Troubleshooting Alternator Wiring

[wcorey]

Bob, sorry to hear of your unfortunate circumstances due to our sometimes questionable health insurance system.
I'd like to think that their motives for such things are simply short sighted and not due to their seeking a more
'permanent solution' as you suggested could have been (shudder).
Glad you came out of it ok and are getting back on track.

____ First I thought we had found that the 'optimum' load-value was near 4-ohms -(which I now believe was for both the large & small coils in parallel/SERIES/parallel)

Yes, that was both coils, peak was somewhere between 3 and 4 ohms.

...then lastly-before: "3ohm",, but-NOW you've found the optimum-load for Bruce's large-coil is at "2 ohm"...
What seems to be amiss ?

Where did the "3ohm" come from? I seem to be missing that data point somehow, the only place I'm seeing that figure is on the small coil series test.

____ First question is,, is the "(48")" of the removed outermost-layer of the 'double-winding', actually 2-lengths of 48-inches (for a total of 96" total-length), OR, have you already added-together that removed double-winding's two-lengths, thus-then meaning that the combined outer-layer was actually just 24-inches long ?

Two 48" lengths, 96" total.

Anyhow,, is your method for measuring weight capable of measuring the weight of the removed winding-layer, down-to fractions of a gram ?

My reloading scale is claimed be be accurate to .01 gram.

____ Considering the measured inconsistencies, I-myself really can't see where it's very predictable at all !

For practical purposes, it's very predictable, output will go down...

__ Did you measure the weight of the large-coil before you removed it's outer-layer ?
How does the large-coil's weight now compare to the small-coil's, presently ?

I weighed it (and posted it) when I first received it and have not weighed it with the one layer removed.

I'm having trouble understanding the reason for pursuing much of this minutiae, seems purely academic at this point, starting to feel like I'm just beating a dead horse. It doesn't seem to be leading to any practical solutions to the goal of improving the stock alt and time spent here may be much better spent on a different track.
Where are we going with this? Just bidding time until another alternative set of windings are done?
Seems like yet another never ending rat hole...

[ecurbruce]

Bob says;"

__ While all-that sheds doubt that the impedance-factor seems to be non-linearly increasing as the windings get longer,, what more clearly indicates (and tends to definitely confirm) that the impedance increases at a greater-factor than increased winding-lengths, is that the larger-coil which is only about 50% longer (than the small-coil), still has around 233% as much impedance (which is about 133% MORE, [not just 50% more impedance]) !

Bob, not only is it not linear, it's not even algebraic.
Apparently, from what I can find, its vector trigonometry.
See this article. http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResource ... edance.htm
It's way beyond my capacity to solve such equations, but it does explain the elements involved in a way I can comprehend it.

Bruce

[DewCatTea-Bob]

...then lastly-before: "3ohm",, but-NOW you've found the optimum-load for Bruce's large-coil is at "2 ohm"...
What seems to be amiss ?

Where did the "3ohm" come from?

____ I don't know what I was thinking at the time, I now guess I must've been confused,, so THAT's what was actually "amiss" ! ...
The "3ohm" must've came-from your Oct.2nd-post, (concerning another test [of BOTH coils]).



" My reloading scale is claimed be be accurate to .01 gram. "

____ IMPRESSIVE !
__ Wonder just how long a piece of wire has to be, in order to weigh merely-just 1/100th of a gram !?

____ Considering the measured inconsistencies, I-myself really can't see where it's very predictable at all !

For practical purposes, it's very predictable, output will go down...

____ Well of-course that's what I WOULD'VE expected as well,, but how can you be so certain, when two of your readings actually showed noteworthy power-INCREASEs (as-well as the relatively slight decreases) !?



" I'm having trouble understanding the reason for pursuing much of this minutiae, seems purely academic at this point,
It doesn't seem to be leading to any practical solutions to the goal of improving the stock alt "

____ Admittedly, some of what I find to be of interest due-to mere curiosity is just for the sake of the geeky-quest that some of us are predisposed to,, but most inquisitions are for honing improved theory for smarter choosing of better-suited parameter options, BEFORE suggesting best-known winding-options for Bruce to consider actually performing.
____ I-myself don't really have anything to personally-gain from this stuff other than some detailed knowledge to take to the grave with me,, but for the sake of those few others who also find it all to be of fair interest, I still think it's all worth digging-into.
__ Perhaps we can get a show-of-hands, either from those who agree with Bill that our time is pretty-much mostly being wasted on this thread, vs. those who more-so tend to agree with myself that no detail is too-boring to be left ignored.
Can we get anybody-else at all, to respond, (preferably without getting stuck near the fork in the road) ?



" and time spent here may be much better spent on a different track. "

____ And-then exactly what better track do YOU have in-mind, Bill ?



" Where are we going with this? Just bidding time until another alternative set of windings are done? "

____ Yes, until then,, but before then, we ought-to try to gain a better idea of exactly where to best head for.
(Or-else perhaps we could rather continue spinning-wheels within the darker-side.)


Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob

[wcorey]

__ Wonder just how long a piece of wire has to be, in order to weigh merely-just 1/100th of a gram !?

Well, since the resolution of the scale is just 1/100th of a gram, then it wouldn't be very accurate to weigh only that amount.
The two pieces totaling 96" weigh 7.26 grams so you can extrapolate from there.

____ Well of-course that's what I WOULD'VE expected as well,, but how can you be so certain, when two of your readings actually showed noteworthy power-INCREASEs (as-well as the relatively slight decreases) !?

I spend little effort to grind the numbers, I just look and see a general trend in one direction or another and if on average it seems to make sense then that's as far as I go. With only a glance I can see that the latest data isn't far out of line with what I expected, no unforeseen miracles of increased power = time to move on.

____ I-myself don't really have anything to personally-gain from this stuff...

As you know I really have no horse in this race either, I'm not messing around, my 450 motor will be sporting the de-rated zx14 alt that will pretty much support a modern headlight at just off idle.
My mission here, other than some vestigial curiosity that is quickly burning out, is still to finish what I started in getting involved with all this in the first place.
I have so much time invested/wasted in the old thread and now this one with little show for it to offer those who have followed along in hopes of some easy modification that will allow running a 60w headlight at average rpm's. We really do have multiple solutions for that already but failed to organize it in a DIY that can be found, read and followed without having to sort through a novel and posses an advanced degree.

" and time spent here may be much better spent on a different track. "

____ And-then exactly what better track do YOU have in-mind, Bill ?

Back to where you don't want to go, starting where I left off in the old thread.
I think I now understand your reluctance to be reminded of that time period, I'm very sorry for the circumstances of what you were going through and in retrospect it explains a lot that I obviously didn't understand then...
But I wonder if you just started with/kept to only the last page where I was attempting to wrap things up and you (and anyone else) had stopped participating, then it might be a lot less painful to go there than you think. I could copy/paste it to here in one big hell-aciously long post, lol.

____ Yes, until then,, but before then, we ought-to try to gain a better idea of exactly where to best head for.
(Or-else perhaps we could rather continue spinning-wheels within the darker-side.)

I have an enormous/endless diversity of other project/hobby type stuff going at any given time (as well as a fairly challenging job) and easily get side tracked to the point of not finishing anything, my 450 included. I'd really like to finish this alt stuff.
As I've already mentioned, I'm rapidly tiring of this present tack. Try to keep the test requests easy and with specific, focused goals in mind and you may get some more out of me...

[graeme]

Hello Bill,

Interseted in your 450 with an altered Kawasaki alternator. Not that I'd do this as I'm happy with the way my 450 lights work.
Having a bigger alternator would suck HP from the engine?

Graeme

[LaceyDucati]

Graeme

You don't get anything for nothing!

I was quite shocked at the Drag from the 120 watt Electrex alternator compared to the standard unit, when I first fitted one. If you need more electrical power for a 60 watt halogen because you ride at night, fine on the larger singles as the losses are probably acceptable against the advantages. But I do wonder when guys fit them to a 125, 160 or 175, can't be good! Perhaps another thing to test on a dyno at some point, with and without.

Nigel

[DewCatTea-Bob]

[quote= LaceyDucati ...
" I was quite shocked at the Drag "

____ I can imagine it...
__ I had learned in high-school science-class with a hand-cranked generator how hard it is to produce amounts of power consumed by various test-loads.
When the generator was connected to no load at all, it was a real cinch to crank-over it's hand-crank ! _ But when connected to a light-bulb, it was then quite a chore just to turn the crank fast enough to attain merely a steady glow from the light-filament !
__ It was such experience as that, which had conditioned my mind to the importance of 'balanced' power/load-systems.


Enlightening-Cheers,
-Bob

[DewCatTea-Bob]

[quote= ecurbruce ...
" I recieved the package from you safe & sound, "

____ Good to know. _ What day did it arrive way down there ?
I had sent you three emails concerning the shipment, but it seems as if you never got any of them !?



" we'll get started on that in the next day or two. "

____ What do you have in mind to get started with first, exactly ?
__ What I first request is that you take careful-note of the factory-windings of one large & one small power-coil from EACH of the two stators, just to make-sure of factory-consistency between seemingly identical stators. _ As for one-thing, it would be assuring to realize that the rather strange asymmetrical connection-arrangements noted by Bill, are consistently always left the same-way purposely.
____ How do you feel about single-winding a small-bobbin with #16 to #18 gauge 5 or 6 layers deep ?




" not only is it not linear, it's not even algebraic. "

____ So far, I'm not real-sure of exactly what the actual relationship is between power-winding LENGTH and building-up impedance-level.
I recall that the square-root of 2 -(1.414) is a related factor in a number of such circumstances, and would-not be surprised that it's applicable in this length vs. impedance matter, (which is quite fairly adequate to handle the factor which seems to have presented itself, [as any other much steeper-climbing factors would lead to nonsensical L/imp.relationships]).


" See this article. "

____ I'm afraid that particular page doesn't seem to have anything directly related to power-winding length vs. impedance build-up. _ It's more related to merely-just basic impedance-factoring. _ (It does somewhat help explain why Bill's use of caps manage to obscure some testing-results, though however.)
(If you & I had Bill's setup, then we could soon pin-down exactly what the factor likely is.)


Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob

[machten]

So as some one on the sidelines and only stating my interpretaion of what I read, and leaving myself totally exposed to any and all contrary critisism...

I detect between the contributers a disconnect between what I thought as the primary objective of generating a sustainable power supply to meet requirements from some fairly esoteric theoretical research. Bill's been genorous to do the physical tests, but I have to say, I'm not suprised that (by my reading) he seems to have had enough.

For most of us mere Duc owners, I'd think we'd say "Let's not let the ambition of the perfect get in the way of the practical".

Just my thoughts.

Kev

[DewCatTea-Bob]

[quote= wcorey ...
" The two pieces totaling 96" weigh 7.26 grams so you can extrapolate from there. "

____ Thanks !
Then that means 1-inch weighs .076-grams, and 1/100th of a gram equals 132-thousandths -(about 3 & 1/3 mm) in wire-length.
__ So if you care to check the calibration-claim of your scale,, you could snip-off .132 of an inch off the end of one of those two 48-inch lengths, and then compare their weights to see if your scale indicates a .01-gram difference.

____ Well of-course that's what I WOULD'VE expected as well,, but how can you be so certain, when two of your readings actually showed noteworthy power-INCREASEs (as-well as the relatively slight decreases) !?

" I spend little effort to grind the numbers, I just look and see a general trend in one direction or another and if on average it seems to make sense then that's as far as I go. With only a glance I can see that the latest data isn't far out of line with what I expected,

____ That's okay,, as I'm quite willing to perform that role, and make fairly pertinent deductive-points concerning your revealed-findings. ...
__ Here's why I think you should still move-on with your originally intended-plan. ...

Test data from Bruce's rewound 'large' coil.
connected in parallel.
.5ohm----4.4a-----2.1vdc------8w
1 ohm----3.3a----3.7vdc------12.2w
2 ohm----2.6a----5.4vdc------14w
3 ohm----2a------6.4vdc------12.8w
Same tests but one 'layer' of wire (48") removed.
.5ohm----4.2a----2.3vdc-------9.7w = 21% INCREASE
1 ohm----3.5a----3.8vdc------13.3w = 9% INCREASE
2 ohm----2.5a----5.3vdc------13.25w = 5.4% decrease
3 ohm----1.9a----6.1vdc------12w = 6% degrease

So that works-out to an overall-average of 9.2% INCREASE !
So is such an 'increase' in average power, pretty-much what you had expected then ? _ I sure didn't !
So I think this needs another likewise step to see where this length-reduction is going !
So why-not keep-going until the large-coil weighs the same-amount as the small one, (which was YOUR idea, in the first-place !) ?



" no unforeseen miracles of increased power = time to move on. "

____ It's been looking like we won't be finding anything other than relatively small-steps towards improved power-output, (which it seems that only Bruce & I are willing to scrape-the-barrow for).
__ So what do you have, to move-on to ?



" Back to where you don't want to go, starting where I left off in the old thread. "

____ It's not that I'm unwilling to go-there, I just haven't felt like getting my feet so wet with it all again, yet.



" I think I now understand your reluctance to be reminded of that time period, I'm very sorry for the circumstances of what you were going through and in retrospect it explains a lot that I obviously didn't understand then... "

____ Going-through a major-change in life was indeed a GREAT distraction but, the main-reason why I came to fall-out in the first-place, was due to what I had warned could happen. ...
You & M.Mike complained about my method of placing my posts, and I warned that I couldn't keep-up (with my posts timely-placed), if I waited to place my posts AFTER they had become all COMPLETELY-done ! _ And to make it even tougher, the thread then began moving-fourth even faster. _ So I was forced to drop-aside, (which would've been to my great displeasure, if I hadn't then also became distracted from such dismay, with life taking a still far-MORE disconcerting affair !).



" But I wonder if you just started with/kept to only the last page where I was attempting to wrap things up and you (and anyone else) had stopped participating, then it might be a lot less painful to go there than you think. "

____ I recall that you had placed a very-LONG post, which I had tried to read-through two or three times, but I could never concentrate on it well enough to keep it all in-mind before getting to the end of it. _ And later when I went back-there to try it once-again, I then noticed still ANOTHER possibly even-LONGER new-post of yours, which when combined with the one I still had yet to try finishing taking-in,, led to me concluding that it would ALL have to wait until I could keep my mind steady on what-all I'd be reading.
And since then,, so much time had passed, that I never-did ever get-back to it all.



" I could copy/paste it to here in one big hell-aciously long post, "

____ Please don't ! _ As THIS-thread is already TOO-long as well,, and, I still don't think I can feel like reading-through (and responding to) any greatly extended posts !
__ RATHER,, please feel free to 'copy' any posts from that-thread that you wish to, to then-next be placed within a NEW-tread which you may ought name-title as: "______*_ - 'PART-2'". - (* YOUR pre-chosen title)
Just 'QUOTE' the copied-posts (so that our rule against duplicating identical-posts is-not outwardly broken).



" I have an enormous/endless diversity of other project/hobby type stuff going at any given time
and easily get side tracked to the point of not finishing anything, my 450 included. I'd really like to finish this alt stuff. "

____ JOIN-THE-CLUB !



" As I've already mentioned, I'm rapidly tiring of this present tack. Try to keep the test requests easy "

____ Please let us know whatever you're turn-off to.


" with specific, focused goals in mind "

____ That may be fairly difficult to maintain, when things don't actually go as ought've been expected.


Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob