Troubleshooting Alternator Wiring

[DewCatTea-Bob]

[quote= ecurbruce ...
" connecting an entire spool as if it was one winding gives a specific output reading.
How does that spec. compare to... An origional "Ducati" spool of the same size with it's windings connected as if they were one continuous wind? Would this not tell us if we were getting any gain from the extra length of wire? "

____ That's a fairly good question to ask about, (and is similar to that which I-myself was going to ask of Bill)...
__ Being perplexed about Bill's disappointing test-results, I've wanted to ask him to SUBSTITUTE a stock-winding paired-section in place of the rewound pair that you've sent for testing, WITHOUT ANY OTHER CHANGES ! _ That way, not only can such a before & after comparison be made, but we can then ALSO (possibly more importantly) learn whether Bill's present test-setup yields the very-same results he had obtained before with his test-setup of the past. _ (As it would be a telling-revelation if his later testing-procedure yields a reduced outcome compared to that which he had achieved back-before with his past test-setup !)



" It seems that we did discover windings in different directions,
but it's not as important as the relationship of the winding and the magnetic field, and whether the winding starts clockwise or counter-clockwise is only relative to beginning at the inside of coil or outside of coil. "

____ Not sure I follow you as intended on that,, as I'm thinking that it's doesn't really matter exactly how the winding is physically arranged around/onto the core, but (more importantly), rather WHICH direction the winding directs it's current to flow, (either clockwise, or counter-wise [at the moment when a mag.rotor-field is in action] ).



" For instance if you have a core that is standing straight up and down, wound clockwise- north would be "up", wound counter-clockwise, north would be "down". It doesn't matter how that wire got on that core, as long as its hooked up for the flow to go clockwise for north up, or counter-clockwise for north down. "

____ I suppose that's not incorrect at all,, but the real-issue is whether neighboring power-coils are creating opposite polarities which properly correlate with the magnetic-polarities of the mag.rotor. _ And I think that in order to be so correlated,, the winding-directions need to be alternately-reversed, so that as one coil is producing a N.polarity, it's neighboring-coil is then producing a S.polarity. _ And if you have wound both of your power-coils exactly the same, then they can't be next-door neighbors and also be in total harmony. _ Right ?


Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob

[wcorey]

[quote= graeme ...
" Most of what I have read is way over my head. "

____ If you would ever like some related detail more simply explained, I'd be willing to tackle such task for you (or anyone-else) !

Not trying to be too much of a ball-buster or anything...
But considering Graeme's previous post to this one, you're offer strikes me as very ironic/amusing as I'm sure he'd very much appreciate you simplifying your very own past explanations...

[wcorey]

I spend more time typing this stuff than testing, very annoying but a necessary evil I guess.

Here I've been left on page-13 since the 18th, patiently waiting for a new post from Bill,, and not-realizing that page-13 was already filled-up with it's 10-post limit !

You really didn't miss much...
In light of the following, I'm going to skip over a point by point answering to your previous posting.


Found time for some more testing but as things don’t seem to be adding up like they should I opted to spend much of it to methodically go through the test rig and straighten things out some. This as I really should have done to begin with, seeing as so much effort is being spent to analyze the so far shaky/questionable results… Deja vu all over again, lol…
It’s all been sitting for a time now and fallen into disarray, tangled wires, suspect leads mixed in with known good, the better multimeters and test leads had since been appropriated for other things, ect.
I went back to mostly spade connectors instead of alligator clips, swapped the cheapy Craftsman meters for Flukes, routed the wires better on the stator, found a loose connection on one current meter lead, re-soldered all the connections on the multi resistor array… and did some re-testing.

For whatever the reason I don’t know, the wattage numbers for the single coils went up a couple watts (and peaked around a more reasonable 1-2 ohms) and the numbers for the two coils together in series went up (and over, really), closer to where they should have been, about 30w, and peaked around 3-4 ohms.
One past issue with how the output power was so slow to react to changes in load resistance may have been that the caps were left connected in and I hadn’t realized it. I’ll blame that on the pre-cleanup rats nest of wiring…
This is still not up where we want to be but at least makes much more sense than before.
Unfortunately that’s only 3-4 watts higher than the stock coil pairs were, so a complete rewind for 8-12 more watts at 3400rpm still doesn’t seem very worthwhile.

I got pulled away in the middle of it so didn’t get to investigate further, at some point this weekend will get back to it and establish/publish some more detailed hard numbers.

I had already pulled the rotor back off and started to wire up a pair of the stock coils for some more direct comparison, so ahead of you there. Unfortunately would need another 8 wires out of the alt to emulate all of the possibilities of the rewinds, will likely just stick with 4 and limit it to series tests only.
Got frustrated with it and my limited time so instead put the rotor back on in preparation for previously mentioned detailed numbers on the rewinds.


Bob, I just read your ‘blue’ addition on the previous page and yes, that’s pretty much what I'm doing other than the differing load resistance, with the output peaking at higher values…


On winding directions/polarities...
Bob, I think Bruce’s assessment, the way I read it, is basically correct and that somehow you’re not reading/understanding it as he intends it to be. Possibly I'm not reading you correctly but your two statements concerning this would seem to be at odds with each other…

...as I'm thinking that it's doesn't really matter exactly how the winding is physically arranged around/onto the core, but (more importantly), rather WHICH direction the winding directs it's current to flow, (either clockwise, or counter-wise [at the moment when a mag.rotor-field is in action] ).

...And I think that in order to be so correlated,, the winding-directions need to be alternately-reversed, so that as one coil is producing a N.polarity, it's neighboring-coil is then producing a S.polarity. _ And if you have wound both of your power-coils exactly the same, then they can't be next-door neighbors and also be in total harmony. _ Right ?

I feel like me explaining this to you is just odd as you have such a better grasp of all this and I must be missing something but…
If I test one coil (could be wound in either direction), it doesn’t matter what the direction/polarity is, the power output will measure the same. As soon as
I add another coil to the circuit then the connections between the two very much matters, as (you know) the ‘polarities’ Must be opposite or they cancel each other out. As long as I reverse the wires/polarities on BOTH, the output doesn’t change, reversal on only one kills everything. I have yet to encounter any part-way effect, it’s all or nothing…
So again as I’ve surmised many times in the past, it doesn’t appear to matter what direction the coils are wound in so long as the order of the connections makes them opposite from each other.

Are you maybe inferring that there’s some sort of flux field interaction/overlap between the two, being next to each other, and that’s why you requested trying the 180 degree placement?
I think the new more sensible numbers I’m getting more or less nullify this, assuming the two rewound coils were indeed wound the same way.

[DewCatTea-Bob]

I spend more time typing this stuff than testing, very annoying but a necessary evil I guess.

Here I've been left on page-13 since the 18th, patiently waiting for a new post from Bill,, and not-realizing that page-13 was already filled-up with it's 10-post limit !

You really didn't miss much...
In light of the following, I'm going to skip over a point by point answering to your previous posting.


Found time for some more testing but as things don’t seem to be adding up like they should I opted to spend much of it to methodically go through the test rig and straighten things out some. This as I really should have done to begin with, seeing as so much effort is being spent to analyze the so far shaky/questionable results… Deja vu all over again, lol…
It’s all been sitting for a time now and fallen into disarray, tangled wires, suspect leads mixed in with known good, the better multimeters and test leads had since been appropriated for other things, ect.
I went back to mostly spade connectors instead of alligator clips, swapped the cheapy Craftsman meters for Flukes, routed the wires better on the stator, found a loose connection on one current meter lead, re-soldered all the connections on the multi resistor array… and did some re-testing.

For whatever the reason I don’t know, the wattage numbers for the single coils went up a couple watts (and peaked around a more reasonable 1-2 ohms) and the numbers for the two coils together in series went up (and over, really), closer to where they should have been, about 30w, and peaked around 3-4 ohms.
One past issue with how the output power was so slow to react to changes in load resistance may have been that the caps were left connected in and I hadn’t realized it. I’ll blame that on the pre-cleanup rats nest of wiring…
This is still not up where we want to be but at least makes much more sense than before.
Unfortunately that’s only 3-4 watts higher than the stock coil pairs were, so a complete rewind for 8-12 more watts at 3400rpm still doesn’t seem very worthwhile.

I got pulled away in the middle of it so didn’t get to investigate further, at some point this weekend will get back to it and establish/publish some more detailed hard numbers.

I had already pulled the rotor back off and started to wire up a pair of the stock coils for some more direct comparison, so ahead of you there. Unfortunately would need another 8 wires out of the alt to emulate all of the possibilities of the rewinds, will likely just stick with 4 and limit it to series tests only.
Got frustrated with it and my limited time so instead put the rotor back on in preparation for previously mentioned detailed numbers on the rewinds.


Bob, I just read your ‘blue’ addition on the previous page and yes, that’s pretty much what I'm doing other than the differing load resistance, with the output peaking at higher values…


On winding directions/polarities...
Bob, I think Bruce’s assessment, the way I read it, is basically correct and that somehow you’re not reading/understanding it as he intends it to be. Possibly I'm not reading you correctly but your two statements concerning this would seem to be at odds with each other…

...as I'm thinking that it's doesn't really matter exactly how the winding is physically arranged around/onto the core, but (more importantly), rather WHICH direction the winding directs it's current to flow, (either clockwise, or counter-wise [at the moment when a mag.rotor-field is in action] ).

...And I think that in order to be so correlated,, the winding-directions need to be alternately-reversed, so that as one coil is producing a N.polarity, it's neighboring-coil is then producing a S.polarity. _ And if you have wound both of your power-coils exactly the same, then they can't be next-door neighbors and also be in total harmony. _ Right ?

I feel like me explaining this to you is just odd as you have such a better grasp of all this and I must be missing something but…
If I test one coil (could be wound in either direction), it doesn’t matter what the direction/polarity is, the power output will measure the same. As soon as
I add another coil to the circuit then the connections between the two very much matters, as (you know) the ‘polarities’ Must be opposite or they cancel each other out. As long as I reverse the wires/polarities on BOTH, the output doesn’t change, reversal on only one kills everything. I have yet to encounter any part-way effect, it’s all or nothing…
So again as I’ve surmised many times in the past, it doesn’t appear to matter what direction the coils are wound in so long as the order of the connections makes them opposite from each other.

Are you maybe inferring that there’s some sort of flux field interaction/overlap between the two, being next to each other, and that’s why you requested trying the 180 degree placement?
I think the new more sensible numbers I’m getting more or less nullify this, assuming the two rewound coils were indeed wound the same way.

____ I'll be replying more extensively later, but for right-now I'm going straight-for the most pertinent stuff.....


" and peaked around 3-4 ohms. "

____ That's a resistance/impedance-level that I find to be MUCH-more sensible and about what I had expected !
That found optimum load-resistance means that the combined-winding's .25-ohm resistance has become supplemented with about 3.5-ohms of 'impedance' (at the test-RPM).
This updated newly-discovered data indicates a very-significantly sharper 'peak' than the overly broad peak which you had revealed before (and didn't really have much of any 'peak' at all) !
__ While I'm still disappointed with the meager power-gain, I do find this new test-results to be considerably more credible !

On winding directions/polarities...
Bob, I think Bruce’s assessment, the way I read it, is basically correct and that somehow you’re not reading/understanding it as he intends it to be. Possibly I'm not reading you correctly but your two statements concerning this would seem to be at odds with each other…

...as I'm thinking that it's doesn't really matter exactly how the winding is physically arranged around/onto the core, but (more importantly), rather WHICH direction the winding directs it's current to flow, (either clockwise, or counter-wise [at the moment when a mag.rotor-field is in action] ).

...And I think that in order to be so correlated,, the winding-directions need to be alternately-reversed, so that as one coil is producing a N.polarity, it's neighboring-coil is then producing a S.polarity. _ And if you have wound both of your power-coils exactly the same, then they can't be next-door neighbors and also be in total harmony. _ Right ?

I feel like me explaining this to you is just odd as you have such a better grasp of all this and I must be missing something but…
If I test one coil (could be wound in either direction), it doesn’t matter what the direction/polarity is, the power output will measure the same. As soon as
I add another coil to the circuit then the connections between the two very much matters, as (you know) the ‘polarities’ Must be opposite or they cancel each other out. As long as I reverse the wires/polarities on BOTH, the output doesn’t change, reversal on only one kills everything. I have yet to encounter any part-way effect, it’s all or nothing…
So again as I’ve surmised many times in the past, it doesn’t appear to matter what direction the coils are wound in so long as the order of the connections makes them opposite from each other.

Are you maybe inferring that there’s some sort of flux field interaction/overlap between the two, being next to each other, and that’s why you requested trying the 180 degree placement?
I think the new more sensible numbers I’m getting more or less nullify this, assuming the two rewound coils were indeed wound the same way.

____ I'll tackle this line-by-line later, but for-now I have the following general-reply.....
__ I don't know exactly how important it may really be, but it hinges upon whether or not Ducati had purposely bothered to wind every-other power-coil in the opposite-direction of it's neighboring coils !
Of-course we-all understand that as a magnetic flux-field passes-by the wire-winding at a right-angle, polarized tension is then developed within the wire, and that tension is equally the same regardless of whether it's a N.type or S.type field. _ Now when either field alone, (they're actually never entirely 'alone', but for the sake of explanation... ), passes-by, lets say it then merely 'pushes' current through the wire-winding. _ But that's actually only HALF of the pressure-action, as in order to achieve FULL-action, the opposite-mag.pole is ALSO needed to PULL the current through the winding, so as to be able to get the FULL-effect of the induction-force !
__ With Ducati's 4-pole (twin power-coils) stator-setup, it's quite clearly obvious that BOTH the N.pole AND the S.pole get a chance to FULLY & equally push & pull current through the power-coils !
However with Ducati's 6-pole power-coil arrangement,, when the N.pole is obviously bathing the core of a power-coil (and 'pushing' the current-flow), the S.pole is then left in a more remote location, and likely can't get it's-own field as well established on the opposite-side of the power-coil as strongly as the N.pole rather easily does.
So then if the neighboring power-coils are-not wound oppositely, then (as I reason) the S.pole will be at-least somewhat nullified, thus-then more completely robbing the power-coil of the full (pulling)-effect of the S.pole. _ And certainly without both N & S poles working-together, we then really shouldn't expect to obtain as much produced power.
__ To help understand why attempting to compensate (for the pole-misplacement) by simply rearranging the electrical-connections is-not without any consequence, I offer the following reasoning.....
First lets imagine two separate power-coils arranged side-by-side which have both been wound identically in the same-direction...
When a N.pole-field is passed by them both, then naturally both coils will of-course flow their induced-current in the very-same direction - (lets say left-to-right).
And also of-course,, (with the left-side coil still under the influence of a N.pole), conversely, if the right-side coil is excited with a S.pole-field, then IT'S current will flow OPPOSITELY - from right-to-left ! _ And while THAT may-not seem to clearly make a night-&-day difference in a straight-forward 2-dimentional world, as far as North & South rotor-mag.fields go,, the fact that the current-flow is traveling in the opposite-direction compared-to the flow-direction within an otherwise identical coil that's been wound oppositely, must most-likely (at-least) got-to have some disconcerted effect, since the current flowing in the opposed-direction also creates it's-OWN magnetic-field as well, which must then be blended-together with the already existing fields around & within the entire core ! _ And since that added magnetic-field is OPPOSITE (one way or the other), then it's certain influence has got to be either an enhancement-effect OR a canceling-effect, (depending on the winding-direction) !
So-thus I think it's got to be important as to whether Ducati made a point of winding neighboring power-coils oppositely or not, so-as to maintain peace-&-harmony amongst ALL fields.
__ If each power-coil had it's very-own dedicated winding-core, THEN I'd expect that my raised-issue would most-likely be a mute-point,, BUT since all the coils SHARE a common core, the remote opposite-poles (of the directly-active mag.pole-fields) MUST come-into some-amount of play, (however possibly unequaled),,
don't you agree ?
And assuming-so, we then ought-not do anything which may disturb such correlated-harmony (whatever it's actual relative importance may be) !
__ Any new, resulted thoughts ?

-Bob

[graeme]

Thanks for the offer to further my education Bob, maybe I'll take you up on your offer one day. But for now I have enough on my plate.

I have a couple of '74 singles with Ducati Electronica electronic ignitions fitted.
The good thing about these is that if the battery gets low the engine doesn't stop, as they have the separate coil just for the ignition.
Can this be done for the earlier alternators?
To me it seems as an improvement to being stranded with a flat battery?

Graeme

[wcorey]

____ I'll tackle this line-by-line later, but for-now I have the following generalization.....
__ I don't know exactly how important it may really be, but it hinges upon whether or not Ducati had purposely bothered to wind every-other power-coil in the opposite-direction of it's neighboring coils !
Of-course we-all understand that as a magnetic flux-field passes-by the wire-winding at a right-angle, polarized tension is then developed within the wire, and that tension is equally the same regardless of whether it's a N.type or S.type field. _ Now when either field alone, (they're actually never entirely 'alone', but for the sake of explanation... ), passes-by, lets say it then merely 'pushes' current through the wire-winding. _ But that's actually only HALF of the pressure-action, as in order to achieve FULL-action, the opposite-mag.pole is ALSO needed to PULL the current through the winding, so as to be able to get the FULL-effect of the induction-force !
__ With Ducati's 4-pole (twin power-coils) stator-setup, it's quite clearly obvious that BOTH the N.pole AND the S.pole get a chance to FULLY & equally push & pull current through the power-coils !
However with Ducati's 6-pole power-coil arrangement,, when the N.pole is obviously bathing the core of a power-coil (and 'pushing' the current-flow), the S.pole is then left in a more remote location, and likely can't get it's-own field as well established on the opposite-side of the power-coil as strongly as the N.pole rather easily does.
So then if the neighboring power-coils are-not wound oppositely, then (as I reason) the S.pole will be at-least somewhat nullified, thus-then more completely robbing the power-coil of the full (pulling)-effect of the S.pole. _ And certainly without both N & S poles working-together, we then really shouldn't expect to obtain as much produced power.
__ To help understand why attempting to compensate (for the pole-misplacement) by simply rearranging the electrical-connections is-not without any consequence, I offer the following reasoning.....
First lets imagine to separate power-coils side-by-side which have both been wound identically in the same-direction...
When a N.pole-field is passed by them, then of-course both coils will flow their induced-current in the SAME-direction - (lets say left-to-right).
And also of-course,, (with the left-side coil still under the influence of a N.pole), if the right-side coil is bathed with a S.pole, then IT'S current will flow OPPOSITELY - from right-to-left ! _ And while THAT doesn't seem to make any difference in a 2-dimentional world as far as North & South go, the fact that the current-flow is going in the opposite-direction of that within a coil that's been wound oppositely,, must most-likely (at-least) got-to have some disconcerted effect, since the current flowing in the opposed-direction creates it's-OWN magnetic-field as well, which must then be blended-together with the already established fields within the core !
So-thus I think it's got to be important as to whether Ducati made a point of winding neighboring power-coils oppositely or not, so-as to maintain peace-&-harmony amongst ALL fields.
__ If each power-coil had it's very-own dedicated winding-core, THEN I'd expect that my raised-issue would most-likely be a mute-point,, BUT since all the coils SHARE a common core, the remote opposite-poles (of the directly-active mag.pole-fields) MUST come-into some-amount of play, (however possibly unequaled),,
don't you agree ?
And assuming-so, we then ought-not do anything which may disturb such correlated-harmony (whatever it's actual relative importance may be) !
__ Any new, resulted thoughts ?

I may or may not completely follow your explanation as it would relate to effectively reversing coil polarity by simply reversing the order of connection rather than the direction of winding but I'm taking the liberty of seeing it as a "Yes" to the formerly stated question;

Are you maybe inferring that there’s some sort of flux field interaction/overlap between the two, being next to each other, and that’s why you requested trying the 180 degree placement?

In my simplistic view it all hinges on that the power output of the various wiring schemes/rearrangements (when the coils were reconnected to emulate a single winding or doubled parallel one) from past efforts tended toward being quite close, percentage wise, but for the impedance issues (that were mostly negated with the addition of caps). That and also my experience of winding connection schemes being 'all or nothing'...

So no matter what it does in theory or reality, for practical purposes there isn't much appreciable difference.

What would you have me do to prove your point? Rewind/reverse one coil?
I'm already seeing at least a doubling of output with the two coils in series... Would you expect a further increase?

However with Ducati's 6-pole power-coil arrangement,, when the N.pole is obviously bathing the core of a power-coil (and 'pushing' the current-flow), the S.pole is then left in a more remote location, and likely can't get it's-own field as well established on the opposite-side of the power-coil as strongly as the N.pole rather easily does.
So then if the neighboring power-coils are-not wound oppositely, then (as I reason) the S.pole will be at-least somewhat nullified, thus-then more completely robbing the power-coil of the full (pulling)-effect of the S.pole. _ And certainly without both N & S poles working-together, we then really shouldn't expect to obtain as much produced power.

I don't get this at all, maybe I'm looking at it wrong.
Sounds like you mean the magnets aren't lined up all at once with the coils (they are), when a north is over one coil a south is over another.
In any case, each coil is alternately/individually passed over equally by both a north and then south pole magnet. Even if there were a disparate number of magnets to coils (in a staggered pattern similar to 3 phase), it wouldn't seem to me as a detraction that the adjoining coil isn't passed over simultaneously by another magnet and that this would rather help to smooth the 'output waveform'.

Oh well, off to bed, I'll have to read this again and see if it makes more sense in the morning...

[DewCatTea-Bob]

[quote= wcorey ...
" What would you have me do to prove your point? Rewind/reverse one coil? "

____ I wouldn't ask that YOU do so but, it would be an interesting test to mount all six identical (small sized) power-coils that have been wound exactly the SAME-way,, and compare the outcome-results to the same setup, except with three of the coils wound oppositely, and those three installed evenly dispersed onto three of the six core-poles.
__ It seems fairly clear to me that the two stator-examples could-not perform exactly the same,, and if Ducati had bothered to choose the likes of one of those examples over the other, then it's most-likely because they had determined that their-choice provides a worthwhile advantage over the other.
Is that not sensible logic ?



" I'm already seeing at least a doubling of output with the two coils in series... Would you expect a further increase? "

____ Well yes,, and if not a direct power-increase, then at-least a gain in power-transfer due-to decreased impedance-factor.



" I don't get this at all, maybe I'm looking at it wrong. "

____ Well it is understandable that my wording about both North & South poles needing to be combined for full-effect, might not be understood as I had meant for it to be. _ It would help if you'd keep in mind how the 4-pole setup works, as IT allows magnetic-polarization DIRECTLY from BOTH of the S & N rotor-magnets simultaneously !
So what I was meaning by a N.pole trying to work without an equivalent S.pole, is actually merely meaning that the 6-pole mag.rotor's magnetic-field is at considerably less than full-strength all-the-way-around the entire power-coil. _ In other words, imagine the 4-pole type of power-coil trying to produce it's full-power with two (of the four) rotor-magnets removed. _ Now doesn't that example make my intended-point more obvious for you (as it relates to the 6-pole setup) ?
__ Whereas with the 6-pole stator-setup, the opposite magnetic-pole (that's opposite of the one that's directly-presented to the coil's core by the mag.rotor), has to be TRANSFERRED-through the center/star-mass of the stator-core, and-thus is-not so strong and thusly in need of reinforcement rather than any possible oppositional forces.



" Sounds like you mean the magnets aren't lined up all at once with the coils (they are), when a north is over one coil a south is over another. "

____ RIGHT ! - Indeed "the south is over another" ! _ When it ought RATHER be positioned over the same coil (on the inner-side) !



" each coil is alternately/individually passed over equally by both a north and then south pole magnet. "

____ Indeed-so, but not at the SAME time ! _ In order to get the full-strength of the mag.field, both N and S fields need to work together at the very-SAME time ! _ As is quite obvious with the 4-pole type of stator-setup, but the 6-pole type has to rely on field-transfer through the neighboring core-fingers. _ (And I suspect that the direction of the windings will affect how well that transfer is conducted through the center-side of the stator/star-core.)



" Even if there were a disparate number of magnets to coils (in a staggered pattern similar to 3 phase), it wouldn't seem to me as a detraction that the adjoining coil isn't passed over simultaneously by another magnet and that this would rather help to smooth the 'output waveform'. "

____ Sorry but I really don't want to get-into how 3-phase setups do what they do, as they likely don't need to bother with scrapping-together every-ounce of mag.field-strength to round-up every last drop of power-production.



" I'll have to read this again and see if it makes more sense in the morning... "

____ Try reading my previous-post again, (not that which you've quoted),, cuz as you were posting YOUR post, I was then (around that same time) altering & adding wording to MY post.
__ Also, I offer this alternative example (to the one I gave concerning a couple of power-coils side-by-side)...
With a coil laying on it's side with it's winding-loops vertically arranged,, it should be known that when Direct-Current is passed through it, it will then create a N.polarity on one end and a S.polarity on it's other end. _ Yet if directionally wound oppositely, the N & S polarities will thus-then swap locations !
So-therefore whether-or-not the power-coils are oppositely-wound (every-other one), would have-to determine whether the coil's own produced N & S fields tend to fortify OR clash with the existing fields carried by the star-core (between the core-fingers).
And THAT has been the specific issue of concern which I've been trying to convey.


Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob

[wcorey]

Bob, I didn't realize there was such an important push/pull interaction through the entire stator core between the opposite polarity coils so wasn't able to take your info in such context, I now have a better perspective on some of it at least.

What I don't understand in light of this is why then, a single pole/coil works just fine on it's own. You seem to be inferring that alone it would only produce half of it's potential output. (oh-oh, there's that dangerous 'p' word again, sorry if I'm mis-using it again...)
I went back over some past test data for the stock coils and couldn't find instances of multiple poles/coils producing more than the sum of the individuals (factoring out the impedance thing of course).

And coincidentally Graeme had just mentioned the single pole that independently powers the ignition on the electronic ignition models...
(BTW Graeme, the 4 pole alt does the same type of thing and as well Bob frequently mentions splitting up the 6 pole to the same end. The 'A' plan of our current endeavor is an example of this. A 'battery eliminator' will also accomplish the same end on any standard alt.)

Why also would this effect occur specifically 180 degrees across the stator core when there's opposite polarity poles right next to each other?
Wouldn't it first/mostly utilize the shortest path?

[DewCatTea-Bob]

[quote= wcorey ...
" I didn't realize there was such an important push/pull interaction through the entire stator core between the opposite polarity coils so wasn't able to take your info in such context, "

____ I'm not sure about the exact value of that importance, it may be 200% or 100% or just 50% compared to the effect of only just one mag.pole.
__ That question would best be answered by running a 4-pole alternator with just ONE magnet-pole left installed within the mag.rotor and compared to the same test except with both a N and a S mag.poles installed in neighboring locations. _ (Probably not actually possible to do, however.)



" What I don't understand in light of this is why then, a single pole/coil works just fine on it's own. "

____ Of-course it's rather quite obvious when a North rotor-mag.pole is providing the DIRECT field-stimulus at it's full-strength effect over the OUTER-side of the coil,, but less obvious is that ALL-three of the rather remotely located S.poles are each transferring a contributing portion of S.field-stimulus through the star-core to the INSIDE of the coil, (with hopes that their combined reduced field-strengths are sufficiently close to matching the field-strength provided by the directly-located N.pole).



" You seem to be inferring that alone it would only produce half of it's potential output. "

____ Actually, I believe if the stimulus-action of the remotely-located opposite-poles could somehow be completely isolated from the inside of a coil, the power of produced by the coil would be more-like only 25% as strong, (but still productive, since all mag.fields still actually include both polarities).
__ Anyhow, I didn't mean to imply that a coil under the influence of a N.pole actually NEEDS to be combined with another coil that's under the influence of a S.pole in order to produce full-power, as such a circumstance as that would probably be the real-case ONLY if N.poles & S.poles could somehow be TRULY singularly-polarized,, but ALL mag.fields can only exist with relative N and S regions.



" (oh-oh, there's that dangerous 'p' word again, sorry if I'm mis-using it again...) "

____ I don't recall you ever misusing that word before, and you just used it as it was originally meant to be used.
__ I really HATE the English-language for making use of the very-same word for more than one particular meaning !
Readers have to assume that you hadn't possibly meant to say: "half of it's possible-voltage output" .



" I went back over some past test data for the stock coils and couldn't find instances of multiple poles/coils producing more than the sum of the individuals "

____ Now you ought-to understand why you didn't really need to bother with checking for such.



" And coincidentally Graeme had just mentioned the single pole that independently powers the ignition on the electronic ignition models...
Why also would this effect occur specifically 180 degrees across the stator core when there's opposite polarity poles right next to each other?
Wouldn't it first/mostly utilize the shortest path? "

____ Some of what I've already covered in this post, should allow you to answer these concerns for yourself well enough,, but if-not, then bring-up any related concern to this stuff, again later.


Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob

[ecurbruce]

Bill, think about it this way;
If you remove the wound spool from the stator core, rotate it 180 degrees, reinstall it onto it's core, it's now wound the opposite direction, relative to the core. Then reverse the wire connections from where they were before removal of spool to make the electric flow the same as it was before you removed it... Is this true? It's theory, you don't even have to run it, just look at it, I can see it from here...

Bruce
(Edit) (Sorry, Bob, posting while you're posting)