letter "G"...

This Brush D also have an Adjustable sliding cut slot.

On the lower side of image we can see also Brush C, as all the room it have to slide it more to the right (looking at Dynamo from the front, like shown on image below)


The above image is all Four Brushes (Front View)...the Rear View would be on the drive shaft Pulley goes...

Ok, after knowing all this "new info" that I have provided on this post...now I can tell you I was correct on my previous post, where I gave you all possibilities...

But definitively, the Motor Brushes are A & B...exactly the side where that gap between Stators S1 - S4 have been forced.

Now, when adding negative on B as Positive on A, we generate A Magnetic Pole (ONE) in between these two brushes ANGLE.


And in order for Motor to spin CCW the Magnetic Field on Stator S4 MUST BE of the SAME POLARITY generated between A-B Angle, so, it can make a REPULSION.
while S1 MUST BE OF OPPOSITE POLARITY, to generate an ATTRACTION.

Motor can also run CW if S4 Field Polarization is OPPOSITE, as S1 is "pushing" (Assisting Rotation) by being of the SAME POLARITY as Armature Field Pole between Brushes A-B.

Tomorrow I will make a Graphic CAD to show these two possibilities (CW & CCW) on Polarization of Fields...

However, must here know that the simplest way to change rotation sense...is by switching either Brush input polarity, or on the two Stators S1 and S4...However, we need to know which rotation will benefit more the Generator Output.

Regards

Ufopolitics

@rakarskiy 

I have moved ALL Posts to your Generator Topic, as I have left the one about the Lockridge Device, BUT, I removed the last part of post, where you kept on repeating that closed grooves do not induced emf.
Now, we can keep that discussion there...or kill it.

I, particularly, do NOT have the time now to keep arguing about it...as I have already expressed my opinion, and I believe it is the same opinion as @citfta has.

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

Ok, like I have written yesterday, here are the Two Possibilities of Motor Rotation (CCW & CW), without changing the previous Brushes Electrical Connections, but just the Stators terminals.



And here please note we are leaving Brush A (+), and Brush B (-) like I have written on previous post.
Angle formed by these two brushes is where the North Pole is on Armature (I am just referencing it as North=Blue for explanations, but it also could be South=Red, then Stators would be opposite polarity than shown, still same rotation CCW)...

A Note here: All these North & South concepts are relative, as it depends on the way we arrange them to obtain same results.

So, the Stator S4 being NORTH, this will cause Armature to spin CCW by REPULSION, as also by S1 being SOUTH it will assist by ATTRACTING Armature North Pole.
I am also showing Bisector to Armature Angle with the center Blue Line with arrow. And this Bisector means the CENTER ALIGNMENT that Armature is "seeking" to ALIGN with the Center of S1, or SOUTH Pole Stator.
And this is the way Brushed Motors work based on my Method to Teach them. This Armature Pole Configuration will NEVER move from where it is at...just ALL COILS will keep rotating along with the steel mass of the Armature...So, Bisector line will never move from its positioning, unless we move brushes and Modify Interaction Angle.

On the other side (180º) of this Armature North Projecting Angle is going to be a WIDER SOUTH POLE, and as you can notice, it involves more coils then, more resistance, therefore, this Field Pole is weaker than North Blue Angle-Pole. Which is great (my opinion) because the Armature will also get induced ON THAT SIDE by its rotation around Stators S2 & S3...

Now, depending on the Magnetic Polarization of Stators S2 & S3 (Generator side) they will "Assist to Rotation" or "Oppose to Rotation"...once we connect a Load (Lamps)...

For example, if Stator S3 -once loaded- would become with a more Tendency to a South Pole...it will OPPOSE Rotation R, because the Red Bisector Angle is PASSED below Stator Bisector Angle (shown at stator center with a dotted black line).
However, IF we also make Stator S2 South, then the Magnetic Bisector will be located exactly between BOTH Stators S2 & S3, then they will ASSIST on Rotation CCW. 
BUT the above option, BOTH Stators (S2 & S3) being South, will weaken the Induction Force on Armature, simply because there would not be strong lines of force formed between both stators.

The other option would be that S3 turns North (moving its Bisector Angle right in between both North Stators S4 & S3, as we leave S2 as South, moving South Stators Bisector in between S1 & S2...It will also help on the Rotation.
Then I believe the above option is the best scenario for Generators Stators S2 & S3.



On above image we have the Motor spinning CW, and as you can notice, the Brushes are being fed exactly the same way that on previous image.

Only thing I have done is to REVERSE the Stators Electrical Connections. So, now S4 is Red=South while S1 is Blue=North...
And this different Magnetic Polarization will cause Armature to rotate CW...Since North Bisector would be seeking and alignment -BY ATTRACTION- with center of S4 South, while being REPULSED (Assisted) by S1 being North now....

Now, on the Generator Stators analysis for this Rotation, I believe the best assisting option would be for S2 becoming North and S3 South.

This type of Development, requires that we FIRST, start on the Motor side...getting it running in optimal conditions, with just the two stators S1 & S4 ON...in series with brushes...then see what we read on other side brushes and Stators...their Magnetic Orientation, etc. etc...and according to that, then we leave it as is, or reverse terminals on generator side stators, watching that motor rotation does not decay by our changes, but instead it increases in speed and torque.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

Ok, so as I previously posted before, relating the best options for Stators S2 & S3 for Motor Assistance on the two Rotation Directions (CCW & CW):

QuoteThe other option would be that S3 turns North (moving its Bisector Angle right in between both North Stators S4 & S3, as we leave S2 as South, moving South Stators Bisector in between S1 & S2...It will also help on the Rotation.
Then I believe the above option is the best scenario for Generators Stators S2 & S3.

And...

Quoteon the Generator Stators analysis for this CW Rotation, I believe the best assisting option -for Motor Rotation- would be for S2 becoming North and S3 South.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello to All,

Ok, so this post is to inform you that I already have a way to make this machine to run as the original Lockridge Device ran...

Forget -for now- about the Capacitor and the Inductor...we first need to run the Motor and then measure the Generator Output plus Under LOAD...with around 300 Watts Lamps.

In order to make the proper brushes adjustments.


NOW, there are two types of these old automotive dynamos...one with "open case" an opening on frame housing where brushes are set>>NOT GOOD for our purpose.

Other one with ALL CLOSED STEEL CASING/HOUSING...and this one is the one we need!!...so we can make the adjustment slots for brushes.>>Good for this!!


Second, there were TWO Types of Armatures, related to their winding's configuration...and I will show images of the difference tomorrow or whenever I get a chance...

But you can look at the one (Armature) on Bedini's video...it has a Thick-heavy & coarse single wire wound that it "jumps" every other commutator bar...

While other Armature have these wires connected side by side in ALL Commutator Elements, not jumping.

Remember these armatures were wound with finer wire...as Stators were heavier.

Nevertheless, lastly, We can wind our own specific Armature, which meets the spec's that we need here...

Point is that brushes were thin out with a specific purpose...and that was basically on the Generator side, to distinguish between Generator Windings (coarse) and Motor windings.

And yes, we can have DUAL windings on the same Armature, one winding for motor (fine wire) while a very coarse wire for the Induced Generating wire...

Regards everyone!!

Ufopolitics

Hello again to anyone following this thread.  

       Ufo I so far have not seen anything you have posted that I disagree with.  I would like to add some thoughts to your analysis if you don't mind.  I will also explain a little of the terminology about motors for those following that may not be as familiar with motors as you and I are.

       In a normal shunt wound DC motor the field windings are not connected in series with the armature windings.  In the normal use of industrial DC motors the field coils ( windings) are independently controlled.  At normal start up the field coils will have full current flowing through them.  This gives the strongest reaction between the armature and the field coils.  With larger DC motors it only takes a few volts to cause the armature to rotate even under pretty heavy loads.  I have seen large 15 HP or so motors moving objects that weigh several tons while the armature was turning so slowly you could easily count the revolutions by eye.
     
     The field coils control the torque of the motor!  Now when you increase the voltage on the armature the armature will speed up until the generated back EMF in the armature almost reaches the same value as the applied voltage minus the load and friction losses.  The back EMF is of course being generated because the armature coils are moving past the field coils.

      When we reach the max voltage of our supply for the armature you would think that that is as fast as we can make the motor go.  BUT, it's not!  If we then start to reduce the field current the armature will go even faster!  WHY?  Because the reduced field current has caused a reduction in the generated back EMF in the armature.  So the armature speeds up until the back EMF again gets close to the applied voltage.

      What we also have to remember is that the armature current is controlled by two things.  The strength of the field coils and the speed of the armature.  If we were to remove the field coil current completely then the armature current would go very high and if there is any residual magnetic field left for it to act against the armature would speed up until it flew apart.  For this reason industrial motor controls for DC motors have a lot of safety features built in that don't allow armature voltage to be applied unless there is full field power.  They also don't allow the field strength to be weakened unless the motor is at normal full speed.

      Could this field weakening principle be part of the secret of how the Lockridge Device works?  If you were to weaken the field strength on the motor side the motor would speed up but have less torque.  If the load went through the field coils on the generator side then the generator would put out more current.  If that current had the proper polarity to increase the torque on the armature then we should have a self runner.

      Some food for thought.

Respectfully,
Carroll

@citfta
Excellent Post, Carroll, very, very useful!!
Thans so much!
@All,
Citfta's post contains A LOT of great info about this Device...

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

On this post I want to show specific details about the type of armature that was used on the Lockridge Device...and yes, there was a specific property of this armature, and they were not all the same type.

The Specific Armature used on the Lockridge Device had a coarse wire WOUND ON TOP of the regular windings (which were done with much finer wire and several turns)...

However, this thicker wire winding was NOT hooked on commutator elements "one after the other"...BUT instead, wires were attached to commutator bars ALTERNATIVELY.


And after I have searched around, I found there were "Two Types":

1- The Armature that had Alternated thicker wires on Commutator.

2- The Armature having continuous thicker wires on each commutator bar (not alternated) And it is shown on the last image.

Therefore, these Dynamo's Armatures had Two sets of Windings, one with finer wire and the second or END Layer was made with a thicker wire.

The Armature of the Lockridge Device (taken apart) shown on Bedini's Movie had the Alternated Thicker windings on its last layer...as the Commutator had 28 Bars:


So, that means that thicker wires winding was set on a total of 14 commutator bars, alternatively.

Obviously, this thicker wire will reduce resistance to main winding done with finer wire and including all bars on commutator, it is like a parallel circuit where one side have more resistance (more turns, finer wire) as the other one is closer to a short circuit, with less turns thicker wire.

And as Motor and Generator Brushes ride on this commutator there would be fluctuations between Hi-Lo Resistance resulting in Hi-Lo Currents for both circuits.



So, on image above I have the Motor Brushes as A & B, and Generator Brushes as C & D.
If You noticed, I have set Motor Brushes Contacts "alternated" related to Generator Brushes, in order that when Generator is outputting from the thicker wires circuit, then Motor is on the other (finer wires) circuit.
And of course, this will be changing positioning (Alternating) as commutator rotates...

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hmmm.
      I wonder if that type of armature is what is used on the starter / generators that were at one time used on Kohler engines that were in the old Cub Cadet mowers?  I never took the time to closely look at the armature of one of those motor / generators.
      For those not familiar with what I am talking about,  the old Kohler engines did not have a conventional starter.  Power was supplied to the motor / generator and it turned over the  engine using the drive belt that connected it to the engine.
      And that same system is still used on EZ-GO golf carts.  The kind where you just step down on the throttle pedal and that starts the engine turning over.  As you move the pedal just a little further the ignition comes on and the engine starts.  When you let your foot completely off the pedal the engine stops until you push the pedal down again.  The motor / generator keeps switching from a starter to a generator each time you start the engine.  There are probably plenty of those starters still around.
    Just thinking out loud again.

Carroll

Quote from: citfta on Nov 13, 2024, 03:39 PMHmmm.
      I wonder if that type of armature is what is used on the starter / generators that were at one time used on Kohler engines that were in the old Cub Cadet mowers?  I never took the time to closely look at the armature of one of those motor / generators.
      For those not familiar with what I am talking about,  the old Kohler engines did not have a conventional starter.  Power was supplied to the motor / generator and it turned over the  engine using the drive belt that connected it to the engine.
      And that same system is still used on EZ-GO golf carts.  The kind where you just step down on the throttle pedal and that starts the engine turning over.  As you move the pedal just a little further the ignition comes on and the engine starts.  When you let your foot completely off the pedal the engine stops until you push the pedal down again.  The motor / generator keeps switching from a starter to a generator each time you start the engine.  There are probably plenty of those starters still around.
    Just thinking out loud again.

Carroll

Hello Citfta,

That was EXACTLY what I was looking for...a Motor Dynamo from a Golf gasoline golf cart...yes, EZ-GO as Club Car, Yamaha...makes them...

Here is a Club Car type...it has Four Fields, Four Brushes, and run on 12V...


I have been looking for the Delco-Remy...first they are all 2 field 2 brushes, what I have been able to see...then you will need TWO, to get parts from one...however, they must be the same type...

This choice of this Dynamo-Motor I believe is the best, and cheaper way to make tests...however, I have not seen what their armature looks like...

Plus parts are available for them...bearings, brushes, etc.

Regards

Ufopolitics

I did some research online and it appears the newer starter/ generators do NOT have the larger wire on every other segment like the one in the video.  I may have an older one from the old Kohler engines but I will have to do some looking for it.  I'll let you know what I find.

Carroll

Hello Citfta,

Ok, so this is what the Armature looks like...


It is "sealed"...resin epoxied...

But notice it does not have "grooves"...so, it should work, according to our friend...LOL

Take care

Ufopolitics

I did a search on eBay for starter generator armature and look what I found.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/286048862433?_skw=starter+generator+armature&itmmeta=01JCKW5SQDV09VVV8DXTS3NTHC&hash=item4299d740e1:g:u6QAAOSwgalm21eF&itmprp=enc%3AAQAJAAAA4HoV3kP08IDx%2BKZ9MfhVJKk7aG7JjOsKj2UZ3%2F2snNzXJi3Hs4GnzKPO7CqnqBbBabVFHR2Ar6t4AfHxR97vaVk%2BMIr1ICu7h5kLztOlnlx8%2BS5DXaWfwOLOi1%2BJMQsozvjIC2VsiNYWZUDdSQMOPZaf6hd3VGMVKWYNZhypJjQMzoSPcFdrfUiXsisyzIWoO0VOm4veUlqAvBwvOIcc3jiv4IpadJOYFfAZrdeeBpyfF09avKiiztHhFggxgtmaWC9SKkjiQo29glkTFetFoctxiPvxPFIPHHZhXvrWnnCw%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR-abl_zkZA

Look  carefully at the commutator.

Carroll

Hello Citfta,

Yes, that's for a Kohler Starter Generator, remanufactured...it does have the alternated windings on Commutator, but I do not see any fine wire though...
And there is another back view.


What I really can not understand is...What is the point of leaving one comm bar off?

Because IF bars would be jumped, that's understood...but leaving it "blank"?

Unless Brushes cover 2 or more comm bars...

Btw, I already made up my mind on which Dynamo to get...

I will post it next...

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

I purchased Two of these FORD's Dynamos...from 1949 to 1950's...They have only Two Fields and Two Brushes...so, we need two, and getting one for "parts".

They were purchased from different owners...and shipment by Ground...so, maybe by end of Nov. or mid of December.


However, they are 7V and 35 Amps...not 12V...But, remember the Original German Device that were taken from Germany was made from a VW BOSCH, 6V...

I love its frame, it has already the four adjusting slots made for brushes...completely closed.

Plus, both are spinning freely, no heavy rust...and Field Bolts are not stripped...FORD uses a "square" key to remove them.

All the GM Delco-Remy I saw...are mostly open casing, big openings...and in bad rusted shape, I mean for a "reasonable" price...not paying $400.00 for a reman one...

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello again...

As many of you know, I designed and build a while back the Asymmetric Motors Generators...However, they were PM on stators, as their armature was done by separated coils (not in series).

On this Lockridge Device, I can see a definite way to make it work...and that is to have on the same Armature Two Windings, one with fine wire, say 22 or 23 gauge, and another one with 16-18 gauge.

We wind armature with the two spools of wire, in order that have same number of turns...

But that is not all...it needs Two Commutators, one for Motor and the other for the generation of power. Of course, the 18 gauge would be generating, and the 22-23 would be motor.

So, there would be two brush "levels"...and two brushes per level. Two for Motor and Two for Generator.

This way we will have completely separated the Motor from Generator Circuits...electrically though. As both windings will get induced, but the higher resistance less currents than coarser one.

My Asymmetric Motors had two commutators...and eight brushes...so, this one would be much easier to make.

Problem is to see if shaft allows room for two commutators...and there is room on housing, without the need to extend the casing...which could also be done...but then it gets more complicated.

There are Fan Motors pancake style that already come from factory with a "two commutator set", but one is smaller in diameter that the lower one...and it is used for different speeds.

But this is a small motor, flat...not good for this project. I just cited as an example that it could be done.

Regards

Ufopolitics

There was a company by the name of Fabco Power who were manufacturing belt driven generators like you describe with the armature wound in that particular way. I did call them at that time and asked if it had a commutator and slip rings in side the case. Been a long time ago. I believe they said it did. Some info in case you want to check it out further.

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Nov 12, 2024, 03:44 PMBut you can look at the one (Armature) on Bedini's video...it has a Thick-heavy & coarse single wire wound that it "jumps" every other commutator bar...

While other Armature have these wires connected side by side in ALL Commutator Elements, not jumping.

Remember these armatures were wound with finer wire...as Stators were heavier.

UFO I have 2 of these armatures Most all of these type of armatures have the same size wire. What you are seeing is the insulation that is wrapped over the top of the other windings with that single wire on top of the insulation.

In the lap winding where the wire returns is on either side of where it started. This is shown by the way the wire spirals looking at the commutator from above. Either side of commutator from where the winding started is either progressive or retrogressive. In other words more for motoring or for generation. 

Also the diameter of the commutator dictates the speed when powering it as a motor. Smaller diameter more speed,larger diameter slower speed. A lot of tractors had a smaller diameter because the rpm was low.

Hope this helps Curt.

Quote from: hiwater on Nov 14, 2024, 10:49 AMIn the lap winding where the wire returns is on either side of where it started. This is shown by the way the wire spirals looking at the commutator from above. Either side of commutator from where the winding started is either progressive or retrogressive. In other words more for motoring or for generation.

Hi Hiwater,

Ok, yes, I know exactly well how a lap winding is done, since I have done it hundreds of times...yes, exactly, SAME wire "returns" after it reaches each comm bar.
When you look at armature, wires are crossed on every hook to commutator.
This is the most common type of winding done for brushed dynamos.
However, this is NOT the case!!
Look again at Bedini's video Armature below...plus another one I downloaded from EBAY...identical.

I ZOOMED BOTH Images.


Have you wound any motors or generators Hiwater?

If you have, you know it is impossible to set that insulation beneath, and then hook each "returned wire" for each commutator bar and END IT, for ALL wires.

When you are lap winding, you only end without return, on the LAST Coil wound!!...it is when you finally "loop" ALL Coils (The First with the Last)

On this type of winding, we have here, every single one of this thick wire DIES at a SINGLE Commutator Bar...besides it is "alternated"...but that does not matter (irrelevant) on the type of winding we have here.

Quote from: hiwater on Nov 14, 2024, 10:49 AMUFO I have 2 of these armatures Most all of these types of armatures have the same size wire. What you are seeing is the insulation that is wrapped over the top of the other windings with that single wire on top of the insulation.

Ok, if you have 2 of these armatures...please do Us all a favor, since I do not have one now.

1-Take a Resistance Meter and apply probes on commutator bars at 180º approximately...
2-Then take another reading at 45º...
3-Then test setting probes on 2 bars next to each other's (alternated)...

Please, First do ALL 3 Steps on thick wires contacts Bars, then REPEAT them on empty contacts Bars.

Quote from: hiwater on Nov 14, 2024, 10:49 AMAlso the diameter of the commutator dictates the speed when powering it as a motor. Smaller diameter more speed, larger diameter slower speed. A lot of tractors had a smaller diameter because the rpm was low.

Hope this helps Curt.

Yes, I knew that, but thanks.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hi guys,

I am afraid I am going to have to agree with Curt on this.  I have looked very carefully at the zoomed picture and I believe I see that under the insulation there are wires the same size as the ones we can see.  I have marked the hump in the insulation that appears to be the right size to cover a wire that is the same size as what we can see.  I have also marked the alternate segments of the commutator.  It looks like there are wires soldered to those segments but the wires are covered by the insulation.

armaturezoom2.png

Respectfully,
Carroll

Hello all,

Ok Citfta, let's say there is no finer wire...I will agree to that.

But, what about the winding type?

Does it look to you like a typical Lap Winding?

Then how on earth can we put on that insulation there and see no return wires?

What I mean is that ALL wires "die" (end) at each alternated commutator bar (and since wire is so thick, we will see a return at simple sight) ...and there is no way we can lay that insulation there "in between" return wires - one by one- in order that we only see the end terminals?

[color=var(--body-txt-color)]Maybe I am not looking well...or overlooking something here...[/color]

Let me know what you think.

Thks

Ufopolitics

Hello Guys,

Ok, believe me, I've been looking for an old loose armature laying around from a regular motor, and could not find one at hand.

But I have found an image that reflects exactly what I am referring to:


As you all can see, each SINGLE comm bar gets TWO wires attached, which includes the return wire.

And of course, insulation is underneath BOTH Wires, and not just one.

Thanks

Ufopolitics

Hi Ufo,

I have spent several hours now looking at pictures of armatures.  And also gone over again how lap windings and wave windings are connected to the commutator bars.  Almost all of them show two wires connected to each commutator bar or segment.  And whether you use lap winding or wave winding you still end up with two wire ends per segment.  Only the armature in the video and the armature I found on eBay show a single wire going to each segment of the commutator. 

Could it be that since the device only worked wiith a couple of kinds of generators that the armature was different than either a lap wound or wave wound armature?  The Lockridge Device was built originally about 80 years ago.  If you  connect one end of the coil to one segment and the other end to a segment 180 degrees away the circuit would still complete when those two segments came in contact with the brushes.  Or in the case of a 4 pole generator the coils ends would be connected at 90 degrees from one another.

The only problem I see with this idea is that if he brushes were not exactly positioned you would not get a complete path for current to flow through the armature.  Maybe that is why the device had adjustable brushes so that with the brushes thinned down you could adjust the position for precise energizing of the armature.

Just thinking out loud again.

Carroll

Quick Edit:  If in fact each coil is terminated only to it's own segments then that would mean the current going thrugh the motor side would be totally isolated from the current going through the generator side and vice versa because each coil is separate from the others electrically.

Quote from: citfta on Nov 15, 2024, 07:49 AMHi Ufo,

I have spent several hours now looking at pictures of armatures.  And also gone over again how lap windings and wave windings are connected to the commutator bars.  Almost all of them show two wires connected to each commutator bar or segment.  And whether you use lap winding or wave winding you still end up with two wire ends per segment.  Only the armature in the video and the armature I found on eBay show a single wire going to each segment of the commutator. 

Could it be that since the device only worked wiith a couple of kinds of generators that the armature was different than either a lap wound or wave wound armature?  The Lockridge Device was built originally about 80 years ago.  If you  connect one end of the coil to one segment and the other end to a segment 180 degrees away the circuit would still complete when those two segments came in contact with the brushes.  Or in the case of a 4 pole generator the coils ends would be connected at 90 degrees from one another.

The only problem I see with this idea is that if he brushes were not exactly positioned you would not get a complete path for current to flow through the armature.  Maybe that is why the device had adjustable brushes so that with the brushes thinned down you could adjust the position for precise energizing of the armature.

Just thinking out loud again.

Carroll

Quick Edit:  If in fact each coil is terminated only to it's own segments then that would mean the current going thrugh the motor side would be totally isolated from the current going through the generator side and vice versa because each coil is separate from the others electrically.

Hello Citfta,

Yes, exactly...and I fully agree with your thoughts.

It seems that these old armatures were done in a specific way, and so, I have also been searching, and you can even get a "brand new one" of these old armatures, manufactured back 80 years ago.

They all have identical type of winding.

However, on your comment there is a part that is spot on...having start and end of coils at 180º or 90º...

I have an idea that I have been "rotating" on my mind for a few days now...and recently I was able to design it (on my mind first) and now is on 2D CAD...I will post it next...

Let's analyze it and see if it may work...or not.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Nov 14, 2024, 01:56 PM1-Take a Resistance Meter and apply probes on commutator bars at 180º approximately...
2-Then take another reading at 45º...
3-Then test setting probes on 2 bars next to each other's (alternated).

This is what i found out. 180 degrees .2R
45 degrees .2R
Side by side .1

Readings were taken on both armatures . Withe 2 different meters Same results.

In responce to winding armatures Yes I have rewound 14 of the them for this project only. MBrownn and I were doing this at that time. When the rewinding craze Hit. They woud work, but burn up the commutator in less than 2 minutes. theres a lot of inductive kickback leaving every other bar blank. Theres a ball of fire coming off the  the commutator the size of a dime.

So finally abandoned the rewinding of the armature. I can say that all the armature i have tried the ones in question are probably the best ones to use.A lot more effecient for some reason.


Why they are wound like that . I posted what i thought.. Curt.

Quote from: citfta on Nov 13, 2024, 06:07 PMI did a search on eBay for starter generator armature and look what I found.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/286048862433?_skw=starter+generator+armature&itmmeta=01JCKW5SQDV09VVV8DXTS3NTHC&hash=item4299d740e1:g:u6QAAOSwgalm21eF&itmprp=enc%3AAQAJAAAA4HoV3kP08IDx%2BKZ9MfhVJKk7aG7JjOsKj2UZ3%2F2snNzXJi3Hs4GnzKPO7CqnqBbBabVFHR2Ar6t4AfHxR97vaVk%2BMIr1ICu7h5kLztOlnlx8%2BS5DXaWfwOLOi1%2BJMQsozvjIC2VsiNYWZUDdSQMOPZaf6hd3VGMVKWYNZhypJjQMzoSPcFdrfUiXsisyzIWoO0VOm4veUlqAvBwvOIcc3jiv4IpadJOYFfAZrdeeBpyfF09avKiiztHhFggxgtmaWC9SKkjiQo29glkTFetFoctxiPvxPFIPHHZhXvrWnnCw%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR-abl_zkZA

Look  carefully at the commutator.

Carroll

These armatures were in a lot of cub cadet ant some other riding lawn mowers. Two commutator bars made one wide one . Instead of 28 comm bars , there were 14 bars. With wide brushes. They motorise a lot slower and also less voltage because of the speed unless it being driven like it was intended. More amperage to run also.
The reason I tried them was to put 2 brushes on the one wide segment. Didnt work. because when the feild collapases it collapses back in to the other windings of the armature. The path of least resistance. 

@ hiwater,

As I pointed out in the drawing I marked up I think every commutator bar is being used.  But they would still have a tendency to want to arc if the brushes were narrow like in the Bedini video.  However if you recall they also had a pretty large home made capacitor in the circuit.  Maybe it was used to capture the inductive kickback and then release it again to help keep the motor part going.  We also don't know how the trifilar inductor was connected into the circuit.  Lots of things to think about.

Carroll

Hello All,

I have been working (as "rotating") this idea in my mind since I saw the "Single Alternated Thick Wires" attaching on commutator bars on Bedini's video...then started a search that Citfta also help me on that...and we both came up with the same conclusion...That these type of windings differs completely of the way that typical Brushed Motors and DC Generators are made now based on Lap and Wave Windings...

At the same token, I did not want to add a second commutator to the Machine, even though it is a much cleaner way to do it...but the Lockridge Device did not have dual commutators, plus this could complicate its building a lot. So, to keep within the same structure as Lockridge, this is what I have designed:


Ok, the Commutator has 28 bars and the Armature Steel Core have 14 Teeth.



This Design is based on TWO Winding Systems:

1- Winding #1 is a Typical Lap Winding, like in any Brushed Motor, it must be wound with fine wire like 21, 22, or 23 gauge.
This Winding will have a Total of SEVEN OVERLAPPED COILS
A typical Lap Winding is a CLOSED and in SERIES, OVERLAPPED CONFIGURATION.
However, only difference here is that I am connecting overlapped coils in an "ALTERNATED FASHION", meaning One Connection, then jump one commutator segment blank, then attach on third segment and keep going...

ONLY AFTER THIS FULL WINDING# 1 IS FINISHED, THEN THE SECOND WINDING SYSTEM WILL START!!

2-Winding# 2 would be done with a THICKER WIRE, like 18 or 16 gauge, and it will have also a Total of SEVEN COILS.

HOWEVER, these Seven Coils WILL NOT BE IN SERIES, AND NOT FOLLOWING THE 1, 2, 3 ORDERLY COMMUTATOR BARS AS METHOD# 1 IS DONE!!

This Method of Winding# 2 is based on INDEPENDENT COILS, NOT INTERCONNECTED BETWEEN THEM.
As EACH ONE of these independent Coil TERMINALS will be attached at 180º Commutator Bars.
So, First you start Coil number 1 winding, attached to an empty commutator bar, MARK IT!!, then when finished, take wire exactly to opposite commutator bar at 180º apart.
Then will follow Coil 2, and you start NOT at the next bar, (which is already taken by Motor windings) but jumping following bar from your "start point" of Coil 1, as you will end exactly at 180º next to where your Coil 1 ENDED, BUT jumping one commutator segment!!
And so on, until you complete all seven coils.

Concluding: We have Two different windings here,

1- First Winding with finer wire gauge, will be used for Motor, and it will consume lower amps because is done with finer wire, and since it is wound in series, the BEMF will control the currents. And Motor will run smoothly.
Now, the Motor Brushes are around same positioning that I have shown before, as these two brushes are set at around 103º (102.87º by CAD) and I will show graphics below.

2- Second Winding with coarser wire and independent coils will be dedicated for the Generator side, as Brushes are set EXACTLY at 180º.

Then we have:

1- Seven coils for Motor in series with finer wire.

2- Seven Coils Independent from each other's and coarser wire.

Both set-connected to Commutator at Alternated Bars.

Now the Graphics:


On Figure above, I have set ALL Motor Coils in RED, comprehending FIVE Teeth or FOUR Slots for each coil.
The GREEN Lines are the Generator Coils, also having the same extension of Five Teeth.


On above image I have just added the Commutator on top...and I have marked with a Red Dot all Motor Coils connections. As all Green Dots for Generator connections.
Of course, at the time to wind this Machine for real, you MUST MARK all the "Starts and Ends" for every wound coil, as also mark terminals...and use sequence numbers.
In my experience, I recommend FIRST to make ALL the Motor windings...then take motor for a "spin" real test on housing...
Then do ALL Generating Coils, also following an order, start and end...
I have been thinking FIRST to make ALL Generator Coils OPPOSITE WOUND to the way ALL Motor´s Coils are wound...THEN TEST IT.

As this way, Generator may "assist" Motor Function when running and loaded...BUT I do NOT KNOW YET!!...AS BOTH Generator windings must be tested and measured under load to know which one is best!!!



And finally, above is the same CAD Image but with Motor and Generator Brushes added.

Now Motor, -like I wrote above- are set at around 103º Angle, But we can play with this Angle when testing Motor by itself, after finished with its windings to obtain the best performance.

HOWEVER, Generator Angle MUST BE SET EXACTLY at 180º...In order that Generator Brushes makes full contact with each Independent Coil for optimal collection of induced currents.

This Design allows that a coarser wire used for Generator, NOT TO interfere with Resistance from Finer wire windings used for Motoring, since they are on SEPARATE Circuits.

And since Motor Brushes are not set at 180º, but roughly at 100º, they will NEVER MEET IN FULL (Two Terminals) of ANY Generator Coils which are set at 180º.

And like I have written on previous posts...the Other Side of Motor Angle (around 260º) on Armature will have the most of resistance then lesser influence on Induction generated by the Generator Coils...

Now, take your time to analyze and digest all this info...

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

After analyzing in detail my previous design, where Brushes for Motor were at 103º and Generator at 180º...I came to the conclusion that Motor will not be strong enough...while I was giving Generator a "too wide" angle, not needed, as all this angle "bolts down to" is to collect in an accurate way, the Energy generated by all the seven isolated coils, spinning 360º.

So, here is so far -I believe so- a much better design:


Ok, on Fig above, I have Motor spinning CW as shown by red arc and arrow and the "R"...however, this could be easily reversed by just switching the stators magnetic polarities (terminals electrical input).
On Armature you can see both Bisectors (Red and Blue Arrows) set exactly at 90 degrees from the 180 motor brushes settings.
The Armature Coils distribution is exactly the same as on my prior drawings.
Basically, the Stators have the same Magnetic configuration -as previously shown-, except, I am using all stators of equal size (not smaller ones here) this way we will have more balanced fields.

As, yes, I agree that because we have Two Norths and Two Souths adjacently set or "side by side", we will also need the vertical slots on the outer housing, dividing in between equal poles. This will allow a better magnetic concentration between both N-S.

This configuration is equal as having Two big Norths as two big South Poles...or simply stated, a Two Pole Machine.

BUT, related to Armature configuration, here Motor Brushes are exactly at 180º.

While Generator Brushes are set at 90º (more or less...Idk why on this CAD is not giving me a perfect 90º, maybe is my error...would see in reality) just for Collection from brushes at commutator.

Point is that on this design, Motor will run very smoothly and strong, as is very "symmetric"

All Coils are the same way as I previously have shown...except that now we will take all independent generator coils terminals at +/- 90 degrees.

Still both circuits will not be interconnected, EXCEPT, when Motor brush touches two segments on commutator...then the BEMF would be discharged into generating coils...at least that is the way I see it for now...

Generator Brushes DO have to be trimmed to size of one commutator element for more accurate collection. However, NOT SO with Motor Brushes...they can be 1 1/2 or 2 segment width, or as they come OEM.

Regards to all

Ufopolitics

I have another question: if we have an incomplete device which we know was working in selfsustainig mode but we are unable to find the missing parts in order to make it working again, what is the point to make a NEW design which we think will work in the same way as the original one while we are unable to explain how it work in the first place ?

I think this is a very common approach seen almost everywhere.

I do not consider myself better then any inventor when I try to replicate something and I do not try to improve the original design unless I know how is working and I can prove with a working model also being able to explain the difference between my design and original design. But, if my design do not work I can't blame the inventor so, I need to stick with whatever I have been given.

I am not afraid to be stupid and ask silly questions acknowledging my limitations or lack of understanding. If anyone wants to call me stupid that's it ... I prefer this way rather then pretend to be smart and unable to replicate something which might be very easy or extremely difficult for me or third party.

Quote from: Classic on Nov 17, 2024, 04:46 AMI have another question: if we have an incomplete device which we know was working in selfsustainig mode but we are unable to find the missing parts in order to make it working again, what is the point to make a NEW design which we think will work in the same way as the original one while we are unable to explain how it work in the first place ?

@Classic 

To start clearing up your comment above...first, We do not have "the device" (at least I don't, you don't, they (Bedini & Lindemann) had it...however, they both had ALL the annotations and NEVER gave them to the Public Domain, as an "Open-Source Community" they have claimed they were part off...even though they did not succeed in making a working model, after many years of trying to do it.

We only have what they have shown, on a very superficial and weak reasoning and analyzing video (read my first post here).
Now, the MAIN COMPONENT of this Device is what they have shown, a MAIN HOUSING for a MOTOR and Generator working together, and that, simply is the HEART of this device.

ALL other components are simply what I call "Peripherals", and they are NOT essential to get this Machine running...to get it to "self-run" yes...but we can do that after we build a device which is capable to generate MORE than we Input.

Then it is all about finding the right Capacitors and Inductors values to maintain machine to keep the cycle running in a loop.

BUT, you need the EXPERTISE to be able to find the right way this HEART needs to "PUMP" in order that output exceeds input...

BUT You MUST KNOW, FIRST THAN ALL, how to BUILD A MOTOR AND GENERATOR FROM SCRATCH, FROM JUST PAPER AND PENCIL...

I am NOT making "New Designs" about Lockridge.
I am making -ACCORDING TO MY KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE- a PATH or many POSSIBILITIES, of how this Device "should" work.

Then I ask you now a question:  Would you be able to do what I am doing here?

Because IF YOU DO, then I will leave you HERE to teach us all, how to PROPERLY DEVELOP this Device...and I will just seat back, relax and watch you do it!!

What I find radically non sensical, is to start conceiving this device by building FIRST, all the peripherals shown...like the capacitor with copper sheets in between "Butcher Paper" and the Trifilar Three Coils wrapped around motor...

Quote from: Classic on Nov 17, 2024, 04:46 AMI do not consider myself better then any inventor when I try to replicate something and I do not try to improve the original design unless I know how is working and I can prove with a working model also being able to explain the difference between my design and original design. But, if my design do not work I can't blame the inventor so, I need to stick with whatever I have been given.

Your "experience and knowledge" about Motors and Generators is simply ZERO. So, you are the LEAST QUALIFIED to criticize HERE, the work I have posted previously!!

You need to start FIRST, by reading posts here, written by experienced people -WITHOUT CONSTANTLY INTERRUPTING- THEN LEARN MORE about all different FIELDS exposed here!!

The HUGE DIFFERENCE between You and me, is that you have absolutely no idea about slightly interpreting the graphics I have posted here.

But, hey, there you are, INTERRUPTING and CRITICIZING Topics back and forth, no matter if you have or you don't have the CAPABILITY AND EXPERIENCE TO DO SO!!

Quote from: Classic on Nov 17, 2024, 04:46 AMI am not afraid to be stupid and ask silly questions acknowledging my limitations or lack of understanding. If anyone wants to call me stupid that's it ... I prefer this way rather then pretend to be smart and unable to replicate something which might be very easy or extremely difficult for me or third party.

If you would have only read my first posts here...if you would have just "search me" on my YT Channel...then know what I am capable of developing...you wouldn't be asking this stupid questions.

I think your "ATTITUDE" is the worst part you have...to DARE to criticize, interrupt, (no matter what) when you have absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE, LESS THE EXPERTISE REQUIRED, to interrupt ANY Topic, with your "LACK OF BASIC KNOWLEDGE TO CONDUCT YOUR CRITICISM".

I could have just "click" your post here and is gone!!...but I rather answer, calmly, to your "INSISTING INTERRUPTIONS"...So that all People following this Topic here...read my answer.

Again, I believe what you do have a LOT, and IN EXCESS, is very high doses of AUDACITY!!

However, -and believe me- it is NOT smart of you, to use it here...

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

Ok, so I got one of the Ford Dynamo that I have ordered...

And here is a short video where I am running it as a Motor, AS IS (OEM)... meaning, no modifications of any kind.

It has Two Fields connected in SERIES with the Brushes, one brush is to ground, and one field terminal is also to ground, and that is how they both connect (armature-fields)

So, by applying Positive to insulated brush and negative to insulated field terminal, I get it to run as a motor:


And as you saw on video, this Dynamo, when we get it to run as a Motor...is what we typically call an "Amp Hog"...

So, whet I am trying to state here -and like I have said on video- I maybe wrong...but in the "common sense world" it is completely absurd, having a machine where its motoring circuit runs at such high energy consumption.

On video you see when I applied 30V it consumes 7 Amps...that is 210 Watts, and motor was going like 2000 RPM's!! and the Lockridge Device output was 300 Watts/5000 RPM's?

How many more volts and Amps do we need to add for motor to spin at 5000 RPM's?

And again, it is just my opinion, but after doing this test, I am now more on the idea that the Lockridge Device's Armature was modified from its original winding.

That is just my opinion...

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hi Ufo,

Accordiing to your video the field winding resistance is 3 ohms.  So if you apply 12 volts to just the field coil it should draw 4 amps.  That would give you full field power plus a little more since the original design is for 7 volts.

Then if you apply power only to the armature you might get a better idea of what kind of speed the armature is capable of.  Also when you get it up to speed you could try reducing the field power and see if the armature speeds up more like a normal DC mototr.  You might get up to some pretty high speed that way.

Separate control of armature and field gives you some more options for checking things out.

Respectfully,
Carroll

Quote from: citfta on Nov 17, 2024, 04:56 PMHi Ufo,

Accordiing to your video the field winding resistance is 3 ohms.  So if you apply 12 volts to just the field coil it should draw 4 amps.  That would give you full field power plus a little more since the original design is for 7 volts.

Then if you apply power only to the armature you might get a better idea of what kind of speed the armature is capable of.  Also when you get it up to speed you could try reducing the field power and see if the armature speeds up more like a normal DC mototr.  You might get up to some pretty high speed that way.

Separate control of armature and field gives you some more options for checking things out.

Respectfully,
Carroll

Thanks, Citfta,

Yes, I remember when you mentioned that about driving the fields on a separate circuit and driving down power will increase armature speed...

But remember I have mentioned armature resistance is zero ohms...which is a full short...No?

Wouldn't this cause to get amps sky high and spark or damage commutators?

Even though I will start with a very low voltage to armature first...then see what happens.

Thanks

Ufopolitics

If you recall I said that you only reduce field power after the armature is up to speed so that it is generating back EMF from the armature passinng the energized field coils.  Then you can slowly reduce the field power and watch the armature speed up.  Never take the field power to less than 50% of it's normal rated power.  In other words in your case I wouldn't reduce the input to the field to any less than 4 volts or so.  But again only reduce the field AFTER the armature is up to full speed with full power to the field.

Hoping to see a video soon of you trying that.

Take care,
Carroll

To add a little to the last post I would start out with 12 volts on the field and then slowly increase the voltage on the armature to 12 volts, While doing that notice the amount of torque generated even at pretty low amature voltage.  Then when you have reached 12 volts on the armature check the speed.  Then slowly lower the power to the field and watch the speed increase.  As long as the armature keeps increasing in speed it will also be increasing the back EMF to prevent high current in the armature and burning brushes.

Quote from: citfta on Nov 17, 2024, 06:11 PMTo add a little to the last post I would start out with 12 volts on the field and then slowly increase the voltage on the armature to 12 volts, While doing that notice the amount of torque generated even at pretty low amature voltage.  Then when you have reached 12 volts on the armature check the speed.  Then slowly lower the power to the field and watch the speed increase.  As long as the armature keeps increasing in speed it will also be increasing the back EMF to prevent high current in the armature and burning brushes.

Hello Carroll,

Ok, here is the video where I did the test as you suggested...


Like I have explained on video, I only took fields to 7 Volts and around 4.0 A, because at 12V amps went to 7A...which is too high for this PSU, that I am using the front output where it only goes to 5A Max.

I conducted a prior test at 12V and Fields PSU suddenly dropped amperage (guess an internal protection) to 0.02A and shaft went sky high!!

On 7V the test went on smoothly.

And yes, it is demonstrated your point clearly, that as I lowered power to fields it increased RPM's.

Thanks for all your guidance Carroll

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

Here is another Test, same as prior one, but this time I am using 12V Supply to Field Coils.


This time I was able to connect the back terminals of PSU, which gives me 15 Amps Max, so I can conduct the test at the requested 12V by Citfta (Carroll) for Field Coils Input.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Nov 17, 2024, 03:46 PMHow many more volts and Amps do we need to add for motor to spin at 5000 RPM's

From working with the GM style. With out power going thru the feild coils. Just to the pos brush thru the armature and neg brush to ground. These shouldnt take more than one half amp to run as a motor. With just 12 volts about 3000 rpm.  With 18 - 22 volts 4200-5000 rpm.

Another thing with this motor. It performs different on different days. Another is that black tape on the feild coils for wrapping act likee a dielectric when running with ac. Not sure about DC.

What your doing there is a lot of food for thought.. Keeps a person thinking. Thanks Curt.

Hi Ufo,

Thanks so much for doing those tests.  Hopefully the videos will help others understand some of the characteristics of DC motors.  And hopefully give some things to think about.  I am going to be really busy the rest of the week.  But I will be spending a lot of my time thinking about this project.  I have a lot of driving to do so I'll have some time to think more about all this.

Take care,
Carroll

Hello All,

Thanks @hiwater for your input...and since I have everything hooked up...I went ahead to make another test.

This time a Higher Stress Test on Dynamo Machine.

This Dynamo will not spin without power to field coils, however, I did reduce its power to minimal spec's while driving armature to 5000 RPM's plus.


Regards

Ufopolitics

Quote from: hiwater on Nov 18, 2024, 11:16 AMFrom working with the GM style. With out power going thru the field coils. Just to the pos brush thru the armature and neg brush to ground. These shouldn't take more than one half amp to run as a motor. With just 12 volts about 3000 rpm.  With 18 - 22 volts 4200-5000 rpm.

Hello hiwater,

Unless there is a LOT of Magnetic reminiscence on your Stator Field steel cores...I do not see a way that armature will spin -at all- with zero volts applied to Fields.

As Armature should be wound on GM Dynamos with finer wire than FORD to only consume 1.5 Amps...and get to make 5000 RPM's.

This Ford armature is wound with 14 gauge...and as you have seen on video, it consumes around 6 Amps (of course, after BEMF acts to lower amps, but it "jumps" to 9-10 Amps when just increased).

Thanks

Ufopolitics

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Nov 18, 2024, 12:54 PM

Quote from: hiwater on Nov 18, 2024, 11:16 AMFrom working with the GM style. With out power going thru the field coils. Just to the pos brush thru the armature and neg brush to ground. These shouldn't take more than one half amp to run as a motor. With just 12 volts about 3000 rpm.  With 18 - 22 volts 4200-5000 rpm.

Hello hiwater,

Unless there is a LOT of Magnetic reminiscence on your Stator Field steel cores...I do not see a way that armature will spin -at all- with zero volts applied to Fields.

As Armature should be wound on GM Dynamos with finer wire than FORD to only consume 1.5 Amps...and get to make 5000 RPM's.

This Ford armature is wound with 14 gauge...and as you have seen on video, it consumes around 6 Amps (of course, after BEMF acts to lower amps, but it "jumps" to 9-10 Amps when just increased).

Thanks

Ufopolitics

I was suprised when this happened also . What i did was remove the feild coils from the pole shoes. So there were only the pole shoes them selves. Then powered it as usual. I showed a friend of mine at the time. He said I always thought you needed the feild coils connected., but apparently not.
So it has to be the residual magnetisim. Remove the pole shoes it wont spin.

Ufo heres another test you might want to try as long as your testing. The brush holders are in the end cap on that one. Remove the

2 long hold down bolts, remove the end cover and tap the locating pin back pin back so it flush with the end plate, sot the end plate can be turned to reposition the brushes while powering it up to run as a motor. You may need to take the pully off so you can set up on end so it dont interfer with the rotation.

As it rotating using a tailight bulb connected to the end of the feild coil ground it to the gen frame. At some point the motor should stop and reverse direction. I kind of stumbled on this by accident. It shows what happens when the gen is is connected to a load. 

Never tried on a ford gen but works on the gm. So it should work on the ford and all others also. So why not set it up like it wants to do insted of forcing it one way or the other.

Worth a try. Thanks Curt.

Hello All,

Ok, so after making prior tests, recommended by Citfta, we know that by reducing magnetic field strength the armature speeds up...great.

As we also know that these types of dynamos generate through the armature-brushes, and it is required to go high speeds...great.

BUT, in order for the Armature of any Dynamo to generate full power, it needs a FULL Power on the Fields.

And here I see a "Dilemma"...or two completely opposite curves between Motor and Generator.

Then a solution I see, is that we need to split the housing in two parts...one for Motor and the other for Generator, using half cycle for Motor and other half cycle for Generator.

Motor Fields separated from Generator Fields...so we can regulate Motor Fields to lower spec's, while having full power on Generator Fields.

The key to success here is that by adding full power to Generator Fields, will not affect Motor function...

Just thinking out loud...

Ufopolitics

Ufo,

Your comments about the fields on motor and generator side are correct.  And in addition to that let me remind everyone that when you weaken the field to speed up the armature you also weaken the torque.  If you were to try running the motor at low rpm with the field weakened you would see that you can easily stop the armature and see the armature current go very high.  The same thing will happen at higher rpms also but I wouldn't try that by hand because of the speed.

Take care,
Carroll

Thanks Citfta,

I know we can make any motor rotate with only one field or half the housing and half the armature...whether PM or Coil Fields, it would be a bit "unbalanced" at low speed but once it reaches High speed, it will run smootly.

The issue here is to "neutralize" the other side of armature from motor brushes input, which side is not interacting with motor fields, and just be the "generating side".

Can we test this possibility with only Two Field Machine?

I believe so. We will just need to wire fields independently and NOT in series like they are connected from factory.

And if you pay attention to the way stators were wired on Lockridge...they were ALL running their wires independently and outside the housing.

Meaning that NONE of the Fields were connected in series between them (watch image below)


Then try to run motor with one side field and see if adding more power to other side field will alter motor function.

Of course, to do this successfully, we will need to "neutralize" the other side of armature, otherwise it WILL AFFECT motor.

I believe this is all that was done on the Lockridge Device...it was a half Motor and Half Generator...but they used the generated polarity set in order to neutralize half motor armature.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

On previous posts I have been mentioning about "neutralizing the Armature from motor action"...and on this post I will go in detail about explaining how it is done.

First, I've made a Graphic, to make explanations easier:


And here it is...So, first a description of image:

1- Motor Side is on the LEFT of Image, brushes driving motor are A & B, and is divided by the RED POLY-LINE from each vertical slots, like the Lockridge had.

2- Generator Side is on the RIGHT of image, and its brushes are D & C..

And we all know that ALL Dynamos generate DC Currents, correct?...

Fine, so, all we need is to arrange the electrical generated polarization as shown on Brushes D & C or D being Positive and C Negative. And we can do that by playing with the MAGNETIC Polarizations of Fields S2 & S3.

And that is done by simply swapping the Generator Fields wire terminals...until we obtain the right magnetic arrangement. 

By doing this, we are "killing" the Motor side of armature that is on the side of Generator. It simply will not generate ANY power of magnetization on that side of armature, based on motor brushes input A & B.

The Electrical DC Forces from Generator side -Reflecting on its two brushes- would be OVERRIDING the Motor Armature on this side...and "hopefully" this generating side is GREATER than Input side to Motor...if it is not, it will not work.

NOW, Generator MUST BE LOADED at all times for this polarization to take place. (Light Bulbs on Lockridge).

@citfta...please correct me if my analysis here is somehow wrong...thanks!!

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

Playing with electric polarities on a commutator in order to reduce, amplify as neutralize interaction angles is something I have done before...it is not that "I just now invented it":


And the way it works is very simple...

Whenever you have the SAME Electrical Polarities through Two or more brushes, on a COMMUTATING SYSTEM, that Angle formed between two equal electric polarity signs will NOT generate any magnetization on Armature. (I call that: Neutralized Angle)

Of course, before I was using all electrical polarities coming from the same or common power source...while on the Lockridge device there are two different sources:

1- Motor Input to brushes.

2- Generated induced power on -the same- Motor Armature.

So, this will need to be tested...only Real Testing will tell if it works or not.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hi Ufo,

Just a quick comment.  Everything is looking good so far.  I'll be gone for the next couple of days so I won't be able to comment any further until I get back.

Carroll

Hi ufo . On your post 72. It looks like it could work. Theres a very short space there to get everything in and lined up. 

Being the ford armature is shorter than others you might get by with some stock gm starter pole shoes that fit on three armature slots. They might be shorter. But just for testing purposes would work. Maybe even ford starter ones would work. Never tried them.

Curt.

Quote from: hiwater on Nov 20, 2024, 12:02 PMHi ufo . On your post 72. It looks like it could work.

Hi hiwater,
Yes, it seems so, and if you look closely, there is a DIRECT Connection (through armature coils) between Motor and Generator +/- Brushes.
Which means that generator would be feeding motor directly, once it starts generation of energy.

Quote from: hiwater on Nov 20, 2024, 12:02 PMTheres a very short space there to get everything in and lined up.

Look, the Original Device that Lockridge took from Germany, was based on a VW 6V BOSCH Dynamo...have you seen them closely?
It is SMALLER than FORD...btw, I ordered two of them...

Quote from: hiwater on Nov 20, 2024, 12:02 PMBeing the ford armature is shorter than others you might get by with some stock gm starter pole shoes that fit on three armature slots. They might be shorter. But just for testing purposes would work. Maybe even ford starter ones would work. Never tried them.

Curt.

You CAN NOT USE Starter Components for this project!!

Starters are "short-term running motors", which are designed to consume huge amounts of currents (cranking amps) in order to deliver a very HIGH Torque at LOW Speed.

So, if you take a closer look at starters field coils, they are wound with very thick wire...as their armatures.

Take care and thanks for your advice.

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

After an exhausting search on Delco-Remy Dynamos from the 1940's to late 1950's... there is ABSOLUTELY NO ONE that resembles the Housing shown on the Lockridge Video by J. Bedini.

NONE of them have a fully STRAIGHT Cylindrical CLOSED Housing!!

They ALL have a HUGE OPENING for brushes access...and when they are Fully closed, they have a "TWO LEVEL" Cylindrical different diameter!!


First image (top) is the more common type, with a HUGE OPENING for Brushes access

Second Image is the SAME TYPE AS FIRST, but it has a THIN METAL STRIP, covering those holes (see the red square showing the bolt-nut adjusting this metal strip)

Third Image (Bottom) is the ONLY TYPE, which is FULLY CLOSED, HOWEVER, notice it is NOT A STRAIGHT Cylinder, but it has a REDUCED LEVEL on the Brushes side. (where red arrow is)

CONCLUSION: NONE of the above Delco Remy (1940- late 1950's) OUTER HOUSING, WAS THE ONE USED on the Lockridge Video!!


Look at the REAL REPLICATION HOUSING above...it is a STRAIGHT Cylinder, NO REDUCTION LEVELS, no HUGE HOLES on the brushes side...just the brushes sliding FINE SLOTS.

As a matter of fact, at almost the end of video, Bedini pulls another Delco-Remy Dynamo, just to pull its brushes out and compare them with the Lockridge Replication...and if you remember, that Delco-Remy was the same as on image #1 Top...with a huge opening on brushes side:


Now, in my opinion, this Lockridge Replication was based on a SEPARATE MACHINED PLAIN STEEL TUBING, which allows to fit within its INNER DIAMETER the Four Field Coils and still allow for armature to spin within a very close air gap...as the TWO CAPS, were the old ones from the Delco Remy Dynamo, where they took all components from.

Honestly, you guys need to be "more observative" when looking at Devices and Machines on videos. So, stop video, go back, pause, print frames, zoom them, etc,etc.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Ufo yes i have had some of these vw generators. Very narrow comm bars. Years ago there was a place in california that rewound 

The VW generators. I called them to get some information on the early model VW generators . He said that the early generators had narrower inspection slots than the newer ones.

Dont know for sure but maybe the early style were both a motor and generator. 

Do you think that could be possible? Thanks Curt.

The person who i  talked  to sent me a picture of the old and new armatures. On both. the armature slots were diagonal. 

The older one had a metal band around the bottom of the armature slots. The newer one didnt.

Just some info i had forgotten about. It may help Maybe not.  Just thought you might be interested in it.

Hello All,

Ok, so here is the CAD Plans of this Machine.

Please note that on this Concept I am NOT MODIFYING THE ARMATURE AT ALL !!...It is just Stators setup Configuration and their MAGNETIC polarizations, according to rotation direction, AS to Favour (assisting) Motor from the generating side, once Output is LOADED.
If Generator is NOT LOADED, a Magnetic Field on Armature on the generator side WILL NOT BE CREATED. Then Motoring action will not be assisted, as currents will increase on Input.


This Machine is based on Three (3) Stators, where:

1- Stator S1 is solely dedicated for Motor Purpose.
2- Stators S2 & S3 are dedicated mainly, for Generator purpose, however, because of their magnetic polarization, they must ASSIST Motor rotation direction.

Motor Brushes setup:

1- Brushes A (+) & B (-) are Motor Brushes, they could be adjusted , but, trying to keep the same Angle shown (102º-103º)
On this specific drawing, they are set (based on blue arrow bisector) for Motor to spin CCW as the arc arrow R shows, as also related to Stator S1 Bisector.
So, basically this Motor is like a "one piston engine"...working on COMPRESSION (REPULSION)

Generator Brushes setup:

1- Generator brushes C (-) and D (+) are set at 180º apart. And this Brushes Electrical polarities MUST ALWAYS BE this way.
And once generator brushes are loaded, the Generated Magnetic Field on Armature must be South.

If Gen Brushes Electrical Polarities are not as shown, then we could swap the Stators S2 & S3 terminals to reverse their magnetic polarization.
HOWEVER, then we need to RE-ADJUST Motor Brushes (For Motor to turn CW) as shown on image below:


And as you can see, we have moved the Armature Blue Bisector above the Stator S1 Bisector (lighter blue dotted line, right at center of S1)...So, the REPULSION will now actuate in favor to a CW Throw Force Angle.

Now, on this setup:

We need FIRST, to test Both Sides (Motor and Generator) Magnetic Polarities at Armature and Stators INDEPENDENTLY, before starting this up!!

[color=var(--body-txt-color)]Regards[/color]

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

Ok, about previous Model of Three Stators, here is an Image just showing the Magnetic Interaction Angles determined by the Four Brushes amplitude:


On this image rotation is Clockwise (CW) as what dictates that direction are the Motor Brushes Bisector Angle, related to S1 (North Pole) Bisector at exact center of Stator (Light Blue Dotted Line).

However, this was explained on previous post as I do not have here the Armature Angle Bisectors now.

The point on this post is to be able to see the difference between both angles, blue and red, and the Motor Angle by being narrower than Red Generation Angle, it could draw higher currents.

So, we can always amplify this angle above their 102-103 degrees, as long as we calculate the motor blue bisector (center) is ABOVE the S1 Light Blue Bisector, to maintain the CW Rotation.

It is very obvious that the generation angle is going to be always wider (comprehending greater number of commutating elements than the motoring angle.

Then for every 360 degrees Cycle, there would always be at 180 degrees of generation versus 103-120 (if we increased to 120) degrees of motoring.

Also, it is very obvious that armature on the generating side will be always "crossing" a North-South Magnetic Field, from S2-S3 Stators...and this fact will increase this side generation of power.

And here is the most important side of this design, as many of you may have asked: why do we need an Opposite Magnetic Pole (on this case it is South/Red) on the Generating Side of Armature?

Simple, because on this case we are using a North Pole on the Motoring side, BUT there is ANOTHER OPPOSITE Motor Magnetic Polarity also generating on the Generator side, so, on this case it is South.

So, that is why we need that the Induced DC Generated Energy on Armature, ALSO, creates a South Pole on this side...In order that these TWO Opposite Poles Synchronizes and complement each other's.

Remember, Magnetic Poles here are just "relative terms" as it could also be that Motor run on a South Repulsion Pole (S1 being South, and Motor Armature side being also South) ...while the generating side then needs to be a North Pole.

Reason why I like using the term "opposite polarization to"...

On a final note: I have no idea how the BEMF will manifest here within Armature, once we get this running...it needs to be tested on reality.

A simple test would be to just apply power to ALL Three Stators (according to schematics and spin direction) ...NOT powering Motor Input!!...then to spin fast the belt pulley with a cord...while having a load (like light bulbs) connected to generator output brushes...As I will also add a small but high-capacity Electrolytic Cap on generator side...
Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello UFO!

The anchor may generate, but only part of the anchor winding. You can also connect the source (part of the winding) in series with the common anchor circuit. In some places, generation, in others, the creation of a magnetic flux in the anchor core and stator shoes. A light bulb is connected in series as a load. In my opinion, this is the only thing that can be used for conversion from a Lockridge DC generator.

Earlier, collecting information about similar devices from Germany, I have three episodes:

First: Lockridge conversion from a BOSCH DC generator. (Only the anchor that Bedini had is in question, and the stator does not reveal the essence of the solution).

Second: the one that was seen by a veteran of the Second World War, who saw a self-rotating source reminiscent of an UMFORMER or Tesla Dynamo. The materials, as well as the source itself, were confiscated by the political counterintelligence of the USSR in 1945. No one believed him, everyone took him for the whims of an old man, but respected him because he was a local inventor of various electrical devices.

Third: only from the words of an informant who told a sad story about how in the mid-80s a veteran of the Second World War from the USSR confessed on his deathbed to his relatives that in 1945 he was brought in as a specialist (electrical engineer) to drive two single-seater submarines on electric traction from an underground dock. He directly shouted that the electric generator in the boat rotated itself without external force. The USSR special services took a non-disclosure agreement from him, and only on his deathbed did he voice this to his relatives. Naturally, no one believed him and took it for the fantasies of a dying old man. Unfortunately, the old man did not specify any details.

---------
The second and third episodes probably had a double winding on the anchor (motor and generator), this overlaps with the design of Robert Alexander (USA) and possibly Leonid Stovbunenko (USSR). Both demonstrated an electric car that does not discharge the battery while driving. What happened to Alexander, I do not know, and all of Stovbunenko's inventions were classified in the USSR.

Quote from: rakarskiy on Nov 25, 2024, 04:38 AMHello UFO!

The anchor may generate, but only part of the anchor winding. You can also connect the source (part of the winding) in series with the common anchor circuit. In some places, generation, in others, the creation of a magnetic flux in the anchor core and stator shoes. A light bulb is connected in series as a load. In my opinion, this is the only thing that can be used for conversion from a Lockridge DC generator.

Earlier, collecting information about similar devices from Germany, I have three episodes:

First: Lockridge conversion from a BOSCH DC generator. (Only the anchor that Bedini had is in question, and the stator does not reveal the essence of the solution).

Second: the one that was seen by a veteran of the Second World War, who saw a self-rotating source reminiscent of an UMFORMER or Tesla Dynamo. The materials, as well as the source itself, were confiscated by the political counterintelligence of the USSR in 1945. No one believed him, everyone took him for the whims of an old man, but respected him because he was a local inventor of various electrical devices.

Third: only from the words of an informant who told a sad story about how in the mid-80s a veteran of the Second World War from the USSR confessed on his deathbed to his relatives that in 1945 he was brought in as a specialist (electrical engineer) to drive two single-seater submarines on electric traction from an underground dock. He directly shouted that the electric generator in the boat rotated itself without external force. The USSR special services took a non-disclosure agreement from him, and only on his deathbed did he voice this to his relatives. Naturally, no one believed him and took it for the fantasies of a dying old man. Unfortunately, the old man did not specify any details.

---------
The second and third episodes probably had a double winding on the anchor (motor and generator), this overlaps with the design of Robert Alexander (USA) and possibly Leonid Stovbunenko (USSR). Both demonstrated an electric car that does not discharge the battery while driving. What happened to Alexander, I do not know, and all of Stovbunenko's inventions were classified in the USSR.

Hello Rakarskiy,

And thanks for your comment!

You mean "Armature" where you wrote "Anchor"...I assume bad Google translation.

Quote from: rakarskiy on Nov 25, 2024, 04:38 AMHello UFO!

The Armature may generate, but only part of the anchor winding. You can also connect the source (part of the winding) in series with the common armature circuit. In some places, generation, in others, the creation of a magnetic flux in the armature core and stator shoes. A light bulb is connected in series as a load. In my opinion, this is the only thing that can be used for conversion from a Lockridge DC generator.

Now, on the design I have shown above, the Motor and Generator Brushes are connected in PARALLEL, if you have noticed that.
Meaning, Positive to Positive and Negative to Negative, as they "connect" through the armature coils which are not being energized and just serve as conductors.

This design allows the electrical flow on the Armature-Brushes, to be either from one side (Motor) to the other (Generator) and vice versa.

Now once the Generating side becomes higher than Motor side (because it reaches operating speed) then it will take over the Motor side.

And then the only way this exchange could be "regulated" is through the currents that are allowed to the Three Stators.

On this part, remember that Bedini's shown Lockridge Device had Three Trifilar Inducting Coils, wrapped around outer frame on a yellow wrapping?

So, Three Trifilar Coils had a total of Six Terminals (two for each coil) and here we could control a back-and-forth inductor circuit between all three stators.

We could had one larger Inductor coil (higher resistance lesser currents) for Motor Stator (S1) as shorter wire coil for Generator, this will allow currents on the generating side stators S2 & S3 to be higher, while for Motor would be lesser currents. All Three Inductors connected within a closed circuit with Stators.

But all this (Three External Inductors) could come later, as before we need to run device starting from both sides (motor and generator) and reading output:

1- Running just as a Dynamo, by connecting the drive pulley to a Motor through a belt.

2- Exciting the Motor Circuit by adding DC power to brushes A & B, then reading brushes C & D Output.

We could have Motor Stator (S1) powered by a separate source than S2 & S3, which could be in series. Then Motor Source will regulate-control motor speed.

Quote from: rakarskiy on Nov 25, 2024, 04:38 AMThe second and third episodes probably had a double winding on the anchor (motor and generator), this overlaps with the design of Robert Alexander (USA) and possibly Leonid Stovbunenko (USSR). Both demonstrated an electric car that does not discharge the battery while driving. What happened to Alexander, I do not know, and all of Stovbunenko's inventions were classified in the USSR.

Yes, I am very familiar with Alexander Patent, as it was cited several times while I was disclosing My Asymmetric Electrodynamic Machines on Energetic Forum...they were trying to compare it to my design.

This is a completely different device as Lockridge or the Original German BOSCH Dynamo was...

First, it Outputs AC and gets DC for Input...as it has Dual Commutators and Dual Windings on Armature...but no OU here, it is just a "Converter" that keeps the known "balanced I/O" of V&A.

Look at image below...it is the same concept, but "Made in Germany" during the War:

You can clearly read the Input versus Output.


It Inputs 12V and 7.5A-1.2A, then it Outputs 330V at 0.140 Amps (90W In/46W Out, calculating for Max Amps at Input, or 7.5A) And I guess it will "compensate" whenever reaching operating speed and it could be "half way" between 7.5 to 1.2A or anywhere around 4.0A...still not OU here.

Regards

Ufopolitics

I meant the anchor. Yes I know that Alexander applied a different principle. I just gave examples of self-propelled machines from 1945 (Germany) and examples from the second half of the 20th century that I know (the list is not complete).

About the parallel windings of a standard armature? I'm not sure, as the reason is the resistances.  Although if we assume series connection of armature windings (motor) and excitation shoe windings (solenoids) + armature windings (generator), there may well be a parallel connection. The only question is how to divide the ring armature winding system into two separate windings at the moment of connection of the brushes on the collector.  In the case of parallel connection at the moment of load connection, there should be an increase in the current in the windings, this can only be achieved by increasing the resulting EMF. Thus the current in the windings must increase the magnetisation. In parallel connection there will be a drop of EMF to the resultant voltage and current (if there is a battery this is easily solved. I never found out if the Lockridge alternator could run without a starting/ballast battery.

These labyrinths of Ohm's law and EMF generation need to be dealt with very seriously. Perhaps the solution is in plain sight.  I'll point out again, if the armature winding is hidden in the slot, it works to magnetise the poles and generate EMF in a different way to the outer winding used in late 19th century dynamos. When you plan the poles of the armature core from the current in the winding (like a solenoid with a core), but the generator one is probably not correct. Magnetic flux cannot reach the armature wires to generate, as always the magnetic induction lines of force will short out through the armature of the core, bypassing the wires themselves. 

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

@rakarskiy.

Ok, I do not think you have understood correctly how my design works...as many more here may, so, just in case...I will "brake it down" in two parts:

1- First, the Dynamo (Generator) Part alone.

So, below is just the Dynamo part, MODIFIED:



Ok, so, above is just a "typical" Two Pole, Automotive Dynamo, that I had ONLY MODIFIED the TWO STATORS.

NOT the Brushes (still at 180º)

NOT the Armature.

And by modifying the TWO STATORS, AS SHOWN ABOVE, I am FORCING (BENDING) the LINES of Force to be as shown above in the blue curved lines, travelling from North to South Stators.

Then, if you just rotate this Dynamo, it will still be generating power, collected at the two brushes.

However, the LEFT SIDE OF ARMATURE will NOT be generating nothing (IDLING SIDE). Since there are no Stator Fields there...NO Lines of Force= NO INDUCTION.

So, you get Positive Output at Brush D, and Negative Output at Brush C.

AND MORE IMPORTANTLY...YOU CAN STILL RUN THIS DYNAMO AS A MOTOR!!

1- If the Magnetic Field developed at HALF Armature is NORTH (BLUE) then it will run CCW

2- If the Magnetic Field developed at that same HALF Armature is SOUTH (RED) it will spin CW.

It will run very MECHANICALLY UMBALANCED though, but it will definitively run!!

I guarantee it will run as a motor, and as a Dynamo, it will generate power as well, maybe not the full power output it had, when the FULL ARMATURE was generating power with the two stators at 180 degrees, but the difference will not be that much.

We may need to increase speed to compensate output volume.


Ufopolitics

Hello again,

Ok, and here is just the SIMPLE MOTOR SIDE:



Here Motor will run CW, and by just moving (A FEW DEGREES) the TWO BRUSHES (A & B) below S1 BISECTOR LINE, we will get it to REVERSE DIRECTION, or CCW.

Without the need to reverse the electrical polarities of motor brushes.

As we can expand this INTERACTION ANGLE BETWEEN BRUSHES, to have less currents on Armature or decrease Angle to gain more power on Armature...

Yes, it is "very asymmetrical", and Yes, it will run very UNBALANCED BY ITSELF!!

NOW, if we are going to see the whole thing, we must realize THERE IS ANOTHER FIELD ON THIS MOTOR ARMATURE, EXACTLY AT 180 DEGREES FROM THE INTERACTING ANGLE:


So, this opposite side angle is WIDER, as it comprehends MORE COILS on ARMATURE that the Blue one, hence, it is WEAKER, as it has more resistance and lesser currents.

This Red Angle is also of OPPOSITE POLARIZATION than Blue Angle, so, if Blue is North, then Red is South.

And here (on this same SPACE as Red Motor Angle) comes the Generator side Angle...that here MUST BE OF THE SAME POLARITY as the Motor Angle, so they both FUSE TOGETHER as ONE.

IF THEY ARE OPPOSITE IN MAGNETIC POLARITY, THEY WILL CANCEL OR DOMINATES A SUBTRACTED DIFFERENCE, DEPENDING ON WHICH ONE IS STRONGER...this will NOT WORK!!

THEY MUST BE OF THE SAME POLARITY FOR THE BLENDING*, THE FUSION* TO TAKE PLACE SMOOTHLY!!

* When I say "BLEND AND FUSE" I mean that since BOTH Fields are manifesting on the SAME WIRES on ARMATURE, by being of same magnetic polarization, it means currents will run on the same direction flow.
Then currents WILL ADD within the Armature Wires on this Red side.



So, it is supposed that Motor runs with the other side GENERATING SIDE ASSISTANCE, in order that:

BETWEEN BOTH DEVICES (MOTOR AND GENERATOR) WE MUST FIND A WAY, THAT THEY WILL "ASSIST" EACH OTHER'S, THIS IS THE "WHOLE SECRET" HERE.

So, once we load generator, a Magnetic Field would be generated on armature, on the generating side ONLY.

And that Field needs to ASSIST MOTOR ROTATION!!!

NOW, there are A LOT, AND I MEAN "A LOT" of Parameters here to ADJUST and play with them, in order to get the whole SYSTEM to run very smoothly, AND THAT IT WORKS BEAUTIFULLY AS EXPECTED.

This is the way I see it...and this is the way I will test it whenever I am ready to do it.

If it does not work, well, it would be another way we know it will not work...

That's all folks!!

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello again,

This Three Stators Lockridge Design is just a way to see, understand and build this Machine on the simplest way possible.

However, on the Motor Side, instead of just one stator S1, there could be TWO SMALLER Motor Stators, like we have seen on the Lockridge Bedini's Video...BUT this will complicate -A LOT- the way of understanding this Device.

Since the Motor Angle would vary, plus the Generating side will also get Induction from these two motor stators (since they are North-South) they will also have an inducing field on the motor side.

So, if on the 3 Stators, there are a LOT of Parameters to play with, to get it running perfect...with Four Stators it is DOUBLE those Parameters at play.

And the chances for it to blend, fuse and work perfectly well are MUCH HARDER TO ACHIEVE.

That is the only reason why, I reduced this design into three stators to start testing it first.

Once we get positive results and get it to run beautiful...then we could build a Second Machine, (NEVER TAKE APART THE ONE IS WORKING!!) where all four stators are involved.

Sincerely


Ufopolitics

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Nov 25, 2024, 12:41 PMOnce we get positive results and get it to run beautiful...then we could build a Second Machine, (NEVER TAKE APART THE ONE IS WORKING!!) where all four stators are involved.

Hi Ufo. What you just said there is very true. Don't take it apart. Build another machine and do some testing on so you have all the parameters on that one.

The ones I have worked with are the 4 pole ones. Yes, they are very touchy. Seems like if one part is adjusted all the rest needs to be adjusted to compensate for the adjustment.

I like your approach to getting a wider angle of generation on the one side. If the bemf is a problem just shifting the brushes or the pole shoes might solve the problem. Won't know for sure until it proven.

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Nov 25, 2024, 11:07 AM

[...]

...NOW, if we are going to see the whole thing, we must realize THERE IS ANOTHER FIELD ON THIS MOTOR ARMATURE, EXACTLY AT 180 DEGREES FROM THE INTERACTING ANGLE:

SINGLE_POLE_ASYMM_MOTOR_WEAKER_ANGLE.png

So, this opposite side angle is WIDER, as it comprehends MORE COILS on ARMATURE that the Blue one, hence, it is WEAKER, as it has more resistance and lesser currents.

This Red Angle is also of OPPOSITE POLARIZATION than Blue Angle, so, if Blue is North, then Red is South.

[...]

*******************************

Hello All,

Ok I wanted to add this post after making this specific CAD, which will "resume" on all prior posts, before the day ends.

After looking at that Back Red Motor Angle & Bisector on the quoted post above...I want you to see what happens when I just add the two Generator Brushes.
(And I have not added on image below ANY Stators, not to deviate your attention on anything else, BUT all FOUR Brushes placement and the EFFECT IT CAUSES on the Armature Magnetic Field Angles.


And even if we do not power up the Generator stators...so there will not be any induction on the Red Angle side, this is what takes place.

Please compare both images and see the difference.

First, note that the Red Motor Angle gets "narrower" now defined by the two Generator Brushes being there and contacting commutator.

Like I wrote before, EVEN WITH THE GENERATOR STATORS OFF, this Red Angle will be RESHAPED just by having these two brushes at 180 degrees.

On this CAD I have the same Electrical Polarity as all prior Graphics on ALL BRUSHES. And between the Two Positive Brushes A & D, I have added a small coil joining these two brushes. I also have done the same thing below between lower Negative Brushes B & C.

And this means that the Positive and Negative Input charges on Motor Brushes A & B + C & D, are TRANSFERRING their charges through all coils on Armature on those TWO specific segments.

As a result, there will NOT BE ANY MAGNETIC FIELD GENERATED between those two segments, reason I wrote "NO FIELD" on both sides.

Also, please compare on BOTH IMAGES the TWO RED ARROW BISECTOR ON THE RED ANGLE...

It has moved from being perfectly aligned, straight with Blue Arrow Bisector on IMAGE 1, to become a straight 90º angle related to the new added Generator brushes set at 180º Line.

Again, this happens, even if the Generator side is completely OFF.

As when you turn Generator Stators ON, nothing would change related to these Two Angles positioning and Bisectors, on the contrary, the Generated Field Angle, once Output is loaded will COINCIDE EXACTLY ON THE SAME SPATIAL POSITIONING FOR BOTH (MOTOR-GEN) RED SIDE ANGLES.

Finally, even when you adjust the Two Motor Brushes A & B to change Motor Rotation, this Red Back Motor-Generator FUSED Angles and Bisectors will NOT SHIFT, NOR MOVE EVEN ONE MILLIMETER.

This is just the FIRST PART of this "FUSION" between these TWO ANGLES (Motor-Generator) starts right here...

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

Now, in order to be successful on this project, we need to ANALYZE INDEPENDENTLY BOTH SYSTEMS (MOTOR AND GENERATOR).

PREVIOUSLY, ON THE UNMODIFIED DYNAMO, we need to identify which Stator is North and which is South, when applying DC INPUT Negative to Ground and Positive to the Isolated Stator connection...WITHOUT ARMATURE ON, we get the Magnetic Orientation Pen and MARK THAT NORTH STATOR ON THE INSIDE AS ON THE OUTSIDE!!

And when we assemble the Armature back, and power Dynamo as a Motor, using the "unidirectional" connection, or the Positive to the isolated brush and Negative Ground, we get a ROTATION DIRECTION, WHICH I WILL CALL IT "CONVENTIONAL DIRECTION"...and mark that rotation from the face you are looking at, typically BRUSH SIDE, as that is the Convention I have been using on ALL CADS here.!!

Or simply, you could add a piece of masking tape and wrap it around a part of the outer housing and write an arrow -on tape- following this conventional direction.

THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT PART!!, simply because ALL these Dynamos when running as a Generator, they ALWAYS generate Positive at that Positive Isolated Brush, AS THE ROTATION DIRECTION IS ONLY DONE IN ONE WAY, TO GENERATE DC THIS WAY!!
IF YOU REVERSE THE ORIGINAL OEM ROTATION, THEN THE ELECTRICAL POLARITIES WILL ALSO BE REVERSED!!

NOW, ALL THESE DYNAMOS ALWAYS HAVE THE SAME ELECTRICAL POLARIZATION, BASED ON THE SAME ROTATION DIRECTION, WHETHER YOU RUN IT AS A GENERATOR OR AS A MOTOR!!

And I decided to make a short video where I demonstrate exactly what I have stated above:



Now, getting back to the Lockridge Device Construction...

So, we need to add the Two Smaller-Angle Motor Brushes. And here try to set the New Positive Brush (Isolated) closer to the 180 Degrees Positive Brush (Dynamo OEM Brush).

Now let's check the Motor System...so, if you have the Gen Stators on, turn them off from any power at all, zero!!

So, let's power it up and make it run with the FOUR Brushes, then take measurements on the two Gen Brushes C & D.

These measurements MUST BE ALMOST IDENTICAL to our Input to Motor on Brushes A & B.

Meaning Brushes A & D Must be Positive as Brushes B & C Must be Negative, as the Voltage values should be almost identical, maybe a bit below on the 180 degrees brushes, due to coils and commutator-brushes resistance...but, again, not much difference!!

If they are NOT as described above, then check your wiring, your brushes pressures by spring, your contacts, your Rotation Direction, etc.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

Ok here is a short video about identifying the Stators Magnetic Polarity:




Then I have drawn another CAD for this FORD Dynamo Spec's...and again, ALL this CAD Drawings are based on looking at Dynamo from the Brushes side, like I have explained on previous video.

Once that we know each stator magnetic polarity, then we can display the way Armature gets Magnetized or the Two Main Poles that Brushes 180 degrees plane divides.

So, here Armature is shaded in two halves, one Red (South) and the other Blue (North)

As here I will repeat what I said on video above...these two Armature Poles, or the Magnetic Field (comprehending both poles) DO NOT TURN AT ALL.

I am also showing BOTH BISECTORS for each pole at 90 degrees from brush plane.



And as you can see, there is absolutely no room to add a third stator...without MODIFYING both Stators.

Actually, for the Lockridge Device (either three or four stators) we need that TWO Stators -right next to each other's- embrace ONLY HALF ARMATURE...simple as that.

Both Stators can expand a bit over half armature...but not much.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

Ok, on previous video I spoke about the Armature Windings...that on this specific Dynamo, it comprehends Six Core Elements.

And if you measure the ARC of these Six Elements, it is almost exact to the size of each Stator ARC.

Below is same CAD but now showing all armature coils comprehending Six Teeth or Elements.


And here I write that -no matter what "they say"- but, in order for our Lockridge Device to work perfectly well...we will need to also rewind the Armature.

We can do it exactly as it is done (same winding configuration) BUT comprehending exactly THREE (3) CORE ELEMENTS, instead of Six for each coil.

Why?...because we will be reducing each stator to exactly that Arc Size...or Three Elements Arc.

This is like winding an Armature for a Four Stator System...

We always need to leave at least two elements which will be "floating" or not being covered (embraced) by Stators.

Or we could also make it with Three Stators Full Configuration...and wind Armature comprehending Four Core Elements.

I will have to put these options on CAD and see which one works out better.

Cheers

Ufopolitics

UFO. Very good teaching lessons.

Hello All,

Ok, here I want to go over the Torsion Fields developing at my (OEM-NOT MODIFIED) FORD Dynamo (and actually ANY BRAND Dynamo that has TWO POLES) when RUNNING AS A MOTOR.
If you want to know "the basics" about Torsion Fields, starting from the simplest approach, then go to the FIRST TWO PAGES of :  The TORSION FIELD & EFFECTS (https://overunitymachines.com/index.php/topic,64.0/topicseen.html)
All other pages are just a discussion and interruptions about Magnets and Magnetic Fields...brought up by Rakarskiy and other members...that I did not clean it up and not continued posting.
However, the very "BASIC INFO" is on the Two First Pages.



So, above you can see Armature MAIN MAGNETIC FIELD, divided MAGNETIC POLARIZATION by the BRUSHES PLANE in two parts:

1- Half of Armature South (Red Right Half Circumference)
2- Half of Armature North (Blue Left Half Circumference)

As Stator S3 North (Blue) and Stator S2 South (Red)

Now, based on this configuration, when we apply power to the TWO Brushes as Positive to Brush D and Negative to Brush C, it generates the Armature Main Field as shown.

This generates FOUR TORSION FIELDS on ARMATURE that originates FOUR QUADRANTS, defined below.

Q1- Upper Left Quadrant is a REPULSION FIELD generated by Two North Poles, one the Stator S3 (North) and (Q1) North on Armature.
Q2- Lower Left Quadrant is an ATTRACTION FIELD generated by TWO Opposite Poles, or South Pole (S2) and North Pole developed at Q2.
Q3- Lower Right Quadrant is a REPULSION FIELD generated by Two South Poles, one by Stator S2 (South) and Q3 on Armature.
Q4- Upper Right Quadrant is an ATTRACTION FIELD generated by TWO Opposite Poles or S3 North and Q4 South on Armature.

Now, the interesting part of this Analysis, is that Armature Magnetic Field NEVER ROTATES AT ALL!!
Therefore, NONE of these FOUR QUADRANTS rotate nor moves at all.

Rotation takes place by a CONSTANT SEEK OF EACH COIL AND ITS RESPECTIVE PART OF STEEL CORE ON ARMATURE TO ACHIEVE A MAGNETIC BALANCE...which NEVER TAKES PLACE.

Each Coil on Armature Rotate with the same Electrical Polarization THEN the same Magnetic Polarization ONLY for HALF CIRCUMFERENCE, until it passes the BRUSH PLANE, then it REVERSES ELECTRICAL POLARIZATION AND THEREFORE MAGNETIC POLARIZATION.
So, if Coil was on under forces Q1 and Q2 NORTH, after it passes Brush Plane according to Rotation R (CCW) 180º, then it NOW BECOMES SOUTH, because it is under Q3 and Q4 SOUTH.
The same but OPPOSITE REVERSAL ACTION takes place of Coil(s) that were FIRST on Q3-Q4 and passes to Q1-Q2 according to Rotation.


Now, this info here -briefly and extracted explanation- I consider it is very important, when we are going to split this Dynamo in Two Parts, a Motor and a Generator.

As we will be using EXACTLY TWO Quadrants on Armature for the Motor side, as TWO Quadrants on Armature for the Generation side...as the Lockridge original design based on Four Stators.

or in the Three (3) Stator design we will only have Three Quadrants:

1- Two (2) Quadrants on Armature for Generation.
2- Only one (1) Quadrant on Armature for Motor.

EDIT 1: If you all noticed, Q1 and Q3 are REPULSION, while Q2 and Q4 are ATTRACTION, so they are set at a perfect DIAGONAL ALIGNMENT...as we can always move Brushes Plane to make it more towards Attract Mode or towards Repulse Mode, meaning to INCREASE JUST ONE MODE MORE THAN THE OTHER, WHETHER REPULSION or ATTRACTION.
Example: If we move CCW the Brush Plane, like 15º, we will have more Attraction Mode than Repulsion. Where if we move Brush Plane CW from Neutral (12 O'clock) it will increase the Repulsion Mode.
From Factory these Dynamos are ALL set at what I call "NEUTRAL TORSION FIELD" where all Quadrants' FORCES are perfectly distributed equally.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hi again,

You posted this statement:
EDIT 1: If you all noticed, Q1 and Q3 are REPULSION, while Q2 and Q4 are ATTRACTION, so they are set at a perfect DIAGONAL ALIGNMENT...as we can always move Brushes Plane to make it more towards Attract Mode or towards Repulse Mode, meaning to INCREASE JUST ONE MODE MORE THAN THE OTHER, WHETHER REPULSION or ATTRACTION.
Example: If we move CCW the Brush Plane, like 15º, we will have more Attraction Mode than Repulsion. Where if we move Brush Plane CW from Neutral (12 O'clock) it will increase the Repulsion Mode.
From Factory these Dynamos are ALL set at what I call "NEUTRAL TORSION FIELD" where all Quadrants' FORCES are perfectly distributed equally.

That is completely correct.  However it reminded me of my early days of working with large generators and motors.  I was fortunate enough to get to work with an older very good motor tech.  On large DC motors and generators the brushes are adjustable.  Just a few degrees of shift clockwise or counter-clockwise can make a big difference.

What he showed me was that as we got away from the neutral brush position the efficiency of the motor or generator went down and the current went up as well as the sparking at the brushes.  In other words if we have more repulsion than attraction or vice versa we will lose efficiency and increase sparking at the brushes.  He showed me to adjust for minimum sparking and that is also the most efficient.

When you get to the point where you can test this,  please do so as I might not be remembering everything correctly, but I think I am.

Thanks for all you hard work,
Carroll

Hello Citfta and many thanks for that Post!!

Hello All, as Happy Thanksgiving to those that live on the States.

Yes, Citfta, your reasoning is correct, related to manually look for the least sparking in order to find that "sweet spot".

The 'Neutral Plane' I was referring to, on my previous post (as I have also shown the CAD Image) relates directly to Torsion Fields Quadrants for MOTORS.

However, if we go to the Hawkins Book Vol 2 (what a great book!!) there is on CHAPTER XX (https://archive.org/details/hawkins-electrical-guide-series-books/Hawkins%20electrical%20guide%20vol-2/page/282/mode/2up) all related to 'Commutation and the Commutator' ON DYNAMOS (GENERATORS)

There are exactly three Images (Fig 301, 302, 303) where it explains everything -in great detail- related to obtaining a sparkless commutation.

I copied these three images, and I will post them below:


FIG 301: On this image it shows the 'Neutral Plane' perpendicular (90º) to the ´Normal Plane of Maximum Induction´, which is the straight line between opposite magnetic poles on Stator.
However, this image above is based on "IDEAL CONDITIONS"...where there is no FIELD DISTORTION, as no SELF INDUCTION, but if you read the explanation below image, it explains that those "disturbing effects" (Self Induction & Field Distortion) are present on ALL Dynamos.
And if you have noticed, the Brushes Plane is passing -just a little bit- the Normal Neutral Plane.


Now FIG 302 above, starts "landing us back to reality" and away from "idealistic" references. We can see clearly what takes place when Dynamo Armature is rotating according to arrow.
Now there are still -as reference only- the previous Normal Neutral Plane as the Max Induction Plane on Fig 301, however, here those TWO Planes have rotated exactly 45º (following rotation) to give us the change it takes to adapt to reality.


And Image above (FIG 303) is the "Final Detail" on Brush Plane adjustment settings, it introduces the Angle of Lead, where Brush Plane is now set at the End of this Angle, which is BEYOND the "New" Neutral Plane as it was shown first on FIG 302.
Then on further pages it goes to even greater detail about Brush Plane alignment with a close-up of just the Positive Brush in different adjustments.

AS A FINAL CONCLUSION:  The Commutation Plane (or Brushes Plane) is set on the EXTREME OPPOSITE SIDE to where REAL FIELD DISTORTION TAKES PLACE OR THE MAX INDUCTION PLANE.

FIELD DISTORTION AREAS ACCUMULATE DENSE FLUX or MORE LINES OF FORCE CONCENTRATION, THEREFORE THE HIGHER THE SELF-INDUCTION ON THIS END.

So, we do NOT want BRUSHES COMMUTATION on those areas, but as far from them as we could set them further away.

The Spark takes place because every time brushes Short Circuit a Coil, (or two segments at once) after it passes that point, coil REVERSES CURRENTS, producing the spark. And the less Flux, the less self-induction would be present at areas where there is not much concentration of flux.

And now, related to the Lockridge Device...I believe that the exact Plane where our Motor Side should be applying majority of Torque Force, is exactly at the Plane of Maximum Induction of the Dynamo on the Generating side.
Simply because on that Max Induction Plane is where majority of DRAG will be present whenever we LOAD the generator side.

CHAPTER XXIII (https://archive.org/details/hawkins-electrical-guide-series-books/Hawkins%20electrical%20guide%20vol-2/page/348/mode/2up?view=theater) is fully dedicated to DYNAMOS AS MOTORS.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello again,

Ok, so here I will be brief...as prior post basically relates to the way a Dynamo (as a Generator) is set, related to Brush Plane and Plane of Max Induction...

Here I will just be posting an extract of what is learned on CHAPTER XXIII (https://archive.org/details/hawkins-electrical-guide-series-books/Hawkins%20electrical%20guide) (Motors).


Above Paragraph, in the very beginning of Chapter XXIII it reads clearly that a Dynamo as a Motor is the complete OPPOSITE of a Dynamo as Generator.


And so, image above resumes almost everything about the differences between Dynamo (Generator) as Dynamo as a Motor.
As BOTH MACHINES are rotating with the same Direction (CW), but we can see the BRUSH PLANES DIFFERENCES.
And finally, that Currents on a Dynamo as a Generator (left image) flow on the SAME DIRECTION as the ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE.
While on the Dynamo as a Motor, EMF is OPPOSITE to CURRENT FLOW.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

Ok, so this great book gave us what I have been searching for a while, and even thought on making a complicated physical test in order to find out...but here it is!!

Now, bringing again FIG 302 here, so we can compare it in one single post:


And down below is my recreation of that same image above, except that I have enhanced some components...


As you can see, I have rearranged the way Positive and Negative Brushes and its plane were set from previous CAD that I have shown, and this is to be identical to FIG 302.

Now, if you go to FIG 302 above, please notice at 12 O'clock, the Normal Neutral Plane has an N' as at 6 O'clock it has an S'.

The upper Brush on the right has an arrow pointing "inwards" which means it is Negative charge. As the lower Brush is a Positive Brush with an arrow coming out of.

However, the most important part of all these drawings is the way that Dynamos working as a Generator manifests their Back EMF.

And those Polarizations (N' & S') on the Normal Neutral Plane let us know the way BEMF manifests on Armature...Then I interpreted that the "new" advanced Neutral Plane (Red Line on my drawing) according to Field Disturbances...this Plane MUST have the same Magnetic Polarization as the Normal Neutral Plane, therefore I named them as N" & S".

Then on my image I have defined the OPPOSITE MAGNETIC POLARITY (BEMF) developed at Dynamos as Generators on their Armatures whenever they are loaded.

As you can see the UPPER part of Armature has turned NORTH, as the LOWER is SOUTH, now, try to Rotate this Armature CW...and notice the OPPOSITION is made based on a FORWARD REPULSION, as an ATTRACTION DRAG from BOTH Stators.

In conclusion, this is the way an Armature of a Dynamo whenever is LOADED, is Magnetizing as a manifestation of Lenz Law, or Back EMF which OPPOSES ROTATION DIRECTION.

If someone already knew this, I must confess I did not...as I have never worked with old Dynamos as Generators before, but with typical AC Generators where the Inducing Field (Exciter) is on the Rotating Armature as the Induced or Output Fields are on the Stator part, a complete opposite of Dynamo's Design.

Anyways, I consider this knowledge have a very important part to make the Lockridge Device...

Now, all this work I have developed here is only due to the "two letters" (N' & S') on the Normal Neutral Plane of FIG 302...and I could be wrong, or it was just a "typo" on that book (which I doubt very much)

And if someone think my deductions are somehow wrong, please let me know here.

Thanks much and Regards

Ufopolitics

Hi UFO!

On your slide with the armature which has slots for the winding, the magnetic flux through the armature core is not correct. Take a simulation of how it would be in an appropriate program like FEMM. I'm sorry, but I think that's where the error comes from. 

On the gif the DC motor that everyone has held in their hands, it also works in generation mode. It is a closed winding armature system.


(https://www.renesas.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/fig1-operation-of-the-brushed-en.gif)

Quote from: rakarskiy on Nov 29, 2024, 04:22 PMHi UFO!

On your slide with the armature which has slots for the winding, the magnetic flux through the armature core is not correct.

@rakarskiy ,

First, my post was not related to a Motor, but SPECIFICALLY FOR A DYNAMO AS GENERATOR

(Did you READ my Image TITLE??!!)

As the "magnetic flux" flow within the Armature Core has NOTHING to do with the type of Armature is being used...it could be a Gramme Ring, a Drum Armature or a Salient Pole design, like shown on my post.
What I CARE ABOUT, are the TWO MAGNETIC POLES (NORTH &SOUTH) ORIGINATING ON ARMATURE!!!

AS IMAGE BELOW, RELATES TO A DYNAMO, BUT!...USED AS A MOTOR...AND IT IS COMPLETELY OPPOSITE AS WHEN DYNAMO IS USED AS A GENERATOR, RELATED TO ARMATURE MAGNETIC POLARIZATION.



HOWEVER, the MAIN PART on my Post is about the MAGNETIC FIELD DISTURBANCE ON ARMATURE ON A DYNAMO WORKING AS GENERATOR...NOT AS A MOTOR!!
that FIELD DISTURBANCE originates the High and Low Areas of INDUCTION, as IT generates the Plane of MAX Induction, and the plane for setting of brushes for no sparking (COMMUTATING PLANE) [LOW INDUCTION]

Plus, the ARMATURE POLARIZATION OF THE FIELD WHEN DYNAMO-GENERATOR IS LOADED.

And, rakarskiy, please...you know me very well from Energetic Forum, you know about my Asymmetrical Electrodynamic Machines...and so on and on...

OR YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT THEM OR ANY OF MY WORK?

So, why do you do this type of posts, like I would be a "newbie" or a "rookie" in Electrodynamic Machines knowledge, and I am going to "learn" from you?? ;D ...is it due to your bad translation?

Your type of post, trying to "CORRECT ME" on how a Brushed Motor Works is really FUNNY MAN!! ;D ;D ;D

...not to call it something else

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

Sometimes "interruptions" bring some good things as to make it even clearer, as it may have not been explained well enough before (by me)

So, I did another IMAGE:



SO, ABOVE IS A DYNAMO AS A GENERATOR (NOT AS A MOTOR) DISPLAYING ARMATURE MAGNETIC POLARIZATION BASED ON "NORMAL" PLANES (NOT THE REAL WAY IT TAKES PLACE, BUT THE "IMAGINARY" IN AN IDEAL SITUATION WHERE THERE ARE NO MAGNETIC DISTURBANCES...

So, Now I have taken OFF: Brushes, Type of Armature Core, No Flux Lines, No Magnetic Disturbances...then it is the BASIC ARMATURE POLARIZATION WHEN GENERATOR IS LOADED.

Do I have to remind you that in a Dynamo Generator we do NOT INPUT POWER to the BRUSHES, BUT WE TAKE THE POWER FROM BRUSHES?...

So, the Armature Polarization on a DYNAMO AS GENERATOR comes from INDUCTION GENERATED ON ITS COILS, WHEN PASSING THROUGH THE MAGNETIZED STATORS AS SEEN ABOVE, RELATED TO THE DIRECTION OF ROTATION, AND ONLY WHEN IS LOADED.

WHEN GENERATOR IS NOT LOADED, ARMATURE WILL NOT HAVE A FIELD, THEN, NO MAGNETIC POLARIZATION, ZERO!...NO MATTER HOW FAST S ROTATING.

So, it DOES NOT MATTER WHERE WE SET BRUSHES, POWER WILL COME OUT...MAYBE WITH SPARKS, A LOT, LESS OR NONE,  BUT THERE WOULD BE POWER TAKE OFF AT BRUSHES AT ANY POINT ON THE 360º OF COMMUTATOR.

As explained before, here I am using ONLY the NORMAL PLANES, which means are the IDEAL AND THEORETICAL SITUATION to be used just as a REFERENCE GUIDE to then show the REAL WAY IT TAKES PLACE AFTER MAGNETIC DISTURBANCES ARE PRESENT.

So, whenever we rotate this Dynamo with an EXTERNAL ENGINE IN CLOCKWISE DIRECTION (ARROW SHOWN), and we LOAD IT, we get this Magnetic Polarization on Armature, which obviously will oppose rotation...this is called BACK ELETRO-MOTIVE FORCE.

This is based on Hawkins Book, not me...

Regards

Ufopolitics

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Nov 29, 2024, 09:27 PMSo, whenever we rotate this Dynamo with an EXTERNAL ENGINE IN CLOCKWISE DIRECTION (ARROW SHOWN), and we LOAD IT, we get this Magnetic Polarization on Armature, which obviously will oppose rotation...this is called BACK ELETRO-MOTIVE FORCE.

Hi UFO    If the geometry is set right in side the case.  Then the generator should rotate the direction of the bemf. So the load actually runs the machine. The resistance of the load would dictate how strong the magnetic flux in the feild pole and armature would be then?

I was thinking on how many rpm it would have. 

Quote from: hiwater on Nov 30, 2024, 12:42 PM

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Nov 29, 2024, 09:27 PMSo, whenever we rotate this Dynamo with an EXTERNAL ENGINE IN CLOCKWISE DIRECTION (ARROW SHOWN), and we LOAD IT, we get this Magnetic Polarization on Armature, which obviously will oppose rotation...this is called BACK ELETRO-MOTIVE FORCE.

Hi UFO    If the geometry is set right in side the case.  Then the generator should rotate the direction of the bemf. So the load actually runs the machine. The resistance of the load would dictate how strong the magnetic flux in the feild pole and armature would be then?

I was thinking on how many rpm it would have.

Hello Hiwater,

Yes, I was about to make a post to explain better how the Field is displayed on a Dynamo as Generator...but I will answer to your questions first.

It is exactly as I described on my post above, so, the Magnetic Polarity on the ARMATURE would be DICTATED by the ROTATION DIRECTION ONLY!!
NOT BY THE BRUSHES AT ALL, ONLY WHEN DYNAMO IS USED AS MOTOR, THEN THE BRUSHES PLANE AS POWER INPUT (NOT OUTPUT) WOULD BE DICTATING THE ARMATURE MAGNETIC POLES.

Yes, on a Dynamo-Generator it depends DIRECTLY on the LOAD WATTAGE you are adding to make the Armature Field Stronger or Weaker.

When you LOAD a Dynamo-Generator you are CLOSING THE ARMATURE OUTPUT CIRCUIT FROM ITS BRUSHES, so, it becomes a "New ADDED Circuit" which have an EXTERNAL LOAD and wires, and a Magnetic Field is then generated at Armature.

Yes, Resistance will dictate the strength of the Armature Field...since it is INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to CURRENTS. So, the more Resistance the less Currents and vice versa.

Speed is just the resultant force (Torque) required, according to your load, to maintain a rotation constant and in order that speed is compensated with coils timing, so they will not overheat and burn. 

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

Ok, after yesterday's discussion I found where "our problem in understanding" about  these differences are coming from...

We have to realize that a Dynamo Generator and a Dynamo as a Motor are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MACHINES.

Even though, we may have BOTH SYSTEMS on the same Machine, meaning, we can operate a Dynamo as BOTH, a Motor and a Generator.

However, when it comes to VISUALIZING the MAGNETIC FIELD GENERATED ON A DYNAMO ARMATURE, only there we realize how different Both Systems (Motor and Generator) are.

1- DYNAMO AS A MOTOR: We INPUT POWER TO BRUSHES, so, this means that BASED ON BRUSHES PLANE ANGLE AND ELECTRIC POLARIZATION, WE ARE DICTATING HOW THE ARMATURE MAGNETIC FIELD BE, THEN HOW IT WILL ROTATE, CW or CCW, MORE TORQUE, LESS SPEED, LESS TORQUE, MORE SPEED, etc.

2- DYNAMO AS A GENERATOR: We TAKE OFF POWER FROM BRUSHES, so, here the BRUSH POSITIONING AND THEIR PLANE AND ANGLE WILL NOT DICTATE HOW THE ARMATURE MAGNETIC FIELD AND POLARIZATIONS WOULD BE.
THE ARMATURE FIELD AND POLARIZATION WILL BE DICTATED BY THE ROTATION DIRECTION AND THE SPEED, JUST BECAUSE THE MORE SPEED THE MORE FIELD DISTORTION, HENCE MORE ADVANCE OF THE ARMATURE FIELD RELATED TO THE NORMAL PLANES.


On the Figure above same as I posted previously...no brushes at all here since it does not matter, because it is about a Dynamo as Generator.

Point is, we are rotating Dynamo-Generator by an external Machine CLOCKWISE...SO, please note how the Armature Field displays.

Now, look at image below:


It is the SAME DYNAMO-GENERATOR!!...We have just REVERSED ROTATION TO COUNTERCLOCKWISE.
So, what happens?...

ARMATURE FIELD MAGNETIC POLARITY HAS ALSO REVERSED. SO, WHEREVER WE HAD BRUSHES SET AT, WHERE WE WERE GETTING POSITIVE, NOW WE WILL BE GETTING NEGATIVE...AND SO WITH OTHER BRUSH.

A VERY IMPORTANT PART TO UNDERSTAND HERE, IS THAT IN BOTH SYSTEMS ON A DYNAMO, MOTOR AND GENERATOR...

THE ARMATURE FIELD IS ALWAYS STATIC, ON A DYNAMO AS MOTOR OR AS A GENERATOR!!

On the Generator system, the Armature Field tends to generate higher disturbances according to speed of rotation, always these disturbances ADVANCE in the same Rotation Direction...BUT NOT MUCH, just a few degrees.

Brushes also can be set on an Automotive Dynamo on the NORMAL PLANE OF MAXIMUM INDUCTION (Plane shown on Both Images) for example: My FORD Dynamo that I have shown diagrams and videos.

Hope you understand this better now, because I honestly think it is "confusing" as we are used to move brushes plane to dictate field on armature whenever it comes to DC BRUSHED MOTORS.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

I have been away for a couple of days doing some work on a zone where no internet signal was available...but I am back for now.

So, continuing from my previous post:  Discussion about the Lockridge Device - Page 21 (https://overunitymachines.com/index.php/topic,107.msg2203.html#msg2203)

Now I will be presenting the same configuration, but based on my FORD Dynamo, of which I also have uploaded some testing videos on previous posts.

Now, this Dynamo comes from factory (OEM) with the Generator Brushes set as per Hawkins Book Vol. 2, names the 'Normal Plane of Maximum Induction:


On this Dynamo, the Positive Brush is at the side 'exact Center´ of the North Stator as seen on above image, as Negative Brush is at 180º apart, on the South Stator.

I already took apart this Dynamo and verified the Magnetic Polarity of BOTH Stators, as I also uploaded a video related to that operation. So, Brush "C" is attached to Negative Ground.

When I ROTATE Counterclockwise (CCW) this Dynamo, it generates Positive from the Positive Brush...as Negative on ground. As here I am using both Brushes as Output that delivers DC Currents.

Now, the Magnetic Poles shown on Armature, or SOUTH (RED SHADED AREA) on TOP Hemisphere as NORTH (BLUE SHADED AREA) on BOTTOM Hemisphere, were also taken from the Hawkins Book, Vol 2, except that on the book image they are rotating Dynamo CW. (Assuming that their view is also from the brushes side)...As whenever we reverse rotation on ANY Dynamo (from the OEM Spec´s) the DC Output will also be reversed, as -by common sense-the magnetic polarization will also reverse, so on book, it shows a "N" Pole on top at 12 O'clock when rotated CW, as on this image above rotating at CCW it will generate a "S" Pole on top.

And again, repeating what I wrote on post cited link on the beginning...:

IT DOES NOT MATTER WHERE I SET THE BRUSHES PLANE ON A DYNAMO RUNNING AS A GENERATOR, IT WILL NOT, REPEAT, WILL NOT AFFECT THE ARMATURE DISPLAYED FIELD ABOVE.
THIS FIELD POLARIZATION ON ARMATURE, IS GENERATED FROM THE DIRECTION OF ROTATION WHEN GENERATOR IS LOADED AND IS OFFERING AN OPPOSING FORCE (REVERSE TORQUE, LENZ LAW, ETC) TO THE GIVEN ROTATION...THIS FIELD POLARIZATION PREVAILS.

On a separate note, it is only "common sense" after you read and see Image BELOW, ON A DYNAMO AS A MOTOR, to clearly understand that if the Armature Polarization would be REVERSED from the ABOVE Image, then ALL DYNAMOS WOULD BE "SELF RUNNERS" since they were originally invented...AS THERE WILL NEVER BE AN OPPOSING FORCE!!

BUT, THIS IS FALSE...there is ALWAYS AN OPPOSING FORCE whenever we generate Energy with ANY GENERATOR -AS OF NOW- IN THE WORLD!!

Actually, on the book it emphasizes that the best "sparkless commutation" takes place ADVANCING THE BRUSH PLANE, following Rotation Direction...so, on this FORD Dynamo the Brush Plane would be better set by slightly rotating Brush Plane around 30-45 degrees CCW from the Neutral Plane of Max Induction, because of "Field Disturbances" which moves this Normal Plane of Max Induction to the End-Lower Tip of South Stator, moving also on the rotation direction.

But for sake of simplicity, I WILL LEAVE BRUSH PLANE AS SET BY FACTORY (OEM) for all following analysis.

Now, the same FORD Dynamo ran as a Motor...:


So, this same Dynamo, when I applied DC Positive through the Positive Brush as Negative to Ground...it rotates as a Motor on the same direction (CCW) as it was checked as a Dynamo generating DC Currents..

And here -based on my expertise with DC Brushed Motors- the ONLY WAY, this Motor will spin CCW, based on this Stator Configuration PLUS the Brush Plane settings, is by having a NORTH Pole on the upper Hemisphere of Armature, as a SOUTH on the lower Hemisphere of Armature, as seen on image.

Now the BISECTOR of BOTH ARMATURE FIELD POLES is the Normal Neutral Plane, which EXACTLY DIVIDES BOTH ARMATURE POLES IN HALF.
As the STATORS BISECTOR is the Normal Plane of Max. Induction (green line).

So, this is very easy to identify -In Magnetic Geometry- how the Magnetic Poles are going to SEEK EQUILIBRIUM, or a PERFECT ALIGNMENT OF BOTH BISECTORS.

So, based that the MOVING COMPONENT THAT CARRIES ONE OF THE TWO FIELDS is the Armature, once that all coils and cores are instantly magnetized according to Image above, those groups of coils are going to seek for an alignment with the STATIC FIELD...and that could ONLY BE through a CCW ROTATION.

Other words (or a layman terms) is that the Upper Armature North is going to seek FULL ALIGNMENT WITH SOUTH STATOR, while the LOWER SOUTH HEMISPHERE is going to seek FULL ALIGNMENT WITH THE NORTH STATOR ON THE RIGHT of Image...

And, like I have repeated here multiple times...those Two Poles on Armature NEVER ROTATE, just each group of Coils -from BOTH SIDES- as they get magnetized carry the core section mass of Armature and causes rotation...however, thanks to commutation, all these coils keep reversing their polarity as they PASS the BRUSHES PLANE.

THIS POST IS VERY IMPORTANT TO FULLY UNDERSTAND, BEFORE I PROCEED TO THE NEXT POST, THAT WOULD BE RELATED TO A VERY SIMPLE APPROACH OF HOW -I THINK- THE VERY BASIC PRINCIPLE OF LOCKRIDGE DEVICE WORKS!!!

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

After reviewing over and over Dynamo´s, principles and operation in some old books, like Hawkins plus others I have on "hard copy", I have come up with making a very simple test, since it does not require any major transformations on the Stators and housing...and it all relates basically on adding a couple of brushes...and some coarse jumper wires...

So, here is the Main CAD Diagram (where all the basic principle of construction is) as I conceive it:


The "basic" OEM Dynamo I am posting here is like my FORD type...which is what I have now...However, the test could also be done on ANY other brand name, like GM (Delco-Remy) or any other Dynamo like also a BOSCH type.

As long as their original two brushes are set as I am posting here...or on the Normal Plane of Max Induction (green line), as that you verify that positive brush is set on the NORTH Stator Pole...this is not a big issue since you could just reverse (switch) the stator coil terminal wires electric polarity. (for reference on how to identify this, please see my previous videos posted on this Topic about my FORD Dynamo).

In order that when you rotate by hand this Dynamo Counterclockwise (CCW) (looking from the Brush Cap side) or clockwise (CW) when looking from shaft side, Dynamo generates a Positive value on the Positive Brush, with a Voltmeter connected to both brushes, and positive probe goes to Positive Brush and Negative to ground (in the case that you Dynamo is a Negative Ground design.

The Original Brushes that came on Dynamo (as described above) would be used as the Generating side brushes (C & D).

Then add Two more Brushes (A & B) that will be our Motoring side, these two brushes must be around the same configuration -in thickness- as the Generator side (for now).

Motor Brushes must be aligned in a perfect straight line across (Motor Brush Plane), and the Angle Alignment of this Motor Brush Plane will be dictated by its BISECTOR for BOTH POLES (Motor Field Poles Bisector)

These TWO BISECTORS are aligned into a perfect SINGLE line, which is EXACTLY at 90º from Motor Brush Plane.

You will have to make a paper pattern with these two lines (Motor Brush Plane and Motor Bisector line) at 90º and open a center hole on the paper (where small circle is set on drawing) to mount it on shaft, and it will serve as a guide for setting up your brushes.

MORE IMPORTANT NOW, are the settings of your Brushes Bisector Line, before you mount this Motor Brushes, you MUST set Bisector Line to PASS the STATORS STRAIGHT LINE (NEUTRAL PLANE OF MAX. INDUCTION), like shown on image above.

I gave on image above a "Range" of Degrees to set this Bisector Red Line and then the Brushes Mounting...which is from 5º to 15º... HOWEVER, THE SHORTER THIS ANGLE IS (Closer to the Green Line), the MORE POWER your Motor will have, basically referring to Torque.
An ideal way is that you could rotate these two motor brushes at least a 10º.

But again, this depends on your brush cap design, and enough room to mount the Motor brushes properly.

Then you add the TWO JUMPERS as shown on CAD, which I highly recommend using the thicker wire you have available!!

So, JUMPER 1 (Negative) goes from Generator Brush C to Motor Brush B (Black)

And JUMPER 2 (Positive) goes from Generator Brush D to Motor Brush A (Red)

These two jumpers being of thicker wires, will cause that currents generated will "choose" this path of lower resistance, instead of traveling through the Armature Coils set in between the two brushes.

You could run a "verify test 1", after all are connected and mounted, that when adding DC power to both Jumpers AS SET, or NEGATIVE to JUMPER 1 and POSITIVE to JUMPER 2, that Dynamo runs in the Direction of Rotation indicated or CCW, looking from Brushes Cap side.

Now, do NOT expect anything out of the ordinary to take place with this first test...as this is just to verify your connections and Angles are all correct.

This Machine is supposed to be tested by rotating Dynamo with an external driver...a small electric motor...or you could also run another "verification test 2", where you spin FAST AND STRONG this Dynamo by the pulley with a cord, while reading the current output on the two jumpers...and you could also connect it to a Scope to see the Output Signal...

OF COURSE ALL DYNAMO ROTATING TESTS EITHER BY HAND OR BY EXTERNAL DRIVE, JUMPERS MUST BE CONNECTED TO A LOAD!!

Otherwise, no generating Field on Armature will be developed.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello again,

On this post I will explain what I am trying to achieve...from the simplest way to build this device.

Previously I have shown the following image where OEM FORD Dynamo is LOADED and ROTATING (by an External Source), generating an opposed Field to the Counterclockwise Rotation on Armature.


And on image below is just the MOTOR ARMATURE FIELD displayed, when Motor Brushes A & B are powered:


Now, please, try to "visualize" in your minds BOTH IMAGES, one over the other (Over imposed), as imagine both are Semi-Transparent...

And not to complicate much the overlapping visualization of both images, please concentrate ONLY on the South (Red) Semi-Circumference from the two images.

And then you will realize that Motor South Pole is ADVANCING on the Rotation Direction as an Angle-Timing to Generator South Pole in about 105º (90º from Motor Bisector South Quadrant + 15º for Timing Advance from Neutral Plane of Max. Induction [green line])

And that was considering that the Bisector Advance Angle is at the Max Range between 5º to 15º.

So, more or less the resultant image that you visualized may looks like image below, where I just displayed the Upper South (Red) Generator Pole, between Brushes C-D, for sake of simplicity, but remember there is also a North (Blue) below not shown here, but on First Image on this Post:


And of course, whenever you set red over blue in optics as on some physical Tints, the resultant color is Purple, and that shows on the Right Upper Quadrant, where Dynamo South (Red) is mixed with Blue North from Motor. However, this Purple Quadrant is completely DEFINED into a NORTH FULL Pole simply because it is in between two opposite electrical charges, on the same fashion, where it originates a North. Even more defined into a North, when we install the Positive Jumper 2.

The Upper Left Quadrant is Darker Red, resulting from Two Red South Fields added, or overlapping from Motor and Generator. However there should NOT be any Field developed there as is in between two equal electric charges...and much less, once the Jumpers are installed, a similar situation takes place between Right Lower Quadrant, which is in between two Positive charged brushes, as also gets the Jumper installed.

And Left Lower Quadrant being just "pure" Motor South (Red) Armature Field Advance Angle.

I believe this is a very smooth way to combine or "fuse" the Two Existing Magnetic Fields on this Device (Stator-Armature), which have a total of Four (4) Poles.

Point is that Motor will assist Generator Rotation at every coil advance when armature starts rotation.

Again, I may be adding more or correcting some possible errors I have on this post tomorrow...

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

Ok, so I have cleaned all other "stuff" on previous graphics in order to leave the basic motor operation and resume the function of this device...However, the Dynamo Generating Field with Top South as Low North divided by the green line IS STILL PRESENT (This Field is NOT DEFINED by Brushes C & D) ...Remember that no matter where you set the output brushes this Field Opposing Rotation will keep developing on the same place except for magnetic distortions following the Higher Speed Rotation.


HERE IS SHOWN THE BASIC RESULTING* MOTOR FIELD (WITH ITS TWO RESPECTIVE POLARIZATIONS, NORTH AND SOUTH) DEFINED AFTER JUMPERS ARE CONNECTED.
* "Resulting" Motor Field, because the FULL Motor Field extends through Brushes A to B, as here because of jumpers and also being electric output charges coming out from Brushes C and D, this REDUCES the Motor Field Angle.

Therefore, this is the basic Motor ADVANCE TIMING ANGLE, that favors Generator Rotation (CCW), where each Pole have approximately an extended angle from 95º to 105º from the Neutral Plane of Max. Induction (green line) to the Motor Brush Plane, and depends on your chosen Advance Angle from Motor Bisector, whether of 5º or 15º ...or more, which is added to the 90º given by the Motor Brush Plane and its Bisector.

Here the Two Jumpers made of coarse wire act like a very wide brush without the friction with commutator, just the start and end brushes define this Angle.
These Two Jumpers I have it connected here to an Electrolytic Capacitor, where the spec´s would be given by the Load and Total Output.

FINAL NOTE: According to all I have put together here, about this two Poles Dynamo Test, should give us an idea if we are going on a correct path or not...As I honestly have no idea if this design will show an advantage to Dynamo Rotation under load, so, it must be built and tested in reality.
However, all my calculation plus analysis tells me, it should work in our advantage...maybe we have to make some minor adjustments...but for bettering the final "touch result".

After building it, many tests need to be done from all possible angles...like with or without jumpers, with or without e-cap... powering each individual System separately from Motor and Generator side...etc.
After all, it is not that much work to "build" this Two Dynamo Test, by just adding two brushes and a pair of heavy jumpers...
Without the jumpers, there will still be a connection from Negative to Negative, as from Positive to Positive Brushes, using the comprehended coils on Armature on those specific segments:

EDIT 1: And lastly, above is the same image BUT without the Jumpers, and as I have explained above image, there will still be an Internal Armature Connection between Negative Brushes and Positive Brushes of Motor-Generator. Except we will NOT BE FORCING the connection through thick wires. 

So, yes, I will be making this Test, whenever I have the time to...

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

Here is an image of my FORD Dynamo Brush Cap, from underneath, so, PLEASE realize it is like LOOKING FROM PULLEY SIDE (Front Shaft) ...so here it shows a Clockwise Rotation.
Other thing is that there is also a minimal Camera deviation, due that I had an LED Lamp right on top of cap, so I could not get the camera lens perfectly aligned at Dead Center.


Now, two things here:

1- That the Dynamo Two Brushes Plane IS NOT fully aligned at 90º with Normal Neutral Plane (Red VERTICAL Line) as you could see. The deviation is minimal, somewhere around 5º, BUT IT DOES HAS a Deviation.

2- I realize that if I use the two brushes from second Dynamo, in order to have room, I will need to move this OEM Brush settings allowing room for other two brushes. That is not a big deal since I will move OEM Brushes in a straight 180º but CCW to this View, where is rotating CW. Point is to set Dynamo Brushes FURTHER AWAY to the other extreme from MAGNETIC DISTORTIONS which take place following Rotation (CW).
Other words, is just to move Dynamo Brushes NOT on the 5 degrees shown deviation, but opposite and of course more than 5 degrees, almost to the lower tip of Blue Stator and Right Top of Red Stator, that's the angle to go.

The other brush issue is that if I use the Negative (Ground) Brush from other Dynamo...then both Negative Brushes would be GROUNDED, meaning "JUMPED" by force through the Dynamo steel housing...and I do not want that...I want to have Motor Brushes to "communicate" with Dynamo (Generator) Brushes either through thick jumpers or through Armature Coils. So, NEGATIVE Motor Brush MUST BE INSULATED ALSO from ground, just like the Positive Brush is.
Not a big deal either, as all I need is to add in the new set hole an insulating Grommet (type of hollow cylinder) that a bolt runs through plus a flat insulator like Positive Brush.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

Ok, so here I will do a deeper GRAPHIC Analysis on the way this Two Stator Dynamo could be transformed ONLY on the BRUSHES SIDE, in order to make the Test I have proposed before...
There is NOT MUCH ROOM on this FORD Dynamo Cap, to "play" with, and fit ALL FOUR BRUSHES as using the WORKING ANGLES!!
However, I think this Modification shown below should work fine, and some brushes seats need to be also modified to make them fit without making contact with each other.
First, here is an image of the same Dynamo Brushes Cap that I have installed* all Four Brushes:


(Installed*) Only done in Photoshop!!, NOT REAL!!, it is just a "Software Montage" to know exactly where I need to MODIFY AND SET, ALL brushes in reality.

As here below is the CAD Image of those Four Brushes SPECIFIC Angles, in order to work properly:


And finally, here are BOTH IMAGES, as background I have the First image shown here, that I had set opacity higher in order to see clearly the TRANSPARENT CAD with all the DATA on TOP:


As you can see, the Modified Angle from OEM (Original) set Brushes have only varied for a few degrees, BUT BELOW the NORMAL PLANE OF MAX INDUCTION!!
Not above this Normal Plane of Max Induction!!, as it was set from factory, and shown on previous Original Two Brushes Images on prior posts.
So, the TWO NEGATIVE BRUSHES are set on the RIGHT and TOP (notice the two white "-" Signs), as the TWO POSITIVE BRUSHES (Red "+") are set ON LOWER END (Approx 6:30 on a Clock) and LEFT (Around 9:00 on Clock config.)
Also, you can notice that Motor Brush Plane is just a few Degrees PAST (BASED ON ROTATION SENSE "R") the NORMAL NEUTRAL PLANE (Orange Dotted Line)!!...AS MOTOR BRUSH PLANE MUST ALWAYS PASS THIS NORMAL NEUTRAL PLANE!!

Note: There may be a few millimetrical TOLERANCE ERRORS on these images, basically, because the original photo was not perfectly centered, like I have explained before.

I will leave it here for now...as I am very busy at the moment with external work (outside free energy and OU environment)

Any questions or doubts, feel free to ask.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello again,

My final thinking about this Test, in order to make it work...

This Device is composed of TWO SYSTEMS, a GENERATOR SIDE (Dynamo) and a MOTORING SIDE.

BOTH SYSTEMS MUST BE FULLY COMPLEMENTED (EXCHANGE FUNCTIONS) BETWEEN EACH SYSTEM IN ORDER TO WORK SATISFACTORILY.

They can NOT work as TWO INDEPENDENT SYSTEMS that are not "INTERLACED" with each other's...meaning, all Angles must be PERFECT or very close to perfection, the "OVERLAPPING of Both Systems need to be in perfect TIMING, as allowing ENOUGH TIME for generator to "Charge and Discharge" before Motor is fully powered to ADVANCE the Timing which will assist the Counter Generating Forces.

We can turn on ONLY the Motor Side (with an external Power Source to only the Motor Brushes) to Measure the Generating side to see if it is showing any Output...if it is not showing anything, it could be that Motor Side is (taking too much from other System) NOT allowing the Generating side to DEVELOP PROPERLY a strong Induction.

Many tests need to be done here...many!!

Ufopolitics

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Dec 10, 2024, 10:30 AMWe can turn on ONLY the Motor Side (with an external Power Source to only the Motor Brushes) to Measure the Generating side to see if it is showing any Output...if it is not showing anything, it could be that Motor Side is (taking too much from other System) NOT allowing the Generating side to DEVELOP PROPERLY a strong Induction.

Hi UFO. You summed it up in this text. Thats what I have found out to be true. The motor side is just nudged in the direction to be rotated. Other wise the motor side thru the armature isnt quite right for the generator side to run the motor and charge at the same time.

Yes there are lots of test to be done to acheive what you are talking about in that last post.

Quote from: hiwater on Dec 11, 2024, 10:05 AM

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Dec 10, 2024, 10:30 AMWe can turn on ONLY the Motor Side (with an external Power Source to only the Motor Brushes) to Measure the Generating side to see if it is showing any Output...if it is not showing anything, it could be that Motor Side is (taking too much from other System) NOT allowing the Generating side to DEVELOP PROPERLY a strong Induction.

Hi UFO. You summed it up in this text. Thats what I have found out to be true. The motor side is just nudged in the direction to be rotated. Other wise the motor side thru the armature isnt quite right for the generator side to run the motor and charge at the same time.

Yes there are lots of test to be done to acheive what you are talking about in that last post.

Hello Hiwater,

Thanks, but when I wrote that test about powering DIRECTLY the Motor side with an External PSU, I did it without thinking in depth...as it will NOT WORK!!

Simply because whenever we directly excite (power up) a Motor Circuit, we will have all the generated power on that circuit (Armature) reflected as BEMF, or Counter EMF.

So, this test will not give us any generated power on the Generator Brushes.

The Lockridge Device MUST START from the Dynamo Side as a GENERATOR, simply by turning the front pulley. So that the Generator Side ACTIVATES (Power up) the Motor Side, it will NOT work the other way around!!

PLUS, the Generator Side MUST BE LOADED, whenever we turn the Pulley.

And there is more:


On image above is the KEY about understanding the Motor-Generator Differences, related to EMF and Currents on Both Systems.

Both Machines are Rotating on the SAME DIRECTION, and Upper Brushes are Positive for both Machines.

1- On Dynamo as Generator: EMF and Currents travel on the SAME Direction, both going to the Upper Positive Brush.

2- On Dynamo as Motor: EMF and Currents are OPPOSED, as Currents travel AWAY from upper Positive Brush.

From above data collected from an old book...we can realize that CURRENTS on Both Systems (Motor-Generator) MUST RUN ON THE SAME DIRECTION, when working together on the same Armature Circuit, in order for our Device to work as we want to.
If Currents are OPPOSITE on Both Systems SHARING the SAME ARMATURE, they will just CANCEL to a big ZERO.

Anyways, that is just the way I see it...

Regards

Ufopolitics

@hiwater,

Please, if you have a Delco Remy Old type Dynamo, can you share here the ORIGINAL Brushes ASSEMBLY IMAGES (Brush plus Mounts, housings and Springs) that came with those Dynamos?

Because according to my search, the Brush Assembly that is shown on Bedini's Video Lockridge Replication does NOT look like the original Dynamo type but a MODIFIED Assembly from a Delco-Remy STARTER Brush from those times.


This type of Brush Assembly Design allows for us to be able to ADJUST FREELY, without any limitations.

While the Brush Assembly type that MOUNTS on Upper Caps (like my FORD Dynamo) do NOT have that adjustment freedom.

Note that the brushes used on this Lockridge replication had a HOLE from factory where a bolt mounts it on rocking arm, while spring mounts on the rotating pin.
If you search for Delco Remy Starter Brushes, it shows exactly these types with a hole, there are square or plain rectangular, but ALL have a hole.

Look below at the Replacement Parts for a Delco-Remy Starter from those times (All Delco-Remy Starters come in a set of FOUR Brushes)


That last image above is a: "BRUSH HOLDER" REPLACEMENT for a Delco Remy Starter, as it is also the SWIVEL or ROCKER ARM, where Brush is mounted with an 8/32 Bolt, and PIN passes through base hole, it is NOT Metal but INSULATED MATERIAL....Now compare it with First image here from Bedini's video...of course, this is a new replacement part, NOT the original.

Now, on Image below is the "Delco-Remy Starter Repair Kit" we can see all separated parts, and of course, on this Starters, Two Brushes were Positive (Insulated by Plastic Brush Holder (Black)) as the other two were to Negative Ground, so, TWO of the Brush Holders were made of Metal, plus we also see two thick wire Jumpers...one for negative brushes and other for positive.
We can also see on the Right next to the Pins, the Back Mounting Plates, only comes two, we need FOUR.


We can see now a better view of how this Lockridge Device REPLICATION was BUILT...using components from other devices, like Starters...

Thanks @hiwater for your help! 

Regards

Ufopolitics

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Dec 12, 2024, 09:11 AMBecause according to my search, the Brush Assembly that is shown on Bedini's Video Lockridge Replication does NOT look like the original Dynamo type but a MODIFIED Assembly from a Delco-Remy STARTER Brush from those times.

Yes that exactly what they are. Modified to fit their use in that machine, In the dvd they talk about the old style delco , which had the 

better style of brushes and brush holders in that they could have used. Those brush assemblies you talk about are still in use today for the older vehicles.

NOTE-- I dont have a phone that i can use to do what you are asking. But my daughter does. Ill try to get her to take a picture and figure out how to get it posted. In the mean time ill look on the net to see if i can find a picture of the brushes and holders in the delco case.

Curt.

I Looked on line for some pictures. The only thing I can come up with is searching for DELCO STARTER-GENERATOR REPAIR.

These brush assemblies in the videos are the same as in the 6-12 volt delco generators we are talking about. In the S/G the brushes are wider to accomodate 2 commutator bars for starting. Hpoe this helps for now. Hiwater.

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Dec 12, 2024, 09:11 AM@hiwater,

Please, if you have a Delco Remy Old type Dynamo, can you share here the ORIGINAL Brushes ASSEMBLY IMAGES (Brush plus Mounts, housings and Springs) that came with those Dynamos?

Because according to my search, the Brush Assembly that is shown on Bedini's Video Lockridge Replication does NOT look like the original Dynamo type but a MODIFIED Assembly from a Delco-Remy STARTER Brush from those times.

BRUSH_ASSY.PNG

This type of Brush Assembly Design allows for us to be able to ADJUST FREELY, without any limitations.

While the Brush Assembly type that MOUNTS on Upper Caps (like my FORD Dynamo) do NOT have that adjustment freedom.

Note that the brushes used on this Lockridge replication had a HOLE from factory where a bolt mounts it on rocking arm, while spring mounts on the rotating pin.
If you search for Delco Remy Starter Brushes, it shows exactly these types with a hole, there are square or plain rectangular, but ALL have a hole.

Look below at the Replacement Parts for a Delco-Remy Starter from those times (All Delco-Remy Starters come in a set of FOUR Brushes)

STARTER_BRUSH_ASSY_1.PNGSTARTER_BRUSH_ASSY_2.PNGSTARTER_BRUSH_ROCKER_ARM.PNG

That last image above is a: "BRUSH HOLDER" REPLACEMENT for a Delco Remy Starter, as it is also the SWIVEL or ROCKER ARM, where Brush is mounted with an 8/32 Bolt, and PIN passes through base hole, it is NOT Metal but INSULATED MATERIAL....Now compare it with First image here from Bedini's video...of course, this is a new replacement part, NOT the original.

Now, on Image below is the "Delco-Remy Starter Repair Kit" we can see all separated parts, and of course, on this Starters, Two Brushes were Positive (Insulated by Plastic Brush Holder (Black)) as the other two were to Negative Ground, so, TWO of the Brush Holders were made of Metal, plus we also see two thick wire Jumpers...one for negative brushes and other for positive.
We can also see on the Right next to the Pins, the Back Mounting Plates, only comes two, we need FOUR.

REPAIR_KIT_FOR_DELCO_REMY_STARTER.PNG

We can see now a better view of how this Lockridge Device REPLICATION was BUILT...using components from other devices, like Starters...

Thanks @hiwater for your help!

Regards

Ufopolitics

Isn't 8/32 the same as 1/4?

Hi Prajna,

In the U.S. a 8/32 bolt means a bolt with a size of 8 and a thread pitch of 32 threads per inch.

Carroll

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Dec 12, 2024, 08:45 AM[...]

DYNAMO_VERSUS_MOTOR.PNG

On image above is the KEY about understanding the Motor-Generator Differences, related to EMF and Currents on Both Systems.

Both Machines are Rotating on the SAME DIRECTION, and Upper Brushes are Positive for both Machines.

1- On Dynamo as Generator: EMF and Currents travel on the SAME Direction, both going to the Upper Positive Brush.

2- On Dynamo as Motor: EMF and Currents are OPPOSED, as Currents travel AWAY from upper Positive Brush.

From above data collected from an old book...we can realize that CURRENTS on Both Systems (Motor-Generator) MUST RUN ON THE SAME DIRECTION, when working together on the same Armature Circuit, in order for our Device to work as we want to.
If Currents are OPPOSITE on Both Systems SHARING the SAME ARMATURE, they will just CANCEL to a big ZERO.

Anyways, that is just the way I see it...

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

Ok, so I quoted myself on my prior post, basically to bring up the image above from the Hawkins Book Vol 2...

And I "FUSED" BOTH Systems into one CAD IMAGE, using the same, exact spec's as shown on the Book Image...:


For better understanding all Flow Circular Arrows have a STARTING DOT and an end Arrow, showing the FLOW DIRECTION.

All the Circular Red Arrows are CURRENTS FLOWS, for Dynamo (Generator) and for Motor.

The Black Circular Arrows means EMF DIRECTION.

As we see on Book Image, the EMF for BOTH SYSTEMS follow the same direction, or from Low (Negative) Brushes to High (Positive Brushes).

So, on my image -to simplify things- I have set EMF starting on BOTH Negative Brushes (Low) and traveling to BOTH Positive Brushes (High)

While on the Dynamo, the Currents flow from Low Brush to High (Positive Brush) or the SAME EMF DIRECTION.

On the Motor, EMF also goes on the same direction as Dynamo (Bigger Circular Arrows on Book) BUT Currents flow from Low (Negative Brush) to High or Positive Brush.

Please, analyze this Image carefully...because all we need to achieve our goal, is that BOTH SYSTEM CURRENTS, FLOW ON THE SAME DIRECTION...

IMHO, the way I see it, is that when we jump the Two Upper Positive Brushes (A & D), currents flow FROM DYNAMO POSITIVE BRUSH (D) TO MOTOR POSITIVE BRUSH (A)...?

WHILE, when we Jump BOTH Lower Negative Brushes (C & B) then Currents flow from MOTOR NEGATIVE BRUSH (B) TO DYNAMO NEGATIVE BRUSH C...

And WITH Both Jumpers we are creating a CURRENT FLOW which starts on Positive Dynamo Brush D, going to Positive Motor Brush A, to then go from Motor Negative Brush B and ENDING on Dynamo Negative Brush C...

Or what it would look like...(So you could see it "visually") the image below:


And of course, the center red arrows -that CROSS- in reality travel through armature coil windings like shown by the Red Circular Flows for Currents.

Am I right or wrong?

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

Ok, continuing from my previous post...I will upload as a quote the previous image and text I wrote:

QuoteOr what it would look like...(So you could see it "visually") the image below:

EMF_CURRENTS_FLOW_DYNAMO_MOTOR_2.png

And of course, the center red arrows -that CROSS- in reality travel through armature coil windings like shown by the Red Circular Flows for Currents.

Am I right or wrong?

Regards

Ufopolitics

That Image above is somehow NOT portraying the way Currents Flow with that PLAIN CROSS within Commutator, and basically ON ARMATURE (as I wrote about on the last bold letters sentence).

So, I made a new Image, based on all same data as prior EXCEPT that on Image below I am showing exactly what takes place WITHIN THE ARMATURE (WATCH CAREFULLY ONLY THE COMMUTATOR INNER PART CURRENTS FLOW DIRECTION):


So, on Image above is shown the CORRECT WAY of Currents Flow WITHIN ARMATURE (INSIDE COMMUTATOR).

When Currents enter Brush and hits commutator contacts, currents DIVIDE IDENTICALLY into both Hemispheres of the Brush Division Plane and DISBURSE EQUALLY through the Coils Circuit that are comprehended within those TWO Hemispheres.

And as you can see, I made TWO Circles one Red closer to South Stator, as another Blue, closer to North Stator.

Within those TWO Circles you can see the OPPOSED CURRENT FLOW NETWORK within Armature...AND this simply means IT WILL NOT WORK!!...Because Currents within those TWO sides of Armature will CANCEL or REDUCE TO MINIMAL LEVELS, depending on which is carrying majority of charges!!

So, it will NOT work for Motor EMF AND also for Generator Induction.

In order for this Machine fusion between a Motor and a Generator, sharing the same Armature...to WORK PROPERLY, ALL CURRENTS FLOWING WITHIN ARMATURE (FROM GENERATOR AND MOTOR), MUST FLOW FOLLOWING THE SAME DIRECTION!!

So, on next Graphic, I need to add the Motor North-South Bisectors, to know how the Torsion Fields will develop in order to keep the same Rotation Direction (CW), related to BOTH Stators Bisectors, which are shown on image above on top of the Green Horizontal Line, so Left Red Line coming out from South (Red) Stator to Center is the Stator South Bisector, as the Blue Line from Center to North (Blue) Stator is the North Stator Bisector.

The idea I have to solve this issue with Opposed Currents Flow within Armature, is to TURN MOTOR BRUSH PLANE around 180º or somewhere there...while keeping same Rotation (CW).

I may have to also Turn a bit the Dynamo (Generator) Brush Plane...

So, let´s see how this works out or not...

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello again,

Ok, here is the best Brush Plane Alignment of Both Systems that I could do on this design:


It made me realize that we need to keep brushes AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE between Dynamo and Motor Planes, actually an "ideal" setup would be that Both Systems use the same Brush space, but we all know that is simply impossible.

If you have noticed, I have turned 180 degrees the Motor Brush Plane as shown previously, so now the Negative Brush is on Top and Positive is on bottom.

According to Motor Bisector positioning related to Stators, this Motor would be running on a very strong REPULSE FORCES on the Direction of Rotation.(1 to 2 degrees Bisectors Angle)

There will always be a small, minimal portion between opposite sign brushes, where currents oppose, as I have enclosed those areas with SMALL Black Circles, on Top and lower sections.

However, a majority of the Armature section on Both sides, basically and more importantly, the part closer to Stators, that both currents (motor & generator) flow on the same directions, and I have circled them with the Red and Blue Circles, according to their proximity to Stators Magnetic Polarization.

Now, in order to build this setup, we will DEFINITIVELY NEED the same type of brushes shown on Bedini's Video, or the ones I have shown that belongs to Starter Motors from those times...
The type of Brushes that MOUNTS ON CAPS, WILL NOT WORK FOR THIS ARRANGEMENT!!...OR FOR THE LOCKRIDGE DEVICE IN GENERAL.

The Starter Brushes design allows a maximum PROXIMITY between Two Brushes that we need in order to have a successful device.

And it is now that I realize why ALL the brushes need to be trimmed to the size of One (1) Commutator Bar-or Element. And it is due that whenever we have SO CLOSE Brushes of Opposite Electrical Sign, we need to reduce to ALMOST ZERO THE DOUBLE ELEMENT CONTACT BY ONE BRUSH!!

The JUMPERS (NOT shown on this image for sake of clarity) get connected the SAME WAY as I have shown before, or Positive from Dynamo to Positive of Motor, that would be the "LINE", and the "RETURN" from Negative Brush of Motor to Negative Brush of Dynamo.

I am also NOT showing here, the EMF DIRECTIONAL ARROWS...in order to analyze first ALL CURRENTS on BOTH SYSTEMS. To me the EMF takes a second place when it comes to Current Flow for Both Systems sharing the same Armature.

However, by simple analysis, we realize that by turning 180º the Motor Brush Plane, we will also reverse its EMF from previous images, so, they will now be opposite to Dynamo EMF...However, now the Motor Counter EMF would be on the same direction as Dynamo EMF...

A LOT of info here to analyze deeply...

Regards

Ufopolitics

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Dec 15, 2024, 09:05 PMNow, in order to build this setup, we will DEFINITIVELY NEED the same type of brushes shown on Bedini's Video, or the ones I have shown that belongs to Starter Motors from those times

The brushes in the dvd are graphite  or some composit of some kind. They are fairly soft.  The starter brushes are hard and will leave marks on the commutator bars. 
The commutators for the starter and generator may be made out of different material also. I have used starter brushes and found out it best not to use them. They have less resistance than the generator ones. But very hard.

Question----How many armature slots are you allowing for the stator pole faces to cover in the last drawing. 

Where you have the 2 small round black circles. Emf going both ways I think of it as one as the motor side and the other as the generator side trying to push each in one direction or the other. 

Tha small area may be why the pole shoes are made smaller to only match 3 armature slots to keep the armature moving in the same direction with out any bemf to slow the armature down. 

Thanks Hiwater.

Quote from: hiwater on Dec 16, 2024, 11:32 AMThe brushes in the dvd are graphite  or some composit of some kind. They are fairly soft.  The starter brushes are hard and will leave marks on the commutator bars.
The commutators for the starter and generator may be made out of different material also. I have used starter brushes and found out it best not to use them. They have less resistance than the generator ones. But very hard.

Sure, the Starter takes a very high Amperage (Currents) known as "cranking amps", so, brushes need to stand the heat.

Quote from: hiwater on Dec 16, 2024, 11:32 AMQuestion----How many armature slots are you allowing for the stator pole faces to cover in the last drawing.

The same number of slots that came from factory, I have not modified the pole shoes.

Quote from: hiwater on Dec 16, 2024, 11:32 AMWhere you have the 2 small round black circles. Emf going both ways I think of it as one as the motor side and the other as the generator side trying to push each in one direction or the other.

That is not EMF Hiwater, but Current Flow...and yes, there would be a close short circuit there, once you load generator, reason why we need to file brushes (thin them) to only reach one commutator element.

Quote from: hiwater on Dec 16, 2024, 11:32 AMTha small area may be why the pole shoes are made smaller to only match 3 armature slots to keep the armature moving in the same direction with out any bemf to slow the armature down.

Thanks Hiwater.

It makes sense...

Now, can you try this setup on your end?

Thanks

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

So, here is an image to resume all explained on previous posts...except here I wanted to display a better Area of Armature where Currents are Flowing in the Same Direction (Light Red and Light Blue Semi-Circumferences), as also the "Short Circuit" Areas in Yellow background.

As you can see the areas of equal currents flow are much bigger than shorted areas', and the "short" depends on many things, like Armature RESISTANCE measurements BETWEEN THOSE OPPOSITE AND ADJACENT, ELECTRICAL POLARIZATION BRUSH CONTACTS ON COMMUTATOR.

It also depends on the TYPE OF WINDING used on the Armature, as the wire gauge (thickness).

As also depends on the Potential DIFFERENCE between those Two Close Brushes.

Here I am also showing BOTH JUMPERS, and like I wrote before, they need to be of the THICKEST WIRE you could get...in order to FORCE CURRENTS through the "LESS RESISTANCE PATH" and so AWAY from Shorting circuit with other brush next to it...

I have also NARROWED ALL BRUSHES to the size of ONE COMMUTATOR CONTACT.

And so, we must realize that we have here the Power Source outputting through the Dynamo Brushes, and when we connect these two Dynamo Brushes to the Motor Brushes, then the Motor Circuit becomes the FIRST Generator LOAD...correct?

This written above may sound like everything is all right, except when we realize that Generator and Motor are not two separate entities, but they are sharing the same Armature Circuit and the same Stators Magnetic Field...

Sounds "very" crazy, right?

Regards

Ufopolitics

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Dec 16, 2024, 08:57 PMHere I am also showing BOTH JUMPERS, and like I wrote before, they need to be of the THICKEST WIRE you could get...in order to FORCE CURRENTS through the "LESS RESISTANCE PATH" and so AWAY from Shorting circuit with other brush next to it...

I did try something similar to what you have shown. Brush placement was a little different. I was driving the generator withe a drive motor. 

It pulled so much power from the fuse panel that it burned up the fuse panel socket and fuse. I was trying to get the amp meter on to check the amperage. Burned out before I got it connected. Should have had it on before I started the test.

So those little generators will put out plenty to sustain itself just got to figure out how.

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Dec 16, 2024, 12:06 PMNow, can you try this setup on your end

UFO - I do have a stock GM that have the slots cut for the extra brushes and slots cut for moving the 4 pole shoes. So soon as I get the right time I will surely check this out. It pretty much done already. Just need to do some adjusting.

Hello to All,

Please review below image carefully:


Ok, on this image, which is IDENTICAL to my latest image posted, EXCEPT that I had TURNED COUNTERCLOCKWISE BOTH BRUSHES PLANES (Dynamo and Motor) just a few degrees, BUT ENOUGH TO PASS BOTH NORMAL PLANES, ALSO BY A FEW DEGREES.

And by doing that, I am REVERSING THE MAIN TORSION FIELD BETWEEN ARMATURE AND STATORS, resulting in a reversal of Rotation on which Device operates now...
And this setup is more likely to the way my FORD Dynamo works, again, looking from the Brushes End Cap.

I could have also just MOVED THE MOTOR BRUSHES PLANE, leaving the Dynamo Brushes Plane in place...BUT, by doing that I would be WIDENING THE SHORT CIRCUIT ANGLE between Positive-Negative Brushes Plane.

And I do NOT want to do that...but TO KEEP THE SHORT CIRCUIT ANGLES (YELLOW BACKGROUND) AS NARROW AS POSSIBLE!!

Now, this is the BASIC PRINCIPLE that I believe Lockridge Device works...as we could ADD TWO MORE STATORS to AMPLIFY INDUCTION, as to WIDEN BOTH EXISTING STATORS MAGNETIC FIELD.

So, if I were to add TWO MORE STATORS, I would add a NORTH on TOP, as a SOUTH on LOWER AREA, leaving the Main Stators as they are now.

This Image was done ONLY to demonstrate that by turning a few degrees BASICALLY THE MOTOR BRUSH PLANE, we will have REVERSED THE MOTOR ROTATION TO CCW.
BUT, according to this NEW ROTATION DIRECTION, the DYNAMO BRUSH PLANE IS ON THE HIGHEST PLANE OF MAGNETIC MAX DISTORTION, so, the Dynamo Brushes are going to SPARK GALORE...but that could be simply repaired by DISPLACING JUST THE DYNAMO PLANE BRUSHES to the OPPOSITE ANGLE TO MAX DISTORTION, leaving the Motor Brush Plane at the SAME PLACE is now.

Or what it would be something like:


Regards

Ufopolitics

Quote from: hiwater on Dec 18, 2024, 10:50 AMI did try something similar to what you have shown. Brush placement was a little different. I was driving the generator withe a drive motor.

It pulled so much power from the fuse panel that it burned up the fuse panel socket and fuse. I was trying to get the amp meter on to check the amperage. Burned out before I got it connected. Should have had it on before I started the test.

So those little generators will put out plenty to sustain itself just got to figure out how.

Hello Hiwater,

I am assuming that when you wrote: "It pulled so much power from the fuse panel..." you were referring to the Dynamo, and not the Motor running it...right?

And yes, these small machines can easily reach the 30 to 40 Amps at their specified speed ...However, whenever you EXCEED the operating speed they "take off" with much Total Power, and that includes more voltage than 6 or 12 Volts over much amperage than rated.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello All,

Ok, so on prior post I presented the last image below, which adapts better to my FORD Dynamo:


And I believe this is the main "idea" on how the Lockridge should work, based on the Brushes arrangement related to Stators...and as I mentioned prior, we may need to add a couple more smaller Stators to increase the Generated Energy.

But this is NOT ALL People!!...Or you thought that by pulling a small cord wrapped on Dynamo Pulley and spin it...it "should" take off and self-run, just with the above arrangement?

Absolutely NOT!!

So, please, try to really "interpret" this Machine Operation:

How, by just pulling that cord, the Two Set of Brushes, one set belonging to the Generator and the other set belonging to Motor (just because we wrote it on a "piece of paper"), are going to "know" -for sure- which one is which?

They will not, and more likely BOTH sets of Brushes will generate power whenever you pull that cord...just like if you rotate a DC Four Motor Brush...even with permanent magnets.

And even if you add the two jumpers, you will be just adding the power GENERATED from both set of brushes, but in PARALLEL.

So, NO, there is more to this...we need now a "Mechanism" which makes this job, of separating Both Systems PLUS adding a SEQUENTIAL TIMING in an orderly fashion...

Then, when you pull that cord and develop certain fast RPM's AND that power does NOT directly go to Motor Brushes but instead goes to:

1- A "Fast Charging Circuit"...or a small Capacitance Value but Higher Voltage Capacitor, that when it reaches certain power value stored...goes to:
2- A Main Inductor connected in PARALLEL to this Capacitor...or what we know as a "Tank Circuit"...
3- When this Tank Circuit starts into a "Resonance" between Cap and Inductor, it then transfers through the Inductor Magnetic Field to other TWO INDUCTORS which are also wrapped on the same embodiment (STEEL CORE) as the Main Inductor.
4- On these Two Secondary Inductors, one feeds the Motor Brushes, while the second Inductor feeds the Stators.

All these Four (4) Functions develop in milliseconds...as we pull that cord.

So, now we have a "Mechanism" which TRIGGERS and FEEDS orderly the Machine Motion, PLUS a sequenced timed Storage...and now is when the job of Designing and Building this circuit comes into play...similar as it was done on the Lockridge Device...

It plays a very important role the number of turns and gauge of each one of the Three Inductor's wires...as the exact "filling timing value" of that capacitor.

Now, as a Final note on this post and all my previous posts here: This was just "my assumption" of how this Device could possibly work...according to my way of thinking and "getting inside the machine many times" in my mind...and working myself as if I was "The Machine"...

However, at this point of calculating the Capacitance Values plus all the Inductance Values...I need the help of a knowledgeable Member on this Forum, about these systems design could be based on.

Related to Bedini's explanation about the Lockridge Device replication Components that He showed:

1- We have a capacitor based on two 30 feet copper sheets wrapped with an insulator (Butcher Wax Paper) sandwiched in between, which also wraps around the Dynamo Steel Body.
2- Plus a Trifilar, fine wire TRIPLE INDUCTOR CIRCUIT, which delivers Three Pairs of Terminals (six wires) of which we do not know each Inductor Individual Resistance and Inductance values...and that these 3 Inductor Component also wraps around the Steel Body of the Dynamo as it "Inductor Core"...

That's all we have...

Any suggestions?

Thanks and Regards

Ufopolitics 

Hello All,


On this short video I am showing the way that the Bedini's Lockridge Device replication had brushes adapted from a Delco-Remy Starter Motor.
As the way I'm showing the possible ways it could have been done.

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!!

Ufopolitics

Good video thanks.

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Dec 22, 2024, 08:24 PMRelated to Bedini's explanation about the Lockridge Device replication Components that He showed:

1- We have a capacitor based on two 30 feet copper sheets wrapped with an insulator (Butcher Wax Paper) sandwiched in between, which also wraps around the Dynamo Steel Body.
2- Plus a Trifilar, fine wire TRIPLE INDUCTOR CIRCUIT, which delivers Three Pairs of Terminals (six wires) of which we do not know each Inductor Individual Resistance and Inductance values...and that these 3 Inductor Component also wraps around the Steel Body of the Dynamo as it "Inductor Core"

UFO- The resistance on the tri coil needs to be matched to what ever it is connected to otherwise it slows the motor down. problem i am having is getting enough amperage through it to light the lights on the light circuit. For me it trial and error method.

To test the tri coil it need to be on the case or another generator case. Also if on the actual machine it self it has to be turned a certain way to get it to work freely and not interfere with the transformer action or the running of the machine itself.

I havent done anything with the capacitor at all yet. Another night mare.

UFO I have the gen case set up for cw rotation. How do you think I should proceed with this next? What should I be looking for?

Quote from: hiwater on Dec 25, 2024, 01:06 PMUFO- The resistance on the tri coil needs to be matched to what ever it is connected to otherwise it slows the motor down. problem i am having is getting enough amperage through it to light the lights on the light circuit. For me it trial and error method.

Hello Hiwater,

Yes, the Tri coil Resistance has to be matched, definitively. However, this is not that simple, this is a 3 Coil System and the way I think it works, is based on a Main Coil (Primary) of which is the one where should be matched to the Dynamo (Generator) circuit, where the Capacitor is connected as well.
The other two coils I believe are the Secondaries that feed Motor Brushes as Stators.

Quote from: hiwater on Dec 25, 2024, 01:06 PMTo test the tri coil it need to be on the case or another generator case. Also if on the actual machine it self it has to be turned a certain way to get it to work freely and not interfere with the transformer action or the running of the machine itself.

According to the way the Tri-Coil Field is, versus the Dynamo Field(s) is exactly at 90 degrees, and IMHO, it should not have any interference.

Quote from: hiwater on Dec 25, 2024, 01:06 PMI havent done anything with the capacitor at all yet. Another night mare.

The Capacitor -again, I believe- it does not need to be made out of copper, but also of Aluminum wrap paper, the thicker one, not the cheap one, which is very thin, that is NOT good!!

Cheers

Ufopolitics

Quote from: hiwater on Dec 25, 2024, 01:10 PMUFO I have the gen case set up for cw rotation. How do you think I should proceed with this next? What should I be looking for?

Hiwater,

Can you, please be more specific about your setup?

CW Rotation, looking from where?...from the brushes cap side or from the front pulley?

How many Stators on your setup to be tested?

How many brushes?

Is it the SAME, EXACT setup as I have posted here LATELY on CW?

Thanks

Ufopolitics

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Dec 25, 2024, 03:04 PM

Quote from: hiwater on Dec 25, 2024, 01:10 PMUFO I have the gen case set up for cw rotation. How do you think I should proceed with this next? What should I be looking for?

Hiwater,

Can you, please be more specific about your setup?

CW Rotation, looking from where?...from the brushes cap side or from the front pulley?

How many Stators on your setup to be tested?

How many brushes?

Is it the SAME, EXACT setup as I have posted here LATELY on CW?

Thanks

Ufopolitics

UFO- Clockwise rotation from the brush end.  Two stock stators as is from the factory.  Four brushes. Went and rechecked the brush positions,  so yes the same as the latest one you posted

QuoteUFO- Clockwise rotation from the brush end.  Two stock stators as is from the factory.  Four brushes. Went and rechecked the brush positions,  so yes the same as the latest one you posted

Hello Hiwater,

Great, so here is my latest image (on CW) so let's both "align" and stick by it for your tests:


Ok, on the first tests, we will check: Output from both brushes sets (motor + gen) when we get the Dynamo to spin.

1-Both Brush sets must be measured separately, meaning, each set with two meters showing V & A. (of course, in order to read amperage, the circuit must be loaded [closed])

So, FIRST Tests will be at "NO LOAD", so we will only measure VOLTAGE Output.

In my opinion both sets should give you around the same V output.

First test : (the "weed-eater test"), I would like to see how much power both brush sets put out when you just wrap a cord on the pulley and pull it, while both are connected to meters, just like when you are starting a gas weed eater.

Second test with Dynamo attached to an external motor to spin it. Please be safe!!...you need an easy reach "switch ON/OFF" PLUS you must have a speed regulator on motor, to check on different speeds, making a "speed/output" list, like:

Dynamo at 1000 RPM's= Motor Set= 3V Gen Set= 3.5V
Dynamo at 2000 RPM's = Motor Set= 6V / Gen= 6.2 V
And so on, and please try to take it to the highest speed your motor could drive it to... (the "Ideal speed" would be to rotate Dynamo close to 5000 RPM's) to see how much Voltage and Amps these machines are capable to generate.

Now, I know on my Diagram (on TOP) I have a Negative Motor Brush right next to the Positive Generator Brush, as below is opposite, or a Positive from motor next to the Negative from Gen.(as image above)

However, whenever you spin this Dynamo, BOTH Brush sets should have the same electrical polarity right next to each other's brushes, OR BOTH POSITIVE ON TOP, AS BOTH NEGATIVES BELOW...please check on that too, to see if I am correct.


Then Second Tests would be to LOAD BOTH SETS OF BRUSHES, INDEPENDENTLY FIRST!!

And this is simple since you already have the Output Both Sets put out, so look for a Load that stays within those limits (Wattage) or VXA = Wattage.

First LOAD GENERATOR BRUSH SET ONLY with the right incandescent light bulbs wattage (please try to set loads ABOVE the Wattage they Output at Top Speed!!
Meaning, if Sets output 50 Watts, try to use 60 Watts Load, NEVER BELOW 50W.

And while you Gen side LOADED, please measure V off Motor Brushes, also at different speeds.

Now, do same thing but LOADING MOTOR SIDE, while measuring Gen not-loaded output (just V meter on)

Final Test would be to Load first the Generator THEN Load Motor, and write your Voltage and Amperage DROP, whenever you connect the SECOND LOAD.

All these tests will give us a very precise values we will be working on...

Finally, can you do the "weed-eater test" while both sets are loaded?

To do the weed eater test you must disconnect driving motor physical means to spin dynamo, meaning, if it is a belt pulley, take it off, or if it is a direct shaft to shaft drive connector, take it off.
This is done in order that Dynamo pulley is completely free to spin when you pull cord, as there will not be any mechanical drag to Dynamo pulley.

Last question, please give us your Delco-Remy Spec's as Voltage and Amperage Output from factory. I believe it should be 12V and around 30 Amps...

Thanks for helping here with these tests, and please, take your time, write everything, and if you can shoot short videos of tests it would be awesome!!

Regards

Ufopolitics

@hiwater,

I almost forget!!...PLEASE, DO NOT USE THE JUMPERS ON, REMOVE THEM!! for ALL Previous Tests I have written on post above...

There are other tests that we will also need, but these tests on previous post would be done FIRST than the following test that I will suggest, simply because we need FIRST ALL these OUTPUT PARAMETERS, at NO LOAD and LOADED, before you proceed to coming tests that I will recommend next.

Thanks Hiwater for all your time and contributions here!

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hello Hiwater,

Ok, so related to the Two Stators Settings for prior tests on your Dynamo:

1-Stators must be powered from ANOTHER (Independent) REGULATED Power Supply Unit.
You will supply to Stators the Factory set Voltage they operate based on your Dynamo Spec's (Later on, you will play with stators power decrease (while Dynamo is running) this should increase operating RPMs on Motoring Circuit.

2- Stators must be connected in series; in order to minimize the Currents (Amperage) and make sure the MAGNETIC POLARIZATION is set AS ON IMAGE, according to your electrical input polarization to the two main stator terminals.

Thanks

Ufopolitics

Hello Hiwater,

Ok, this is the other test that we will need AFTER you complete the First Tests (Output Power):

We want to be able to:

1- While you have Generator LOADED, with Dynamo running with external motor at the lowest speed that you previously tested for Output...THEN, start adding MINIMAL Voltage FIRST to Motor Brushes from an external Regulated Power Supply, but using the Motor Brushes Electrical Polarization specified on the Diagram.

And here, please read carefully: you must start FIRST with a VERY LOW VOLTAGE supplying Motor Brushes, like 2 or 3 volts...then READ the Amperage that shows on your MOTOR Power Supply.

So, depending that the Amperage does not go too high on your source, then dial a bit more voltage...and so on, until you get to Operating Factory Voltage (12V?)

And things you are going to be looking for on this test, while adding external power to motor brushes:

1- Watch the Dynamo Speed...if it DECREASES or INCREASES when you start the minimal voltage (2 to 3 Volts) to Motor Brushes.
2- Watch your Generator Load Output...if it INCREASES on Output Power or it DECREASES.

You may get some sparking between brushes of opposite electrical sign,(Motor-Generator) the minute you start adding MINIMAL power to Motor Brushes. NOW, if sparking increases too much as you increase power to Motor brushes, please STOP TEST!!

This Test is the MOST IMPORTANT TEST, as it will tell us if we really have Both Currents ALIGNED on the same direction for real.

If we DO, then 1 and 2 would show an INCREASE on BOTH PARAMETERS, Speed and Generated Output.

@hiwater, PLEASE, DO NOT "jump the gun" and do this test BEFORE you do ALL prior Tests!!...You need to know FIRST the Capacity of Output Power we are dealing with here versus the RPM's!!

Thanks!!

Ufopolitics

UFO Lots to digest here. I printed off the procedures so I can study them before I start the tests. Im sure i will have some questions. 

Too much going on now thru the holidays . When I start something I like to keep focused on it. So after the holidays woild be the best time to do this. OK. thanks Hiwater.

@hiwater and All interested on building-testing my suggested setup for the Lockridge Device,

Ok, so, after going over and over about whenever we change Rotation Direction on the device we are going to setup for Test...I came up with the conclusion that:

We will also need to Swap (Switch Places) between the Brushes Planes of Motor and the Generator.

So, previously I have posted the image below:


And as you can see BOTH BRUSHES PLANES are on the identical positioning (relating to which one is first as which one is second, NOT referring to "exact angles" here) as on the CCW ROTATION (Image below):


And these BRUSH PLANES SETTINGS ARE NOT CORRECT for the CW ROTATION!

Why?...Because depending on the Rotation Direction, a "General Rule" is that the Generating Brush Plane MUST BE SET PRIOR (BEFORE) to the MOTOR BRUSHES PLANE, ACCORDING TO THE ROTATION DIRECTION.

This way the Motor INPUT of Currents into the Armature will not interfere with the Generating Currents that we will collect.

So, this is "not a big deal" when testing this setup, as all you need to do, is to swap the Input to Motor with the Generating Brushes as your Motor Brushes Plane would be now the Generating side brush plane.

Like I have done on image below:


However, there is more to this settings that will allow us to play with this positioning for best performance of the Device.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hopefully i can start tomorrow on some of these tests. Here are the specs on the Gm generator

A rated amps 37

B 2000 rpm 25 amps

C 5000 rpm 35 amps

D the above are at 14 volts

During some tests a while ago using a drive motor this generator would put out over 90 volts unloaded. This was just from the residual magnetisim from the pole shoes unloaded. I was trying to figure out the speed the voltage started kicking in. If the motor sat for a while the speed was higher. If shut down and restarted then the voltage kicked in earlier. Never come to a real conclusion. Thats when I burned the fuse and fuse holder in the fuse box. Havent retested this again this way.

Quote from: hiwater on Jan 05, 2025, 12:40 PMHopefully i can start tomorrow on some of these tests. Here are the specs on the Gm generator

A rated amps 37

B 2000 rpm 25 amps

C 5000 rpm 35 amps

D the above are at 14 volts

Great! Thanks Hiwater,

Quote from: hiwater on Jan 05, 2025, 12:40 PMDuring some tests a while ago using a drive motor this generator would put out over 90 volts unloaded. This was just from the residual magnetisim from the pole shoes unloaded. I was trying to figure out the speed the voltage started kicking in. If the motor sat for a while the speed was higher. If shut down and restarted then the voltage kicked in earlier. Never come to a real conclusion. Thats when I burned the fuse and fuse holder in the fuse box. Havent retested this again this way.

Ok, one thing that could have happened here is that whenever you are using just the 'magnetic reminiscence' from Stators, this voltage readout from UNLOADED brushes is FALSE, it is just the Armature by rotation around a weak static magnetic field generates this potential difference.
Now, once you load the brushes (while showing this 90V) there would be a very high spike as armature will literally 'suck' all magnetism residues in one shot, at once.

There is always a BALANCE required on these machines between stationary and rotational fields (actually on Armature is also a fixed Torsion Field) However, the Energy Output takes place due to armature coils constantly sweeping the stator's field.

That is why I recommended on all tests to have a minimal BUT CONSTANT POWER supplied to the Stators from an independent Regulated Power Source.

Regards

Ufopolitics

@hiwater,

One thing that is obvious, however, I forgot to bring it on again during the test's explanations...are the Stators INNER magnetic Field Polarization READ OUT, to make sure you have the RIGHT POLES SETUP as previous image.

I uploaded a Video here on how to do that, taking off Armature and powering Stators and reading their INNER POLES ORIENTATION, then compare it to image and brushes electrical OEM Polarization. (This is part of the Dynamo's Spec's)

The second test relates to your OEM Positive Brush location related to your INNER NORTH Stator. This is verified once you rotate the Dynamo on the CW Direction (looking from brush cap) (Rotation could be done just by hand) and see the voltmeter showing NOT a Negative but a Positive value.

Third, when Dynamo is assembled as OEM (2 Brushes) whenever powering positive brush with positive DC Input and Ground Negative, Dynamo is supposed to rotate also CW as a Motor now.

Thanks

Ufopolitics 

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Oct 22, 2024, 11:00 AMHere is a link to a youtube video of John Bedini explaining the function of the Lockridge device. It was , self runner, maybe some similar functions in Figuera device.

at the 7.40 mark
"A pin Point Scalar beam"

Its also known as the Equilibrium Point. Zero point. It is the 'attachment point' to the Aether or its Neutral Centre.
It can be made using the theory here,
https://rumble.com/v4odo38-joe-may-2010-magnetic.html
and an application of this technology is seen here. The 'electrical' potential of this MONO POLE Field is literally unlimited.
https://rumble.com/vhrm63-magnetic-in-line-joecell-restructuring-ocean-sea-water-into-fresh.-2nd-came.html
The 'bedini motor' or Lockridge device is a motor/generator' in one. Same as the Tesla 2 phase motor that powered the Wardenclyffe Tower for Scalar energy or wireless energy transmission.
The orientation of the Fields must make a Unified Field to 'work'.

Quote from: MerLynn on Jan 05, 2025, 05:43 PMThe 'bedini motor' or Lockridge device is a motor/generator' in one. Same as the Tesla 2 phase motor that powered the Wardenclyffe Tower for Scalar energy or wireless energy transmission.
The orientation of the Fields must make a Unified Field to 'work'.

Hello MerLynn,

Just to clarify your above remarks: Bedini Motor and Lockridge Device are Two completely different 'things', so, please do not use the "or" between them, just because they are completely different devices.

Bedini plus Peter Lindemann plus Eric Dollard, plus all their team had an American "remake" of the Lockridge Device taken apart (Original Device was designed & built in Germany) ...HOWEVER, none of them were able to put it together and make it work, as of now.

The Bedini Motor, you can look it up on google...it is a pulse motor.

Ufopolitics

Quote from: MerLynn on Jan 05, 2025, 05:43 PM

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Oct 22, 2024, 11:00 AMHere is a link to a youtube video of John Bedini explaining the function of the Lockridge device. It was , self runner, maybe some similar functions in Figuera device.

at the 14 minute mark they 'join' copper pieces together to make a long strip for a 'capacitor'.

What this 'does' in Magnetic Physics terms is....

Everything is magnetic. Everything has Polarity.  Joining strips of copper together with HEAT, is like joining magnets together without knowing the polarity of each piece of copper. The act of soldering together PLACES a NEW Pole Field at each Join. You have a giant multi magnetic Polarity Field Effect. It clearly is not Unified. Instead of each strip being a unified Field interacting with the other to 'hold' the vibrations, you have additional, multi poles interacting with each other and this would burn out the wax paper at the 'nodes' or joints as the Vibrational frequency wants to jump from one magnetic Node to another Node (join)

a solid state timing mechanism, introduces more Magnetic Fields as 'components' to a design that was as simple as one can get for a 2 Phase Motor, that acts as a motor for one phase and a generator for the other phase. The Wardenclyffe power plant

What Bedini is doing.... is using particle science to reverse engineer a magnetic device that is based upon rotating magnetic Fields.

Given its limited output, it is not tapping into the Aetheric Scalar energy source and represents using only the Physical forces for energy manifestation.
The 'smart drive' motors in modern washing machines are the 'updated' versions of the Multi phase Motors that Tesla called 'mechanical contraptions' that DO tap into the Aether Energy source and are virtually unlimited in their power output being based upon 2 interacting rotating magnetic Fields that may create this Neutral Centre.

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Jan 05, 2025, 07:31 PMBedini Motor and Lockridge Device are Two completely different 'things',

They both have permanent magnets
The both have copper coils.
they both involve Direct Current.
They both make use of the 90 degree interaction or the Force between the 2 Polarities for rotational purposes.
They are both Type 1 devices. Type 2 devices create the Radiant or Scalar energies.
I have worked with Scalar energy devices many times and mechanical over unity devices as well.

I personally met with Lou the inventor of the Lutec 2000 over-unity generator and know how it was Joe who actually made their design work.
Generally, once an over unity device is functioning, to pull it apart and reassemble it, destroys the Field Effect and it never runs again. This is particularly so with an Aetheric Energy device. Not so much with a 4 Elemental States of physical matter device.
This is what happened to the Lutec 2000 gener5ator, Louie & John Christie tried to reverse engineer Joes 'add-ons' and it never ran again. They made several trips to meet Joe, to which I was present each time, to get Joe to build it again.

What Joe did was to add a Uni Pole Neutral Plate assembly to the motors shaft that created ANOTHER rotating magnetic Field within and unifying with the spinning Field of the Motor itself.  A unipole neutral plate assembly can be found here    https://rumble.com/v4odo38-joe-may-2010-magnetic.html

Tesla said 2 rotating magnetic Fields may (will if you SEE it the way Tesla did) create Scalar Aetheric Radiant energy every time. Its the principle of our own rotating magnetic red blood Cells within the human body. See post on Baghdad battery for more info on this important Principle of Magnetics.

Tesla preferred Iron electrical wires. He was 'forced' to use copper as this created a 'resistance' in the circuit that could be METERED. Westinghouse then placed Tesla under Hotel Arrest for the rest of his life.

If this is the 'best' Eric Dollard has to offer on Rotating Magnetic Fields
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Eric_Dollard_Document_Collection/Rotating%20Magnetic%20Field.pdf
He clearly hasnt a clue as to what he is looking at... and "none of them were able to put it together and make it work"

what is a pulse motor?  What is the FLOW? What is flowing?

Inside every 'transformer coil', or any 'coil' for that matter, is a Laminate of iron plates.
They make them as a Laminate to reduce 'eddy currents' when electrical energy production is directly associated with 'eddy currents'. The designs used for transforming in an electrical production circuit are so you wont get the MAX vibrations that one is looking for in any over unity device. Laminates reduce the cores ability to 'collect' and transmit by induction, the vibrations to the wires, that the spinning magnet induces when it passes by a laminate core. (the part Dollard leaves out)
Everything about modern electronics is designed to stop one from making over unity from a mechanical device.
Some say everything is a lie. Well that applies to modern physics and 'electricity' most specifically.

The question is.... do people want to SEE it as Tesla saw it, as da Vinci SEE(n) it which is the same as Joe SEES it. Or will we continue to run with Dollards short sighted view and Bedinis limited understandings of magnetics?

The answer to the "flow" is found by understanding what a Diode is and does to the vibrations coming from a battery or any 'electrical' source actually.

Quote from: MerLynn on Jan 05, 2025, 08:26 PM

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Jan 05, 2025, 07:31 PMBedini Motor and Lockridge Device are Two completely different 'things',

They both have permanent magnets

@MerLynn: I am sorry, but the Lockridge Device did not have any permanent magnets.

And look MerLynn, I do not want you to be jumping all over this Forum, trying to correct everyone or impose the technologies which you believe are the "true, real and 'only existing ones'"...without even reviewing -in detail- what are the posts on any Topic Main Content leading to or developing towards.

Although, I do agree with some of your statements, however, there are others that do not have any real proof that could be verified by second or third parties.

So, here I am proposing you to open your own Topic (one) where you could start displaying everything about yourself first, then about your inventions and achievements on the Over Unity Fields.

You wrote before you have worked and built many OU Devices, so, please, on your Topic you would have "carte blanche" to disclose all you please.

I have read your Topic at Mooker related to Magnetism, and up to some point it is an interesting Topic, however, there you have some assumptions which are not entirely correct.

But, I do NOT want to keep that discussion HERE, but on your own Topic.

If you have any site-issues opening a Topic, let me know and I will open it for you.

Sincerely

Ufopolitics

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Jan 05, 2025, 05:36 PMI uploaded a Video here on how to do that, taking off Armature and powering Stators and reading their INNER POLES ORIENTATION, then compare it to image and brushes electrical OEM Polarization. (This is part of the Dynamo's Spec's)

UFO sorry to be naive here. Under which post is that video Thanks Hiwater

Quote from: hiwater on Jan 07, 2025, 10:36 AM

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Jan 05, 2025, 05:36 PMI uploaded a Video here on how to do that, taking off Armature and powering Stators and reading their INNER POLES ORIENTATION, then compare it to image and brushes electrical OEM Polarization. (This is part of the Dynamo's Spec's)

UFO sorry to be naive here. Under which post is that video Thanks Hiwater

Hello @hiwater ,

Both Videos plus explanations are on Page 19 (https://overunitymachines.com/index.php?topic=107.90)

And what I will do here (on this Post) is to quote myself on the TWO PREVIOUS POSTS that contain BOTH VIDEOS as ONLY THE BASIC INFO to do this PRIMARY TESTS below:

IMPORTANT NOTE: I have NOT QUOTED HERE the other EXPLANATION related to the Four Brushes Configuration, JUST ALL EXPLANATIONS BEFORE VIDEO!!

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Nov 26, 2024, 12:58 PMHello All,

Now, in order to be successful on this project, we need to ANALYZE INDEPENDENTLY BOTH SYSTEMS (MOTOR AND GENERATOR).

PREVIOUSLY, ON THE UNMODIFIED DYNAMO, we need to identify which Stator is North and which is South, when applying DC INPUT Negative to Ground and Positive to the Isolated Stator connection...WITHOUT ARMATURE ON, we get the Magnetic Orientation Pen and MARK THAT NORTH STATOR ON THE INSIDE AS ON THE OUTSIDE!!

And when we assemble the Armature back, and power Dynamo as a Motor, using the "unidirectional" connection, or the Positive to the isolated brush and Negative Ground, we get a ROTATION DIRECTION, WHICH I WILL CALL IT "CONVENTIONAL DIRECTION"...and mark that rotation from the face you are looking at, typically BRUSH SIDE, as that is the Convention I have been using on ALL CADS here.!!

Or simply, you could add a piece of masking tape and wrap it around a part of the outer housing and write an arrow -on tape- following this conventional direction.

THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT PART!!, simply because ALL these Dynamos when running as a Generator, they ALWAYS generate Positive at that Positive Isolated Brush, AS THE ROTATION DIRECTION IS ONLY DONE IN ONE WAY, TO GENERATE DC THIS WAY!!
IF YOU REVERSE THE ORIGINAL OEM ROTATION, THEN THE ELECTRICAL POLARITIES WILL ALSO BE REVERSED!!

NOW, ALL THESE DYNAMOS ALWAYS HAVE THE SAME ELECTRICAL POLARIZATION, BASED ON THE SAME ROTATION DIRECTION, WHETHER YOU RUN IT AS A GENERATOR OR AS A MOTOR!!

And I decided to make a short video where I demonstrate exactly what I have stated above:

******************************************

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Nov 26, 2024, 04:07 PMHello All,

Ok here is a short video about identifying the Stators Magnetic Polarity:

Then I have drawn another CAD for this FORD Dynamo Spec's...and again, ALL this CAD Drawings are based on looking at Dynamo from the Brushes side, like I have explained on previous video.

Once that we know each stator magnetic polarity, then we can display the way Armature gets Magnetized or the Two Main Poles that Brushes 180 degrees plane divides.

So, here Armature is shaded in two halves, one Red (South) and the other Blue (North)

As here I will repeat what I said on video above...these two Armature Poles, or the Magnetic Field (comprehending both poles) DO NOT TURN AT ALL.

I am also showing BOTH BISECTORS for each pole at 90 degrees from brush plane.

FORD_DYNAMO_SPECS.png

[...]

Regards

Ufopolitics

******************************************

@hiwater :

Ok, you must realize that on my FORD Dynamo, the Rotation when looking from Brushes Cap side is CCW.

And on your DELCO-REMY DYNAMO (according to the info You have provided here) is OPPOSITE, or CW.

Now, this may change the way NORTH STATOR and POSITIVE BRUSH are SET, compared to the FORD Dynamo.

And I need to know this before we keep moving on, so I can later make for you the right and specific CAD Diagrams, that applies to your OEM DELCO-REMY SPEC'S.

So, we are using the Positive Brush and North Stator as REFERENCE to guide through this process.

Again, this is based on an ORIGINAL (OEM) (NOT MODIFIED) DYNAMO, as it came from factory, not altered!!

Hope this helps you.

Regards

Ufopolitics

@hiwater ,

Please DISREGARD ALL my talk about the Armature Coils and their expansion through Armature Elements on the Second Video!!

This has NOTHING to do with what we are TESTING NOW.

We are going to use the ARMATURE AS IS from FACTORY!!

So, basically ALL WE NEED NOW FOR THESE PRIMARY TESTS:

1-To know the LOCATION of Positive Brush RELATED to the NORTH Stator.

2- PLUS the ROTATION DIRECTION whenever we power Dynamo (AS MOTOR) based on FACTORY SPEC'S, or Positive to Positive of Power Source and Negative to Ground.

3-To CONFIRM that following same Rotation Direction as MOTOR (indicated in #2) Dynamo GENERATES a POSITIVE VALUE. This Rotation could be by hand, like I did on FIRST VIDEO.

You must power Stators and Armature to make it run as a Motor ('Factory Connection' as explained on #2) to know the OEM Rotation Direction.Meaning, that by rotating it on the MOTOR OEM DIRECTION- JUST BY HAND- it will show a Positive Value on your Voltmeter, like shown on FIRST VIDEO.

As when you rotate -also by hand- Dynamo in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION to OEM Rotation, it MUST give you a NEGATIVE Value on your Voltmeter.

Pls let me know if you did understand all explanations.

Thanks!

Ufopolitics

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Jan 06, 2025, 10:43 AMLockridge Device did not have any permanent magnets.

What is its construct this 'thing' that 'retains' the "Residual Magnetism" at the 3.50 mark? What is doing the 'retaining'? (retention of magnetics is a Magnet is it not?)

at the 5.21 mark Bedini speaks of 4 "poles". 2 being for generating and 2 being for the motor.
If these poles were 'coils' energized to give the North and South Poles he describes, how was this polarity determined or INDUCED?

He says it was a 6V output for the heater. Did the Lockridge device use a 'battery' as "Ballast"?

I have a lot of discussions with Joe on these motor/generator designs. Joe liked the 'old' stuff. He particularity liked the original one wire 'electricity' on the really old cars.

The IP of a Neutral Plate between 2 same Poles is the Mechanism to FOCUS the Wave Form Field and then take that Focal Point to anywhere its desired by the 'shape' of the Neutral Plate. The Neutral Plate is like a Magnifying lens but with a variable Field of Focus for the Neutral Centre Field. I would say its not a 'scalar beam' but a Distortion Field. His explanation of putting "2 North Poles together creates a 'scalar' beam"  just isn't understanding what he perceives he sees.

At the 7.42 mark, he demonstrates this 'same pole' combining with what appears to be a ring magnet and a spherical magnet. This clearly IS NOT joining 2 same poles together. The case is split so two same poles dont create that 'spike scalar beam' he believes to be there. Was the original Lockridge Case split into 4 like he says at the 6.20 mark? Would the parts on the bench be reverse engineered or a new engineered device? His reproduction appears as 2 hemispheres not the 4 described earlier as the Lockridge device. Is this correct?  Was it reversed engineered exactly? Could we be looking at something completely 'different'?

at the 8.20 mark am I correct in he's trying to explain the 90 degree interaction of Polarities that cause 'rotation'? 

Can you help me understand some of these queries Ufo?

Quote from: MerLynn on Jan 07, 2025, 09:14 PM

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Jan 06, 2025, 10:43 AMLockridge Device did not have any permanent magnets.

What is its construct this 'thing' that 'retains' the "Residual Magnetism" at the 3.50 mark? What is doing the 'retaining'? (retention of magnetics is a Magnet is it not?)

Hello MerLynn,

No, it is NOT the same, residual magnetism is NOT a FULLY STRUCTURED AND DEFINED MAGNETIC FIELD, as is on a Permanent Magnet.

Residual magnetism are just SCATTERED DOMAIN ALIGNMENTS within ONLY certain portions of the Stator Steel Core, I could even say it is just a PARASITIC, RANDOMLY DISPERSED Magnetism residues.

And at the time a LOAD is added to circuit demanding more magnetic power from the INDUCED, residual magnetism by itself DIES with a SPIKE, IF Stators are not constantly fed power. just because it is weak, -not consistently set-just a parasitic field.

Residual Magnetism or 'Magnetic Reminiscence" (same thing) takes place in ALL Generators up to now. It is used as an advantage to START Generator (or 'prime' in mechanical terms when it refers to hydraulic pumps). However, this Magnetism is NOT permanent, and if you do not use the generator for a period of time, then you will need to "Prime it" (they call it "Flash it") from an external power source.

On newer gen models they added a small permanent magnet (neo) on each Armature Pole (one facing N and other S towards Stators or Fields), where the armature on an AC Generator are the "always on" exciting fields.

On an old type of Dynamo (like the Lockridge is based on) everything related to Exciter-Stators is switched 180 deg. compared to AC Generators, where the Dynamo's spinning Armature is the Generating (Induced) Field, while Stators are the Exciters (Inducing) Field, and are always on.

And these facts explain why the remnant or residual magnetism on Steel Cores which work 24/7 on, with a DC Current making their poles fixed, end up aligning steel domains and leaving always this magnetic residue.

Quote from: MerLynn on Jan 07, 2025, 09:14 PMat the 5.21 mark Bedini speaks of 4 "poles". 2 being for generating and 2 being for the motor.
If these poles were 'coils' energized to give the North and South Poles he describes, how was this polarity determined or INDUCED?

Again, reread about the way old dynamos are structured that I wrote above...the Stators on a Dynamo are not the "induced" BUT the Inductors, the exciters, and they are always on...no reversing, not on/off...no pulses, straight DC Currents 100%.
On Lockridge, yes, there are 4 Stators, however, they are not mounted "symmetrically" on the housing...seen the picture below?...is at the beginning of this Topic:


And this way of replicating the building of the original German Device, I believe is what "throws out" completely to Bedini and Lindemann...on video, Bedini keeps drawing the Lockridge Device with Symmetrical Stators as "any" motor or generator...:

However, Bedini aligns stators differently than a common Motor or Generator have, as shown on image above, the typical Motor and Generator have an N/S/N/S arrangement, which results in North facing South on every step of rotation. So Bedini draws it here as N/N/S/S, and when you do that, you are just having a larger North and a larger South by setting side by side two norths and two souths...and ends up on a typical N/S TWO POLES instead of Four...but again, that is conceiving it in "On Symmetry" as he draws it on the board.

In reality, there is a GAP between ALL Four Stators as shown on first image...so, Stators NEVER "face" at 180 nor 90 deg each other's Poles, but in an Angular which is not 180 nor 90 degrees.

Quote from: MerLynn on Jan 07, 2025, 09:14 PMHe says it was a 6V output for the heater. Did the Lockridge device use a 'battery' as "Ballast"?

The Lockridge Device had besides the full Dynamo Machine Assembly, Two extra Components:

1- An INDUCTOR: a Triple Coil, Trifilar wound Inductor wrapped around the outer steel casing, projecting its poles towards the Dynamo's Caps...which in my opinion did not interfere with all the inner Interacting Fields between Armature and Stators.
2- A CAPACITOR: Also had around 30 ft of Copper sheet wrapped in between an insulation sheet (butcher wax paper on the case) cap around the steel casing.

And here, speculating, I believe these Two Components were the LC Tank Circuit which acted as you said, as a "ballast" or a capacitive-inductive type of switchable 'battery'...as it is also in charge to set the timing between the interactions of Motor and Generator Functions, like; say when cap fully charges by dynamo's generating side it will discharge at the motoring brushes (which are after it passes the generating cycle according to rotation sense) and then it repeats itself on cycles. Meaning, Generator keep charging and discharging into motor brushes creating a rotation at the very specific timing that armature is being reversed by Lenz, (opposing forces to rotation, reverse torque, etc) then generator circuit turns OFF and Motor takes over.
Of course, the 'perfect scenario' would be that both LC Tank Components are in very well-tuned resonance, so it will keep bouncing back and forth in sync with rotation cycles between Motor & Generator...and this is the part which is very hard to achieve...it is like the accuracy of a Swiss Clock Synchronized Movement.
Where IF it is not properly in sync, it will simply NOT work.

Does it makes sense to you?...do you understand this explanation above?

Quote from: MerLynn on Jan 07, 2025, 09:14 PMI have a lot of discussions with Joe on these motor/generator designs. Joe liked the 'old' stuff. He particularity liked the original one wire 'electricity' on the really old cars.

I do love this old technology...basically these old Dynamos, they are solid pieces of steel that could be rebuilt over and over (and rebuilding kits are still available), simply because there are thousands of antique car collectors and some of these vehicles could cost a fortune called 'COPI' (Cars Of Particular Interest)...so, people do spent a fortune rebuilding them (I have done lots of them COPI's)...Dynamos do not have the epoxy resin on armature and stators, which you need to burn down in order to take it off on the new generator and motors build methods.
On these old machines you could easily 'unwind' turn by turn to later on measure each turn resistance and inductance if you rewind it on a plain steel core...for experimenting of course.

The "one wire electricity" on vehicles is because Negative runs through all the steel on the car, including the frame and body, called "ground". So, they only use 'one wire' which is the positive to run from one end to the other of vehicle.

Now all new vehicles have thousands of wires running all over, with so many different voltages and currents that travel from sensors all over the car and engine and transmission to the all processors or 'computers' to then go to all the 'actuators' (solenoids) or executers or servo motors...which regulate-control liquids pressures, temperatures, volumes per time like mass flow sensors...which actually makes it a nightmare to simply 'diagnose' any malfunction on such complex design.

So, I do not blame Joe at all, for liking the 'old and simple stuff'...

Quote from: MerLynn on Jan 07, 2025, 09:14 PMThe IP of a Neutral Plate between 2 same Poles is the Mechanism to FOCUS the Wave Form Field and then take that Focal Point to anywhere its desired by the 'shape' of the Neutral Plate. The Neutral Plate is like a Magnifying lens but with a variable Field of Focus for the Neutral Centre Field. I would say its not a 'scalar beam' but a Distortion Field. His explanation of putting "2 North Poles together creates a 'scalar' beam"  just isn't understanding what he perceives he sees.

The interaction taking place between two magnetic poles of the same polarity is a very intriguing scenario as Ken Wheeler on his book (link to this site Topic>>) 'Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism (https://overunitymachines.com/index.php/topic,9.0/topicseen.html)' defines the interaction between like poles (on page 71) as quoted below:

QuoteREPULSION: Two likewise spin fields causing deflection; this is mirror membrane Ether deflection, this is literally extremely high-pressure space.

ATTRACTION: A negative pressure counterspatial voidance sink.

Actual Science says there is a 'No-Field' scenario between same poles interactions...while THERE IS a 'Field' ONLY on Attracting Poles...which is completely wrong!!

Quote from: MerLynn on Jan 07, 2025, 09:14 PMAt the 7.42 mark, he demonstrates this 'same pole' combining with what appears to be a ring magnet and a spherical magnet. This clearly IS NOT joining 2 same poles together. The case is split so two same poles dont create that 'spike scalar beam' he believes to be there.

Bedini speaks on that video a lot of things that borders into the 'mythical side' I believe he does thinks this way about the way Lockridge works...As he also mentions that brushes sparking is a 'radiant energy spark'...and that is how energy is generated...and -with all due respect to Bedini, RIP, I have to disagree with all those concepts when applying it to this Electromagnetic Machine.

Quote from: MerLynn on Jan 07, 2025, 09:14 PMWas the original Lockridge Case split into 4 like he says at the 6.20 mark?

If you add Two cuts on the case it will create Two not Four Divisions on case, as He says on video, it is simply an error.

However, I believe no one alive -even at the time this video was filmed- has ever seen the original BOSCH Device that soldier Lockridge brought from Germany in post war 1945...

All they have seen are the replicas based on a Delco Remy Dynamo...adapted by Lockridge and his team.

Quote from: MerLynn on Jan 07, 2025, 09:14 PMWould the parts on the bench be reverse engineered or a new engineered device? His reproduction appears as 2 hemispheres not the 4 described earlier as the Lockridge device. Is this correct?  Was it reversed engineered exactly? Could we be looking at something completely 'different'?

As far as I interpret and understand the video, they (Lockridge and team) took apart the original BOSCH Dynamo from Germany and "adapted" to a similar embodiment, but built in USA, a Delco-Remy (GM) Dynamo.

If you compare the manufacturing quality control, between both machines (a German and an American made) there are HUGE differences in every step...and I have two old Dynamos from BOSCH from those times that I purchased a few weeks ago, one came from UK, from an antique collector and the second from USA and newer type...the detail in construction is just like night and day...plus the German one have different resistances and inductances, smoother commutator, more bars, etc...is like comparing a Mercedes Benz with a Chevy Camaro...

So, making a replication from the original German machine into a rougher built Delco-Remy Dynamo, I believe it took them some time to get it running and 'tuned' properly, EVEN, counting every turn of wire on external trifilar inductor or extending the copper capacitor plate to measure the total length...they never changed the armature on the Delco-Remy Dynamo...and again, both armatures are very different, not only on better construct, but on spec's.

So, I imagine this 'adaptation' gave him a lot of headaches...but no, I do not think it was a 'reversed engineering' what they did.

Remember, they were not engineers...but pretty great handymen and laymen working on this project to make a living after returning from war...

Quote from: MerLynn on Jan 07, 2025, 09:14 PMat the 8.20 mark am I correct in he's trying to explain the 90 degree interaction of Polarities that cause 'rotation'?

From 7:30 to 7:50 He explains the 'cuts' or slots done on casing (which are ONLY TWO) NOT Four, so, if you have two slots this divides the outer housing in TWO, NOT in Four parts like He says.

On mark 8:20 on he starts speaking about two N poles FACING each other's...and this IS NOT the case on the two North Stators that are on the casing. They are 'sideways' and NOT facing each other's...so, there is not a DIRECT/FACE TO FACE/POLE TO POLE Interaction.

Basically, what he actually needs to FOCUS ON, is on the Interactions between ARMATURE and Stators, and NOT between Stators, like there would not be an 'Armature' in between, is like totally ignoring it.

The best way to understand Rotation on ANY Electric DC Brushed Motor is using a 'Tool' that I have developed, which is also on this Topic, and I call it "Torsion Fields (https://overunitymachines.com/index.php/topic,64.0/topicseen.html)".

Quote from: MerLynn on Jan 07, 2025, 09:14 PMCan you help me understand some of these queries Ufo?

I have tried...and I had to review again this long video...to answer based on your 'time marks'...so, I hope my effort has helped you somehow...

Regards

Ufopolitics

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Jan 07, 2025, 01:26 PMOk, you must realize that on my FORD Dynamo, the Rotation when looking from Brushes Cap side is CCW.

And on your DELCO-REMY DYNAMO (according to the info You have provided here) is OPPOSITE, or CW.

Now, this may change the way NORTH STATOR and POSITIVE BRUSH are SET, compared to the FORD Dynamo.

And I need to know this before we keep moving on, so I can later make for you the right and specific CAD Diagrams, that applies to your OEM DELCO-REMY SPEC'S.

So, we are using the Positive Brush and North Stator as REFERENCE to guide through this process.

Again, this is based on an ORIGINAL (OEM) (NOT MODIFIED) DYNAMO, as it came from factory, not altered!

I had 2 insulated brushes and I was powering from the opposite side. So it turned cw brush end. Sorry for the confusion.  When putting power in the other side it does turn cw on the shaft end. Rotating by hand cw will show sometimes positive .1-.4 volts. Turning backwards by hand is .1-.3 volts. It kind of sporadic. Doesnt register all the time. That all I have for now.

Iv been off work for a month. So have to go back to work now again. So will have to leave this project agai for a while. Ill keep on checking in though. UFO you have done a tremendous job here. So keep up the fight for independence . Thanks Hiwater.

Quote from: hiwater on Jan 11, 2025, 12:21 PM

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Jan 07, 2025, 01:26 PMSo, we are using the Positive Brush and North Stator as REFERENCE to guide through this process.

Again, this is based on an ORIGINAL (OEM) (NOT MODIFIED) DYNAMO, as it came from factory, not altered!

I had 2 insulated brushes and I was powering from the opposite side. So it turned cw brush end. Sorry for the confusion.  When putting power in the other side it does turn cw on the shaft end. Rotating by hand cw will show sometimes positive .1-.4 volts. Turning backwards by hand is .1-.3 volts. It kind of sporadic. Doesnt register all the time. That all I have for now.

Hello Hiwater,

Ok, then I believe if you have the Two Brushes insulated, then your Dynamo has been altered or modified, then it is not OEM (Original Equipment Manufactured) anymore.
ALL these American made Dynamos came with one brush to Ground.
However, on a separate note, (unless they are also modified) your two stators must have one terminal to ground still?
If they do, then you could take off armature and power JUST the STATORS, In Series (as they come OEM) from Negative to Ground to find which of the two is your North Pole.

Quote from: hiwater on Jan 11, 2025, 12:21 PMIv been off work for a month. So have to go back to work now again. So will have to leave this project agai for a while. Ill keep on checking in though. UFO you have done a tremendous job here. So keep up the fight for independence . Thanks Hiwater.

Thanks and it is ok, work is needed for survival...

On my end I am more involved now on finishing the Figuera Linear-Series Test Method...so, whenever I have the time I will make these Dynamo Tests myself.

Take care

Ufopolitics