Troubleshooting Alternator Wiring

[DewCatTea-Bob]

____ Well fellows, it seems that perhaps it's been left up to me to give this thread a kick-start to finally get it revived for further progress (BEFORE next-year).
Of-course I haven't ever forgotten of it,, I-myself have been putting-off getting back to re-concentrating on this thread cuz of my recent-past chain of health conditions (which began back-in the first-week of Oct.2013). _ The main reason for why I've been responding to OTHER threads but not this-one, is because all my doctors demand that I remain staying-off the two main types of regular/over-the-counter pain-relievers (due-to my recovering stomach for one, and my recovering liver for the other), thus only leaving left available for me just the prescription-only (mind altering) narcotic-types of pain-medication to rely on.
The reason that my med.situation hasn't mattered so much with all the other posts I've been placing within OTHER threads, is because THEY were concerned mostly with just topic-subjects that only taxed just my memory,, but THIS-thread's line of subject matter doesn't draw on much of any memory, but rather much more-so on my mind-thinking processes, which has been fairly much too stifled to concentrate with while under the side-effect influence of the 'controlled-substance' type of pain-maskers, (one of which I'm still taking). _ But now I've recently been trying to get switched back-over to taking aspirin again, so I hope to soon be better able to concentrate on this thread's particular topic-matter once-again.
____ If fully successful,, I then expect to get-back to the more pertinent stuff here, hopefully sometime during the next few days. _ So please check-back later for continuing progress here.
__ For those who happen to find this-bit of lighter-shaded wording still posted, HAPPY New Year to ya !

____ I hope that others of us didn't mind too much about the lapse of continued-progress on this thread, and haven't completely lost interest !
Of-course not to say that we need to jump back into the thick of all this stuff right-away, as it's apparently not a pressing matter to get concluded any time real-soon, (and so that's another reason for why I've been giving precedence to other thread-posts which had more urgent concerns).

____ Next, I expect to add a condensed rehash of where we're at so-far here, so that we can continue-on somewhat refreshed. _ (Whether I do-so here within this-post or another, depends-on whether anyone-else submits a post before or after I finally get to the expected task.)


Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob

[ecurbruce]

Happy new year Bob, ( and all fellow forum members!), I hope for you good health for the new year, and welcome back...

I'm still interested in where this will go next, though there's no rush, I've been waiting for your instruction on specifics to what you want next.

Bruce

[wcorey]

Hey Bob, Bruce and Everyone,

I didn't mind taking a break from it at all but am ready to start back up anytime, no rush...

Happy new year!

[DewCatTea-Bob]

____ The reason I've now finally gotten back to this thread is because BAD-weather knocked-out my power for near 27-hours (beginning mid-day on the 12th), which then gave me chance to get near 24-hours of rather steady sleep,, but even with power restored, I still had no cable-service (thus no TV or internet) until the evening of the 15th !
SO thusly, while I was quite well rested & mentally-alert (for the first-time since before I entered the hospital last fall), I then also became very-BOARD during most-all of that following 49-hour period ! _ And since my obligation to THIS-thread has never been off my mind, (at-least not for any longer than the greatest number of hours between my monitorings of this w.site),, I chose to break the boredom by taking the opportunity to finally begin getting the cogs turning in my head once-again, concerning most-all the details of our intended alt.stator power-coil rewinding-experiment/project.
And-so I've now just-about finally gotten myself back-up to (pre hospital-stay) speed on what-all is what with that which we've had going-on here. _ (Before this point, all this stuff had become rather foggy in my mind,, so we can thank mother-nature for the forward-stumble, I guess.)
__ BTW, I found this thread had been displaced back-to the upper-half of page-4.
____ And so now to carry-on forthward.....



____ To refresh what the goal-plan has become here,, we wish to determine the best way to rewind Ducati's 6-pole alt.stator-coils (more specifically for powering rather HIGH power-demanding load-systems).
So we have one-pair of the small & one-pair of the large (now empty) power-coil bobbins to rewind in four different (and hopefully improved) designs, for testing to discover which winding-design will put-out the best.
__ Bruce had already finished rewinding a small-bobbin with 4 or 5 layers of a single winding of 18-gauge wire, (in place of Ducati's pair of two-layered dual-windings of 20-gauge).
I-myself really don't expect such a larger gauged (and conversely shorter length) winding to provide any productive advantage (for use with a 12v.systems), however I do believe there's potential leaning-value in testing such a power-coil so as to help establish a more widened baseline-sequence to hopefully better define how wire-gauge & winding-length (and resulting impedance-hampering, etc) all factor-out with all our differing power-coil trails.
__ The next rewinding-job for Bruce was to be a double-winding of 8-layers of #24-gauge onto the other small-bobbin.
The pair of #24-wires are equal to #21-gauge wire in current-capacity, and thusly should be sufficient for a 12v.system,, (whereas however, if rather for a 6v.system,, we'd then prefer a double-winding of #22-gauge, probably just 6-layers thick).
__ Then the next intended rewinding-jobs were to be the 'twin' windings, (rather than Ducati's 'dual' or our 'double' windings), onto the two large-bobbins. - (The difference between the 'dual' windings & the 'twin' windings is that Ducati's dual-pair [of 2 winding-layers] are stacked*together one upon the other, whereas the 'twin' pair of windings are wound with their separately-stacked layers rather placed side-by-side. _ The advantage of which is IMPORTANT so as to be able to precisely 'MATCH' the pair of power-coil/windings for most efficient parallel operation,
[* as the stacked dual-pair are naturally of unequal length, since the outer-layers (wrapped-around the inner-layers) must be longer] !)
__ And still further-yet,, I much wish to not-only create a common-standard/normally-wound twin-winding power-coil, yet-ALSO an identical but rather 'mirror-imaged' twin-winding power-coil as well. - (I will go-into the details of the reasoning for this significant variance, later.)



[quote= ecurbruce ...
" I've been waiting for your instruction on specifics to what you want next. "

____ Well Bruce, after you've gotten-around to getting-to helping determine exactly what the expected double-winding on the other small-bobbin will finally work-out to be, (concerning our end-chosen wire-gauge & number of layers),, then I'll be able to better determine the related specifics concerning the intended 'twin' power-coils, (which have always been expected to be done afterwards).
__ Concerning the particular construction of these two twin-winding power-coils,, in order to wind the intended second/outboard-winding onto the outer-half/end of the bobbin, a method of some sort for getting it's circuit-connection lead-ends to & from that rather remote winding-coil, has to be devised.
I-myself haven't conceived any other tidy-way to accomplish the extended-connection, other than is (hopefully obviously) depicted in the pic.drawing (which shows the inner extended connection-lead spanning straight from the bobbin's base-plate and across/against the bobbin-floor/wall directly to the bobbin's top-plate, where the winding-lead then passes through a drilled eyelet-hole in the top-plate, so as to become anchored at the remote-end of the bobbin).
The pic.drawing goes-on to depict the winding-lead re-threaded back-through another drilled eyelet-hole to the beginning-point of the actual 'winding', of which the drawing only shows the start of just the very-first loop-turn (of the intended outboard-coil/winding).
__ The intended twin power-coil rewinding-job (with it's inboard & outboard windings), apparently requires a couple of extra hardships (compared to a standard rewinding job)...
The foremost difficult aspect would be the drilling of the eyelet-holes in the top-plates (of the large-bobbins). _ Those anchoring-holes are shown to be inclined at about a 30-degree angle (so as to make it easier on the resulting wire-bends), but that particular angle is-not actually required and is merely to suggest that if those eyelet-holes are to be hand-drilled, that they rather be merely tilt-orientated towards the indicated angle-bias.
The next-most difficult aspect of this rather special rewinding-job, will be that in order to keep the two separate inboard & outboard coil-windings held-up in-place at their mutual center-location, (oppositely of the bobbin-plates [where there will be no equivalent plate to butt-up against for winding-layer end-support]),
you'd probably have-to successively wind just one layer-set of loop-turns (per opposite coil-winding, every-other time), for each of the two separate power-coil windings. _ Cuz in that way, the successively stacked-layers of the two coil-windings can then be butted-up against each-other (for mutual-support [without need of any center-located support-plate] ).

