[quote= wcorey ...
" Wasn't sure if I was addressing your full post or a partially done post at the time I was writing/submitting my post... "
____ If ya don't see at-least 'Cheers, -Bob' at the bottom of my post, then that means I'm still in-progress with it ! __ And-so it's probably not a good-idea to rush posting any response to anything that's been written within it's most-bottom paragraph, (as the next part may possibly have additional bearing).
" Now I go back and see you've of course added more, namely the part about total length, which throws a wrench into my response and whole train of thought on this. "
____ As always, don't expect my posts to make complete/perfect-sense until after I've finally signed-off on them (with: ' Cheers, -Bob') !
__ As most post-writers do, (including myself),, their first-posted wording pretty-much says what they were thinking (to their own self), BUT their hastily-chosen wording often leaves considerable room for misinterpretation by readers ! _ And THAT'S the reason for why I find the need to later-ADD extra wording to my-own posts !
__ Now from MY view-point, I didn't actually-CHANGE anything at-all on you (purposely or not), but rather simply added more wording which would tend-to help keep ya on the original INTENDED-track ! _ With hopes that it would better help prevent any reader from going their own way with what they THINK is being conveyed, and possibly then go-ahead & post something that's actually gone off-track, (as I gather you-yourself had just gone & done).
__ So to anyone who ever thinks I've posted something that's not really correct, then please suspect that perhaps ya-yourself haven't interpreted my-own rather hastily-chosen wording as had been expected, and wait for me to FULLY-complete my post, so as to then be more certain that you've correctly-understood the actual jest of my post-wording, as originally meant to be purposely-intended.
" I don't have time tonight to re-digest this and alter my post accordingly, so if you had already copy/pasted my now deleted response, "
____ Sorry Bill, other than your post which I've left partially quoted,, I've unfortunately missed any later-ones (except this-post) that you may've also posted.
Which is possibly too-bad, because your brought-up issues provide me with a spring-board to further explain various details which may help enlighten others to understand what's-what.
Finished-Cheers,
-Bob
Troubleshooting Alternator Wiring
Moderator: ajleone
-
DewCatTea-Bob
- Posts: 2897
- Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:53 am
- Location: Near SE side of Lake Michigan
Post Conclusion-jumping
PLEASE NOTE... If this-post is not-yet signed-off with '-Bob', then I'm still in the process of completing it,, and if not also included with 'DCT' near bottom as well, then I may edit this post's wording at a later time. - Dct.Bob
-
ecurbruce
- Posts: 313
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:43 am
- Location: Hurricane mills TN
Re: Troubleshooting Alternator Wiring
Bob says;" I'm not surprised that your electronic-ign.circuitry consumes well under 1-amp without the engine running, but I'd expect it to draw considerably more current when it's actually producing ign.sparks. "
The duty cycle is significantly decreased because the system I use which is designed for three cylinders is only being used for one cylinder.
The dwell angle on a permanent magnet inductive sensor electronic ignition system is defined as follows;
--as the reluctor peg rotates toward the permanent magnet inductive sensor, it induces a positive current pulse that increases in amplitude until it peaks when the reluctor peg reaches the minimum air gap between the peg and the permanent magnet sensor core.
As the reluctor peg approaches the inductive sensor and creates enough current to turn on the trigger-transistor in the electronic ignition module,( around 2.5 volts) and begins the charging of the primary winding in the ignition coil, this is the beginning of the dwell angle.
Then, as the reluctor peg leaves the minimum air gap, it creates an instant negative pulse in the permanent magnet inductive sensor coil, thereby turning off the trigger-transistor in the electronic ignition module, and collapsing the charge in the primary winding of the ignition coil, and firing the spark plug. This would be the end of the dwell angle.
This process happens only one time on my system having only one peg on the reluctor instead of the three it's designed for,thus using one third of the duty cycle, and a smaller amount of amperage. With a dwell angle of 30 degrees, this would be a duty cycle of 8.5%.(I doubt that coil will ever overheat)
If an electronic ignition system with permanent magnet inductive sensor on an eight cylinder engine consumes around 7 amps, then one pulse of the eight would be around .875 amps.
Bruce.
The duty cycle is significantly decreased because the system I use which is designed for three cylinders is only being used for one cylinder.
