Can stock alternator produce more volts and power?

[DewCatTea-Bob]

" the problem is that your "simplification" for the average joe is no simpler than the accepted version. "

____ That ought really be true for established tech-type avg.joes Mike ! _ But not for those of us who've been aware of Ducati's chosen circuit-method all-along ! _ Cuz to require that the later-version (of the SAME Ducati circuit-method) be 'thought' of same as if it were a fullwave center-tapped transformer circuit, tends to lead those who understood the older-version (of the Ducati circuit-method), to think that the newer one must be a completely different set-up, thus probably requiring a whole new way of understanding it, (just as you-yourself choose to think of it), as if there's no other way to comprehend the (previously established) Ducati-circuit.
Yet there IS indeed a (simplest!) way to look at both, the vary same !
__ What YOU don't seem to be aware of, is that Ducati had used the same previously established circuit-method for their '40-watt' 4-pole alternator which did indeed have two completely separate power-coils (to provide the two alt.windings, which are not even wound on the same core!), thus making your mind-set of conceiving the power-sources as same as if a center-tapped transformer, even more of a stretch.
With the two separate core's, you ought then explain it as two transformers in series (in order to be fair and yet maintain your same mind-set for understanding it).
__ (So to treat you back as you did me.)... Just because YOU didn't realize the prior power-coil set-up, is no reason to understand/learn the established circuit-method wrong.


" Just because you don't understand the circuit is no reason to learn it wrong. "

____ Mike, I've always been able to understood the circuit in the same manor which you wish for it to be thought of ! _ It's just that I don't believe it's the most simplistic way for untrained mech.types to get a grasp of what's actually SIMPLY occurring in the circuit.
__ But now you ought understand that I'm not the one who doesn't look at the circuit incorrectly, (since it was already established before you could (fairly) apply your center-tapped transformer concept to it).


" who knows if he might with very little work get to a proper understanding and then find himself at odds with everyone else. "

____ Just because you understand such things as the convention taught you that you should, does not necessarily mean it's the best or proper way to understand them !
At least he'd know that he understood it as it really is in the real world, and thus (in this case), in a correct & superior way (to the mind-conditioned tech.types).
(Certainly you must realize that the 'conventional' method derived for understanding this kind of stuff was a compromise between the 'real-world' and making it easy to teach electrical-conception in general !?)
If he's not going to go to work within the elec.tech-establishment, then there's no reason to dumb-it-down,, besides, a good tech.type can look at circuits and see them for what they are, from ANY view-point !


" It doesn't take much exposure to these two versions of the two rectifiers in question to know that since the bridge takes its input across the whole secondary or stator in this case unlike the orginal which takes turns taking it's input from half of the center tapped coil. it will have the full potential (read voltage) and have the same current rating all else being equal that twice the voltage and the same current will equal twice the power."

____ No argument from me on that (since it's pretty-much right), but, I don't think it's going to be too easy for anyone-else to follow-through, since you left-out proper punctuation.


" so without adding your additional wording most people who see the stock full wave differentiate it from the Bridge full wave. they are already named differently, so no need to come up with more words that are not needed to describe them. "

____ I don't agree... I think your alternate-way of conceiving them, (though possibly conventionally-correct), is more confusing (at least in this case) ! ...
You want everyone to see the stock-system as a single center-tapped winding that's "full wave" rectified with just two diodes, (even though the out-come is only half power).
While I prefer to simply review that we have two separate alt.windings, each one half-wave rectified !


" the two diode circuit is not inherently inferior to the bridge. "

____ True, it's probably superior in avoiding heat related issues, at the expense of unused excess space (which could otherwise be taken advantage of).


Fun-Cheers,
-Bob

[DewCatTea-Bob]

MM
More complex than it needs to be. The engineers were speaking RMS for us so we can think in terms of the DC loads. If the loads are 50 watts (including the battery being charged) then the alternator is providing 50 watts. Average Joe, tech type and mechanic alike don't need to get wrapped around the axle doing p-p, and RMS calculations.

