My altanator/ stator/ generator...what do I have here?

[DewCatTea-Bob]

I re checked all leads with one probe against the stator base plate and all is well.....no shorts. I tried all combinations and the only thing that connects is the black to white and the red to yellow.

____ Alright, that's GOOD ! _ It seems all your wiring-work has turned-out as expected.

____ Sorry for taking so long to get to replying to this post,, I just got my new internet-service going, and this is the second thing (after email) which I've chosen to check-out on the w.net, because THIS topic was the last left on my mind from back-when I was last on-line (last Thursday), as this particular thread-topic's remaining-issue still needs to be fully addressed. ...
____ I've now updated my last-post (on the previous-page).
__ Have you yet consulted with your mechanic-buddy concerning the issue of properly timing your alt.rotor to the crankshaft ?
I'd expect that an average-mech.type would simply shrug his shoulders & say "let's just follow the-book cuz it doesn't really matter anyhow since you'll be using a battery"...
While a good/CARING mech.type (like myself) would have some logically-based opinion as to exactly how the alt.rotor should BEST be installed.
So I'm quite fairly interested to learn-of your friend's opinion on this mag.rotor timing-mark matter, (as it's obviously clear to myself, that the factory-placed timing-mark on your mag.rotor has been mis-located).


Content-Cheers,
-Bob

[basketcase]

Sorry for taking so long to get to replying to this post

No troubles, glad you got everything back up.

__ Have you yet consulted with your mechanic-buddy concerning the issue of properly timing your alt.rotor to the crankshaft ?

No, we are still trying to sort out the rotating assembly. Its not easy finding parts for a 47 year old motorcycle. Received incorrect parts, parts that were supposed to be new and are not. One shipment was lost by the USPS for 2 1/2 weeks.

If the green line is 9 degrees( and incorrectly marked by Ducati),
And the red line is 37 degrees ( but for racing only)
Then shouldn't we be somewhere in between them? Say... 23 degrees?

Also, I started a new thread with said mechanic-buddy's race bike.

[DewCatTea-Bob]

" If the green line is 9 degrees( and incorrectly marked by Ducati), "

____ Okay, I now realize that it's possible for confusion to arise since I maintained the use of a green-line to represent both the 9-degrees after-TDC (as is the ACTUAL-case with your alt.rotor), AND-also the 9-degrees before-TDC (after flipping-over your original-pic.shot [which I had done in an attempt to show where the factory-mark OUGHT to have been located at] )...
__ With that issue-point now made & understood,, since the static-ign.timing is supposed to be set between 5 to 8 degrees before-TDC, it's certainly obvious that having the alternator set to produce it's peak-power (nearly) 9-degrees after-TDC is way TOO-late ! _ Therefore the factory-mark needs to be considered as being retarded 18-degrees out of proper phase (with the static ign.point).
BUT because I've 'flipped' your rotor's image (above on THIS page), the green-line is now correctly placed.



" And the red line is 37 degrees ( but for racing only) "

____ I had indicated that the 37-degree/red-line would be best for racing because, once the engine revs past 3000-RPM, full ign.advance is then usually maintained thereafter,, and since that upper rev.range is where most-all racing is confined-to, it's thus-then most logical to have the mag.rotor set to produce peak-alt.power just before the ign.points open at the max.advance of 36-degrees before TDC.


____ Now with all the above having been (hopefully more clarifiedly) rehashed,
I can now move-onward & respond to the main-crux of the intended-spirit of the presented-question...

If the green line is 9 degrees,
And the red line is 37 degrees
Then shouldn't we be somewhere in between them? Say... 23 degrees?

____ That's certainly of-course a naturally logical middle-of-the-road common-sense compromise which would seem to equally split-up the expected-benefit. _ However, since the alternator produces stronger & stronger power-output as engine-revs build-up higher & higher, there's thus-then no real need for such compromise ! _ And so therefore, it's BEST to set the alt.rotor so that it's weakest PEAK-output (during kick-starting revs) is most available for the ignition's static-timing point !
The reason that no such in-between compromise ought to be considered, is because the 'peak' power-output at kicking-revs is relatively minimal, and the amount of power-production available at it's 'peak' is THEN still actually LESS (at that low-rev point), than the higher-amount of alt.power which becomes available up-near max.ignition-advance revs, (despite the fact that the alt.power is then disadvantaged 28-degrees before it's PEAK-power production-point !).

____ I've added a couple pic.diagram-graphs to indicate the state of power-output (from the 6-pole alternator) near the 9 & 37 degree value-points (still displayed with the green & red lines). _ HOWEVER as is seen within the upper-pic, it's displayed relationship would only be valid if the mag-rotor's own equivalent-tdc happened to be installed directly-aligned with the engine's TDC. _ So this should help indicate the desired-need to advance the mag-rotor's equivalent-tdc 9-degrees (relative to the engine's TDC),, the result of which is depicted in the lower-pic.
__ The upper-pic obviously depicts it's 9-degree disadvantage compared to the preferred/ideal match-up (which is depicted in the lower-pic).
After all I've presented thus-far, it now ought to be more easily understood that the factory-placed timing-mark on your mag-rotor, if set according to the-book, would then be even FURTHER disadvantaged (by still ANOTHER 9-degrees !), since it has it's mark placed on the WRONG-side of the mag.rotor's equivalent-tdc.point... (The factory-mark is actually placed the CORRECT-amount of arc-spacing -[9-degrees], BUT it's just that it's located on the WRONG-side of the mag.rotor's equivalent-tdc.point.)
So-therefore, if your alt.rotor were to be installed according to the-book -(with the factory-mark aligned with the crankshaft's TDC.point), then your alternator's 'peak' output would occur 9-degrees AFTER TDC, at a time when it would then make no beneficial difference whatsoever,, and so thus that alt.rotor may-as-well just-as-soon be installed any ol-which-way a brainless-child may randomly pick to set it onto it's shaft.
__ I don't care to ponder how many of us have bothered to go to the trouble of strictly following the-book on precisely-setting the alt.rotor-timing, only to then end-up having their alternator's peak-output occurring at some random (and likely un-useful) point after-all anyhow,, (and they just have no-clue, since the battery runs the ignition despite-so, anyway).


Dukaddy-DUKEs,
-Bob

UPDATE! - I've just today come to realize that the two graphs I've posted below are in substantial ERROR, as they both display & indicate incorrect data !
If anyone has actually bothered to have studied the data which these graphs depict and accepted their data as correct, then please ask for an explanation of what's exactly wrong with them.
I intend to correct these grafts and any of their associated text-notes which compound the ERRORed-data, (by the stroke-of-noon Tuesday -[world-time]). -Bob

[basketcase]

Ok...so...original mark is 9 degrees after TDC.
I will have to retard it 18 degrees to get optimum performance of 9 degree's before TDC.
Correct?

[DewCatTea-Bob]

" original mark is 9 degrees after TDC. "

____ That stated wording is rather somewhat misleading... But I believe you had meant to rehash/confirm the point that the factory-placed timing-mark happens to be located so that when it's aligned-up with the crankshaft's TDC.point, that then the alternators 'peak' power-output would be set to occur at (very near to) 9-degrees after TDC (rather than before TDC).
(Your alt.rotor's factory-mark would've been perfectly placed, if that rotor had been meant to be installed on the RIGHT-side of a motor [with a regular/forward-turning crankshaft].)
__ So-anyhow, with reference to your alt.rotor's very-own equivalent-tdc -(having always been indicated with a black-line),, it's 'factory-mark' is located (quite near) 9-degrees in-front-of & further-ahead of the alt.rotor's own tdc.point ! _ So-therefore that factory-mark is located a total of (about) 18-degrees OFF-target from where it ought to have been placed. _ Which thus-then has that mark placed on the rotor-face in a rather advanced-location,, which, if going by the-book, would then in-turn lead to the alt.rotor being 'retarded' (by about 18-degrees).




" I will have to retard it 18 degrees to get optimum performance of 9 degree's before TDC.
Correct? "

____ Well, it seems that we need to clarify words like "it" -(as I don't know if you mean the alt.rotor or just a timing-mark),, and also get straightened-out the direction from which we view-at the alt/mag.rotor. - (I've been trying to refer to the rotor as "alt.rotor" whenever envisioned from it's front-side, and as "mag.rotor" whenever referencing it by it's back-side, [but have possibly strayed from that rule at-least once].)
__ So-anyhow,, in order to correct for the stray timing-issue, then instead of normally aligning the (misplaced) factory-mark with the crankshaft's TDC.point, (as by the-book),, you'll rather have to rotate the alt.rotor counterclockwise so as to advance the alt.rotor (along-with it's factory-mark) 18-degrees ahead-of -(meaning forwards & away-from) the crankshaft's TDC.point.

____ I've added a couple of pix... The upper-pic shows a green-line about where the crankshaft's TDC.point ought to be aligned with (and where the 'timing-mark' should've been located at !).
The lower-pic is intended to show how to find the center-point of the mag.rotor's very-OWN equivalent-tdc.point (where a factory production-mark should've been placed !).


Duke-Cheers,
-Bob

[basketcase]

in order to correct for the stray timing-issue, then instead of normally aligning the (misplaced) factory-mark with the crankshaft's TDC.point, (as by the-book),, you'll rather have to rotate the alt.rotor counterclockwise so as to advance the alt.rotor (along-with it's factory-mark) 18-degrees ahead-of -(meaning forwards-of) the crankshaft's TDC.point

Thats exactly what i had in my mind.

[DewCatTea-Bob]

" Thats exactly what i had in my mind. "

____ Okay then, it seems you understand & comprehend the situation which ought to be addressed. _ However, the "18" degrees -(2 x 9degrees of offset) is merely fair guesswork on my-part, and-so it could likely be more accurate to not rely on my rounded-off figuring (based merely on your posted-pix)...
__ Do you have a degree-wheel ? _ If so, then you ought to use a sharp pencil to draw cross-hairs across the tdc.magnet (as I've already shown in my post above), and then from the center-point where the lines cross, align the 0-point of a degree-wheel with that precisely-determined center-point,, and then make yourself a new timing-mark (on your alt.rotor) that's precisely aligned between 8 & 9-degrees -(as opposed to the 9 to 10 side) according to the degree-wheel.
__ Then when your alt.rotor is installed with your-own added timing-mark, (which should be located about-where I've indicated the green-line at), directly-aligned with the crankshaft's TDC.point,, THEN the alt.rotor's very-OWN tdc.point will then become set/fixed (onto the crankshaft) advanced the desired-amount of 9-degrees ahead-of the motor's own TDC.point ! - (Thus forward-separating the 'alt.rotor-tdc' away-from the 'crankshaft-TDC' [by the desired 9-degree advanced-amount].)
__ Once this 9-degree advancement of the alt.rotor has been accomplished, then the alternator will produce it's 'peak' power-point between 1 & 4 degrees before the ign.spark is to be created, (assuming of-course that the static-ign.timing is properly set at 5 to 8 degrees before TDC).
____ When installing the alt.rotor,, rather than having the crankshaft all-ready & set at IT's very-own TDC, it's easier to instead allow the alt.rotor's magnets to self-align itself over the stator-core... And since the stator-core is already arranged & mounted so that it's very-own equivalent-tdc is directly-aligned with the motor's TDC,, then the alt-rotor will tend to pull it's-own equivalent-tdc.point towards having ALL tdc & TDC points aligned.
However the mag.rotor's strength/ability to pull itself into such alignment, is not perfect enough,, and YOU'll thus-then have to dial-in the last couple of degrees to make-sure of achieving perfect-alignment of the alt.rotor's tdc to the motor's TDC, (meaning that the 'black-line' will then become perfectly inline with the cant of the cylinder & thus also the motor's TDC !).
__ NEXT,, now with all THOSE tdc & TDC points all perfectly aligned-up together with each-other,
the crankshaft THEN needs to have it's-own TDC arranged & set so that it's quite nearly 9-degrees RETARDED from all those others*. _ So that thus-then means that while leaving the alt.rotor set at zer0-degrees (with master-TDC), the CRANKSHAFT-itself is thus-then the MOVABLE-object to be set 9-degrees retarded away-from the alt.rotor, (rather than the opposite-way-around [as many mechanic-types would likely attempt to try (against the mag.rotor's magnetic-effort)] ).
([* "others" - It can be confusing to refer to ALL TDC.points as merely "TDC", cuz there are actually several rather-different concepts which can all be thought-of as a 'TDC' of sorts ! ...
The 'master-TDC' is the tdc which all others must conspire to relate to;
then there's the 'motor's TDC', which is ALWAYS the same as the master-TDC;
then there's the 'engine's TDC', which is inline along-with the cant of the cylinder (thus also the same as the master-TDC);
then there's the 'crankshaft's TDC' (which can be aligned-up with the above TDCs, or not);
then there's the stator-core's equivalent of it's-own tdc (which thankfully has been chosen to be mounted to the motor with it's tdc directly-aligned with the engine-TDC, [thus also included as part of the master-TDC] );
then finally, the magnet-rotor has it's very-own equivalent of tdc for itself, (which I've always represented with a BLACK-line).
__ So now hopefully all this clarification has straightened-out any possible past-confusion as to what's-what with 'TDC' & "tdc", etc.,etc.])

____ I've now added a pic which more clearly shows how to exactly locate where the mag.rotor's tdc.center-point is found.


Temp.NOTE - I STILL intend to add more here, (later).
-Bob

[basketcase]

Do you have a degree-wheel ?

Yes.
I talked to Jimmy about it last night and he said no problem.

[DewCatTea-Bob]

I talked to Jimmy about it last night and he said no problem.

____ I'M VERY SORRY... There IS a problem ! _ (But not at YOUR end !) ...
I've had some time today to think-clearly without any distractions, and I now realize that I've made a relatively significant error ! ...
__ It's rather sad that nobody-else here has caught my fairly basic-mistake which is something that's actually very simple & straight-forward to myself, and I really shouldn't have posted such a simple mistake !
The mistake has to do with the two graphs I posted above on this page... as they're both VERY misleading !
So I intend to delete them, but not until after those of you who may care to check them out one last time before tomorrow (so that ya-yourself might figure-out what's wrong with them first). _ And if nobody-else sees & comprehends my error, then I'll have little reason to bother with going-ahead & explaining that which apparently only I-myself have realized.
____ The reason for why I'm now bothering to bring this error into spotlight, is because it's occurring to me that the errored-difference may influence my suggested location for an optimally-placed timing mark on a SIX-pole mag.rotor.
I need to further think-out this situation to it's final-conclusion, and then confirm what's all what here, later.
__ Now that there are those of you who have been made aware that there actually is indeed a fairly notable error, I hope someone-else will also be bright enough to realize & point-out what my mistake is with my posted graphs !


Hopeful-Cheers,
-B.

UPDATE - Well it's looking like nobody-else cares to offer their-own guess as to what's wrong with my pair of posted graphs,, but before I go-ahead & change anything, I'll now offer a major-clue,, and that is, that the mistake which should've been noticed, has to do with where I've placed the red-line across the waveform !
This BIG-clue along with the below added white-pic.graph should now spawn a guess from SOMEone who fairly prides them-self to solve somewhat simple/obvious puzzles.
__ So maybe NOW someone will be able to tell what's wrong ? -Bob

Latest UPDATE - I've now added two new pic.grafts (in black), which unlike my previous graphs which were WRONG, now indicate the REAL difference between the static & max.advance ign.timing-points as they ACTUALLY fall-upon the alt.power-waveform !
So-therefore instead of just a 28-degree difference, (which is what was "WRONG"),, the actual-difference is REALLY 84-degrees !
-Bob

[DewCatTea-Bob]

____ I've more-recently mentioned (within an added 'NOTE') that I'd be back by now with further explanation of an error I've posted... However I'm disappointed that it seems that NOBODY at all has any clue as to what I had done wrong with the graphs I posted.
And even after I've posted a major-clue to help tip-off what the mistake/issue is, it still seems nobody cares to venture even a guess. _ But that's probably because this thread has fallen out of activity, and-thus no-one has noticed the clue I added hours ago.
So I'm going to place this post (to bring it back into active-status), and wait a few more hours to give any somebody a chance to respond in any way they wish,, before I finally go-ahead & update what I need to get all straightened-out here.

If the green line is 9 degrees,
And the red line is 37 degrees
Then shouldn't we be somewhere in between them? Say... 23 degrees?

____ That's certainly of-course a naturally logical middle-of-the-road common-sense compromise which would seem to equally split-up the expected-benefit. _ However, since the alternator produces stronger & stronger power-output as engine-revs build-up higher & higher, there's thus-then no real need for such compromise ! _ And so therefore, it's BEST to set the alt.rotor so that it's weakest PEAK-output (during kick-starting revs) is most available for the ignition's static-timing point !
The reason that no such in-between compromise ought to be considered, is because the 'peak' power-output at kicking-revs is relatively minimal, and the amount of power-production available at it's 'peak' is THEN still actually LESS (at that low-rev point), than the higher-amount of alt.power which becomes available up-near max.ignition-advance revs, (despite the fact that the alt.power is then disadvantaged 28-degrees before it's PEAK-power production-point !).

____ This above exchange was not correctly handled by ME ! _ And I'm SORRY about that ! ...
__ At the time I posted that response, I was assuming that my posted graphs were without any error, (and also, I was then in a state-of-mind which was without any regards as to the [seemingly rather minor] relevant differences between the 6-pole & 4-pole alternators).

____ I'll leave all these posts* of mine (* placed since I posted the one with the faulty-graphs), left un-updated for a few more hours, with HOPEs that at least one enlightened-soul will realize & mention what my graph-error is.
(Also hoping that my added delay with clearing-up related-things, doesn't put-off 'basketcase' too much !)


Tillater,
-Bob
PS. Of-course I realize that my recent-posts are fairly 'corny' for trying to provoke response-action to my challenge for some-one to step-forth with an explanation of why my graphs (on this page) are faulty (with a significant-error). _ But I think it's all going to help at-least SOMEbody to understand & retain this SIX-pole mag.rotor/ign.timing matter.

UPDATE! - With anticipated-info...
____ I'm fairly disappointed that NObody has responded with even a clue as to why my PREVIOUSLY-placed pic.grafts -(in white) are faulted with significant error.
I think that once I've explained what's actually wrong with them, that THEN there will be those of you who will wonder why-the-heck YOU hadn't thought of this simple/basic-oversight/mistake !
__ Anyhow, the reason for why they're incorrect is because I had made the basic-mistake of overlooking the fact that the ratio of waveform-cycles to alt.rotor-rotations is not simply 1:1 ! _ IF the mag.rotor had only TWO-poles, THEN my graphs would've been CORRECT !
However since the alt.rotor in contention here, has six-poles (and-thus THREE complete waveform-cycles) per rotation, that in-turn of-course means that for every 1-degree of rotor-rotation, the waveform must thus-then progress 3-degrees !
So likewise, when the auto-advance range spans it's full 28-degrees (of crankshaft & rotor rotation) from static to max.advance, the corresponding-range on the alt.power-waveform then becomes a whopping 84-degrees ! _ And THAT'S what my (previous)-graphs had failed to take-into consideration !
__ So now with that point made & understood, it should now be correspondingly realized that while the PREVIOUSLY-recommend timing for the alt.rotor indeed REMAINS optimum for the STATIC-ign.timing point, unfortunately conversely however, the max.advance-point on-the-other-hand is advanced on the waveform to such an extreme point, that the alt.power is then TOO-weak (at-least at merely 3000-RPM where max.advance is first fully reached) !
__ So when Randy (quite sensibly) figured that some sort of a timing-compromise was called-for, he was actually right to think so !
The graph below shows the result of advancing the alt.rotor still ANOTHER 9-degrees (of crankshaft-rotation), for producing peak-alt.power 27-degrees -(of waveform-progression) before the static-ign.timing-point, (instead of just 0 to 3 degrees, as PREVIOUSLY thought to be the best compromise), and 57-degrees after the max.advance-ign.timing-point.
However this particular suggested setting isn't very critical, as any further increased-amount of alt.rotor advancement between 7 & 12 degrees would be about as good (as the suggested ADDITIONAL-extra 9-degrees), overall. _ (But note that your-OWN previous-proposition of a total of "23" degrees -[the original-9 + half of the 28 (which also wasn't taking into account the 1 to 3 ratio, btw)] would still not be a FAIR-compromise [for the same previously stated reason]) !
__ So NOW instead of advancing the alt.rotor just 18-degrees, as previously figured,, I now PROPERLY figure that it should be advanced a total of about 27-degrees. - Meaning that the original/factory-mark was retarded about 27-degrees (rather than merely 18, as PREVIOUSLY assumed).
__ The below graph is actually the same as the black-ones,, I've simply broadened-out the waveform-peaks so as to better represent the waveform at kick-starting revs. _ So the fact that the alt.power-tension doesn't drop-off from peak as greatly then, means that the consumed power-pulse seems more like straight-DC (which is what the battery-powered ign.coil best feeds-on).
Also, all of the three new graphs posted on this page show only 'one & a half' -(1 & 1/2) waveform-cycles, which is what occurs with just 180-degrees -(a half-turn) of alt.rotor rotation.


DUCATIly,
-Bob