The dwell angle on a permanent magnet inductive sensor electronic ignition system is defined as follows;
--as the reluctor peg rotates toward the permanent magnet inductive sensor, it induces a positive current pulse that increases in amplitude until it peaks when the reluctor peg reaches the minimum air gap between the peg and the permanent magnet sensor core.
As the reluctor peg approaches the inductive sensor and creates enough current to turn on the trigger-transistor in the electronic ignition module,( around 2.5 volts) and begins the charging of the primary winding in the ignition coil, this is the beginning of the dwell angle.
Then, as the reluctor peg leaves the minimum air gap, it creates an instant negative pulse in the permanent magnet inductive sensor coil, thereby turning off the trigger-transistor in the electronic ignition module, and collapsing the charge in the primary winding of the ignition coil, and firing the spark plug. This would be the end of the dwell angle.
This process happens only one time on my system having only one peg on the reluctor instead of the three it's designed for,thus using one third of the duty cycle, and a smaller amount of amperage. With a dwell angle of 30 degrees, this would be a duty cycle of 8.5%.(I doubt that coil will ever overheat)
If an electronic ignition system with permanent magnet inductive sensor on an eight cylinder engine consumes around 7 amps, then one pulse of the eight would be around .875 amps.
Bruce.
-
DewCatTea-Bob
- Posts: 2897
- Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:53 am
- Location: Near SE side of Lake Michigan
Bruce's Ign.system's SPARSE Power-usage
[quote= ecurbruce ...
" With a dwell angle of 30 degrees, "
____ That amount of dwell-time is surprisingly low and would help account for why your ign.system's current-demand is rather quite low when the engine is running, as it seems it only allows the ign.coil to actually draw power for just 8.3% of the time.
So a running engine will-not allow us to determine the max.power-use (with lights off) information, which I wanted.
__ So there's (at-least) two other ways to get the required data...
You could run a hot-wire circuit directly-to your ign.coil and measure the amount of amperage it-alone draws (from a 12v.battery), or you could use an ohm-meter to measure it's primary-winding resistance (making-sure that the primary-coil isn't connected to anything other than just the meter-itself).
Perhaps also, it may be possible to simply align your ign.system's trigger-magnet with it's trigger-sensor, so as to keep the dwell-window held-open so that the ign.coil remains in it's charging-state while you test for the ign.system's steady-ON-state current-draw. _ (But that may-not work, as I suspect that the trigger-magnet has to be moving in order to have any effect.)
____ In order to make a good decision concerning what the resistance-level of your prime-winding ought-to be, we really need to pin-down (at-least fairly roughly) what your (lights-off) load-system's current-draw actually is.
Are you very serious to learn what that actually-IS ?
Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob
" With a dwell angle of 30 degrees, "
____ That amount of dwell-time is surprisingly low and would help account for why your ign.system's current-demand is rather quite low when the engine is running, as it seems it only allows the ign.coil to actually draw power for just 8.3% of the time.
So a running engine will-not allow us to determine the max.power-use (with lights off) information, which I wanted.
__ So there's (at-least) two other ways to get the required data...
You could run a hot-wire circuit directly-to your ign.coil and measure the amount of amperage it-alone draws (from a 12v.battery), or you could use an ohm-meter to measure it's primary-winding resistance (making-sure that the primary-coil isn't connected to anything other than just the meter-itself).
Perhaps also, it may be possible to simply align your ign.system's trigger-magnet with it's trigger-sensor, so as to keep the dwell-window held-open so that the ign.coil remains in it's charging-state while you test for the ign.system's steady-ON-state current-draw. _ (But that may-not work, as I suspect that the trigger-magnet has to be moving in order to have any effect.)
____ In order to make a good decision concerning what the resistance-level of your prime-winding ought-to be, we really need to pin-down (at-least fairly roughly) what your (lights-off) load-system's current-draw actually is.
Are you very serious to learn what that actually-IS ?
Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob
PLEASE NOTE... If this-post is not-yet signed-off with '-Bob', then I'm still in the process of completing it,, and if not also included with 'DCT' near bottom as well, then I may edit this post's wording at a later time. - Dct.Bob
-
ecurbruce
- Posts: 313
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:43 am
- Location: Hurricane mills TN
Re: Troubleshooting Alternator Wiring
Bob says;"That amount of dwell-time is surprisingly low and would help account for why your ign.system's current-demand is rather quite low when the engine is running, as it seems it only allows the ign.coil to actually draw power for just 8.3% of the time. "
I thought that 30 degrees was a little low as well, there's not a lot of documentation on that particular system, that's all I could find. Maybe, though, that is the minimum degrees, as the degrees significantly increases as the RPM increases???
Even if that figure was doubled, the duty cycle would still be small.
Bob says;"Perhaps also, it may be possible to simply align your ign.system's trigger-magnet with it's trigger-sensor, so as to keep the dwell-window held-open so that the ign.coil remains in it's charging-state while you test for the ign.system's steady-ON-state current-draw. _ (But that may-not work, as I suspect that the trigger-magnet has to be moving in order to have any effect.) "
Yes, I may try that method, maybe if I rotate by hand with the plug wire off,I can get a reading in between the trigger on and trigger off phases. Then multiply that reading by the duty cycle.
I also have to nail down a way to get an accurate dwell reading on that system somehow with my multi-meter, for an accurate duty-cycle. It seems my meter reads duty-cycle, too. I should look into that as well.
Bob says;"____ In order to make a good decision concerning what the resistance-level of your prime-winding ought-to be, we really need to pin-down (at-least fairly roughly) what your (lights-off) load-system's current-draw actually is. Are you very serious to learn what that actually-IS ? "
Yes, I'm listening...
Bruce.
I thought that 30 degrees was a little low as well, there's not a lot of documentation on that particular system, that's all I could find. Maybe, though, that is the minimum degrees, as the degrees significantly increases as the RPM increases???
Even if that figure was doubled, the duty cycle would still be small.
Bob says;"Perhaps also, it may be possible to simply align your ign.system's trigger-magnet with it's trigger-sensor, so as to keep the dwell-window held-open so that the ign.coil remains in it's charging-state while you test for the ign.system's steady-ON-state current-draw. _ (But that may-not work, as I suspect that the trigger-magnet has to be moving in order to have any effect.) "
Yes, I may try that method, maybe if I rotate by hand with the plug wire off,I can get a reading in between the trigger on and trigger off phases. Then multiply that reading by the duty cycle.
I also have to nail down a way to get an accurate dwell reading on that system somehow with my multi-meter, for an accurate duty-cycle. It seems my meter reads duty-cycle, too. I should look into that as well.
Bob says;"____ In order to make a good decision concerning what the resistance-level of your prime-winding ought-to be, we really need to pin-down (at-least fairly roughly) what your (lights-off) load-system's current-draw actually is. Are you very serious to learn what that actually-IS ? "
Yes, I'm listening...
Bruce.
-
DewCatTea-Bob
- Posts: 2897
- Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:53 am
- Location: Near SE side of Lake Michigan
Actual Load-testing.
[quote= ecurbruce ...
" Maybe, though, that is the minimum degrees, as the degrees significantly increases as the RPM increases??? "
____ That would be reasonable,, as the faster that the trigger-magnet spins, the sooner then in it's cycle it should develop it's triggering-force.
" I can get a reading in between the trigger on and trigger off phases. "
____ If possibly so, THEN perhaps you can get a reading that ACTUALLY reflects the actual-amount of maximum-current that's REALLY drawn by your ign.system. _ Which is what's actually needed to be known.
" Then multiply that reading by the duty cycle. "
____ We don't really need to do that, as that would then tell-us merely the total/end-amount of current consumed, which would be considerably LESS than the maximum DRAWN amount (which the prime-winding would be tasked to deliver). _ (We really don't want the ign.system to ever depend-on any battery-reserves [in order to be fully-satisfied].)
" I also have to nail down a way to get an accurate dwell reading on that system somehow with my multi-meter, for an accurate duty-cycle. "
____ That would be for you-own info then though, as the time when the ign.coil is-not drawing current, makes no important-difference, (at-least that I-myself need to know-of).
" Yes, I'm listening... "
____ We could rather just simply calculate everything, but if you're really interested to actually measure what's actually being consumed,, then you'd have-to disconnect your charging-system, and power-up the engine & everything-else (including your fairly discharged battery) with an externally based power-source.
The chosen power-source could be a fully-charged car-battery that's being kept-up by a 10-amp battery-charger,
or,
from a car-battery that's in a car with it's engine running,, so that your tested loads are actually drawing closer to the same amount of power as-if under normal running-conditions -(which keep your system's voltage-level closer to 14-volts rather than the 12-volts of a battery that's being drained).
Your amp-meter would then have-to simply be placed anywhere in the circuit between your chosen power-source and the jumper-cables connected to your system's (uncharged-up !) battery.
__ Such real-world test-work is really not very important, if you don't care to do it,, but I do understand Bill's inclination to do such ACTUAL-type testing-work.
Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob
" Maybe, though, that is the minimum degrees, as the degrees significantly increases as the RPM increases??? "
____ That would be reasonable,, as the faster that the trigger-magnet spins, the sooner then in it's cycle it should develop it's triggering-force.
" I can get a reading in between the trigger on and trigger off phases. "
____ If possibly so, THEN perhaps you can get a reading that ACTUALLY reflects the actual-amount of maximum-current that's REALLY drawn by your ign.system. _ Which is what's actually needed to be known.
" Then multiply that reading by the duty cycle. "
____ We don't really need to do that, as that would then tell-us merely the total/end-amount of current consumed, which would be considerably LESS than the maximum DRAWN amount (which the prime-winding would be tasked to deliver). _ (We really don't want the ign.system to ever depend-on any battery-reserves [in order to be fully-satisfied].)
" I also have to nail down a way to get an accurate dwell reading on that system somehow with my multi-meter, for an accurate duty-cycle. "
____ That would be for you-own info then though, as the time when the ign.coil is-not drawing current, makes no important-difference, (at-least that I-myself need to know-of).
" Yes, I'm listening... "
____ We could rather just simply calculate everything, but if you're really interested to actually measure what's actually being consumed,, then you'd have-to disconnect your charging-system, and power-up the engine & everything-else (including your fairly discharged battery) with an externally based power-source.
The chosen power-source could be a fully-charged car-battery that's being kept-up by a 10-amp battery-charger,
or,
from a car-battery that's in a car with it's engine running,, so that your tested loads are actually drawing closer to the same amount of power as-if under normal running-conditions -(which keep your system's voltage-level closer to 14-volts rather than the 12-volts of a battery that's being drained).
Your amp-meter would then have-to simply be placed anywhere in the circuit between your chosen power-source and the jumper-cables connected to your system's (uncharged-up !) battery.
__ Such real-world test-work is really not very important, if you don't care to do it,, but I do understand Bill's inclination to do such ACTUAL-type testing-work.
Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob
PLEASE NOTE... If this-post is not-yet signed-off with '-Bob', then I'm still in the process of completing it,, and if not also included with 'DCT' near bottom as well, then I may edit this post's wording at a later time. - Dct.Bob
-
ecurbruce
- Posts: 313
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:43 am
- Location: Hurricane mills TN
Re: Troubleshooting Alternator Wiring
Bill says;"I'm curious... is your Dad still following any of this? Tell him I said "Hi"..."
Dad sends his reguards,- He says yes, following along...
So, here's what I have,-
One small coil, and one larger coil, both wound with #22 (.025) copper, both wound double, as in-
I took two wires in my hand at one time and wound these bobbins both wires simultanously.
Eight layers, don't know the length. I tried them on, they fit the stator- no room to spare.
Bill, I'm sending them your way, you have a PM.
By the way, the small spool I unwound held 56 feet, 8 inches of wire!
Bruce.
Dad sends his reguards,- He says yes, following along...
So, here's what I have,-
One small coil, and one larger coil, both wound with #22 (.025) copper, both wound double, as in-
I took two wires in my hand at one time and wound these bobbins both wires simultanously.
Eight layers, don't know the length. I tried them on, they fit the stator- no room to spare.
Bill, I'm sending them your way, you have a PM.
By the way, the small spool I unwound held 56 feet, 8 inches of wire!
Bruce.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
DewCatTea-Bob
- Posts: 2897
- Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:53 am
- Location: Near SE side of Lake Michigan
Plan-B Type Double-winding SET
[quote= ecurbruce ...
" here's what I have,-
One small coil, and one larger coil, both wound with #22 (.025) copper, both wound double, "
____ On this,, you had mentioned that when you got back, you'd then be doing some rewinding,
but you didn't say exactly what.
So I had assumed that you'd let us know when you were actually 'back', and-then first discuss exactly-what rewinding you'd next choose to do. _ But rather, it's now obvious that you've left us out of the loop & jumped-ahead at-least a whole-step.
__ If the NEXT-step hadn't been jumped-over & passed-by, I had been going to next-suggest that you double-wind the large-bobbin with gauge-#23 and let Bill test it, as well as the small-bobbin with the single-winding of gauge-#24 (just as you had already wound it).
That-way, we then might've learned of something that's somewhat further outside-of-the-box (that may-not have been expected through calculation).
__ Rather NOW though, we seem to have not only abandoned such a possible learning test-exorcize, but also the notion of employing a 'prime-winding' (as of plan-A).
Without any possible gained-knowledge from having Bill test power-windings with rather thinner gauged wire, I then would've straight-forwardly chosen the more sure-thing and go-with the same double-winding of gauge-#22 for both of the two aux.windings, just as you have safely-chosen ! _ Cuz the results of such safe-bet power-windings can be fairly-well calculated from the data of Bill's past testing-work, so there should thusly be no surprise-findings from the power-windings which you've gone-ahead & chosen !
__ It's just as well that you've chosen to go-ahead & abandon plan-A, as plan-B will allow ALL-three double-winding power-coil pairs to combine their FULL forces to power at-least a 80-watt headlight !
" Eight layers, don't know the length. "
____ That you neither counted the number of loop-turns nor the exact length of your double-winding, is a bad-thing,, because you need that information in order to 'match' that pair of power-coils to the other two pairs (of plan-B) !
Can you measure the resistance of both power-coils, so that we can then at-least calculate how long your two windings must likely be ?
Cuz that you only attained just 8-layers of gauge-#22 (as compared-to10-layers of #24), doesn't surely mean that your resulted-length of #22-wire is exactly 80% as long, since you must've also had a somewhat likewise reduced number of rows, as well !
So before you covered-up & hid that winding-aspect (with your winding-spool covering-material), did you also count the number of 'rows' that you were able to fit side-by-side around each of your two winding-spools ?
That count would be most important to know-of for the large-spool, because we don't already have anything well-established to calculate from, for that one,, however for the small-spool, I can roughly-calculate that it now has a total of about 141 loop-turns, and a length of 36ft,3in long, (based-upon the figures of your #24-gauge winding).
" the small spool I unwound held 56 feet, 8 inches of wire! "
____ The resistance-measurement of this length could also be of worth-while data, especially if it's conductor-material is of the very-same grade of copper used in your chosen #22-gauge wire-windings.
According-to the chart you found, the resistance of that particular length of gauge-#24, should be 1.455-ohms.
____ We're now left in a dark-room with very-little light shed on the star-topic, so I hope you have some answers yet to share !
Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob
" here's what I have,-
One small coil, and one larger coil, both wound with #22 (.025) copper, both wound double, "
____ On this,, you had mentioned that when you got back, you'd then be doing some rewinding,
but you didn't say exactly what.
So I had assumed that you'd let us know when you were actually 'back', and-then first discuss exactly-what rewinding you'd next choose to do. _ But rather, it's now obvious that you've left us out of the loop & jumped-ahead at-least a whole-step.
__ If the NEXT-step hadn't been jumped-over & passed-by, I had been going to next-suggest that you double-wind the large-bobbin with gauge-#23 and let Bill test it, as well as the small-bobbin with the single-winding of gauge-#24 (just as you had already wound it).
That-way, we then might've learned of something that's somewhat further outside-of-the-box (that may-not have been expected through calculation).
__ Rather NOW though, we seem to have not only abandoned such a possible learning test-exorcize, but also the notion of employing a 'prime-winding' (as of plan-A).
Without any possible gained-knowledge from having Bill test power-windings with rather thinner gauged wire, I then would've straight-forwardly chosen the more sure-thing and go-with the same double-winding of gauge-#22 for both of the two aux.windings, just as you have safely-chosen ! _ Cuz the results of such safe-bet power-windings can be fairly-well calculated from the data of Bill's past testing-work, so there should thusly be no surprise-findings from the power-windings which you've gone-ahead & chosen !
__ It's just as well that you've chosen to go-ahead & abandon plan-A, as plan-B will allow ALL-three double-winding power-coil pairs to combine their FULL forces to power at-least a 80-watt headlight !
" Eight layers, don't know the length. "
____ That you neither counted the number of loop-turns nor the exact length of your double-winding, is a bad-thing,, because you need that information in order to 'match' that pair of power-coils to the other two pairs (of plan-B) !
Can you measure the resistance of both power-coils, so that we can then at-least calculate how long your two windings must likely be ?
