Troubleshooting Alternator Wiring

[ecurbruce]

Bob says;"
____ 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. "

9 volt brick. I'll put a new one in tomorrow, and retest.

Bruce

[DewCatTea-Bob]

[quote= ecurbruce ...
" 9 volt brick. "

____ That's somewhat unexpected, as they don't have much current capacity to maintain their full 9-volts for as long.
Some meters have two separate battery circuits (with differing battery types), for running separate functions,, so it could be that the 9v.bat is only meant for just running a digital-display, and there's then possibly an AA-cell dedicated just for powering the ohm-meter circuit (and hidden behind a separate access-cover).
Anyhow, check whether or not your present 9-volt battery is weakened much below 9-volts.


Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob

[DewCatTea-Bob]

____ Okay,, there's really no reason for me to continue to hold-up & wait before moving-onward further towards the next steps.....


[quote= ecurbruce ...
" 24 gauge, 8 layers fits just snugly right.
Resistance- approximate with my meter,
both coils together is 0.6 ohm. "

____ If we go-ahead & accept that the #24-gauge double-windings of the small power-coil (together in parallel) yield ".6" ohms, then we could figure that a large power-coil (of same) would accordingly have .9-ohms.
So then with both pairs of power-coils connected-up as intended, the TOTAL-resistance of such a 'double-wound' 4-coil stator would be .75-ohms ! - ( [.6 + .9] /2 = .75)
__ Now if 'resistance' alone was all we had to be concerned with, then we would've gone too-far with trying to get it lowered-down,, because any feasible hefty load-system would still have a resistance-level not much lower than 2-ohms, (which would be a significant 'mismatch' with the stator's ".75") !
However we actually wish to get the resistance of the stator as low as possible anyhow, because it gets combined with our main-foe 'IMPEDANCE', (which increases along-with coil-loop density). _ And once the impedance-factor gets included, then we could rather end-up with a mismatch in the OTHER direction, despitely/still anyhow !
__ If the chosen 12v.load-system happened to draw 80-watts, then it's resistance would be near 2-ohms,, and that would mean that our double-wound stator would then be most efficient (with transferring ALL it's available-power), by producing just 1.25-ohms worth of 'impedance'. _ And that ideal*amount (combined along-with the .75-ohm resistance, [* for the 80-watts of load] ), may be too low to be obtainable,, so actually we can't possibly get the total-resistance (of the 4-coil stator) reduced too low, for our desired goal/objective !

____ Next thing on the agenda, is to complete a 'twin-winding' on a large-bobbin.
I've concluded that the twin power-windings ought-to each be 14 or 15 loop-turns of #23-gauge, hopefully eight-layers deep.
__ Bruce, do you think such a twin power-coil will present any problems ?
It would be fortunate to attain 8-layers, since Ducati had only wound 4-layers and the intended purpose of the 'twin-winding' is to obtain virtually twice as many power-coils as the stock-stator had (and-then possibly twice as much power as well).
I've included a drawing which depicts the first-layer of both windings,, which may possibly indicate the wrong winding-direction, as this regular-type 'twin-winding' should be wound in the same direction as Ducati had wound all the large power-coils. _ However the depicted winding-direction is 'right-hand' and I do believe that's the same direction which you had stated the stock large-coils were wound-in, (back last fall,'13).

____ Within the first/top main-paragraph of this post, I mentioned "coil-loop density" in connection with 'impedance'...
In regards to that, I'll now elaborate some reasoning associated with such.
__ It's fairly-well understood that a length of wire that's left straight & unwound, doesn't suffer any impedance-effect that could impede AC.current-flow,, and even if rolled-up into just a very-few large loops, no significant impedance-effect is expected to become a noteworthy factor, (although a very-slight amount of impedance is then inevitable). _ However, as the same length of wire is more tightly wound into smaller & smaller loops,, the area-space which the wire becomes confined to, causes the magnetic-fields (of AC) to become more dense,, which in turn, increases the impedance-effect !
__ The rather extravagant 'double-winding' power-coil which Bill has already tested, seems to have really suffered from excessive loop-turn density, and-so apparently it's produced power was accordingly highly-curtailed by excessive impedance-effect.
It was this spawned reasoning which originally led to my thought of separating the two wire-lengths of the double-winding, into rather separated singular 'twin-windings',, in some hope of cutting-down the resulting impedance.
However I've since concluded that while that may seem to alleviate flux-field interaction -(field collision) directly between the two lengths, it's likely a rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul type of situation,, as the change in winding-layout really doesn't alter the coil-loop density, and-so the resulting impedance-effect ought-to end-up being pretty-much the same anyhow.
But yet, we still have the new reason for making the regular-type twin-winding power-coil,, (which I'll go-into later).
____ The desired #23-gauge wire intended for the twin-winding power-coils, may seem to-be too thin,, and alone, it indeed would be. _ However with the two lengths (of the twin-windings) combined in parallel, the total current-carrying capability is the same as the stock #20-gauge ! _ So that factor is-not sacrificed whilst we also obtain the beneficial factor of increased coil-winding length !
So this is why the #23-gauge wire-size is the preferred choice (for the test power-coil), as it can be more fairly compared to it's stock counterpart.


Hopeful-Cheers,
DCT-Bob
(Now twice edited.)