Can stock alternator produce more volts and power?

[DewCatTea-Bob]

____ Okay Mike I'm getting close to conceding... while your link didn't work for me, your most recent previous post gave clue that seems to have awakened old knowledge that I seemed to have forgotten, and if that turns-out to be the case as it's now seeming to, then I'm very much going to regret having placed any of my postings this past day.
What it is exactly that you've made me realize, is that I've forgotten that the "120v" figure is from the zero-axis to peak, and not from one peak to the other - basic-mistake on my part.
So it now looks to me that I've been wrong these past 40-hours or so about what's covered by the term "peak-to-peak", and I'd like overnight to reflect on this issue further while I catch-up on some sleep.
__ I'm sure however that this fairly significant error does not mean that other things I've stated are also in error though !

Thanks for hanging-in-there Mike ! _ You're a true asset for helping to keep mistakes from being left unchecked !


Tillater,
-Bob

[Pete]

__ I guess I should use an example which all tech.types ought be most familiar with !
So let's take 120v (so-called house-current) for this instance... To get the peak-to-peak (pure/true AC) voltage, we multiply the 120-volts by the sq.rt of 2 -(that's 1.4142), which then equals 169.7 peak-to-peak AC-Volts. _ Now next to convert that 169.7 pp.AC-volts to the same voltage that's EQUAL to that of straight-line DC, (which is what's referred to by average "RMS" AC-voltage),
we simply multiply the 169.7 figure by the 'inverse' of the sq.rt of 2 (which is the convention's "magic-number" of '.707'), which then equals (guess what? - ) 120volts-DC ! (Not '60-volts', as the extra-included 'divide-by-2' step WOULD then result with !)

____ Is there not anyone else here with at least basic-training who can break the dead-lock between Mike & myself, on this logical/straight-forward issue ?


Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob

I think there is a basic math error here. If you take a number (120) and multiply by another number ( sq rt 2 ) then divide by the same number, you will end up with the original number ( 120 )

Mathmatical Cheers,

pete

[DewCatTea-Bob]

" I think there is a basic math error here. If you take a number (120) and multiply by another number ( sq rt 2 ) then divide by the same number, you will end up with the original number ( 120 ) "

____ Right Pete, that's why I had included: "(guess what? - )" amongst my conclusion-wording. _ As '120vAC RMS' is equivalent power-wise to 120vDC.
That point WAS supposed to be my proof to Mike that the 'divide-by-2' step (which Mike's formula included) was not right. ...
However, my-own figuring was what was wrong, because I had been overlooking the real meaning of 'peak-to-peak', (in which you first double the given (120v) AC-voltage before multiplying by the sq.rt of 2.
So mike's reverse-formula was completely correct all along ! _ (I had simply jumped to conclusion that HE was the one making a minor error.)


Thankful-Cheers,
-Bob

[DewCatTea-Bob]

MM
bob
it won't take too much of a tech type to show you that 120 vac found in your house is about 339 volts peak to peak not 169vpp. it shows you don't understand the concept.

____ Mike, I've always understood the concept, (I've had the tech.training as well too!),, and I thank you for finally using wording which clued me that I was the one making an error (instead of merely stating that my bottom-line/final-figure/conclusion was simply "wrong").
__ I had jumped to conclusion that YOU were the one overlooking an error, but certainly did not conclude that "it shows you don't understand the concept" !
Now here I am in the same-boat which I had thought that YOU would find your own-self in, when you'd realize that you had been making an error, but instead it's me, as it turns-out. _ And I've previously stated that I would admit to an error if you (or anyone) found I had made one.
Well I've done both now, and I'm sorry it's taken someone besides myself to catch my mistake so long after the fact ! _ But still I'm thankful, of course ! _ So THANKS AGAIN Mike !

[ecurbruce]

Mike;
I'd like to know your opinion regarding the mosfet regulator/rectifier.For instance, is a series regulator and a mosfet regulator one in the same? And what will be the effect of the change over from a shunt type reg.? However, I don't know if the timing is right,
where would be the best place to put this thread?

Eldert, what have you found that will be useful to the system?

[DewCatTea-Bob]

" where would be the best place to put this thread? "

____ I've searched-through all possible threads for such further discussion to be placed within, and there are none fully suitable for this unique topic !
So I suggest that a new/dedicated thread be started for non-stock regulator types for possible replacement of original alt.power regulator-units.
I'd do so myself if I knew for sure the thread would receive related action.


Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob

[MotoMike]

Bob
As we learn to deal with one another, our skills will evolve and we will both get better at it.

Bob wrote:
Mike, I've always understood the concept, (I've had the tech.training as well too!),, and I thank you for finally using wording which clued me that I was the one making an error (instead of merely stating that my bottom-line/final-figure/conclusion was simply "wrong").

MM
Bob, I don't wish to keep rehashing this any further. but on my behalf, I felt I had tried on the previous go arounds to explain it and at this point where I said "wrong" I was of the opinion that further explanations would be futile. was ready to give up.

And as a side note as it pertains to my inflexibility, you had pointed out on at least a few occasions that I was getting something wrong, which I accepted, acknowledged and moved on. So would hope that when you see me dig in, you'd take a second look.

Happily moving on

Mike

[DewCatTea-Bob]

By: MotoMike...
" should just have turned the other cheek but the veiled and not so veiled insults were bait too sweet to leave hanging
I know I'm as guilty of snide comments as bob, "

____ Mike, I have never actually meant to insult you in any way ! _ I'm not like that (as others may be), "snide" comments & such as that is only in the eyes of the reader, not my chosen wording. _ I can't help it if the reader reads with expectations of ill-will hidden between the lines when there really isn't ! _ So please don't ever look for such, as it's not really there intended to be found !


" I think before when we were not really disagreeing about what was going on in the circuit and what to call the configuration it was semantics. "

____ I never really disagreed with you Bill, I merely wasn't agreeable with you asserting that all my conceptions are wrong (because you don't see them the same way).


" In this case there is more to it. Though it rubs me the wrong way to just let it slide, "

____ Thankfully you didn't Mike ! _ As I've always contended that I wish for others to bring-forth anything they find of mine which they don't think is right !


" I would be willing to do so if not for the assertions that I'm stepping out just when I'm on the ropes. a notion I contend is way off the mark incidentally. "

____ Of course I had no real idea if it was the case or not, but my effort did initiate the desired results I had hoped for.
Sorry about that, but it's not as if you've proven to be unneeded here you know ! - (Compliment!)


" I see what I think are misconceptions in electricity that you have been using so long you can't let them go. "

____ While I may've had my beliefs for a long time, they're only "misconceptions" in the eye's of those who are stuck with their very-own.
As we go-forth, it's in hopes that either I convince you to see things from more than just your-own point-of-view, or you PROVE me to be completely wrong (which I'm fairly positive you won't do).


" Something I know I'm not up to the task for and am not intending to do, but after having many misunderstandings corrected by you, thought I could return the favor.
I was wrong. "

____ No you weren't, as you've already lead to a needed correction ! - (Although I had to supply the common tech.problem example which you solved, so as to lead me to see my-own error in my given example.)
Thanks again for that !


"our current exchanges are not productive and annoying to the general membership. It is my desire to stop the public exchange. "

____ I don't agree with that, I think there must be those who are all the richer for their snoop-nosing along-with,, and those who are indeed so annoyed, can read-though something else.

and though I sense trouble brewing, I'd be happy to discuss the MOSFET rectifier/regulator.


Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob

[DewCatTea-Bob]

____ Just a temp.note that all the posts previous to this have been moved here (to this new-thread), from their original-thread titled: "6volt of 12volt ?" .

DCT-Bob

[MotoMike]

I might be missing the point. It seems to me that this thread should be the distillation of the other thread. a thread stripped of all the baloney. this seems to be just as confusing and filled with just as much unneeded content as the other. I would think a write up that stated the goal, a brief synopsis of what was tried and then a more detailed description of what Bill did that really worked would be ticket. For in depth background you could reference the other thread with page and post number. This would be a good project to be fleshed out on the electrical page that Jim developed 6 or 8 months ago.

Mike