____ Bruce, please don't feel any need to rather hastily get-started right-away with proceeding-onward yet, until sometime after you've had any related concerns all cleared-up and have confirmed that you correctly-comprehend & fully-realize everything involved (at-least at your-end).
Please make your primary-concern at this-point concentrated-on the double-winding of the second small-bobbin,, then-nextly, you may begin also addressing any concerns related to the intended 'twin' power-coil winding-jobs.
__ I still yet intend to create a couple more drawing-pix which show indication of the planned varied windings for the two expected 'twin' power-coils. _ But they ought-not be needed quite yet, until after we get ourselves all back on-track & going again (concerning most-all of the [yet to-be finally-determined] details for this project-endeavor).

____ This-post has already become too-big to include much more of anything else, so I'll hold-off on further related details until they become more appropriate to address, within successive posts.


Hopeful-Cheers,
DCT.Bob

[ecurbruce]

Hi Bob,
I still have everything sitting around in limbo, waiting for the momentum to pick up... one empty small spool, two empty large spools, 24 gauge 22 gauge wire (as well as other sizes). I have the one small 18 gauge bobbin ready to be tested...
On that remaining small spool, I'll go ahead and double-wind with 24 gauge to 8 layers, and let you see what that looks like.

A question about the "twin windings",- what size wire are you thinking about to wind them?

Bob says"I-myself haven't conceived any other tidy-way to accomplish the extended-connection, other than is (hopefully obviously) depicted in the pic.drawing (which shows the inner extended connection-lead spanning straight from the bobbin's base-plate and across/against the bobbin-floor/wall directly to the bobbin's top-plate, where the winding-lead then passes through a drilled eyelet-hole in the top-plate, so as to become anchored at the remote-end of the bobbin).
The pic.drawing goes-on to depict the winding-lead re-threaded back-through another drilled eyelet-hole to the beginning-point of the actual 'winding', of which the drawing only shows the start of just the very-first loop-turn (of the intended outboard-coil/winding). "

Sounds like what I had in mind of doing as well, with the addition of a return wire pre-installed on the floor of the bobbin to connect the end of the completed outside coil to. Whereas the eyelet-holes for the beginning wire are drilled close to the bobbin floor to route the beginning wire close to the start of the coil windings, the eyelet-holes for the return wire will be positioned one at the outtermost edge of the bobbin's top plate to receive the end of the coil winding, then one eyelet-hole drilled directly below that outtermost hole- next to the bobbin floor, for the pre-installed wire to enter from, continue across the bobbin floor, and exit the bobbin's base plate through the last eyelet-hole drilled close to the bobbin floor. That pre-installed second exit wire can be soldered to the end of the completed coil wire on the outside of the bobbin top plate.

Did I describe that in a way that is understandable?
Your thoughts?


Bob says,"The next-most difficult aspect of this rather special rewinding-job, will be that in order to keep the two separate inboard & outboard coil-windings held-up in-place at their mutual center-location, (oppositely of the bobbin-plates [where there will be no equivalent plate to butt-up against for winding-layer end-support]),
you'd probably have-to successively wind just one layer-set of loop-turns (per opposite coil-winding, every-other time), for each of the two separate power-coil windings. _ Cuz in that way, the successively stacked-layers of the two coil-windings can then be butted-up against each-other (for mutual-support [without need of any center-located support-plate] ). "

I had in mind a removable "clamshell type shim" (big-old nut sawn in half and shaped to size...) to take the place of one of the coils while winding the first coil. After that first coil is in place, the shim removed and a paper isolator placed next to the first coil prior to winding the second coil...
Any thoughts???

Bruce

[DewCatTea-Bob]

____ Sorry for my delayed response... I've been without internet-service since the 22nd (due-to Comcast unexpectedly turning-off their service since my payments didn't include also paying for their out-of-the-blue & fictitious charge for a "Voice Modem" which I've never even had but yet mysteriously still became added amongst the list of other monthly-charges). _ After months (and several hours of phoning) trying to get the frustrating issue resolved, I've finally gotten a little satisfaction on THIS day and it's now hopefully all permanently dealt-with this time.




[quote= ecurbruce ... "
" On that remaining small spool, I'll go ahead and double-wind with 24 gauge to 8 layers, and let you see what that looks like. "

____ That's a particular effort which had already been left up to you to get done whenever it became rather convenient. _ So I've thought perhaps you had yet to acquire the wire or some-other related hurtle, before continuing-on.
And just as you may've come to realize that 6-layers of 18-gauge would've made the other small power-coil too fat, please also do likewise concerning the 8-layers of 24-gauge (or #22).

____ While concerning the subject of the 'double-winding' power-coil,, the intended purpose of it's special construction is to increase the length of it's magnetic-field 'cutting' capability, so as to likewise increase the amount of power that the resulted power-coil can possibly generate.
However since the longer & thinner #24-gauged wire also increases the resistance of the coil/winding (which in-turn reduces current-flow through the entire connected load-circuit),, we must accordingly divide the total-length of the winding into half-lengths and 'double' them together in parallel which then cuts-down the total winding-resistance to just 25%, (and also thusly making it equal to the same current-capacity of an equal length of gauge #21, yet the total-length of the resulted-winding is twice as long).
__ The desired reduction of the power-coil's resistance is quite important because,, the less resistance that IT-itself has, then thusly the less power that's dropped-across IT, (AND-thus the more produced-power that's left available for the intended-load) !




" A question about the "twin windings",- what size wire are you thinking about to wind them? "

____ That's something which ultimately needs to be finally-determined AFTER we see how well things turn-out with the double-winding that you're currently concerned with. _ So while I had previously been thinking-of gauge-#s of 24; 23; & 22 before, the actual final-choice (for testing) is still not been definitely pinned-down yet.



" Sounds like what I had in mind of doing as well, with the addition of a return wire pre-installed on the floor of the bobbin to connect the end of the completed outside coil to. Whereas the eyelet-holes for the beginning wire are drilled close to the bobbin floor to route the beginning wire close to the start of the coil windings, the eyelet-holes for the return wire will be positioned one at the outtermost edge of the bobbin's top plate to receive the end of the coil winding, then one eyelet-hole drilled directly below that outtermost hole- next to the bobbin floor, for the pre-installed wire to enter from, continue across the bobbin floor, and exit the bobbin's base plate through the last eyelet-hole drilled close to the bobbin floor. That pre-installed second exit wire can be soldered to the end of the completed coil wire on the outside of the bobbin top plate.
Did I describe that in a way that is understandable? "

____ Yes, I believe-so,, as I think I've correctly pictured your concept in my mind's-eye. _ And in the past, a very similar routing concept had passed-through my-own mind, but I had thought it to-be too complex not-only to clearly convey, but also too troublesome to actually accomplish.
__ Certainly as a matter of course, I've naturally been expecting to get-around to addressing this matter of exactly how to wire-route the return-line (from the opposite-end of the outboard-coil/winding),, and had planned to do-so when I finally post the planned pic.drawings of the intended twin-winding power-coils.
But since you've brought-up the matter now, I'll reveal that I was going to suggest that in addition to the pair of wire-anchoring eyelet-holes which are to-be located down-near the stator-core (at the bobbin-floor),, that another-pair of such eyelet-holes be located (rather directly) outward/above the first-pair, so as to also anchor the return-line (from the outboard-winding).
The rather slight disadvantage of this (merely suggested) wire-routing design-method, is obviously that the resulted winding-lead/return-line would have-to end-up laying-across the outer-side of the winding-coils (instead of between their inner-side & the bobbin-floor). _ And of-course that then means that the finished power-coil would benefit from being wrapped-up, so as to be sure of securing-down the return-line.
__ While YOUR-way could be superior, it's probably more difficult to get accomplished.
So whichever, I suppose this particular design decision ought be left up-to YOU, (although anyone-else is welcome to offer their opinion).



" I had in mind a removable "clamshell type shim" (big-old nut sawn in half and shaped to size...) to take the place of one of the coils while winding the first coil. After that first coil is in place, the shim removed and a paper isolator placed next to the first coil prior to winding the second coil...
Any thoughts??? "

____ Well, while I do understand how you'd expect the first completed coil-winding to be end-supported while under construction,, I'm thinking that not-only is the construction of your "clamshell" holder a considerable task in itself, but also that once it's removed (to make room for the second-winding), the then unsupported loop-turns of the upper-layers (of the rather fully-completed winding) would then be able to fall-over & tumble-down out of place (and into the space reserved for the other coil/winding).
__ If you correctly comprehend the rather alternated winding-method which I've suggested (for the inboard & outboard windings), then you ought realize how it adequately addresses such points of nonsupport.
However Bruce, the particular method which you prefer to choose (to accomplish the end-goal) for completing the twin-windings, of-course ought-to be up-to YOU.

____ While concerning the subject of the 'twin-winding' power-coils... I conceived of them more seriously, after learning of the quite disappointing test-results that Bill had determined with his testing of the first 'double-winding' power-coil.
Before not too long after that time, I then hadn't before conceived of any reason for exactly why the double-winding's performance wasn't anywhere near as great as I had expected,, and I've always thought that it's paired winding-lengths should perform pretty-much the same as if independently wound in two separate winding-coils. _ So-then I thought it would be of relevant interest to actually compare-test otherwise identical 'double-winding' & 'twin-winding' power-coils. _ And then the conception of actually constructing twin-winding power-coils seemed to be worth really trying-out, as that-way would more-certainly be the very-same as having twice the quantity of power-coils (and-thus much like having TWO identical alternators combined into just ONE) !
__ Since Bruce has determined that there's extra volume-space available (which Ducati hadn't taken full advantage of), for possible inclusion of ADDITIONAL winding-lengths around the bobbins,, I sensibly reasoned that we then ought-to attempt to place TWO separate (but rather identical) "twin" windings onto each bobbin, and (hopefully) make EACH of them nearly as equal in length (as possible) to the combined original-lengths of BOTH of the stock 'dual-windings'. _ Thus possibly ending-up with a 6-pole alternator of which it's resulted available-power/wattage would be equivalent to near-around twice that of the stock-version.
At-least that would be the goal of the intended normal 'twin-winding'.
__ This conception wouldn't be so feasible for a 6v.system, since the expected chosen rather thinner-wire stator-windings wouldn't be very compliant with the higher current-rates required with 6-volt operation,, however with a 12v.system, we can then certainly have higher-hopes for sufficient current-handling capability.


____ I might add more stuff to this post later, (if no other related posts are added in the mean-time),, as I still have yet to similarly cover related stuff rather concerning my conceived anti-impedance version of the nextly intended 'mirrored-image' twin-winding power-coil.
D.Bob

[ecurbruce]

This thread is certainly moving at a slower pace than early on, I've been busier lately, and lacking motivation, been out riding my 250 monza...

Anyway, here's the small coil, double wound, 24 gauge, 8 layers fits just snugly right.
Each layer has 21 turns, each separate coil of the double wound arrangement is 21 feet long for a total length of 42 feet.

Resistance- approximate with my meter, each coil separate- 1 ohm, both coils together is 0.6 ohm. So the measurement of the separate coils must be a high range 1 ohm- if my meter measured a couple decimal points, it may read up to 1.50 ohms??? Somewhere between 1 and 1.5 ohms.

I pictured the 18 gauge and 24 gauge side-by-side just for visual comparison.


Bruce

[DewCatTea-Bob]

[quote= ecurbruce ...
" This thread is certainly moving at a slower pace "

____ I assume it doesn't matter much, so long as we can have Bill back down in his basement again, sometime before it once-again becomes too cold, (and perhaps on a hot day when he'd prefer occupying himself in a cooler location).
So I guess we're not too off-track so-far.



" been out riding my 250 monza... "

____ How well has it's charging-system been holding-up against your headlight's power-consumption ?



" here's the small coil, double wound, 24 gauge, 8 layers fits just snugly right. "
Each layer has 21 turns, "

____ I'm confused about the "21" loop-turns per layer...
If you're winding-on a 'double' length of wire -(meaning a pair of wires simultaneously wrapped side-by-side, both together at once), then how is it possible to have such an ODD number of loop-turns in any single layer ? _ I'd expect that each layer would have-to have an EVEN-number, such as 20 or 22 loop-turns.
How do you account for the odd-number ?



" Resistance- approximate with my meter, each coil separate- 1 ohm, both coils together is 0.6 ohm. "

____ Good-thing the double-winding is-not to be connected in series with itself,, as that would then yield a total resistance of 2 or 2.4 ohms, (which of-course would be unacceptably high for our intended purpose).
As expected, the parallel result of .6-ohms is nearer to what's most desired.
However, the intended plan for a modified 6-pole stator with 'double-windings', would require the three small-coils to each be connected in series with one of the three larger-coils,, which figures-out to be 1.5-ohms -(.6 + .9) for each of the three paired sections. _ And-then once those three sections have all been connected together in parallel, the end-result would then have the whole modified-stator ending-up with a total-resistance of .5-ohms ! _ (Which I think may still be a little high,, but a fairly great outcome, none-the-less).



" So the measurement of the separate coils must be a high range 1 ohm- if my meter measured a couple decimal points, it may read up to 1.50 ohms??? Somewhere between 1 and 1.5 ohms. "

____ I understand what you mean... It's too-bad that ohm-meters aren't more accurate at such low resistance-readings.
As you've figured, your meter's read-out of "1" is more of a rounded-off reading,, and it's likely supposed to-be more like 1.2-ohms, as your meter's more sensitive reading (of both in parallel) is accordingly 'half', at ".6".



" I pictured the 18 gauge and 24 gauge side-by-side just for visual comparison. "

____ BTW, how did the resistance of the 18Ga.winding compare ?
__ Thanks for the pix,
AND-also your continued contribution !!


Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob

[ecurbruce]

Bob says;"
____ How well has it's charging-system been holding-up against your headlight's power-consumption ? "

I'm using a 12 volt 65 watt headlamp bulb in an extended charging system test...
Under 3500 RPM- the charging system doesn't like it much at all. 12.5 volts kicks in about at 3500 RPM, above that the headlamp is plenty bright, but below that it's running off the battery. The battery is staying charged, though, running enough high RPM's to compensate for the too large bulb.
I'll probably try a 55 watt bulb next.

Bob says;"
If you're winding-on a 'double' length of wire -(meaning a pair of wires simultaneously wrapped side-by-side, both together at once), then how is it possible to have such an ODD number of loop-turns in any single layer ? _ I'd expect that each layer would have-to have an EVEN-number, such as 20 or 22 loop-turns.

What happens is- when I come to the end of a layer, one of the two wires that I'm winding usually overlaps in the transition to the next layer before the second wire does. It's not an exact wind, more of an average. Some may have 22 loops, some may have 20 loops, just depends how tight they lay, and how they transition the change of layer...

Bob says;"
____ BTW, how did the resistance of the 18Ga.winding compare ?

That 18 gauge coil is 5 layers,13 feet 9 inches, one continuous winding.

I tried to get an ohms reading, my meter has become very UNRELIABLE... It may or may not be 0.1 ohms.
I don't trust the figures that I posted about the 24 gauge coils either at this point. Time for a new meter.

Bruce

[DewCatTea-Bob]

[quote= ecurbruce ...
" I'm using a 12 volt 65 watt headlamp bulb in an extended charging system test...
I'll probably try a 55 watt bulb next. "

____ Well the 55w may be a better permanent choice,, but if truly performing a test of your non-stock charging-system, then a stronger (rather than weaker) bulb ought-to be installed & tried-out next, instead.
__ What are you using for a taillight-bulb ?
____ For testing, it would be beneficial to have an ammeter connected-up (like many Brit.bikes have permanently employed).



" It's not an exact wind, more of an average. "

____ Very acceptable extended-explanation you've given to my question !
So I guess the same could be expected with other gauge-sizes of wire as well.



" my meter has become very UNRELIABLE...
Time for a new meter. "

____ Ohm-meters much depend on a strong (or fresh) battery,, and taking ohm-readings from near short-circuits as you've recently done, is relatively very draining on the battery. _ So it's more likely that you just need to take-out your meter's battery and use the DCv.meter to check that it's battery is at-least 1.5-volts strong.
__ Let me know whether that battery failed to reach 1.5-volts* after having been freshly re-stressed again.
(* Assuming that your particular meter uses a std.battery, and not a button-type [which I think should rather be 2.2-volts].)


Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob