Hi ION,
No there is no evidence that I can find other than the sources you quote and I understand your skepticism. In fact I probably would not have begun my research into this device if I had heard the doubts that some credible members have beforehand; however I did start to research and experiment.
Summary of my work
As you say, there is little evidence on the net, not much to go on other than the video by John fettuchini
I have had one email from someone who claims to know someone who owned one but there was no additional information and I can no longer contact that person.
I have carried out thousands of electrical simulations and from that I have concluded that it
may be possible as all the simulators I have used produced similar results.
There is a patent that describes the process of how the Lockridge, if real, could have worked. This is the dynomotor patent. The key points here are a motor action, a generator action and a transformer action all on the same iron core so that there is only one iron loss. Yes this is an efficiency improvement and not the source of the power.
I have carried out 100s of experiments and found energy gains in the inductive kickback and resonance however these gains have never been enough to cover the losses. Some say these gains are just improvements in efficiency but I am sure they are gains. If you have ever experimented with charging caps with pulses through an inductor and calculated the total losses you will find that either the inductive kickback or the magnetism is "free" and therefore a gain.
Resonance has only given gains in voltage and heat in my experience, no extra current and therefore no extra power in the motor thus the gain comes out in heat generated in the motor. I have burned up many motors.
Through persistence I have been able come up with circuits that should exploit these gains. and the key point here is that low resistance is a must and Inductive kickback is a must.
The area where I have been struggling is BEMF. To get the motor running with low BEMF ment running it on the part of the power curve where it had to rise to the load and would stall if there was any increase in load. Drops in load would have resulted in a runaway motor and a burn out. Obviously this isn't a satisfactory condition and would at best result in a sweet spot which may produce an "overunity effect" None of my motors were able to run in this condition as the resistance was too high and as a result increasing the voltage would only produce gains in heat
One member has been drumming it home to me that I need a chance in geometry to make it work but being stubborn and believing that the lockridge may be real I could not see how that could be done in a standard motor case.
The babcock video confirmed some of my beliefs but still did not have the answer to the BEMF and geometry issue, this is where the Squires video comes in. This video does not really talk about the lockridge but many of the principals apply.
The first is the solution to getting enough current to flow in an inductor. Normally we raise voltage and I was looking at lowering resistance. Raising voltage increases heat, lowering resistance increases size and friction so gong down the route I was following would result in huge motors with only a meager output. The choke coil in the Squires video has the answer, by periodically disconnecting a series mounted choke from the supply, it would produce inductive kickback of a voltage that would overcome the inductance of the motor thus allowing sufficient current to flow. The motors own inductive kickback could then take over giving a gain. From the information given by John fettuchini we know the lockridge had a trifilar coil wrapped round the motor case, he also stated that two of the windings were in series with the motor. This is the choke that squires talks about. Not mentioned is the fact that having the choke wrapped round the motor will saturate the motor to some extent and that this may help the efficiency of the motor function, only my theory.
The second part is the BEMF, according to squires and my friend that has been trying to get me to change the geometry, the most BEMF is generated where the greatest change in concentration of flux is occurring. This is right where we normally mount our coils. By moving our coils away from this point while still keeping them in the magnetic circuit we can reduce the BEMF. He also uses a magnetic shunt to maintain the flux in the power coil but I cannot see how this would have been done in the lockridge yet, if at all. Our answer in the lockridge is to use a 4 pole setup in the case and two pole on the armature but for simplicities sake i will only talk about two field coils.
Imagine a universal motor with two field coils, take one coil off and mount it at 90 degrees, this coil is the power coil and is in series with the armature. the other coil is the generator coil as this is where the BEMF will be generated, it is also the inductive compensation coil which is a transformer action. The only problem we have now, is to get the motor to turn. Maybe by moving the brushes a little a weak motor action can be obtained and maybe the influence of the field created by the trifilar coil has some influence on this, or maybe it is a case of adjusting the position of the power coil either side of the 90 degree position. Remember that this motor will not be self starting so It could be the lag in the current that actually causes the motoring action once it is turning. I don't know but it is time to experiment.
If the power coil was wound round the stator instead of a pole piece the motor would turn but then it would not resemble the lockridge device.
Could it be that the lockridge was put out as a hoax to try and see if someone could figure out how to do it, this is possible
but personally I believe there was such a device.
ION, I like people to ask the difficult questions as this helps me to learn. Keep asking those questions and pointing out the obvious.
Author
Topic: The Lockridge device (Read 1278 times)
