n-c alternator modifications: discussion and testing

[DewCatTea-Bob]

...I'm meeting a friend of mine to tutor one of my daughters for her Physics exams. He actually is a Physics professor. Any questions???

Oh yes, have him read the whole thread and offer an opinion...:lol.:
I have a friend that is quite a preeminent Physicist who does a lot of work with high voltage but I wouldn't even have a clue as to what to ask him about this thread.
Bill

____ Yes, how about: "Does the varying 'potential' of a running alternator produce any specific voltage value without any external circuitry connected to it ? "
____ Since 'voltage' is merely POTENTIAL-voltage (until OTHER factors form it's value), 'voltage' alone, is an undefined figment.
__ Maybe Mike can now grasp what I've been meaning to convey . _ (Unless of course he thinks that that question is actually a valid-question which really needs to be answered. - [Which I'd doubt, since he HAS to be smarter than that !])


Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob

[wcorey]

"Does the varying 'potential' of a running alternator produce any specific voltage value without any external circuitry connected to it ?

I'm curious as to where in the ongoing conversation that question was asked (and the context surrounding it)? I don't recall reading it anywhere...


Bill

[DewCatTea-Bob]

"Does the varying 'potential' of a running alternator produce any specific voltage value without any external circuitry connected to it ?

I'm curious as to where in the ongoing conversation that question was asked (and the context surrounding it)? I don't recall reading it anywhere...

Bill

____ That exact question has not been brought-up before.
The notion for it first developed when I wanted you (&others) to understand that an alternator doesn't really have any particular preset 'voltage', (merely a potential-voltage range, actually), but rather only 'wattage' available from it. _ And for some mental-block type reason, it seems Mike refuses to see it that way.
__ It's all in regards to whether 'voltage' itself can exist alone before the 'power' -(wattage) of the alternator is converted into true 'voltage', & current by connected circuits. _ As before such occurs, there's only 'potential-voltage' (which can't be specifically 'voltage' !).
For example, if the alternator's power-output is simply circuited to pass-through a short-circuit, then the 'voltage' is next to zero, while the current is as much as the alternator can possibly supply. _ But before the short-circuit is connected, there's really no pure 'voltage' ! _ Only 'power' -(wattage) with 'potential' (for becoming voltage) !
____ I expect that those who aren't 'trained' (outside of high-school), won't have the same troubles trying to understand my wording, that Mike (somewhat understandably) seems to have.
__ I-myself wouldn't mind having some opinions about my (& Mike's) chosen wording.
If I'm ever unclear about anything, I'd like to know so ! - (So that I might do something about it.)


Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob

[DewCatTea-Bob]

By: MotoMike...
" All the mumbo jumbo about yet another issue that comes down to what you call something is smoke and mirrors that may keep the uninitiated from doubting you know what your talking about, but does not serve to make our understanding of the circuits in question any simpler. "

____ What's "smoke & mirrors" to you may simply be real-world facts clashing with your mind's understanding having been trained to think of concepts in the narrowed manor as you do. _ I wouldn't feel the need to bring-up my valid "mumbo jumbo" if you wouldn't apparently disagree with me as if I must be wrong.
Otherwise I agree that the more advanced concepts need not be reviewed (& ought be left to remain dumbed-down), in order to keep things minimally simplified for easier "understanding of the circuits in question" .
However my purpose isn't to 'train' a particular method of understanding, as I prefer seeing the 'whole-world' as it really is (rather than just a sect of it).


" the fact that the 120vac outlet has for practical purposes unlimited ability to provide voltage does not change that it is voltage before you stuck your finger in it and after, "

____ Of course not ! _ Why bother to make that point ? _ As I agreed that THAT example already has outside controlling factors to provide the "SET" voltage-amount (from it's related power-source) ! _ The raw "power" -(wattage) of which that set voltage came from, having already been converted from mere potential, to 'voltage' !


" It also doesn't mean that the voltage that exists across two points from a static charge and quickly drops to zero when you put your finger across it is voltage before you touched it and after until the difference drops to zero. "

____ First it seems, your typed-wording doesn't exactly seem to support YOUR view-point as I assume it was meant to. _ I think what you're meaning to say is, before a static-charge jump-spark occurs, that the 'voltage' it took to make the spark, had to have already existed (as voltage), before the spark helped to balance-out the difference in potential.
(That's a really good example you've brought-up (for proving that 'voltage' does NOT preexist] !) ...
__ Now having cleared-up your (likely intended) notion, I will next dispel it ! ...
Even before a static-spark jumps, there was no actual voltage, only potential-voltage !
When two bodies with substantially different potentials are far apart, their potential differences are spread-out & weak, and so not very evident (to the point of even being as non-existent),, but as they are moved closer to one another, their potential-difference then becomes 'condensed' & focused in a manor which allows a greater 'potential-voltage' to build-up,, yet voltage itself still does not exist, UNTIL the 'potential' builds to the point at which the spark jumps, (completing a 'circuit' !), and thus THEN bringing 'voltage' INTO existence (for the duration of the spark) ! _ After the spark has stopped completing the circuit, then once again, there's no longer any 'voltage',, only a more balanced potential difference remains, (since there was no store of electrons left to help maintain the required amount of [real] voltage).


" To say that there is no voltage across the unloaded terminal of a battery until you put a load across it doesn't make sense. "

____ Of course THAT may not make sense Mike ! _ And you should not have come to such a notion ! ...
Cuz a battery (unlike an alternator) includes pre-existing conditions which actually shapes & predetermines how it's store of potential power -(wattage) is converted into particular limits of voltage and amperage. _ Therefore, (like the 120v wall-outlet), it's particular voltage exists without being measured !


" voltage is the differnce of potential that makes current flow. it is the only thing that makes current flow. "

____ That's right (in a manor of speaking).
Potential-voltage is what drives current to begin to try to flow, but the actual 'voltage' (from an alternator) doesn't exist until the circuits determine the current flow-rate.


" So on one hand you wish to stick to the real world and discuss what is logically going on in our simple circuits. Me too, I explain them in a way that deals with them as simply and accurately as I can. "

____ That's fine, and I've had no real issue with such that you do.


" But when you make a simple mistatement or mistake that gets corrected, you forsake this creedo and will resort to such unfounded statements of unknown physics professors who deal in the esoteric concepts assosiated with the issue will support you. "

____ So very crudely put (from a way-out view-point!), but I wouldn't need to dip into more complex conceptional explanations, if you didn't challenge the concepts which you don't already understand.


" Impractical and questionable concepts all for the sake of not being proven wrong. your writings are not complex and hard to understand because they are written at a level too high to grasp, it is because they are disjointed, rambling and riddled with small mis-uses of electrical terms. "

____ Now you're making me think of getting my own foam-bat for a head clobbering-session.
__ What electrical-terms have I supposedly misused ?
As for your expressed opinion of not being able to smoothly interpret my "writings", I should point-out that they were not composed to directly correlate with tech.trained conceptions, but rather that which might be better understood by the majority who hasn't been so 'trained'.
(Your issue of not properly grasping my concepts is pretty-much akin to someone who's been trained only to use just 'base-10' math, and then trying to understand base-2 or base-12 math. _ Either type provides valid results,, that you can't understand other than that which you've been trained to, doesn't mean all else must have to be "WRONG" !)


" Not saying anything until a somewhat significant issue arrises. When I do, it results in these flights of fancy that only makes things more confusing and does nothing to help with understanding the circuit. "

____ I've already given wording to address roughly the same thing.
If you alert me to a genuine error, I admit it and am thankful ! _ But if you're the one who doesn't grasp my actual meaning, then I try to use clearer wording to reexplain in greater detail to help make the point come-across.


" I know what "put that in your pipe and smoke it means." and not only is it as you describe, it is an in your face "so take that" rejoinder. "

____ I suppose it could be taken so, but I actually didn't mean it that way.
In hind-sight, (aside from nothing) I should've took the time to think of something more suitable, like: "So what's your NEXT move?" .


Content-Cheers,
-Bob

[DewCatTea-Bob]

By: wcorey...

" Just realized the vdc readings are a decimal place off in the pics, I must have configured something wrong, I'll deal with it later...)

____ Is that for everything in you last-post, or just this last test ?

" Just the results from the one last test and if it's not a test you wanted anyway, I'll just delete it rather than a do over. "

____ After reading your (next) posting, I believe I've come to realize that that test was also one I wanted, (and believe you've done before). _ I believe it's the one that's set up to reflect the dual half-wave circuit of the stock rectification system. _ And if so, it's results should be the very first to be placed into the dedicated thread.
__ If things are still remaining all-straight, then the following ought be more recent results for that stock output.

Couldn't locate a drawing for this one.
halfwave rectified, parallel,
3ohm, 3450rpm, 1.8a, 14.6vac, 8vdc "

____ So we have 14.4-watts (but from exactly-what, I'm not positive of yet).

I forgot to mention that they ought to be done with the same 1-ohm load as you used for Bruce's full-wave tests, so that the results can be directly compared.

" I will get on it... "

____ I've seen that you've already gone-ahead & done so, in your (next) post !
Thanks a lot for that !


Staying-Tuned,
-Bob

[DewCatTea-Bob]

[quote="wcorey"]

Halfwave series 'really' reversed, 3ohm, 3450rpm, Didn't try testing it again at 1ohm either . Pretty much the same result as (what I think is) the full wave version of this that was done at Bruce's request "

____ The full-wave version that Bruce asked for would've allowed full AC-flow through the entire alt.stator, and thus possibly have different effects that P.DC-flow may not also cause.
While the expected DC-test outcome ought be the same canceling-out effect (which I gather was the AC-test outcome), the series-reversed DC-test shouldn't result with exactly zero, (unless the circuit's left open).




" Halfwave, series, 1 ohm, 3450rpm, 3.7a, 17.4vac, 3.9vdc "

____ So that's 8.7-volts P.DC to produce 14.43-watts DC, from both alt.windings in the std.series circuit.


" Halfwave, 'one side', 1 ohm, 3450rpm, 3.4a, 13.6vac, 3.5vdc "

____ So that's 6.8-volts P.DC to produce 11.9-watts DC, (from one alt.winding alone).


" Halfwave, 'the other side', 1 ohm, 3450rpm, 3.7a, 13.4vac, 3.6vdc "

____ So that's 6.7-volts P.DC to produce 13.3-watts DC, (from the other alt.winding, on it's own).
__ So it seems, while one alt.winding will produce 11.9-watts and the other will produce 13.3-watts (for a total of 25.2-watts), the two alt.windings connected in series seem to produce only slightly over 14.4-watts, (about 10.8-watts less than would be expected from a std.transformer type winding-setup).
So we can now realize that it's not the AC-aspect that is the cause of power reduction, since it seems that the reduction-effect remains, even with just Pulsating-DC.


" This is another one I must have missed due to it (the drawing anyway) being added-after-the-fact, back a way's.

'stock' parallel, 1ohm, 3450, 3.8a 5.1vac, 3.8vdc "

____ I believe this is the one you've already done once or twice before.
__ Now this test-result is not what I've always expected. ... This parallel (dual half-wave) circuit ought to have a wattage-output equal to both alt.windings together, (that's 25.2-watts) ! _ Yet we still have the same wattage-output as when they are in series ! _ (Which regardless of being in series OR parallel actually makes perfect sense to me however by the way!) _ But what's actually disconcerting is that no mater the circuit-arrangement, the power-reduction loss seems to remain un-avoided.
__ So my first thought, is that the stator is faulty, or else I have to think that Ducati sure makes a really screwed-up stator-winding ! _ And if that's the actual case, then a complete rewinding of their alt.stator is called-for ! _ (And I already have a rewind-design which I'm sure would've been better than Ducati's !)



" (I was wondering about the unused rec. ground so I jumpered it to the alt. side of the load and got 2.2a, 3.4vac, 2.3vdc, no clue if this means anything at all...) "

____ I understand that you made a jump-connection from the rect.block's (unused) negative-output to one of the alt.winding leads, (but I don't know which). _ Doing that would short-out the NEGATIVE power-pulses of at least one of the alt.windings.
On top of that, since the positive-wattage fell over 9-watts (down to just 5-watts), you not only shorted-out one of the alt.windings all-together, it seems you also increased the effect that obviously stifles the expected power-output. - (A possible added clue.)


" Am I now up to date with the test requests? "

____ I believe you've tried all the various possibilities, however before you tear-down your setup... I believe you've had a test-result that didn't check-out to be exactly confirmed... Once, (as I think I recall), the series-connected alt.windings' combined AC-output was simply somewhat less than double that of either winding alone, while another AC-test indicated that the series combined output of both was actually a bit LESS than either alt.winding's output by itself.
So the test ought to be run again, to clear-up which outcome is most correct.


" I have a friend that is quite a preeminent Physicist who does a lot of work with high voltage but I wouldn't even have a clue as to what to ask him about this thread. "

____ His answer to why 1+1 equals less than 2, in this case, would be of fair interest,, don't ya think ?


Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob

[MotoMike]

Bob
__ What electrical-terms have I supposedly misused ?

MM
Voltage, volts, juice, current, power, wattage, impedance come immediately to mind...

look, I've made my opinion known on this topic and explained my reasoning a few times. That being "does voltage exist across two points before it is measured or loaded" I think there is enough supporting text in this thread for anyone who cares enough to sort through it and make their own conclusions. I will engage in further discussion throug PM If someone wants.

And I'd say your question doesn't go far enough, it should be does voltage exist across the terminals of a voltage source, not just an alternator. no matter if it is produced by electro-mechanical, static, chemical or other means it is still the work of pulling electrons and protons apart and creating a difference in potential between two points. I never argued that an alternator has a "specific" voltage present before being measured, because even though we know it is there, we don't know the quantity until we do measure it. but it is there before we load it.

As to letting you know when you aren't clear or are wrong. we have seen where that goes.

Bob, I am not going to engage further in the public discussion, on the topic of when voltage exists, as after a few rounds it is clear it goes no where. Further, the nature of the discussion is not appreciated by the membership in general. As I offered before I will try to explain it to you in pm. There is a lot more to explaining how we determine what voltage is and when and where it exists, but don't know if any amount of examples will get you to your "Aha" moment as we finally did with RMS after thousands of words.

[ecurbruce]

Bob said; "so that's 6.7 volts P.DC to produce 13.3 wattsDC... it seems that the reduction-effect remains, even with just pulsating DC."
Bob, could you expand any on tbat line of thinking, for clarification? I'm not sure I understand all that' going on there?

Bruce

[wcorey]

_ I believe it's the one that's set up to reflect the dual half-wave circuit of the stock rectification system. _ And if so, it's results should be the very first to be placed into the dedicated thread.

Since I screwed something up setting that one up, a drawing with all meters would be nice.
Preferred load resistance?

" (I was wondering about the unused rec. ground so I jumpered it to the alt. side of the load and got 2.2a, 3.4vac, 2.3vdc, no clue if this means anything at all...) "

____ I understand that you made a jump-connection from the rect.block's (unused) negative-output to one of the alt.winding leads, (but I don't know which).

The key to my wording here is "to the alt. side of the load" (as opposed to the rec. side). To be more clear I can see that I should have stated it as 3 and 4 or purple and grey.
Since 3 and 4 are tied together at the load, they were both jumped to ground.

____ I believe this is the one you've already done once or twice before. ...This parallel (dual half-wave) circuit...

Actually, I don't believe I have, could be wrong though.

...the series-connected alt.windings' combined AC-output.... So the test ought to be run again, to clear-up which outcome is most correct.

No load or rectifier? If loaded, what resistance? Drawings always help, don't keep overestimating my cognitive powers.

__ So my first thought, is that the stator is faulty, or else I have to think that Ducati sure makes a really screwed-up stator-winding !

Isn't what Bruce has discovered, that one of the two windings on each core is fully underneath the other, a bit odd?
Seems as though this configuration wouldn't lend itself to equal output unless maybe they alternate the arrangement so that each set of windings has an alternating set of each type.
I'm surprised there has yet to be discussion on this, I thought it would be a big piece of the puzzle.


I'll be hanging around with Ken-the-Physicist all day tomorrow, I believe I do have some pertinent questions starting to to organize themselves into a coherent form. The chicken or egg thing with 'voltage' or 'potential voltage ' is a good one if I can figure out how to present it properly (and comprehend the answer).

____ His answer to why 1+1 equals less than 2, in this case, would be of fair interest,, don't ya think ?

I'll try on that one but it requires an explanation that I'm not entirely sure I have a handle on. I know on the face of it, it seems simple enough, a good schematic showing the core/coil/winding relationships would help. He has a habit of asking followup questions I don't have answers for...


Bill

[DewCatTea-Bob]

__ What electrical-terms have I supposedly misused ?

MM
Voltage, volts, juice, current, power, wattage, impedance come immediately to mind...

____ You know that's merely a condensation within your-mind Mike, and to make such a statement as that pretty-much most surely puts additional strain on your credibility !
If I myself was reckless enough to shoot MYself in the foot, I'd in return indicate that every word you-yourself have used, has been pure-bunk. _ But actually, I happen to understand your view-points, and if you've thought that I think you're wrong with your trained conception, that's not been the case. _ As you seem to have a pretty-good grasp of concepts you were trained to understand.
Furthermore, if anyone wishing for any circuits to be explained-out by the 'technically-accepted' manor, I'd still recommend you, (over myself) Mike.
__ It's just that for some reason, if there's any possible way for my chosen wording to be taken incorrectly, YOU seem to find it (and not even attempt to adjust your interpretation to make it acceptably reasonable, [as we all must tend to do with the writings of others]).


" look, I've made my opinion known on this topic and explained my reasoning a few times. That being "does voltage exist across two points before it is measured or loaded" "

____ It seems that you STILL haven't got it Mike... It seems that YOU use the word 'voltage' without regards to which TYPE of voltage-definition you ought be meaning. ... The type of voltage you keep giving examples of , is actually 'POTENTIAL-voltage', which is NOT the very-same concept as REAL raw-voltage itself !
To speak of the two types as if they're the very-same, (as you repeatedly seem to do without regards for any difference), is in my opinion a misleading & bad example to allow others to adapt.


" And I'd say your question doesn't go far enough, it should be does voltage exist across the terminals of a voltage source, not just an alternator. "

____ That's of course an even stupider question, as certainly there's voltage 'across' it's output-terminals. _ And an alternator does indeed have 'POTENTAIL-voltage' (of an undetermineable amount!) but, it's actual -(pure/raw) MEASURABLE 'voltage' can't be conceived/born until it's allowed to circuit. _ And besides that, 'voltage' being merely a factor of 'power' -(wattage), is virtually meaningless by itself,, that's why components are rated by 'watts' (and not just 'volts').


" no matter if it is produced by electro-mechanical, static, chemical or other means it is still the work of pulling electrons and protons apart and creating a difference in potential between two points. "

____ Now here's a time where you used "difference in potential" (instead of 'voltage'),, good-job Mike !


" I never argued that an alternator has a "specific" voltage present before being measured, because even though we know it is there, we don't know the quantity until we do measure it. "

____ Now that's been MY intended point all-along Mike ! _ And that's why it's referred to as 'potential'.
But this is the first when your wording has not SEEMED to contradict my own.


" but it is there before we load it. "

____ Indeed, but as 'potential-voltage' only, (not actual/in-existence voltage!)


" Bob, I am not going to engage further in the public discussion, on the topic of when voltage exists, as after a few rounds it is clear it goes no where. "

____ That's quite fine Mike, but it now seems to me that we've finally gotten somewhere (towards an agreement) !
Any any following readers ought by now understand both concepts.


Content-Cheers,
-Bob