Can stock alternator produce more volts and power?

[Eldert]

what do you guys think about a mosfet rectifier / regulator versus a shunt type ?

Eldert

[DewCatTea-Bob]

what do you guys think about a mosfet rectifier / regulator versus a shunt type ?

Eldert

____ Please expect an answer within another/new thread.


Thanks,
-Bob

[MotoMike]

oops

[MotoMike]

Nope, that is the simplified formula for RMS from a Peak to Peak sine wave signal. (p-p/2 x .707) "

____ I'm lost to exactly what you mean by "that" , so I can't realize what you're saying "Nope" in regards to.

"that" appears in ( ) at the end of the sentence

[MotoMike]

MM
this is the formula I mentioned before stated differently. I think it is about the simplest way to express the formula for rms. RMS=pp/2 x.707 "

Bob
____ That stated formula is only in reference to just 'one-half' of the complete AC sine-wave, (and either HALF of the AC-cycle is pulsating 'DC') !

MM.

Wrong.

[DewCatTea-Bob]

from bobs post:
should be:
60/2=30 /1.414 =21.21. using the correct formula won't get you to the numbers you have. "

____ I think one of us doesn't know what the other is actually meaning Mike... what "correct formula" are YOU referring to ? _ What will your "correct formula" provide an answer for exactly ?
__ The formula which I'm using is for getting the full 'AC' RMS wattage-output from the alt.winding ! - (Not just one HALF of it, as your divide-by-2 extra-step results.)
That which you have given above must be for only just ONE-HALF (either pos. or neg. side) of the FULL AC-cycle.

____ You-yourself haven't made it clear exactly what "correct formula" YOU're in reference to.
I-myself was only in reference to the alternator's 'AC' output ! _ Thus MY figures are still left as (complete) 'AC' , (since the alternator itself ought not be rated in 'half-cycle' DC-watts) !
If you (properly) add the two DC-halves together, THEN YOUR figures match mine !

MM
Sorry, thought I had.

____ Well your posted-wording made it seem as if you were pretty-sure you had all your figuring straight.

you said "60-watts AC peak-to-peak from EACH of it's two alt.windings" it is the correct formula for that statement. if each winding was 60 peak to peak, each winding output would be 21.21 rms. added together (which I don't think is correct) would be 42.42. rms total.

____ I'm not real sure of what your meaning to actually convey with your wording here Mike, but it seems that you don't have it right, as I-myself had it. ...
The way I meant for it all to be figured is:
_ 60-watts peak-to-peak -(which is 30p+30n watts) ;
_ divide by the sq.rt of 2 = 42.42 RMS-watts
_ x2 alt.windings = 84.84 RMS-watts, for the entire-complete AC-output !
That was all, no rectification in the picture ! (Yet.)
__ Now what you seem to be claiming (with your formula which includes dividing my result by 2), is that we have only one-HALF of what I suggest is the (actual) case. _ But then YOUR result is obviously incorrect (for what we actually want the result from) !
So I hope you can come-up with some factual-example to help prove your case.


Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob

[DewCatTea-Bob]

Nope, that is the simplified formula for RMS from a Peak to Peak sine wave signal. (p-p/2 x .707)

____ I'm lost to exactly what you mean by "that" , so I can't realize what you're saying "Nope" in regards to.

"that" appears in ( ) at the end of the sentence

____ Oh, you meant your formula (by "that").
Okay then, but my only problem with "that" is the step which divides by "2" -(within: "(p-p/2 x .707)"), as that step then eliminates one of the two halves of the AC-cycle ! _ As that's why that particular step is supposed to be within that formula, to do !

MM
this is the formula I mentioned before stated differently. I think it is about the simplest way to express the formula for rms. RMS=pp/2 x.707 "

____ That stated formula is only in reference to just 'one-half' of the complete AC sine-wave, (and either HALF of the AC-cycle is pulsating 'DC') !

MM.

Wrong.

____ What's "Wrong", my claim concerning your presented formula ? ...
Your formula is correct (only!) for being applied to the resulting waveform AFTER a diode has rectified an AC-waveform !
__ 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

[MotoMike]

bob wrote.

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 !)

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. I'll see if I can find a link for you that might help to explain it since you won't believe me. I'll look for one written by a phd. If you could borrow an o'scope you could measure it dirrect. 339 divided by 2 = 169.5x.707=119.8 vac (read rms)

in the reverse 120 vac (rms) divided by .707 =169.73 x2=339.4 peak to peak volts ac. Yes there are 339 volts p-p in at your 120vac outlet.

[ecurbruce]

Eldert wrote:
" What do you guys think about a mosfet rectifier/regulator versus a shunt type?"

I think about a mosfet rectifier/regulator a lot... it's what I have to use with my alternator, and I think when this arguement over semantics ends and we finally understand how the origional alternator/regulator worked together, the series regulator should be discussed at length as a viable alternative.

Bruce

[MotoMike]

Bruce I am sorry this thread has gone on in the way it has. I tried to step out of it a while back, but my doing so was "suspect". should just have turned the other cheek but the veiled and not so veiled insults were bait too sweet to leave hanging and against my better judgement I slogged on and it has gone about like I thought it might. I know I'm as guilty of snide comments as bob, so not trying to put it all on him.

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

Bob
I see what I think are misconceptions in electricity that you have been using so long you can't let them go. a few are very minor and at least one is not. Maybe you don't like your big kahuna status challenged. 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. our current exchanges are not productive and annoying to the general membership. It is my desire to stop the public exchange. If you wish to do so, I'd continue at a reduced pace in PM.

attached is a link that does a fair job of explaining rms voltage.

http://www.ultracad.com/articles/rms.pdf

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

apologies to all
Kind regards,
Mike