Only as an academic point and to show that it is not needed and unduly complex to this issue, RMS is not really average but the root of the average squared. The simplified formula for RMS is peak to peak divided by 2 x .707. Or peak times .707. So if you had 200 volts peak to peak, peak would be 100 volts times .707 would be 70.7 volts rms. to employ ohms law for all your other calculations on the example circuit you would use the 70 volt figure. Then all your calculations would be converted for you. And in the case of the Ducati alternator, the engineers have done it for you. This formula converts ac to the equivalent of dc in terms of how much work it can do. I take from your comments that when you talk average you are referring to how much power is being produced over a period of time where we might spend a lot of time at lower rpms and producing less power and then a short time wound up and producing near the max output and that the average would be arrived at by sampling the output over a number of time checks, adding them up and then dividing by the number of checks or something like that. Obviously the alternator will produce less wattage at low revs than at high. No need to try to bring in all your peak to peak and RMS into it.

____ All fairly good stuff Mike ! _ Except it still seems questionable that Ducati would rate their alternator (itself) at 60-watts, and then use it in a circuit which can only make use of just HALF of it's total power potential, (as I've pointed-out previously that the system can't result with merely 30-watts !). _ Thus, (as I contend), making the 60w-figure fairly suspect as to exactly how it was derived, and therefore putting ANY possible means on the table for consideration.
__ So do you now still contend that I don't have any point for considering any alternate figuring-means (other than RMS) for how they might've come-up with EXACTLY "60 watts" ?


DCT-Bob

[MotoMike]

bob wrote:
That ought really be true for established tech-type avg.joes Mike ! _ But not for those of us who've been aware of Ducati's chosen circuit-method all-along ! _ Cuz to require that the later-version (of the SAME Ducati circuit-method) be 'thought' of same as if it were a fullwave center-tapped transformer circuit, tends to lead those who understood the older-version (of the Ducati circuit-method), to think that the newer one must be a completely different set-up, thus probably requiring a whole new way of understanding it, (just as you-yourself choose to think of it), as if there's no other way to comprehend the (previously established) Ducati-circuit.

Bob I made it clear that the discussion I posted pertained to the schematic shown. I can't comment on the other as I have not studied it. I suspect that when the schematic is simplified, it will be the same result though if both outputs are being combined and rectified. If on the other hand one is being used for ignition and one is being used for other things, you might have a case for it being a seperate sources. in any case it is confusing to the issue and offers as fact things that i don't know to be true. what ever the older design is, it doesn't change what this one is. I would request you stick to the topic.

[DewCatTea-Bob]

" I made it clear that the discussion I posted pertained to the schematic shown.
I can't comment on the other as I have not studied it. "

____ It seems I need to clarify... I'm not so disorganized Mike, (if I were bringing-up something too very different to the table, I'd not leave you in the dark about it), as I had indicated, the older 40-watt VERSION of the very same circuit, is just the same (except for the perceived center-tap notion).


" I suspect that when the schematic is simplified, it will be the same result though if both outputs are being combined and rectified. "

____ Yes, the same RESULT of course, but still another step further from the point-of-view which you-yourself (as a tech.type) wish to look at it as, so as to be able to apply your training as you were trained to do.


" If on the other hand one is being used for ignition and one is being used for other things, you might have a case for it being a seperate sources. "

____ No, I was not referring to the other Ducati system with the magneto-like set-up.
__ But as stubborn as you are wanting to make everything fit your particular scheme of things, you really ought to admit that getting AC from two completely separate core-coils warrants being considered as two separate sources !


"in any case it is confusing to the issue and offers as fact things that i don't know to be true. "

____ Yes, I imagine that my revelation of originally even more-so separate power sources (for the circuit) would indeed be confusing to YOUR point-of-view.
__ Well it's no more or less true to you than that which you're already discussing.


" what ever the older design is, it doesn't change what this one is. "

____ Of course not, it's the same except for the power-source arrangement. _ And provides that a president was previously established for the circuit-method before the 6-pole arrangement came to be, (so as to merely increase frequency, not become a "center tap" affair !).

[MotoMike]

bob wrote
____ Except it still seems questionable that Ducati would rate their alternator (itself) at 60-watts, and then use it in a circuit which can only make use of just HALF of it's total power potential, (as I've pointed-out previously that the system can't result with merely 30-watts !). _ Thus, (as I contend), making the 60w-figure fairly suspect as to exactly how it was derived, and therefore putting ANY possible means on the table for consideration.

MM
Bob you keep gettin caught up in this notion that they designed the alternator to produce 60 watts (or what ever) and "then" altered it to use only half the power potential available. that would be a goofy way to do it. Why is it that you find it hard to believe that they designed it to produce 60 watts (or what ever) having already taken into account the finished design. that would be logical.

__ So do you now still contend that I don't have any point for considering any alternate figuring-means (other than RMS) for how they might've come-up with EXACTLY "60 watts" ?

MM
Bob, you may have a point, but I think you are not giving the engineers credit where it is due. It could have been done any number of ways even if they didn't make sense, but I assure you these lads who designed this knew what they were doing.

As to why it is "EXACTLY" 60 watts? I doubt that it is. I think they looked at what loads were going to be in the circuit, including charging a well depleted battery, came up with a number (I will not do that again, as I might be a few watts off) of 60 watts felt that would do the job and engineered in a bit of surpluss. Then they looked at the current required to produce that wattage, made sure all the components could handle that ammount, and fused it at 10 amps thereby limiting it's output at 60 watts and called it a 60 watt alternator. We might find that if we unleashed that alternator it could produce more. I don't know.

[MotoMike]

I must admit bob, that my palms are itching for the comforting grip of that foam bat you previously mentioned.

I take that you wish to simplify while I wish to dumb down. You seem to think that because I've had technical training I am hindered in my ability to relate it to the uninitiated. that I have blinders on that prevent me from seeing your down home laymans logic. Since I did actually teach this stuff for about 5 years after working on it for about 12 years, I would have to take exception to this notion. And though these students aptitude to comprehend the training had been assessed they often had zero knowledge of the topic and we started with the properties of rocks and gas. At a simple level is the point I am making here. I have seen on several occasions where someone acquired a way of looking at things that allowed them to sort through it even if not correct and develope their own blinders to reexamining their earlier acquired and firmly entrenched ideas.

[DewCatTea-Bob]

"MM
Bob you keep gettin caught up in this notion that they designed the alternator to produce 60 watts (or what ever) and "then" altered it to use only half the power potential available. that would be a goofy way to do it. "

____ Of course that would be a goofy way to do it, that was my-own point ! _ And I'm not caught-up in any notion of the sort as you seem to think, as I've already posted wording which indicates that I don't think that they "designed" it to produce exactly 60-watts.


" Why is it that you find it hard to believe that they designed it to produce 60 watts (or what ever) having already taken into account the finished design. that would be logical. "

____ Indeed it would be logical to claim that their entire charging-system (as a whole) is good for 60-watts. _ (Which is what I've been meaning to indicate.)
However it's been the understanding that the alternator ITSELF is supposed to be 'rated' at 60-watts,, as Ducati had supplied their alternators to other manufacturers, they'd thus accordingly need to give the alternator a reasonable rating (without concern for whatever charging-circuit it might be mated with) !
So staying simply in accordance with math.logic (not taking into account CEMF, etc), it ought to have been rated at 120-watts AC-output, (not just 60w).
Yet tests done by Bill/wcorey shed doubt on that as well.

[DewCatTea-Bob]

" I take that you wish to simplify while I wish to dumb down. "

____ While I'm fine with keeping things simple as they are, I'm not specifically trying to further "simplify",, I rather just tell things exactly as they really are, and so I just don't see any need to use dumbed-down conceptions (as 'convention' has dictated).
You (on the other hand) are not actually dumbing-it-down (any further), as you're merely wishing to simply pass it on, AS convention already has it. _ Only trouble with that is, it's not easily conveyed to those who haven't been 'trained' in the field.


" You seem to think that because I've had technical training I am hindered in my ability to relate it to the uninitiated. "

____ Yes, that's correct Mike.
__ We could see if I'm right by getting opinions from the untrained fellows registered here, to see whether they understand your tech.speak any better than the wording I prefer to use.
I don't think many can follow your (perfectly correct) analysis-logic without most of the related convention-training. _ (As I had conveyed in my PM.)
__ Please don't get me wrong, as your input from your point-of-view is very worthy of being offered ! _ And we are very fortunate indeed to have your input on these (or any other) things !
And of course I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks so.


" that I have blinders on that prevent me from seeing your down home laymans logic. "

____ Well that sometimes does seem to be the case Mike, however tech.types (as yourself) are usually smarter people who don't always need to use conventional-logic in order to understand alternate trains-of-thought, (and without thinking that any other way must be "wrong").


Content-Cheers,
-Bob

[MotoMike]

As you said before bob, it's not important whose right, it is important to find what is right.

Maybe those superior techs who let you go on without trying to correct your misconceptions were either not the super techs you thought or were not willing to go through this, or perhaps just being nice.

[ecurbruce]

Thanks, Mike and Bob, I understand both of your points of view (with all of it's
complexity). It's been quite educational.
Does anyone else want to say they understand it?
Let's move on to the next important issue of this topic.