n-c alternator modifications: discussion and testing

[wcorey]

____ I've just looked-over Bill's drawing of the rectifier-circuit which he placed inside Bruce's stator-drawing...
Aside from a couple missing (likely just overlooked) circuit-connections (between terminal-points), I believe that Bill's depicted circuit intends to indicate that both section-I & section-II are each separately half-wave rectified, and both of the two winding-&-diode circuits are combined in a PARALLEL scheme.

Yes, I forgot to add the connections that tie the inner/outer windings together on each spool. pretty obvious were they go. The setup I depicted is intended to correspond the the drawing you originally inquired about and is the only thing I refer to as "series/parallel".

So it obviously seems that at least one of the three of us has been misunderstood and/or misunderstood one (or both) of the other two. _ Or something like that, anyhow !

I read Bruce's requests as meaning two completely separate and unrelated things, to supply a completed data set for one test run and then the clarification of "series/parallel".

" Dual full wave rectification, 'grand series, stock series/parallel', separated outputs.
(Two sections (of two spools each) run simultaneously, each with full wave rectification, two outputs/loads.)
3450 rpm, each 'pair' of sections is one test. "

____ So in other words, while doing ONE test-run, you're actually performing TWO (fairly separate) test-circuits simultaneously both at once, correct?

Yes, the intent being to determine whether 1+1=2 (as opposed to doing it to save time by running two at once), as we have seen that there are adding or canceling factors that aren't always predictable.

____ By: "doing three" , I assume you mean that after using three separate FW.rect-blocks (to full-wave rectify each of the separate sections -[se.I & se.II & se.III]), ....But it really doesn't have to be done that way...

Here again the intent would have been to see if 1+1+1=3 but I assumed whatever resulted from the double tests could be extrapolated to the triple. And It's not only three separate loads that would need to be dealt with but also three sets of meters, just gets to be a confusing tangle of wires.

____ If you guys don't next ask the right questions,
I'll explain what questions ought be addressed next.

I would assume the coils need to be wound using length of wire (= number of turns) and/or wire size to control and match impedance.
It's too bad the coils on the six spool setup can't be divided into two equal halves...


Bill

[DewCatTea-Bob]

____ I've just looked-over Bill's drawing of the rectifier-circuit which he placed inside Bruce's stator-drawing...
I believe that Bill's depicted circuit intends to indicate that both section-I & section-II are each separately half-wave rectified, and both of the two winding-&-diode circuits are combined in a PARALLEL scheme.

" The setup I depicted is intended to correspond the the drawing you originally inquired about and is the only thing I refer to as "series/parallel". "

____ Well there's still an oversight relating to the difference between my two drawings and yours Bill, and you originally offered mine as being the circuit -("series/parallel") which I had inquired about, while your "version" is not the same...
While my-scheme shows section-I & section-II connected in series together, each with their pair of windings (with each combined winding connected to a dedicated diode), kept in parallel fashion,, YOUR-scheme indicates section-I & section-II (each NOW with their two windings connected in series, [thus effectively one-single winding, a piece]), in PARALLEL arrangement !
That particular difference makes my drawings incorrect to represent your circuit !
So (from your standpoint), either your scheme or mine should indeed be termed as "series/parallel" , while the other should then be termed as 'parallel/series' ! _ (But either way, it's too confusing to keep track of.)
Since you're the one who came-up with the idea of using those two words (series & parallel) to refer to those two different circuit-setups by, then you should specify which one is "series/parallel" (since the other must then be 'parallel/series' !).


" I read Bruce's requests as meaning two completely separate and unrelated things, to supply a completed data set for one test run and then the clarification of "series/parallel". "

____ Okay, THAT was all correct then ! _ So the confusion is now thus reduced to you having used my old drawing to represent your particular (so called "series/parallel") circuit-setup. _ (Which right-now I'm still not sure was right or wrong to have done back then).
The newer drawing of your own seemed like it would be correct for your more resent testing, but I'm not sure if it (or mine) was correct for what you had had before, (back at that time, when I asked you for clarification).
So there still remains something to be ironed-out.

____ So in other words, while doing ONE test-run, you're actually performing TWO (fairly separate) test-circuits simultaneously both at once, correct?

" Yes, the intent being to determine whether 1+1=2 (as opposed to doing it to save time by running two at once), as we have seen that there are adding or canceling factors that aren't always predictable. "

____ Good thinking Bill ! _ As what may seem like unnecessary testing, can indeed review the unexpected, and help clear-up otherwise possible mysteriousness.
_ Anyhow, I think that with this 'straight-series' stator re-arrangement, all the numbers (of both testing methods) are correlating as ought be expected.


" And It's not only three separate loads that would need to be dealt with but also three sets of meters, just gets to be a confusing tangle of wires. "

____ Quite understandable, but the triple circuit-setup could just be left running intact while merely just the two meters could be moved from circuit to circuit. _ Not to say that the triple circuit layout needs to be tested, as I agree that the double-layout testing was adequate (to make-sure things are adding-up as they should).
__ Another similar type test-check which you would likely want to check-out, is compare the available power outputs between using your set of three rect.blocks, and that 3-phase R.R-unit you have, (so as to confirm that it could likewise work for your project, and whether it stifles any power production).

____ If you guys don't next ask the right questions,
I'll explain what questions ought be addressed next.

" I would assume the coils need to be wound using length of wire (= number of turns) and/or wire size to control and match impedance. "

____ Well that isn't what I was getting at, (although that IS something for Bruce to consider).
__ What I figure someone would be concerned with, is the particular test-outcome result-figures, and whether or not they're actually adequate for a 12-volt battery system.


" It's too bad the coils on the six spool setup can't be divided into two equal halves... "

____ This is something I've already touched-on...
As I said before,, we went this route first, only because you already had the stator connection-points soldered-up as you've now had them. _ The stator could be reconnected so that you have two separate & equal-length stator-windings. _ That's the main-reason (I-myself thought) we had you & Bruce combine your respective stator related drawings.
However Bruce's depicted coil-winding lead-ends and your laid-out terminal-points, have not yet been ironed-out to match-up,, so that such a reconnection-job could be planned-out.
However with all the working-impedances working-out to be as high as they are, there likely may be no great advantage to having the stator effectively divided into just two sections (as compared to the three).

____ Since the possibility is high that my (so-called "series/parallel") scheme-drawing is incorrect for the actual circuit that Bill was asked about, I'll see about redoing the one I've submitted, so as to reflect the actual difference (as 'parallel/series').

[ecurbruce]

Bob says"__ What I figure someone would be concerned with, is the particular test-outcome result-figures, and whether or not they're actually adequate for a 12-volt battery system.

Yes , I've been watching that (12.5 to 13.2) volt mark as we move along. That's why I requested the voltage readings from Bill's tests a few posts back. I have a few ideas concerning that issue, not sure we're there yet...but I was hoping the voltage at 1-2 ohms resistance would be a little higher. Now we tie it back full circle to "6 volt or 12 volt" which is better with this particular alternator?

I do have a couple of questions, though, for clarification- was your idea to use three rectifiers with this combination of all coils?
..................................................................- how could I tie the six coil combination into my 12 volt single phase regulator?
..................................................................- do you still see this being useful being split up, maybe in a one section vs. two section configuration, seperate circuits, to do seperate jobs, maybe one section for ignition, and two sections for lighting? And 2 seperate regulators?

Just to be clear, when you combine these sections in parallel, I see the ohms divides, but how does it effect the volts DC?

[DewCatTea-Bob]

" Yes , I've been watching that (12.5 to 13.2) volt mark as we move along. That's why I requested the voltage readings from Bill's tests a few posts back. I have a few ideas concerning that issue, not sure we're there yet...but I was hoping the voltage at 1-2 ohms resistance would be a little higher. Now we tie it back full circle to "6 volt or 12 volt" which is better with this particular alternator? "

____ No mater the alternator, any unit will have an easier time reaching the 6-volt mark than 12 !
Single-cylinder motorcycles with their inherent inclination to use higher gearing with lower revving, are just naturally better matched to work with lower voltage systems. _ So whether one chooses a 6-volt or 12-volt system ought more depend on intended riding-conditions.
__ I've been thinking that someone ought be wondering about the importance/relevance of the resulting wattage & voltage figures -(1ohm---8.1a---8.4vdc---68w) in regards to keeping a 12v-system at least at the break-even point (near the 3450RPM-point).
If we had a head 'top-expert' in this field, I'd sure be asking him for an explanation as to why a load of a certain low value just happens to have it's particular ratio of amperage to voltage, for the amount of wattage it consumes. ...
When we see that Bill's 1-ohm test produced more than enough wattage to 'break-even' on a typical high-load 12v.system, yet the voltage-drop across the load is below 12-volts,
this raises the question, is 'break-even' not being achieved, or is it ? _ Well if the intended load-system would really be consuming all that wattage, then it's battery is not getting charged, thus break-even is then not being reached. _ But we've figured that a high-load load-system requires only about 60-watts, so this leaves the likely possibility that break-even is actually surpassed by this 3450RPM-point.
We still need to pin-down what the max.power-output is, (and at what working-impedance it occurs at), from the 3-section/parallel arrangement. _ So tests at slightly above & below 1-ohm, are thus called-for. _ And if 'max.power' is found to be at much below 1.0-ohms, then obviously dividing the stator in just two sections, would be more efficiently useful (than in the three sections).


" for clarification- was your idea to use three rectifiers with this combination of all coils? "
____ Well, I know there are rectifier-units made for up to three separate AC-inputs (and they get-by with less than 12 diodes), but since bridge-rect.blocks are easier to get,, yes, I expected one bridge-block to be used for each of the three stator-sections.
I would recommend against connecting the separate sections combined in parallel BEFORE connection to just one bridge-rectifier, because then the individual stator-windings can possibly see one-another as loads, (even though they're all in-phase, one will still certainly be at a potential disadvantage compared to another).


" how could I tie the six coil combination into my 12 volt single phase regulator? "

____ To best answer that, I'd need to see the unit's schematic-plan. _ But assuming it has a built-in bridge-rectifier, it could be used for one of the stator-outputs, while the other two outputs could be dumped into the system only when the lights are on.
Or you could take the neg & pos output pairs from all three rect.blocks to feed the related inputs of your R.R.unit, (which would simply spare half of it's internal bridge-diodes).


" do you still see this being useful being split up, "

____ In your case with the extra-high lighting-load, it looks like the three sections in parallel will provide the best impedance-match for most efficient power-transfer. _ (However for Bill, a bit less lowering of the working-impedance will likely provide a better match.)


" maybe in a one section vs. two section configuration, "

____ By that, I gather you mean leaving section-I & section-II in series, and yet put that combined dual-section in parallel with section-III (?) ...
I suppose the outcome of that could be interesting, and may even provide a better match for some particular load-system,, but it seems to me that the combined/dual-section would have life considerably easier than section-III.


" seperate circuits, to do seperate jobs, maybe one section for ignition, and two sections for lighting? And 2 seperate regulators? "

____ Now you're thinking more like myself ! _ (As I've always liked more complication with things !) _ But I don't see a real need for more than one regulator. _ However if I-myself found a need for regulators, I'd want two different types, so that one would kick-in whenever the other became overtaxed.
__ I want to see you being able to run your Z.light though,, so in order to do that, you'll need the combined-output of all three stator-sections, (so you can't divide-up your power-outputs).


" Just to be clear, when you combine these sections in parallel, I see the ohms divides, but how does it effect the volts DC? "

____ Okay, I think I know what you're getting at...
When power-sources are combined in parallel, their combined current-flow is equal to the sum of both their individual-flows, thus their combined-resistance to flow is halved, (as you realize),
and their individual power-outputs also get added-together (to get total-power) when combined, but their 'voltage' doesn't become 'added-together' OR 'halved', when combined,, it simply becomes the 'average' of the individual voltage-amounts, (so long as the sources pass the same amount of current).
__ (Have you ever understood how electricity can be figured/thought-of, much the same as water ?)

____ Bruce, did you ever get it figured-out WHICH of Bill's two posted "series/parallel" version-depictions, must be the right-one which correctly corresponds to your inquiry presented him ?


Fun-Cheers,
-Bob

[wcorey]

__ I've been thinking that someone ought be wondering about the importance/relevance of the resulting wattage & voltage figures, in regards to keeping a 12v-system at least at the break-even point (near the 3450RPM-point).
If we had a head 'top-expert' in this field, I'd sure be asking him

Maybe I'm missing something here but hasn't getting to the break even point for a 12v system been more or less the point of this entire thread? That question is so obvious I didn't think it needed to be asked, it's the reason I rejected the stock alternator to begin with and started playing with newer ones....



Bill

[DewCatTea-Bob]

__ I've been thinking that someone ought be wondering about the importance/relevance of the resulting wattage & voltage figures, in regards to keeping a 12v-system at least at the break-even point (near the 3450RPM-point).
If we had a head 'top-expert' in this field, I'd sure be asking him

Maybe I'm missing something here but hasn't getting to the break even point for a 12v system been more or less the point of this entire thread? That question is so obvious I didn't think it needed to be asked, it's the reason I rejected the stock alternator to begin with and started playing with newer ones....



Bill

Sorry, I had posted only what I had (mid.sentence) thus far at the time, before it was all possibly lost due to a black-out... lots of brown-outs tonight due to storms in the area !

Ya may as well not bother responding to any of my current-posts, if I haven't signed-off yet !

singing-off,
-Bob

[machten]

Maybe I'm missing something here but hasn't getting to the break even point for a 12v system been more or less the point of this entire thread? That question is so obvious I didn't think it needed to be asked, it's the reason I rejected the stock alternator to begin with and started playing with newer ones....

I have to say, as an external viewer, It is no longer clear to me what the objective is here in this thread, and it seems it may not be consistent amongst you all internally. Is it worth putting down three to five bullet points of what you all think you are trying to do? Let's face it, 34 pages, the thread has morphed, what are you trying to do? I think it is at least worth re-stating - if for no other reason than to let the rest of us know if we should keep reading it!!!

Kev

[Bevel bob]

Its pretty clear that the often carried out modification of simple unearthing and series connection of a 60w NC stator does not give the best output possible however i for one would not want to carry out anything much more dificult or complicate the wiring with switched outputs or additional rectifiers,I suspect that most owners would think the same,Just hopeing that something practical and usefull to the average guy will come from this.Perhaps several options with estimated outputs and simple instructions ---we can but hope.

[wcorey]

I have to say, as an external viewer, It is no longer clear to me what the objective is here in this thread, and it seems it may not be consistent amongst you all internally...what are you trying to do? I think it is at least worth re-stating -

I think we've been staying right on track, there has been the need for a number of side trips but mostly with the same end in mind. I was in research and development for the majority of my career and this is absolutely typical of how it goes, lots of dead ends, backtracking and second guessing, two steps forward and one back. Maybe or maybe not a useful (or any) conclusion...

The original purpose here was to decide if 6v or 12v was better, and obviously that's gone a bit off track, though not entirely. The funny part to me is that once this big sidetrack we're on is done, It can go right back to the original topic for which there isn't a definitive answer anyway and the alternator mods will still likely benefit either.
For the last couple dozen or so pages, I'd say the goal is and has been to simply figure out how to get the most out of our 6 pole alternators, though it's becoming apparent there will be no one magic bullet and there may be multiple choices depending on the intended setup and usage of the whole electrical system. Basically boils down to higher or lower wattage lighting and higher or lower rpm average use. There is already a thread in place for the purpose of consolidating the the info here into a more concise and useful form, hopefully when some conclusions are reached here, some effort will be made to organize it. I know I intend to go back and clean up some of my mess...
So really if you just want to know the bottom line without wallowing in the details of the journey, I'd just ignore this thread and wait for the other one to pop up to the top.


Bill

[wcorey]

So tests at slightly above & below 1-ohm, are thus called-for. _ And if 'max.power' is found to be at much below 1.0-ohms, then obviously dividing the stator in just two sections, would be more efficiently useful (than in the three sections).

I did some casual mucking around in the one and a fraction ohm neighborhood last night. First I found that most of my meters read a half ohm or so high, why so consistent I don't know, my cheapest little pocket meter I bought to keep on the bike turned out to be the most accurate and repeatable. Now I know one more reason why some of my test numbers have been inconsistent, because some of my resistors are also. The series of resistors that comprise my load array has grown to include four 1ohm, four 3ohm and a single 5ohm and to get a particular value I sometimes use, for instance, four 1ohm to get 4ohm but sometimes instead use a 1 and a 3. Well my 1ohm's are .8, .8, 1 and 1.1ohm , so for 2 ohms tests I could have been anywhere from 1.6 to 2.1.

Anyway, in this instance, I used this variance to my advantage along with an additional half ohm resistor to get values from .5 to 2ohms in more or less tenth ohm steps. I applied them to ('my version' of) the 'grand series, three section, full wave, series/parallel' setup at both 3450 and 6k rpm. I had more than a difficult time as the results were very close and with the small consistency issues I have with this particular configuration, the ducks didn't always form a row. I went back and repeated many of the tests until I was satisfied that at least the average of the results made sense and fit in with the others. I'm not going to bother posting a detailed breakdown as I didn't organize it very well and was just jotting down numbers as they came up and I bounced around all over the place. I did the tests in random fashion as I obtained the various resistive values in no particular order and used them when I found them. I do have the big multi-tap 1ohm but don't have the adjustable center tap hardware, if I have to do more of this I'll rig something up with that.

What I can say is that at 3450 rpm, the wattage outputs were mostly around 57-60 at 1.3 to 2ohms and did drop off consistently below 1.3. Same for 6krpm but wattage was 133-137. There was such a small percentage of difference between them that with the margin of error I'm dealing with I feel the difference is functionally indeterminable (and likely inconsequential anyway).


Bill