Troubleshooting Alternator Wiring

[DewCatTea-Bob]

[quote= wcorey ...
" I'm sure you're correct there, "

____ Mind-you that my statement concerning your circumstances making you not the very-best man for the-job,, was-not actually based upon MY-opinion, but rather simply deduced from your-own various statements of the kind. _ I just merely came-up with a 'bottom-line' summarized-deduction, based on your-own admissions. _ So it's not-really a matter of ME being "correct" or not.



" Would still have to remove the bobbins to unwind a layer from them and they likely fit just as snug on a different core. "

____ I could understand how having the bobbin removed off-from the star-core, would make it easier to wind a wire ONto the bobbin,, but I don't see why a bobbin needs to be separated-from the core, in order to pull-off an outer-layer.
IF such task were to be further expected, then I'd expect that one of the stator-cores could have it's star-point/fingers's squared-corners ground-down just a bit, so as to let the bobbin-spools slide on & off a bit easier.



" I'm spread a little thin these days, a lot of different things going on. "

____ Well just because this thread has developed when it has happened-to (in relation to YOUR-own goings-on & doings), doesn't mean that you HAVE-to work-in this-stuff along-with all your other-stuff at the same-time, as THIS-stuff could be allowed to sit on the back-burner & wait for a more opportune time for you.
So as I've already indicated before,, please don't feel any pressure to be timely, (at-least not from THIS-end).


____ Concerning my idea of winding the 'twin' power-windings oppositely from each-other (on one core-finger),, do you understand my theory on how that would kill the normal-effect of the secondary-mag.field, (thus [hopefully!] kill most-all unwanted impedance-effect) ?


Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob

[ecurbruce]

It's time to do the next windings...
There seems to be a consensus that we need a pair of thicker gauge coils, looks like #18 @ 6 layers will fit well, shall we go with that? I'll look for some #18 today.

Bob says;"____ Concerning my idea of winding the 'twin' power-windings oppositely from each-other (on one core-finger),, do you understand my theory on how that would kill the normal-effect of the secondary-mag.field, (thus [hopefully!] kill most-all unwanted impedance-effect) ? "

For the second set of windings, let's try this concept.
Bob, I need from you a detailed re-explaination of just what this is going to do and how it's going to do it, and specifically how you want it wound- size and configuration...

Bruce

[DewCatTea-Bob]

[quote= ecurbruce ...
" It's time to do the next windings... "

____ Been patiently waiting for you to indicate so, Bruce.



" There seems to be a consensus that we need a pair of thicker gauge coils, "

____ Well,, it would be somewhat interesting to discover any effective changes due-to thicker-gauge wire-windings, (unfortunately at the expense of winding-length due-to the volume-limitation),, since Bill has revealed that extended-lengths, (at-least of the thinner-gauge), has been fairly quite-disappointing.
However to discover any useful*advantage that a thicker winding-gauge may possibly provide, we do-not really "need" a 'pair' of such equipped power-coils.
(* Since the project-alt.stator is expected to be combined with a 12v.system, [as opposed 6v],, I really don't foresee a single-winding of a thicker than stock wire-gauge, [that's limited to the available volume], providing anything other than a disadvantage, [at-least in comparison to an equivalent 'double-winding'].)



" looks like #18 @ 6 layers will fit well, shall we go with that? "

____ Well if "looks like" turns-out to be an 'actual' near-perfect fit, then that'll be quite fine enough ! _ However, if #17 or #16-gauge happens to fit significantly better, then perhaps you ought to rather consider either of THOSE sizes. _ Whichever, it's pretty-much all up-to you to make the-call, on that range.
Since this test-coil will likely not become a 'keeper',, you could probably get-by with an odd-number of layers, since these thicker gauge-sizes may cause the power-coil to become TOO-fat to fit, when wrapped over 5-layers thick.



" I'll look for some #18 today. "

____ That would probably be our preference,, so if you find that that-size snugly fits a whole-number of loop-turn rows within the particular width-space of the bobbin, then go-ahead & go with it.
____ You NOW have only four bobbins to work your winding-magic on...
So since I expect my-requested power-coil to be done on a small-bobbin, that then leaves one small & two large bobbins for the other power-windings to be tested.
Which of those three remaining bobbins is to be used for which power-windings, should be discussed-out before being done & shipped. ...
I'd expect that Bill would likely prefer the thick-gauge power-coil to be done on a large-bobbin,, but since my thin-gauged power-coil needs to be done on a small-bobbin, then for best comparison (between the two gauge-size extremes), I'd suggest that the thick-gauge power-coil also be a small-type version, as well.




" For the second set of windings, let's try this concept. "

____ I was going to suggest that we try BOTH-ways of winding the 'twin' power-winding/coils... Meaning that ONE bobbin would have both of it's coil-windings wound in the SAME-direction, while another bobbin would have just-one of it's two coil-windings wound in a reversed-direction,, so that the expected-effect could be compared with the lack-of the impedance-cancelling effect.
And, THAT comparison could be done with the two large-spools.



" I need from you a detailed re-explaination of just what this is going to do and how it's going to do it, "

____ I was hoping that you'd follow-up on requesting some added explanation (concerning the reasoning for both left-hand AND right-hind 'twin' power-windings), if Bill or anyone-else didn't do-so first.
__ Alright-now,, first it should be understood that 'impedance' is a form of resistance that only comes into play with 'alternating-current', (and-also to a much lesser extent with 'pulsating-DC') !
Keeping in-mind that AC is same as pulsed-DC except for flowing in BOTH directions alternately. _ Now next thinking of AC slowed way-down to just the very-beginning of a single pulse of it...
When the current first starts to flow through a (rather straight) wire, it's (rather concretely attached) flux-field begins to build-up 'around' the entire length of the wire,, and with nothing to impede that build-up of flux from fully-forming it's field as it's naturally inclined to always completely achieve, the only real resistance to the current-pulse is the physical-resistance of the wire's conducting-material. _ HOWEVER, when the wire is wound in tight-loops together, THEN the building flux-fields of the neighboring loops fight-against each-other as they begin to try occupying the SAME-space towards each-other's location, and since they're all the same polarity, those flux-fields try to repel each other very-much the same as trying to force together the same like-poles of two magnetic-bars (which repel-apart rather than attract-together like opposite-mag.poles). _ And since the flux-fields of flowing-electrons are rather strongly adhered with the electron-flow, (and the wire-loops are solidly-held in-place and-therefore can't move-apart so-as to accommodate the repelling-effect), then the current really can't freely flow until it's associated flux-field can finally become established (throughout the current-pathway through the coil). _ And that reluctance to become established, (which takes 90-degrees delay), is what the impedance-factor of a coil is !
And once the flux-fields are finally established to the extent which the rate of current-flow demands, THEN the current can finally freely flow on-ward WITHOUT anymore impedance-effect continuing to interfere ! Trouble-is, however,, just when a state of peace has finally been reached between the then finally-established flux-fields (of all the neighboring wire-loops), the AC.flow then reverses it's direction and-thus restarts the battle for field-space all over AGAIN, repeatedly ! _ So the impedance-factor remains constantly active and-therefore adds 'impedance' to the coiled-wire's own natural 'resistance', thus keeping AC.flow from easily passing-through the 'winding' !
(Of worthy-note is that the faster that AC changes from it's (rather short lived) states-of-peace, to the fight for field-space,, the greater then becomes the impedance-factor,
and that's why higher AC.frequencies cause greater amounts of 'impedance'.)
__ Now considering the dilemma of all the neighboring identically polarized-fields having-to expand-into & fight-over the same-space,, if all the contested space was already sufficiently saturated with the OPPOSITE polarized-field, THEN all the expanding flux-field from the winding-coil would be obliged to RATHER attract-towards that reciprocal polarized-field and-thus leave no like-fields left to repel each other. _ An unnatural/(non-neutral) circumstance as that, would actually cause NEGATIVE-impedance, (which would be an extra GOOD-thing ! -[As the rotor-magnets wouldn't have-to push as hard then.]), and-thus allow the winding-coil to provide most-all of it's produced-power to the connected load, (rather than merely share the power).
Somewhat likewise,, if the 'twin' power-windings (of one coil/core) are wound oppositely from each other, (while they're both providing power equally, of-course),, while that circumstance won't provide negative-impedance, the combined effect of both reciprocal-fields will total-out to neutralized-impedance, (as the two oppositely building fields thusly provide a preferred flux occupied space to build-up within, so that there's then no like-fields left needing to fight each-other over the available [normally neutral] space).
And without the normally effective impedance-factor, MORE of the produced-power will then be available for the intended-load !
So if winding-length leads-to increased impedance (as we seem to have discovered), then this impedance-canceling arrangement should make that issue a non-concern.
__ However,, while I'm confident that THIS 'twin' winding-arrangement, (which ought rather be referred-to as a 'mirrored-pair' arrangement), will indeed tend to cancel-out the undesired impedance-factor,, I'm not sure what resulting effect it will have on power-production, since the normally occurring multiple secondary flux-fields within the star-core will be reduced to JUST the primary-fields induced from the mag.rotor. _ And while it would sensibly seem that having the stator-core purely carrying only the flux-fields of just the mag.rotor alone, would be most-preferred for clean/strong power-production,, the fact that Ducati had bothered to wind every-other power-coil oppositely as they had, (instead of merely reversing pole-connections as otherwise required), leads me to consider that perhaps the secondary-mag.fields are possibly actually assistful to the primary-fields (of the mag.rotor).
Cuz IF the bottom-line/total power-production of the stock power-coil winding-arrangement is actually dependent upon the combination of both the primary AND secondary flux-fields combined-together within the stator/star-core,, then that (possible) collaboration would be lost with the 'mirrored-pair' power-winding arrangement, (since the secondary-fields would be canceled-out),
(which may possibly have a resulted loss in actual max.power-production, [or, MAYBE-even just the opposite-result ?]). _ I'm really NOT-sure about this aspect (regarding secondary-field effect within the core), so-thus the need for comparison-testing. _ (Hopefully Bill is also curious enough !)
__ This idea for mirror-paired power-windings first occurred to me back last-month when we were discussing the presents of secondary-fields within the star-core, and why simply reversing wire-connections (in lieu of winding-direction) to flip winding-polarity, was-not without resulting-consequence,, and I then began thinking that such an opposed-type twin-winding would take all the secondary-type fields out of the-picture altogether, (since the opposed-fields would cancel-out each-other before getting a chance to induce their respective fields into the stator-core).



" specifically how you want it wound- size and configuration... "

____ For the construction-details of the proposed 'twin' power-winding/coil and the 'mirrored-pair' power-winding/coil, it would probably take it's OWN-post to get all clearly laid-out. _ So for-now, please concentrate your winding-efforts on the (relatively easy to do) thick-gauged test-coil,, and let us know where-all you're at with everything at your-end, (after you've consumed all of THIS-post).
__ Then the-next coil-winding job should be 8-layers of double-wound #24-gauge, over the other (available) small-bobbin.



Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob

[wcorey]

I guess Bruce's latest coil winding arrangement info is actually old news, how quickly we forget...
I was going over the folder of stator drawings I had saved and ran across this one and also found that I had made particular note in my index of it's location (and thus, importance) in the old thread.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=556&hilit=alternator+modifications&start=150#p4452

[ecurbruce]

Bill says;"I guess Bruce's latest coil winding arrangement info is actually old news, how quickly we forget..."

So, there it is!
Then I guess that's confirmation.
Thanks, Bill
I have also gone back and reviewed through those pages, there's a LOT I've forgotten from there.

Bruce

[ecurbruce]

image.jpg

Next rewound coil;
#18 gauge copper ( measures .04175), small bobbin
Could only get four layers on,
Eleven turns per layer,
Total length 126 inches.
Bigger wire is definitely harder to wind, and takes up more extra space as I wind, doing the math, I should get six layers, but winding by hand only room for four, a little
disappointing...


Bob says;" ( defining impedance)...
__ Alright-now,, first it should be understood that 'impedance' is a form of resistance that only comes into play with 'alternating-current', (and-also to a much lesser extent with 'pulsating-DC') _....... And that reluctance to become established, (which takes 90-degrees delay), is what the impedance-factor of a coil is !

That's one of the better definitions of impedance that I've seen.


Bill says;"
Also the coil bobbins are brittle/delicate, fit tightly on the stator and it’s difficult not to cause damage when pulling them off. And two small coils have to move to remove a large one so lots of that is wise to avoid."

I agree, the bobbins are difficult to remove.
I came up with this...(you may have found something better, IDK)
Put a 13/16 open end wrench in the vice, with prongs facing up,
Then put the backside of the bobbin down against the wrench, and pull the stator right out of it. Retaining tab must be first bent down out of the way, of course.

Bruce

[DewCatTea-Bob]

[quote= ecurbruce ...
" rewound coil;
#18 gauge
Could only get four layers on,
Eleven turns per layer,
a little disappointing... "

____ I must first point-out that I really don't mean to actually imply that you ought-to try-again but, it looks to me that you could've quite possibly fitted 12 loop-turns per layer (with most-all of the space-gaps between loops mostly eliminated),, and while I'm not too awfully surprised that you couldn't fit SIX-layers, I'd still figure that 5-layers could've worked. _ Although in order to complete such an odd-number of layers, you'd then have-to run the final-loop's (rather extended) end, back-over the top-layer to a terminal-point at the base of the spool, (much like will have-to be done with the outboard-coil of the 'twin' power-coils).



" That's one of the better definitions of impedance that I've seen. "

____ I tried to keep it basic,, a MIT.professor in the field, would probably explain it with more complex terms & details.
__ (I expect to add more wording here later).



" I agree, the bobbins are difficult to remove. "

____ Do they really NEED to-be removed from the stator-core in order to remove & add the wire-windings ?


____ Bruce, could you please post a picture-shot (that's rather squarely taken) of a bare bobbin laying-over (or even standing-up), so that it's winding-cavity is fully clearly visible ?
Cuz I wish to use such a pic.shot to help explain how the 'twin' coil-windings may be done.
-B.

[wcorey]

I agree, the bobbins are difficult to remove.
I came up with this...(you may have found something better, IDK)
Put a 13/16 open end wrench in the vice, with prongs facing up,

Looks to be a good method, assuming that there's no other bobbin on either side of the one you're removing.
In my situation there are most always bobbins/coils on either side so not much room to work.

Bigger wire is definitely harder to wind, and takes up more extra space as I wind, doing the math, I should get six layers, but winding by hand only room for four, a little disappointing...

I can imagine the bigger wire is problematic, the corners wouldn't square up as easily and you probably can't push/pack it into place with much force without chancing splitting the bobbins.
IIRC, JBCollier's heavier wire stator had the same overall wire length as the four coil but spread out over six coils.
The advantage there would appear to be in the reduced resistance that allowed for a single (grand) series arrangement.

" I agree, the bobbins are difficult to remove. "

____ Do they really NEED to-be removed from the stator-core in order to remove & add the wire-windings ?

They only need to come off if the bobbin is wound a bit oversize (which was the case with the first set) as the wire nearly touches the backing/mounting plate and then only for the first layer removed. It would be doable but a pain to add wire with the bobbin in place.

[ecurbruce]

image.jpg

Bob says;"
... and while I'm not too awfully surprised that you couldn't fit SIX-layers, I'd still figure that 5-layers could've worked."

Ok, I added one layer to this small spool, it's usable like this just for testing purposes, but the large coil will only fit four layers,( just info for the future) because the backing plate to the stator has a step at the large spool positions which decreases clearance for the wire. Interesting thought, though, is more layers on the small spool compared to the large spool would get the wire lengths closer to the same length, for whatever that's worth...

Adds 39.5 inches, total is 165.5 inches


" I agree, the bobbins are difficult to remove. "

____ Do they really NEED to-be removed from the stator-core in order to remove & add the wire-windings ?

They only need to come off if the bobbin is wound a bit oversize (which was the case with the first set) as the wire nearly touches the backing/mounting plate and then only for the first layer removed. It would be doable but a pain to add wire with the bobbin in place.

I'd say the bobbins are easier to remove than to wind on the stator, just too much "stuf" in the way.

Bruce

[DewCatTea-Bob]

[quote= ecurbruce ...
" I added one layer to this small spool, it's usable like this just for testing purposes, "

____ Right,, as I had mentioned before, an odd/top-layer can be acceptable for just testing-purposes.
____ Thanks for the bobbin-pic, as it's just as I had asked for ! _ However I guess I also should've asked for a pic.shot which shows the particular locations of the hole-ways intended for wire exit/entry (for accessing the winding-space) in the bobbins.
A pair of similar holes may ought to be drilled into the opposite-ends of the bobbins, so as to help hold in place the outboard-winding/coils.
Do you think you could easily add such retainment-holes through the bobbin's winding-retainer walls ?



" the large coil will only fit four layers,
Interesting thought, though, is more layers on the small spool compared to the large spool would get the wire lengths closer to the same length, "

____ If anyone should ever wish to construct a six power-coil with 18-gauge wire, then that would likely be a worthy advantage to take advantage-of. _ Although I think the thicker-wire would only be of some superior use just for 6v.systems,, or possibly for a SINGLE power-winding alt.stator arrangement (like JB.C probably has), with a near standard-wattage load-system.



" I'd say the bobbins are easier to remove than to wind on the stator, just too much "stuf" in the way. "

____ I failed to closely look-over the complete-stators before packing them for shipping but,, I had assumed that the stator-core could be rather easily removed from the stator-plate, more-so than removing the spools off-from the core-fingers !?
Would recombining the star-core back-onto the stator-plate, be a bigger-problem (than the already practiced alternative) ?


Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob