Troubleshooting Alternator Wiring

[ecurbruce]

Bill,
Yea, I think the jury's still out!

Bob, you da' man!

Bruce

[DewCatTea-Bob]

[quote= wcorey ...
" Very eloquently put Bruce... "

____ This response is actually not in direct regards to the quoted-wording, but there was nothing-else more pertinently related to quote from Bill's post.
__ I just wanted to further touch-on what Bruce had mentioned about the need to read-between-the-lines, in order to make more logical-sense out of what others are meaning to mean with their (probably hastily written) post-wording.
____ I have often noticed that a lot of post-ers get-away with very sloppily conceived post-wording, which too often leaves the reader needing to 'read-between-the-lines' and take their best-guess as to what the post-writer might've actually meant to convey.
But I find such need to be UNACCEPTABLE, (as no-doubt such lack of clarity has mistakenly led to wars) !
And whenever I come-across such poor post-wording, I then imagine the average-reader (of such posts) shrugging his shoulders and having to assume that the post-writer himSELF must know what HE's talk-n-bout (even if it's not exactly understandable), and-so not really caring to spend any thinking-time (bothering-with attempting to figure-out what the post-writer must've really meant), just moves-on to elsewhere.
And such occurrences of running-into such gobble-d-gook, leaves a sting which tends-to discourage our w.site-readers from having expectations of actually LEARNING much of anything of real value, whenever visiting our w.site.
__ So bottom-line is, all post-writers ought to take a little more pride in their effort (or lack-of), in attempting to properly convey whatever they're offering to us all, so that their readers then don't have-to spend excess-effort trying to make sensible-sense out of any such sloppily-done postings.

____ BTW, I ought-to point-out that most-all of this post was already written-out BEFORE Bruce's above post became posted.
I've only just-now edited this post (to improve on it's wording).


Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob

[wcorey]

Guess I'll leap-frog past your last couple posts I never got a chance to respond to and start with this one.

Here we go again.

then ever-since, you've been STUCK still-thinking the-same is still the correct reconnection-fix.

Back at you, Bob.

" And if need be, I'll resurrect the test setup and prove the results, as I had already done back then. "

____ Certainly by NOW you should realize that that's not necessary,...

I had *just* been down in the basement dusting the cobwebs off the test bench and figuring out what state I had left the stators in.
Was doting my i's by (otherwise uselessly) changing the wiring colors to black/white, red/green on a stock 4 coil stator when I went upstairs
to check Bruce's post to ensue accuracy and I saw his latest test info. I thought "what great timing, I won't have to do it now".
Actually it may now be even more necessary than I previously had assumed.

Looks like it's time for a showdown on the test bench, Mikes "worthless" 'E' scheme vs... whatcha' got Bob?
Terms are; 2.13k rpm, r/r configuration of choice, 60w headlight plus 5 ohm load. Or others...
All in fun, or in the name of science, or... take your pick.

____ I can't believe that you're STILL promoting that worthless swap-fix...

So you maintain that Bruce's bright 60w Halogen Headlight (with the battery taking a charge) at 1/3rd throttle is a liar?

...even after I've posted more than one diagram-scheme clearly-SHOWING the error that still seems to elude you !

Which one was that? I saw nothing that related directly to anything I was talking about. You're off on your own tangent there...

" in the material that I've been pushing you to read.
That you obviously haven't... "

____ Sorry but, the circumstances that would allow me to sift-through all-that (looking for nothing in PARTICULAR), have not-yet occurred.

Oh, there's any number of PARTICULAR's there, I just don't either have the time or ambition to copy them all and transfer them to here.
Please at some point read at least my last couple of posts there, I would very much value your input on a number of issues that were brought up there, not all related to this particular thing. I've been waiting for that commentary for almost two years...

Bet you can't find a professionally-produced setup that's set-up & mass-manufactured like-that,

And I'll bet that you can't find another 'professionally-produced setup' that's anything like Ducati's funky winding scheme.
If it's so wonderful I find it difficult to believe an entire industry let that one slip by un-noticed.

____ I don't think he guessed,, cuz in that case, he then would've naturally next tried the flip-side of the coin, (instead of wondering what could be wrong).

