n-c alternator modifications: discussion and testing

[wcorey]

" With the newly revealed 'all in/all out' configuration, when run in dual parallel 'stock' setup, the direction the current runs in would have two windings on the same coil/bobbin/core as opposite polarity. Run in series with the center leads ungrounded would result in the two being the same polarity. I'm getting a bit bleary-eyed but assuming this is even correct it could account for some of the performance differences we're seeing... "

____ I think you may have a valid thought in there Bill, but it seems your current chosen wording somewhat fails to get it properly conveyed, (just as you admit may be so).

Alright. I'll try again...

Looking at Bruce's new drawing for number reference, if run in 'stock parallel' configuration, the flow of current/voltage goes from 1 to 4 and 2 to 3. Due to the alternating wiring scheme this results in opposite polarities on each of the two windings on each core. When run in series ('original type series', with 3 and 4 connected), the flow is 1 to 4 as before but now reverses on 'the other side', now 3 to 2. This would make the polarities of each core/pair the same. Almost seems like it would have a similar effect to 'Bruce's series scheme' (what are we to call that anyway?).

The drawing;
download/file.php?id=600&mode=view

Bill

[wcorey]

____ Yes Bill, how about trying the 'dual full-wave' test ?

That setup is a PITA, I knew you'd ask for that so I ran and quickly broke down the 6 coil setup before you could respond .
Seriously though, I did just take it down, doesn't mean I can't put it back though. Wouldn't it be a rather straight forward extrapolation to figure out probable results using the existing data? The 3 ohm results on the 6 coil were pretty close to the 2ohm and I also just did some half wave 6 coil tests (the other thing I figured you might want) at 2ohm if that helps...


Bill

[DewCatTea-Bob]

" Seriously though, I did just take it down, doesn't mean I can't put it back though. Wouldn't it be a rather straight forward extrapolation to figure out probable results using the existing data? "

____ Yes of course, so long as all the related data is already correct.
__ I had meant to follow-up on some details concerning the first 'dual full-wave' parallel-type test of the stock '4 dual-coil' -(8 coil-windings on 4 spools) stator, as I've been unsure if that particular test was ever done exactly correctly. _ (And I was thinking that a similar test of the new 6 dual-coil stator arrangement would accomplish both inquisitions at once, plus help confirm everything).
One of the main things that should've been well cleared-up in that test, is if you ran both halves together concurrently at once (with two separate rect.blocks & two separate 1-ohm loads), and measured the needed voltage & amperage figures to obtain the wattage-consumption of BOTH loads,, (cuz that PAIR of wattage-figures need to be added-together in order to get the true/actual resulting power-output of the ENTIRE dual alt.winding-rectification circuit-setup !).


" The 3 ohm results on the 6 coil were pretty close to the 2ohm "

____ Yeah I had noticed that, and that would indicate that the impedance of the tested alt.winding, is very close to slightly over 2-ohms.


" and I also just did some half wave 6 coil tests (the other thing I figured you might want) at 2ohm if that helps... "

____ The previous reasoning for the 'single-winding half-wave' tests, was to help determine whether the effect of allowing full AC current-flow had anything to do with the (undesirable!) reduced-power effect which was showing-up with the common/std.series-arrangement (with high loads). _ (We then learned of the [desirable!] kick or 'Pull-Pull' effect, which must be the reason for why Ducati had their coil-windings wired-up & wound as they did.)
Any remaining reasoning for doing those type of half-wave tests again (with the 6 dual-coil stator setup), is merely for CONFIRMATION (that everything has been done correctly, with/in such related tests).


Fairly-Content Cheers,
-Bob

[MotoMike]

Mike said- "I would think you could connect the outer most connection of the inner coil to the inner most connection of the outer coil on each core. since the coils sharing a core are wound in the same direction, each two coil set on a core should then be the same as one continuously wound coil on a core. then the inner most connection on the inner most coil would go to the outer most connection on the coil on the next core. I am expecting that in this configuration you would have greater output of voltage, current and cosequently power than all the combinations we have tried so far."

Mike, yes, that's what I was getting to in the proposal for a rewire (in that screwed up diagram), thanks for the support. I think it would work well. Now who's going to build and test the theory?

Bruce.

Bruce
I think this re-draw of your re-draw describes what we discuss above for the straight series tests is what we need. the colors are just to help in tracing the wire.

[ecurbruce]

Mike wrote:I think this re-draw of your re-draw describes what we discuss above for the straight series tests is what we need.
Yes, Mike this is what we have in mind for a single grand-winding test.(took a minute, but I got it, good drawing.)

Bob wrote:So after that single grand-winding test-trail has been completed, I next propose after that, that a dual stator-winding be tried-out with the same Non-Ducati type coil-winding arrangement. _ So as to end-up with what Mike no doubt would certainly agree with as being a true/standard center-tapped transformer-like arrangement.

Bob, do you think you could draw that one for us? I'm getting spoiled to all this visual input!!!

[DewCatTea-Bob]

By: wcorey...
" Looking at Bruce's new drawing for number reference, if run in 'stock parallel' configuration, the flow of current/voltage goes from 1 to 4 and 2 to 3. "

____ Actually Bill, it seems your wording is still off somewhat...
When the flow of power/current, ("voltage" doesn't 'flow'), goes from 1 to 4, it's THEN also flowing from 3 to 2 *(not 2 to 3), and when the AC-cycle next reverses, the flow is from 2 to 3 & 4 to 1 .
And that's the very-same case regardless of whether referring to the stock parallel-arrangement OR the non-stock common/std.series-arrangement.
(* IF the flows were actually "from 1 to 4 and 2 to 3" at the very-same time, THEN the stock parallel-type setup would be actual "true parallel" [as Mike puts it], as then both alt.windings would be concurrently in-phase*, [instead of alternating polarities] !)
(* And of course they can-not be 'in-phase' because they're 'wired-up' in a reversed-fashion, from one-another !)


" Due to the alternating wiring scheme this results in opposite polarities on each of the two windings on each core. "

____ I'm not real-clear on exactly what your wording is actually meaning to state here Bill, but I'd agree that, (considering the wiring-method as shown by Bruce), IF current-flow were to ever happen to travel from 1 to 4 and-also 2 to 3, both at the very-same time, THEN the two separate coil-windings on each coil-spool would try to make it's core/lug both North & South at the same time, (as while one winding attempts to make it's core-coil magnetic-North, the other winding is then effectively canceling, with it's magnetic-South induced into the core-coil).
I think this is what your chosen wording was trying to make point of, however in light of what I've reviewed in my upper/first paragraph, I think your notion is now laid-to-rest.
On-the-other-hand, I may still be way-off on my interpretation of your stated-wording,, and if that's the case here Bill, then please try another attempt again (at your intended conception).


" When run in series ('original type series', with 3 and 4 connected), the flow is 1 to 4 as before but now reverses on 'the other side', now 3 to 2. This would make the polarities of each core/pair the same. "

____ By: " 'original type series' ", I assume that you must mean the common/std.method of 'series' reconfiguration (of the two stock alt.windings connected together), which most people think is the-hot-way-to-go (to increase output from Ducati-alternators).
__ Anyhow,, most all of your statement-wording's concept is without flaw, with the exception of the notion: "but now reverses on the other side", (as if something has been changed). _ However, the 'flow' direction is STILL just the same as before, regardless of having been altered from 'parallel' to 'series' ! ...
I believe that the confusion has arisen from the fact that AC-flow must then be contended-with, with current flowing in both directions, (but it's of course not at the very-same time, with AC !).


" Almost seems like it would have a similar effect to 'Bruce's series scheme' (what are we to call that anyway?). "

____ That six-pairs of coil-windings all connected in true 'series' arrangement, (as proposed by Bruce & Mike), ought be preferred to as the: "12 individual-windings in series" ; or: "6 coil-pairs in series" ; or: "Grand Series Stator-configuration" ; or most simply: "6pr.series".
Takes ya'r pick.


Fun-Cheers,
-Bob

[ecurbruce]

Bob wrote:____ Actually Bill, it seems your wording is still off somewhat...
When the flow of power/current, ("voltage" doesn't 'flow'), goes from 1 to 4, it's THEN also flowing from 3 to 2 *(not 2 to 3), and when the AC-cycle next reverses, the flow is from 2 to 3 & 4 to 1 .
And that's the very-same case regardless of whether referring to the stock parallel-arrangement OR the non-stock common/std.series-arrangement.
(* If the flows were actually "from 1 to 4 and 2 to 3", THEN the stock parallel-type setup would be actual "true parallel" [as Mike puts it], as then both alt.windings would be concurrently in-phase*, [instead of alternating polarities] !)
(* And of course they can-not be 'in-phase' because they're 'wired-up' in a reversed-fashion, from one-another !)

Bob, I think what Bill's referencing (that you're responding to) is when we're setting up the wiring, and checking polarity of coils, we are energizing with DC power, which is flowing only one direction. Not to be confused with the function of stator when the magnetic field is creating AC when rotating. Can Bill confirm?( hope you don't mind me speaking for you, Bill)

[DewCatTea-Bob]

" Bob, I think what Bill's referencing (that you're responding to) is when we're setting up the wiring, and checking polarity of coils, we are energizing with DC power, which is flowing only one direction. Not to be confused with the function of stator when the magnetic field is creating AC when rotating. Can Bill confirm? "

____ Bruce, I'm afraid your assumption is off-based,, as my quoted-response was to a post which Bill placed a page or two back. _ His original-wording, (if I'm not mistaken), was concerning the current-flow through the stock-parallel arrangement as compared to that of the common/std.series arrangement.
__ But even when under the notion of being in regards to merely checking core-lug pole-polarity with a (low-power) DC-source, it makes no difference really (as to where the actual energizing DC-power is from), as the polarity outcome is still consistent (as well as identical, during a like-type polarization-event provided by a half-cycle of AC).


Straight-Cheers,
-Bob

[wcorey]

Yes, Bruce is correct, I'm thinking in terms of dc (still erroneously, apparently). Bob has me confused with his past argument (my interpretation of it anyway) that the entire circuit becomes dc once a rectifier is in it .
This is why I should stick to being the test mule/lab rat and let you guy's deal with the theory, it's a very familiar role, what I did for the majority of my career (back when I had one...).

That said, the practical aspects of wiring this 'Bruce's Special Grand Series Arrangement' are not so easy for me to unravel (BTW, the 'regular' series arrangement could easily be viewed as or confused with, by the likes of me anyway, the "12 individual-windings in series" ; or: "6 coil-pairs in series or "6pr.series" and it could just as easily be 4 coils).

Looks fine when I see it on paper but when I pick up the stator I'm lost, mostly due to not being able to determine which winding in each set is the inner/outer. Even under binocular magnification, I can't visually untangle the haphazard method of winding used. I've physically mapped out all the individual (I still don't even know what to call them) 'winding sets' and connections, I believe if I can determine what the first coil/core arrangement is, the rest will follow in logical order.
So when I put power to a set of wires and see what the core polarity is, how does that tell me which is which. Unfortunately all four of the original spools are laid out differently from each other, only the two added ones are a redundant pattern.

Nomenclature? I'm perpetually confused, 'stator' is about the only one I have down pat.
What's the standard terminology for...

what I've been calling the 'core', the laminated iron, six radially spoke-ed item with the 'coils' on it.

what I've been calling the 'individual cores', the laminated rectangular iron post that each 'spool' sits on/around.

what I've been calling a 'spool' or 'bobbin', the plastic holder including the windings/pair of coils wrapped around it.

What I've been calling a 'coil', winding', 'winding set', 'a series of turns of wire which comprise an individual coil' (one wire end in, one out), etc.

what I've been calling a 'set' or 'pair' of the above (on a single 'spool', 4 wire ends).

what I've been calling a 'series of 4/6' of the above, (each of which is on an individual 'spool').

what I've been calling two of the above, in series, lol...



Bill

[DewCatTea-Bob]

So after that single grand-winding test-trail has been completed, I next propose after that, that a dual stator-winding be tried-out with the same Non-Ducati type coil-winding arrangement. _ So as to end-up with what Mike no doubt would certainly agree with as being a true/standard center-tapped transformer-like arrangement.

Bob, do you think you could draw that one for us? I'm getting spoiled to all this visual input!!!

____ I've started a couple of my own drawings but haven't finished them, so it may be faster to simply adapt one already presented.
__ My proposed dual-winding could be done a couple of different ways...