Cuz that you only attained just 8-layers of gauge-#22 (as compared-to10-layers of #24), doesn't surely mean that your resulted-length of #22-wire is exactly 80% as long, since you must've also had a somewhat likewise reduced number of rows, as well !
So before you covered-up & hid that winding-aspect (with your winding-spool covering-material), did you also count the number of 'rows' that you were able to fit side-by-side around each of your two winding-spools ?
That count would be most important to know-of for the large-spool, because we don't already have anything well-established to calculate from, for that one,, however for the small-spool, I can roughly-calculate that it now has a total of about 141 loop-turns, and a length of 36ft,3in long, (based-upon the figures of your #24-gauge winding).
" the small spool I unwound held 56 feet, 8 inches of wire! "
____ The resistance-measurement of this length could also be of worth-while data, especially if it's conductor-material is of the very-same grade of copper used in your chosen #22-gauge wire-windings.
According-to the chart you found, the resistance of that particular length of gauge-#24, should be 1.455-ohms.
____ We're now left in a dark-room with very-little light shed on the star-topic, so I hope you have some answers yet to share !
Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob
PLEASE NOTE... If this-post is not-yet signed-off with '-Bob', then I'm still in the process of completing it,, and if not also included with 'DCT' near bottom as well, then I may edit this post's wording at a later time. - Dct.Bob
-
ecurbruce
- Posts: 313
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:43 am
- Location: Hurricane mills TN
Re: Troubleshooting Alternator Wiring
Bob says;"__ I'm now thinking that the expected-need for gauge-#23, can now be abandoned,, as it seems that you'd be capable of finding sufficient space for plenty long enough length of gauge-#22.
So I go ahead with 22 gauge- theres NO #23.
I'm not going to be put in a position of apologizing for my work,, but for this time I'm sorry you're feeling left out, explain to me what step I've left out, it seems you would have pointed me toward winding with #22 next anyway???
The spool of #24 you instructed to wind, you didn't want anyway, so let's move on to something more productive and test these #22 double wound more promissing concept. Let's get some testing done, see where we're headed..
25 turns per layer-larger bobbin
8 layers
Approx 31/4 inch per turn
Organized winds will fit only one way, can be exactly replicated
Around 54 ft = 27 ft/ each coil. 0.3 ohm each
18 turns per layer-small bobbin
8 layers
Around 39 ft. 19.5 ft/ each coil. 0.2 ohm each
Bruce
So I go ahead with 22 gauge- theres NO #23.
I'm not going to be put in a position of apologizing for my work,, but for this time I'm sorry you're feeling left out, explain to me what step I've left out, it seems you would have pointed me toward winding with #22 next anyway???
The spool of #24 you instructed to wind, you didn't want anyway, so let's move on to something more productive and test these #22 double wound more promissing concept. Let's get some testing done, see where we're headed..
25 turns per layer-larger bobbin
8 layers
Approx 31/4 inch per turn
Organized winds will fit only one way, can be exactly replicated
Around 54 ft = 27 ft/ each coil. 0.3 ohm each
18 turns per layer-small bobbin
8 layers
Around 39 ft. 19.5 ft/ each coil. 0.2 ohm each
Bruce
-
DewCatTea-Bob
- Posts: 2897
- Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:53 am
- Location: Near SE side of Lake Michigan
Power-winding Related-issues
____ Well that statement was certainly made BEFORE Bill's great double-windings idea led to us diverting-away from our previously-intended plans of keeping the prime-winding's resistance-level lower, with just a SINGLE-winding (of #23 or #22),, and back-then in THAT case, a single-winding of just 8-layers of gauge-#22 was expected to solve the high-resistance issue discovered with your original (much extended) winding of gauge-#24.ecurbruce wrote:Bob says; "__ I'm now thinking that the expected-need for gauge-#23, can now be abandoned,, as it seems that you'd be capable of finding sufficient space for plenty long enough length of gauge-#22.
__ The latest-suggestion (but not-yet firmly decided-upon) for the DOUBLE-windings of the prime power-coils had been to consider ether gauge #25 or #26, depending on whether you could fit an even number of additional layers -(going-up from your original 10, to 12 layers).
__ So it seems that while you were off & away, your memory became reverted back-to a PRIOR-time in our progression !?
" So I go ahead with 22 gauge- "
____ That would've of-course been fine if we had chosen to stay-with a SINGLE-winding per power-coil (for the prime-pair).
__ Your double-winding of gauge-#22 is equivalent of a single-winding of gauge-#19 that's only HALF as long (as the total-length of the #22-gauge winding).
(Which means that in order for the equivalent #19-gauge winding to produce the same-amount of tension, it would then have-to be bathed within a magnetic flux-field that's TWICE as strong !)
" I'm not going to be put in a position of apologizing for my work,, "
____ Well of-course not, there's certainly no need for that at-all ! - (As it isn't as-if it turned-out that you had gone & done something that's completely unworkable.)
" but for this time I'm sorry you're feeling left out, "
____ It seems you've overestimated my post-wording to that effect, as I surely didn't mean-to express great disappointment for having been left un-updated as to exactly where your project-status steps were progressing towards.
" explain to me what step I've left out, "
____ You had once last posted that you'd be gone (from the project) for about 10-days,
so I had been waiting for a new/update-post from you that would cover what your latest intentions were before jumping-ahead to the steps of making a final choice of gauge-size AND doing the actual rewinding with IT. _ So it would've been useful to make-sure that you're actually on the track that you really prefer to take.
__ The missing step was conferring as to whether it was in your interest to unwind your single-winding of gauge-#24 and next rewind it as a double-winding in that same gauge or perhaps an even thinner gauge.
I'm sure everyone closely-following this thread realizes that YOU-alone seem to have made these last step-decisions on your-own.
(After you've taken-in this entire post, you should then fully realize the answer to your request above.)
" it seems you would have pointed me toward winding with #22 next anyway??? "
____ Yes, perhaps-so,, however rather for the two pairs of AUX.windings (of the OTHER 4 power-coils), but not for the prime-pair.
__ The aux.windings also had yet to be conferred-upon, as to whether you'd finally choose a single-winding of gauge-#21, or double-windings of either gauge #22 or #23.
So you've effectively jumped-past more than just one decision-step. _ Which is a good-thing if you actually wish to create an 'ultimate' 6-pole stator (that's NOT balanced to your intended load-system), (which I had most recently come-to assume that you had already decided to go-ahead & undertake).
" The spool of #24 you instructed to wind, you didn't want anyway, "
____ I actually hadn't "instructed" it, as I had no-idea that you'd manage to attain 10-layers of 22-rows of loop-turns, which thus consequently caused a higher than expected resistance-level. _ However I never stated that it was actually unwanted, as it still-then depended-on the resistance-level of your load-system (with lights off) !
Only after Bill suggested the double-windings, was the notion of replacing your single-winding of gauge-#24
a consideration to-be finally decided upon. _ But that very-first next-step was what was NEXT in line to be all ironed-out, AFTER we'd first learn what your (lights off) load-demand actually is.
" so let's move on to something more productive and test these #22 double wound more promissing concept. "
____ You're certainly right that what you now have is relatively a sure-thing (in comparison to power-coils with thinner gauged windings) ! _ The only disadvantage is that thinner wire would've allowed even more loop-turns for even further increased tension development at lower RPMs.
But that would likely be OVER-overkill, as your ONE-pair of power-coils (just as you now have them), will not-only produce considerably more power than an entire w-c.type SIX power-coil stator, but also be about on-par with the same improved power results that Bill had achieved with ALL-three paired-sections of stock power-coils connected in parallel as well !
UPDATE - That above/underlined wording was based-on Bruce's rather optimistic winding-lengths that he's posted ! _ After finally checking the-chart, I've now discovered a rather seemingly quite coincidental 2:3 ratio between my calculated TOTAL-length and that of Bruce's posted figures ! _ So that tends-to indicate a likely non-random error of some-sort.
" Let's get some testing done, see where we're headed.. "
____ Unless I send you TWO 6-pole stators so you can do some more winding-options for Bill to test-out, we are now stuck heading-for the ultimate-version of plan-B.
" 25 turns per layer-larger bobbin
8 layers "
____ Then that's 200 loop-turns (which is just 20 less than what you had achieved with the #24-gauge on the small-spool).
" 27 ft/ each coil. 0.3 ohm each "
____ According-to the chart -( http://diyaudioprojects.com/Technical/A ... ire-Gauge/ ), your resistance-reading of .3-ohms indicates a length of just 18.6ft (per length [of gauge-#22]), so that then means that the entire/total-length of the large-spool's winding ought-to be 37',2".
" 18 turns per layer-small bobbin
8 layers "
____ So that's 144 loop-turns (which means that the small-spool's ability to produce tension has now been reduced by about 35% [compared-to your #24-gauge winding]).
" 19.5 ft/ each coil. 0.2 ohm each "
____ In this case, the chart's rate-figures indicate that your resistance-reading of .2-ohms indicates a length of just 12.4ft (per length), so that means that the entire/total-length of the small-spool's winding ought-to be 24',9".
____ So the TOTAL-length of BOTH power-coil windings added together OUGHT-to be just 62ft, rather than the 93ft.total that YOU somehow came-up with.
__ Do you have any possible explanation that may explain the reason for the discrepancy ?
Did you possibly do your math wrong, or could your ohm-readings have happened to be coincidentally 2/3RDs of what they really-are ?
I'm suspecting that you likely tried to figure-out the lengths of your windings by simply measuring their final resulted circumference and-then multiply THAT length-figure by the 8-layers of 18 (or 25) rows, (which would result with an exaggerated result-figure, since the innermost-loops are considerably shorter than the outermost-loops.
I figure that the innermost-loops are only-just 2-inches in circumference, and-thus the average-loop must be 2 & 5/8ths long,, which would then equate a total-length of 43ft,9in for the winding on the large-spool, and 32',6" for the small-spool.
____ I'd have to next do some calculating (with good/actual length-figures) to tell what Bill's expected testing will most-likely result with.
But accordingly with the-chart, the total/combined-length of both power-coils together should be 62ft.long,, so if we 'average' THAT length with the resulted-length that I've come-up with, then that's a fairly-likely length of (62+76=138 , /2 = ) 69 total-feet.
Now as I think I recall from somewhere, the grand-total length of ALL the 12 individual windings of the w-c.6-pole stator is just under 90ft.long,, and you've already attained near-around 77% of that complete-length, so-far !
__ I don't recall the total-amount of power that Bill was able to measure from the three parallel-combined pairs of stock power-coils,, but if it was 100-watts, then just your ONE-pair alone will attain near-around 77-watts.
And that tends to indicate that the plan-B stator would be capable of providing up-around near 230-watts (give or take 10% !).
But to better pin-down the final calculation-result, you needed to keep close-track on the actual length of your windings !
Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob
PLEASE NOTE... If this-post is not-yet signed-off with '-Bob', then I'm still in the process of completing it,, and if not also included with 'DCT' near bottom as well, then I may edit this post's wording at a later time. - Dct.Bob
-
ecurbruce
- Posts: 313
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:43 am
- Location: Hurricane mills TN
Re: Troubleshooting Alternator Wiring
Ok, point taken on jumping ahead of steps. moving ahead, I'll confirm with you before winding, so we're on the same page...
We now have a pair of #22's, let's go ahead and test them, we're never too far along to go back and rewind something else we need.
Bob says;"__ Do you have any possible explanation that may explain the reason for the discrepancy ? "
I can think of a couple of things;
My meter only shows one decimal place, so the .2 obms could be as high as .29, or as low as .2 ,,, or low as .15, and high as .25... I don't know?
My math can always be wrong...
The outermost winding is 3-3/8 inch,
The bobbin measures 2-3/4 inch, circumference,
3.36+2.75=6.11-- divide by 2=
Average= 3.05 inch
3.05 x 200 for the number of windings,
50.8 feet for the larger spool-25.4 ft each coil
36.6 ft for the small spool-18.3 ft each coil
This has to be a little more accurate.
And you've always been a little suspect of that chart, you may be right about it being a little off???
Bruce
We now have a pair of #22's, let's go ahead and test them, we're never too far along to go back and rewind something else we need.
Bob says;"__ Do you have any possible explanation that may explain the reason for the discrepancy ? "
I can think of a couple of things;
My meter only shows one decimal place, so the .2 obms could be as high as .29, or as low as .2 ,,, or low as .15, and high as .25... I don't know?
My math can always be wrong...
The outermost winding is 3-3/8 inch,
The bobbin measures 2-3/4 inch, circumference,
3.36+2.75=6.11-- divide by 2=
Average= 3.05 inch
3.05 x 200 for the number of windings,
50.8 feet for the larger spool-25.4 ft each coil
36.6 ft for the small spool-18.3 ft each coil
This has to be a little more accurate.
And you've always been a little suspect of that chart, you may be right about it being a little off???
Bruce
Return to “Ducati Singles Main Discussions (& How to Join)”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 67 guests