n-c alternator modifications: discussion and testing

[DewCatTea-Bob]

" Some new stuff, "

____ You mean you've actually carried-onward & done still even more recent testing ?


" I have the pics if anyone feels the need... "

____ Your related pix are indeed useful & important Bull, (I just haven't made much use of them YET because I can't see your entire lay-outs all at once, and would probably also need a larger monitor at least 4-times the size of the unit I currently have).


" Full wave, ‘stock parallel’, 5ohm 3450rpm "

____ I don't (for sure) understand what the scheme would be for "Full wave, stock parallel" , as 'stock' is not with a full-wave bridge.
If you could tell what all the connections are, I could then make a scheme-drawing to go with.



" Full wave, Series, 5ohm 3450rpm-------------3.4a, 21.2vac, 17vdc------57.8w
Full wave, Single winding, 5ohm 3450rpm-----2.3a, 14.7vac, 11.4vdc----26.2w "

____ I assume that that "Single winding" must be the slightly shorter one (of the two), since it's output is less than half of both together - (26.2 vs. 57.8).


" Full wave, Series, 3ohm 3450rpm-------------4.1a, 16.2vac, 12.5vdc-----51.2w
Full wave, Single winding, 3ohm 3450rpm-----3.4a, 13.7vac, 10.3vdc-----35w "

____ Noting that as the load-drain increased (by the 2-ohm difference), the 'series' arrangement LOST 6.6-watts, while the single-winding GAINED 8.8-watts.


" Full wave, Series, 1ohm 3450rpm-------------4.9a, 8vac, 5.vdc------------24.5w
Full wave, Single winding, 1ohm 3450rpm-----6.3a, 9.7vac, 6.5vdc--------40.9w "

____ Noting that as the load-drain further increased (by still another 2-ohm difference), the 'series' arrangement lost another 26.7-watts, while the single-winding gained another 6-watts of power-output.
__ Normally as the load-impedance gets lowered towards the impedance of an inductor-type power-source, the wattage-output increases ! _ So in the case of the series-type alt.winging-arrangement, where the opposite relationship is occurring,, there has to be a countering/reduction-effect which impedes current-flow, such as counter-electromagnetic-force, or it could simply be that the stator-core becomes too saturated to help much with the concentration of the flux-density (as the core is depended upon to do).

____ All this extensive testing leaves little doubt that the reconfiguration of the stock parallel-type arrangement into the commonly done 'series' arrangement, is pretty-much definitely the Wrong-Way-to-go, if ya expect to run high power-consuming loads.
However if simply converting-over to a 12-volt system with equally low wattage-consumption as stock, then the commonly done series-rearrangement ought be well enough. _ But that arrangement-method is more difficult to accomplish and seems to have no worthwhile advantage over the stock arrangement-method.
__ Those who had noted my past suggestions on re-doing the charging-systems of various Duke-models, have already realized that not only have I not recommended the commonly done 'series' reconfiguration-arrangement
but have also discouraged such common-practice, as well !
Now we have other than just my word to take for it.


Content-Cheers,
-Bob

[wcorey]

(I just haven't made much use of them YET because I can't see your entire lay-outs all at once, and would probably also need a monitor at least 4-times the size of the one I now have).

Note to D-Bob (as opposed to B-Bob, now that he's also in this thread, lol); I think I have a bandaid solution for your cut off picture issue. Left click on the pic, then right click the first menu item, 'view image', it will toggle the broswer into a plain widow and not be subject the the size limitations of this site. Back arrow puts you right back...

Did you try this from my post on the previous page?

____ I don't (for sure) understand what the scheme would be for "Full wave, stock parallel" , as 'stock' is not with a full-wave bridge.

download/file.php?id=566&mode=view

Putting both alt. outputs (1and 2), to both yellow wires on the rec., 3 and 4 to load. I guess I had been calling it 'half wave' but that doesn't seem right either. So is it 'dual half wave'? Thought I recalled some contention with that terminology, didn't want to open that can 'o worms again...


Bill

[DewCatTea-Bob]

Note to D-Bob
I think I have a bandaid solution for your cut off picture issue. Left click on the pic, then right click the first menu item, 'view image', it will toggle the broswer into a plain widow and not be subject the the size limitations of this site. Back arrow puts you right back...

" Did you try this from my post on the previous page? "

____ Yes, I had, (and believe I already knew how to do that before, with Firefox).
But I usually don't even bother trying cuz I have to sit about 5-ft. from my 13-in. monitor (which doesn't show pictures brightly enough to see all the detail that you must expect to be seen).

____ I don't (for sure) understand what the scheme would be for "Full wave, stock parallel" , as 'stock' is not with a full-wave bridge.

" download/file.php?id=566&mode=view "

____ Thanks for the pic.link ! _ That works quite well ! _ (Care to share how you accomplished that ?)


" Putting both alt. outputs (1and 2), to both yellow wires on the rec., 3 and 4 to load. "

____ Sorry Bill, I don't think we've ever tried that particular scheme, (probably cuz it wouldn't do much of anything).


" I guess I had been calling it 'half wave' but that doesn't seem right either. So is it 'dual half wave'? "

____ If you're referring to the scheme at your provided link, then yes, I prefer to call it 'dual half-wave', as that's more clearly what the circuit really is. _ (Technically it's output-waveform could be simplifiedly referred to as "full wave", but it's really two separate positive half-waves combined to equate a "full wave" wave-form.) _ True/pure 'full-wave', bridge-rectifies ONLY one individual AC-source !
'Tech.Convention' has dumbed-it-down either way as being same, so as to lay-to-rest alternate (real-world) conceptions (which were thought to unduly complicate conception).


" Thought I recalled some contention with that terminology, "

____ Yes, indeed there was ! _ It's just easier for some people to keep things dumbed-down and not bother to realize that there's any difference, when in fact there really is !


" didn't want to open that can 'o worms again... "

____ Yes it was a can o' worms, but one which brought muddiness into the open for expanded clarity.


Cleared-Cheers,
-Bob

[wcorey]

" download/file.php?id=566&mode=view "

____ Thanks for the pic.link ! _ That works quite well ! _ (Care to share how you accomplished that ?)

That would be a right click on the image (linked image in this case) and left click 'copy link location', then paste it into your post.

" Putting both alt. outputs (1and 2), to both yellow wires on the rec., 3 and 4 to load. "

____ Sorry Bill, I don't think we've ever tried that particular scheme, (probably cuz it wouldn't do much of anything).

Maybe I executed it incorrectly?
It's the same test as the last one on the previous page, that I started out with "A round of half wave rectified tests..." and also done to a drawing you supplied and is copied (and commented on) to your post about that is six up from this one on this page.
I repeated it because it seemed significant;

__ This test-outcome, (if I'm not mistaking), is far greater than Bill's previous (and supposedly identical) tests of this stock-like scheme. _ Cuz BEFORE, the expected combined output of both alt.windings together added-up to well LESS than their expected added-total,

...and that previous test was the one where I found the ac meter wired in wrong and the current and dc results are different (lower) for reasons I'm not sure of.
I haven't tried duplicating the erroneous test with the wrong wiring included but have done the corrected version a number of times with a consistent result, I'd tend to ignore that 'bad one'.



It originated with this drawing on page 16, where you wrote under it, "This is the schematic-diagram for the circuit-layout that's virtually the same as the stock charging-circuit."

download/file.php?id=588&mode=view






Bill

[DewCatTea-Bob]

" Putting both alt. outputs (1and 2), to both yellow wires on the rec., 3 and 4 to load. "

____ Sorry Bill, I don't think we've ever tried that particular scheme, (probably cuz it wouldn't do much of anything).

" Maybe I executed it incorrectly?
It's the same test as the last one on the previous page, that I started out with "A round of half wave rectified tests..." and also done to a drawing you supplied and is copied (and commented on) to your post about that is six up from this one on this page. "

____ Okay Bill, I now properly understand what scheme you had meant. _ My misunderstanding was due to your wording: "3 and 4 to load" , which had lead me to think you had the 'load' directly & merely connected to 3 & 4 , (which of course didn't make expected sense, but still, I couldn't be very sure to trust any second-guessing on what you might've really meant).


" I repeated it because it seemed significant;

__ This test-outcome, (if I'm not mistaking), is far greater than Bill's previous (and supposedly identical) tests of this stock-like scheme. _ Cuz BEFORE, the expected combined output of both alt.windings together added-up to well LESS than their expected added-total,

...and that previous test was the one where I found the ac meter wired in wrong and the current and dc results are different (lower) for reasons I'm not sure of. "

____ Good-call on repeating that ('dual half-wave') test-work Bill, cuz obviously it's test-outcome figure-results are indeed "significant", since in that test-case, it seems that 1 + 1 = (about) 3.5 ! _ Which indicates that a similar however reversed effect (of that noted with the 'series-arrangement'), actually produces (somewhat unexpected) ADDITIONAL power-output, (using this 'parallel' dual half-wave type arrangement) ! _ Once again worthy of special-note, is that this latest-finding of the '1+1=3.5 effect' (with the 'parallel-arrangement'), is fairly quite opposite in nature compared to the '1+1=1.5 effect' (in the 'series-arrangement') !


" I haven't tried duplicating the erroneous test with the wrong wiring included but have done the corrected version a number of times with a consistent result, I'd tend to ignore that 'bad one'. "

____ Good reasoning of course, but for now, let's not completely discard that faulty-test-result, as it may yet provide some kind of clue.
I believe that that was the particular test-outcome which gave me surprisingly disappointing value/figure-results, and thus led me to state that either the stator was faulty or else Ducati had produced a really screwed-up alternator-design.
I'm quite glad that your newer tests have proven otherwise !


" It originated with this drawing on page 16, where you wrote under it, "This is the schematic-diagram for the circuit-layout that's virtually the same as the stock charging-circuit."
download/file.php?id=588&mode=view "

____ Right ! _ That's now cleared-up.
__ However, while your June-02,5:46 post was termed well enough, your June-06,12:20 post indicates test-outcome figure-results which are slightly different, and that change along with your misleading "full wave stock parallel" label,
ought lead one to think that the scheme-arrangement which you were next testing, logically ought to be of either one of the 'full-wave parallel-arrangements', which I have added just-below.

[wcorey]

...indicates test-outcome figure-results which are slightly different, and that change along with your misleading "full wave stock parallel" label,
ought lead one to think that the scheme-arrangement which you were next testing, would be one of those which I have added, down-below.

Ok, but just to clarify, by "slightly different", you're talking differences in the low single percentage points. If you require better than 2 percent repeatability between tests, I'd need to revamp my test procedures a bit. I'll certainly refrain in the future from altering my system of posting test data...


Bill

[ecurbruce]

Am I looking at the numbers wrong, or something? Orrrr is Mikes drawing 'E' from page 14 the best numbers?
At 1 ohm load, 7.1 amps, 10.6 Vac, 6.9 Vdc at 3450 rpm. How many watts is that one?

[DewCatTea-Bob]

Am I looking at the numbers wrong, or something? Orrrr is Mikes drawing 'E' from page 14 the best numbers?
At 1 ohm load, 7.1 amps, 10.6 Vac, 6.9 Vdc at 3450 rpm. How many watts is that one?

____ Glad you've brought-up that particular piece of info, Bruce,, as that's one (of a few) which I've been meaning to get-around to following-up on !
That particular circuit (of Mike's) is one which I've never tried-out before ! _ And I also wonder about it, as for one thing, I had noted that it provided 49-watts. - (To get wattage -[the most important aspect of electrical-power!], simply multiply 'amperage' x 'voltage', to get the value of 'wattage'. _ For example: 100-amps x 1-volt equals 100-watts, or, 10-volts x 10-amps = 100-watts.)
__ Since Mike's unusual circuit stands-out, it would be a good idea to confirm it's outstanding performance,, and also, more directly compare it against the other 'full-wave parallel-arrangement', (as submitted by Bruce).

[ecurbruce]

I would like to submit a rewire proposal for discussion and analysis. It's a pretty simple resoldering...

coils-rewire-2.jpg

Circuit will enter at E(2)
Cut (E-out F-In), connect E-out to A(1)
Cut (B-out C-In), connect F-In to B-out
Cut (G-out H-In), connect C-In to G-out connect H-In to D(4).
Circuit goes out at H(3).

Four new solder joints, threecut wires. It makes four coils out of eight...
Bill, you may not want to do this to your stator, I'd understand. Just a thing to discuss!!!

[DewCatTea-Bob]

" I would like to submit a rewire proposal for discussion and analysis.
Circuit will enter at E(2) .... Circuit goes out at H(3). "

____ It would be easier to follow & check, if you had a corrected pic.scheme to depict your connection changes, (it would also be nice to have definite indication of the exact coil-turn winding-scheme), so as to be sure of everything being as it ought to be.
__ I gather that you simply wish to convert the two separate stator-windings into just one continuously-wound winding.
That would then provide a more conventional stator for a single full-wave rectification circuit. _ And I would expect about 53-watts from it (near 3500-RPM).

____ What about the six core-coil stator you have ? _ It ought to provide 50% more power than that which Bill has been obtaining (with any of the setups employed).


Dukaddy-DUKEs,
-Bob