Not everyone thinks things through as scrutinizingly-thoroughly as you Bob, I often just shoot from the hip to quickly see what scatters from the impact. As long as there are no innocent bystanders in the line of fire that is.

_ Thus therefore he must've been led-astray by that posted drawing (that I hadn't conceived).

Sounds as if I'm an agent of the Devil
You mean the drawing that in it's original source is clearly defined as an example of what was tried and didn't work?
That you would have seen as such if you had actually read it?
Is it that unreasonable to illustrate something to explain a failure?
Comprende?

____ And here I had assumed that you must be on vacation

No, I check in on a pretty regular basis, just haven't seen much here that I'd be able to contribute to (in a timely manor anyway).
I'm really not that generally knowledgeable on the Singles, only in very narrow areas.

_ But you should realize that if DewCatTea-Bob maintains anything as being actually-true, then you should LOOK-elsewhere for fault, (even if it's towards yourself).

Oh, aren't we full of ourselves .
I'm more than fully well aware of your prodigious knowledge and power of perception and would only dare to tread in these lengthy and dangerous waters when I have hard data to back myself up. Seriously.

I know how this will end, like it most always has.

Even after I've proven the *single specific point* I'm trying to convey, it will be lost in a sea of details and semantics of how my delivery of the concept was flawed or whatever and you were right all along, at least within the context of *your* point of which in reality is only vaguely related to mine, etc...etc...
And when all is said and done, we were arguing two completely different points

Carry on...

[wcorey]

____ I have noticed that a lot of post-ers get-away with very sloppy post-wording, that leaves the reader to 'read-between-the-lines' and take their best-guess as to what the post-writer might've actually meant to say.
But I find such to be UNACCEPTABLE, (as no-doubt such has mistakenly led to wars) !

I'm unclear on were you were going with this. Could you provide some specific examples?

Seems like your very post may well illustrate the point you're trying to make...

And;

How many times do I have to go back and Re-Read your posts for new-edited-in content? There should be a time limit or something.
With your moderator capabilities the usual time stamp that's added to everyone else s posts to denote edits is omitted.
At least when there's a time-of-last-edit, it's possible to just glance at the post to check for new content (as opposed to reading the whole thing again to check).
I know you claim to sign off specially to indicate completed posts but in reality most of your posts are left 'open ended'.

I find such to be UNACCEPTABLE!

No, not really ...

[DewCatTea-Bob]

[quote= wcorey ...
" Back at you, Bob. "

____ But MY suggested-fix was CORRECT, (even before proven) !
__ Why haven't YOU provided a pic.diagram that shows how your suggested-idea of swapping of both the green AND red wires could possibly make any difference whatsoever !? _ (Only moving one OR the other of those two colors would be helpful !)
Must-be cuz the obvious reason is that it would be a worthless endeavor !
__ Do I have to do it for you, after-all ?



" Mikes "worthless" 'E' scheme "

____ Your use of quote-marks on the word 'worthless' insinuates that SOMEONE 'stated' that Mike's scheme-E is worthless ! _ (I know it wasn't I who ever stated such.)



" Terms are; 2.13k rpm, r/r configuration of choice, 60w headlight plus 5 ohm load. Or others...
All in fun, or in the name of science, or... take your pick. "

____ I'm sure that somebody will be quite grateful for your kind offer ! _ Thanks for that Bill !
__ Only thing I can currently think-of for you to wish to try-out, is proving whether or not the 'mutual-induction effect' is actually actual.
But for that kind of test-proof, an O-scope would be required.

____ I can't believe that you're STILL promoting that worthless swap-fix...

So you maintain that Bruce's bright 60w Halogen Headlight (with the battery taking a charge) at 1/3rd throttle is a liar?

____ How can you seriously JUMP-to that thought ?
As I never suggested such as THAT in the first-place, so I certainly couldn't "maintain" it !
__ I'm suspecting that you know that I was really specifically referring-to the swap-fix notion of swapping the red-wire for the green-wire, (and nothing further involved than that).



" I saw nothing that related directly to anything I was talking about. "

____ We were both supposed to be referring to WHICH wire-colors needed to be swapped-around, and-so I posted a couple of colored-diagrams to so-indicate.
__ I had indicated either the black & green OR the white & red wires,, and while your original suggestion was in agreement with that, you later began agreeing with Bruce's mistake, and then kept maintaining that the green & red wires needed to be swapped !
__ I know you must know-better, and that for some reason you apparently wish to waist our time by amusing yourself by yanking-my-chain.
I've stated that we could let the matter drop,, so that it hasn't yet, is now YOUR fault.



" Please at some point read at least my last couple of posts there, "

____ I do wish to do-so, and hope to get-there sometime-soon.



" I've been waiting for that commentary for almost two years... "

____ It likely would've been done back-then, if you & Mike hadn't happened to give me additional-grief on-top of a major-change in life for me.



" And I'll bet that you can't find another 'professionally-produced setup' that's anything like Ducati's funky winding scheme. "

____ If you could COMPLETELY understand it, then I'd expect that you'd appreciate it better.
__ As I-MYSELF see-it, not appreciating Ducati's unique alternator-workings, is very-much akin to not appreciating Ducati's unique DESMO-valving system !
Sure, it should go without saying that most-all of Ducati's methods are-now obsolete these-days, but that's not a fair reason to not still appreciate what they were & still are !
But I suppose that you'd not be the only member here who only likes the old Duke-singles merely-just due-to their particular appearance.
For ME, the ONLY things I don't much care-for, are most-all of the parts which Ducati didn't actually design & produce all on their-own.
And I-MYSELF think the cylinder-head and alternators are the heart&soul of old DUCATIs !



" If it's so wonderful I find it difficult to believe an entire industry let that one slip by un-noticed. "

____ I don't think Ducati invented the ingenious-concept, but it certainly came from back when their were no trickier semiconductor-circuits to help control the non-steady power-output of std.alternators.
Cuz with such newer control-devices, there's no reason to deal-with such tamed alternators these-days.
__ You may as well have pointed-out how the industry also let Ducati's DESMO-system slip-by, as well.
As that's just as fair, (for anyone who understands their charging-system as well as they do their DESMO-system).



" You mean the drawing that in it's original source is clearly defined as an example of what was tried and didn't work? "
That you would have seen as such if you had actually read it? "

____ Well that makes some sense now, as I didn't recall that that particular drawing WAS labeled as a connection-scheme that SHOULD-NOT be copied !
Yet in Bruce's case,, even with a warning-label of-sorts, the message seems to have failed.
__ Too bad that your posted-pix don't include any captioning.



" Is it that unreasonable to illustrate something to explain a failure?"

__ No, of-course not ! _ (So long as the illustration is somehow OBVIOUSLY self-explanatory, [without included explanation/warning].)
Ditto Comprende ?



" Oh, aren't we full of ourselves "

____ I don't have any problem with calling a 'spade' a "spade", regardless of where it may lay.
And if I-MYSELF screw-up, I'll own-up to it (rather than let others sweep it under the rug for me).



" would only dare to tread in these lengthy and dangerous waters when I have hard data to back myself up. "

____ I'm not seeing where you ought feel the need to be so defensive, as I've merely contested an obviously useless wire-swap reconnection suggestion, (which you certainly can't come-up with "hard data" to support).
(It was a misunderstanding-mistake, just admit-it and move-on.)



" Even after I've proven the *single specific point* I'm trying to convey, it will be lost in a sea of details and semantics of how my delivery of the concept was flawed or whatever and you were right all along, at least within the context of *your* point of which in reality is only vaguely related to mine, etc...etc...
And when all is said and done, we were arguing two completely different points "

____ I only recall such occurring once, (concerning the 'common' of a three-phase circuit).
(That was a waste of our time, [which I'd just as soon forget about].)



Done-Cheers,
-Bob

[ecurbruce]

Bob says,"____ Bruce, what do you use for a light-switch,
or do you ALWAYS run with lights left-on ?

The light switch is a rotary contact switch like used for audio, gets it's positive feed from the ignition switch- on position, and switches on the headlamp relay in the headlamp housing. I have the option, headlamp on or off, when ignition is in on position.
I used a dedicated 12 gague hot wire (fused) from battery positive, to the headlamp bulb, then to the relay, and a dedicated 12 gague ground wire from the relay back to battery negative post.
That rotary switch also turns on the tail light- when ignition is on. Nothing works with ignition switch in OFF position.
(I take that back, the brake light works any time you depress the rear break pedal.)
Why do you ask?

Bruce.

[DewCatTea-Bob]

[quote= ecurbruce ...
" Why do you ask? "

____ I just thought that perhaps you may've had a Jap.bike-like double-type light-switch that could be used to ALSO cut-off the second alt.power-output whenever the headlight is turned-off. _ (Just-like the logical-thinking Jap.bike-manufacturers have sensibly done.)
But a relay could preform that function as well.
__ The reason for the concern, is then that way not-only would your system stay better balanced, but-also power-interaction between your mismatched alt.windings would-not be able to increase whenever your lights are off,, thus-then keeping your alternator from producing added heat unnecessarily.
__ I thought you might be interested in such, since you've previously bothered with using relays to cut-off similar power leakages.


Duke-Cheers,
DCT-Bob

[wcorey]

__ Why haven't YOU provided a pic.diagram that shows how your suggested-idea of swapping of both the green AND red wires could possibly make any difference whatsoever !? _ (Only moving one OR the other of those two colors would be helpful !)
Must-be cuz the obvious reason is that it would be a worthless endeavor !
__ Do I have to do it for you, after-all ?

Ok, I've finally realized the the error of my ways, and repent/recant. On this one point anyway.

Going back through all this and trying to dissect it to determine where the ball got dropped is not fun.

Went back over and skimmed the whole thread and just saw the diagram that was added way back on page two,
(that by the way, is functionally the same as the first one I posted. So why would mine be misleading but yours is not?)
I hadn't yet gone that far back to check for added content and missed it.
I still haven't had time to read through this whole thing and have been skipping around, too much apparently.

Looking at it I then saw that it's the black AND green Or the red AND white that need the be swapped.
I was evidently too fixated on when you said I wanted to switch the red and green WITH each other (I didn't) but I think Bruce originally eluded to that but in different terms and I then wrongly agreed with him. That may have been the beginning of it.
I knew what I wanted to say but it certainly came out wrong, guess I was paying too much attention to the other issues-of-contention...
And likely a bit of the shooting from the hip thing. Oh well, enough excuses. Sorry.. Though unfortunately can't honestly say it won't happen again.

Now where where we?
The worst part now is trying to figure out how this one point bled over to others, causing even further confusion.
I have to stop doing this so late when I'm a bit bleary.
I'll straighten more out later...

[DewCatTea-Bob]

[quote= wcorey ...
" I'm unclear on were you were going with this. "

____ Concerning my post titled 'Reading Between the Lines',
I was at that time rather rushing to find a place to post some related thoughts before I forgot about them.
At the time, it then seemed to be an important point for me to get pointed-out,, as Bruce had related that often one has-to read-between-the-lines in order to figure-out what a post-writer MUST'VE likely meant to convey.
But I find it unacceptable for any reader to be left in such position so-as to have-to assume their-OWN thinking over the top of the post-writer's,
cuz doing that could quite-possibly lead-to something quite-OTHER than that which the post-writer had ACTUALLY meant to convey !
__ So whether Bruce had guessed-right or not (about what your true-meaning was actually meant to be),, is at this point, still questionable.



" Could you provide some specific examples? "

____ No, I don't recall specific examples but, such posts which have poor wording for conveying whatever they've meant to convey,, are most-often the same-ones also with poor/incorrect punctuation & spacing, spelling, etc.
__ Not to worry though Bill, as it wasn't any of your posts that had inspired my comment on the issue !



" How many times do I have to go back and Re-Read your posts for new-edited-in content? "

____ It's not so bad as that ! _ I hardly ever let a waking-day go by without signing-off on my posts, but I know I've gone up-to around 8-hours to get a single post completed (from start, to [unedited] end).
And once I've then signed-off (with '-Bob' at bottom), most-anything I later add is merely-just improved-wording which better says what was meant-to have been said.
Otherwise, more important/new-wording is noted prefixed with "UPDATE".
In most any-case, (unless a thread is on-fire with multiple post-submitters), I generally don't bother with posts that are much over 1-page/10-20-posts back.



" With your moderator capabilities the usual time stamp that's added to everyone else s posts to denote edits is omitted. "

____ Unfortunately, I guess-so. _ If I could turn-on that auto-feature, I would,, but on average, it would probably list about 10-edits per post.
If I think I've added anything relatively IMPORTANT, then I place an added-post to denote so.



" At least when there's a time-of-last-edit, it's possible to just glance at the post to check for new content (as opposed to reading the whole thing again to check). "

____ Well then I'm afraid that that would be quite misleading,, because I know myself to often place quite an added number of edits, merely-just to correct or add only a single word, even !
__ What would really be great, would be to have freshly posted wording show-up in color, and then gradually-fade to the normal black-lettering as the time passes.



" I know you claim to sign off specially to indicate completed posts but in reality most of your posts are left 'open ended'. "

____ NO, not "most", (or even just a few) ! _ As it would be next to impossible to find a finished post of mine that's not been signed-off on !
You must've gotten that impression from the rare/few times when I'm working on a busy thread. _ As I then often check to see if there are any new posts (while I'm in the middle of completing my current-post), and if so, I then merely respond to them with just a few words, mainly so as to hold the position in line, (for when I finally do get-back to that point, most-usually within a few hours).


Post-Cheers,
-Bob

[DewCatTea-Bob]

[quote= wcorey ...
" I've finally realized the the error of my ways, and repent/recant. "

____ Ahh, THANKfully the light has dawned.



" just saw the diagram that was added way back on page two,
I hadn't yet gone that far back to check for added content and missed it. "

____ When that colored-pic was added, not only was page-2 the newest-page then,, but at the time it was placed in the most recent post (of mine) that was addressing a post of Bruce's !
My computer indicates that that pic was created at 6:40PM of the 17th, so I must've posted it around the time I placed my "7:14PM" (actually 8:14) post on that page.
And-also, in an earlier post,, I had mentioned that I'd likely later post such a diagram, (for the benefit of all to follow-along),, and it seemed most logical then, to add the pic to my then most recently placed reply-post to Bruce's most recent post on the page.
So before page-3 became created, it seems you ought-to have noticed that posted-pic before.
I do recall getting prepared to get that pic.diagram posted, and then at that time discovered your 5:39PM-post.
__ Anyhow, I had never expected that you may've missed seeing it.



" (that by the way, is functionally the same as the first one I posted. So why would mine be misleading but yours is not?) "

____ Good-question. _ Well all I can say is the following...
First, I had recognized that pic you posted as an old-one previously posted somewhere in the past, thus allowing Bruce an opportunity to have followed-it,,
and I didn't note any related text at all stating that it was a faulted scheme, so I naturally assumed that it was a suggested connection-scheme,, and in that-light, I thus considered it as being 'misleading'.
While on the other-hand, the reason that MY posted-pic ought-not be misleading,, is because I had well-mentioned within the same-post, what the actual story is on it !



" Looking at it I then saw that it's the black AND green Or the red AND white that need the be swapped. "

____ Well that was it's purpose.
So now Bruce ought-to be somewhat relieved and have reinforced confidence that he-himself had properly understood everything correctly.



" I was evidently too fixated on when you said I wanted to switch the red and green WITH each other "

____ Either with each-other, or both together, I was never sure for-sure,, but knew that either-way, (neither swapping them with each-other or with the other pair), NEITHER change would make any difference on the shorted circuit !



" but I think Bruce originally eluded to that but in different terms and I then wrongly agreed with him. That may have been the beginning of it. "

____ Right, that's what I've been contending all-along.



" The worst part now is trying to figure out how this one point bled over to others, causing even further confusion. "

____ I don't think that happened yet anywhere (other than at your-end). _ So there shouldn't be anything-else to straighten-out here (that I can think of).



" Now where where we? "

____ I think Bruce is all-straight (for now).
So it's up to you wherever you want to go next.
(But I'd suggest that you take-up from one of the posts left unfollowed-up on, on the previous-page.)



Straightened-Cheers,
-Bob