six coil alternator in a narrow case 250

[DewCatTea-Bob]

By: ecurbruce...
" In the diagram I have from this thread which is the one that you colored showes the L1 & L3 of these coils before rectification, which would still be AC? "

____ Well the AC circuit-path actually only makes it as far as 'C1" ! _ As AC can't exist anywhere other than at the diode, once a diode is part of the AC-circuit !


" If that's the case, the the AC would affect the DC as an interupt to the DC coil saturation? "

____ Well since C1 has such a small value, I doubt that that otherwise possible complication (to the flux-field), has any significant/relevant effect.


" If not, what do you see as the function of the L1 &L3, and L2A & L2B coils? "

____ I've heard of at least two (somewhat different) working-theories concerning those coils' & the core's effect on flux-field interaction, plus I have my own theory.
But I'm going to get that all covered when I create a dedicated thread on the black-box, (hopefully by tomorrow).


" I was thinking my alternator was putting out AC until rectification to half wave DC at D3 & D4.(which is on the other side of L1 & L3). "

____ While the alternator still offers AC, AC can't exist through a circuit with a diode in it, no matter where in the circuit the diode is located amongst any other components.
Only DC is then capable of 'flowing' !


" A DC choke coil is a pretty common component in a modern regulator, to even out the pulsating DC flow after a rectifier, to purify it a little by storing some energy in the coil windings. "
I can't figure out just what the intended use is in this application? "

____ Actually, (here we go again Mike?), there's no way to 'choke' (pure) DC, so to call a component a "DC-choke" is akin to having a tire-pressure gauge which is specifically made just for checking flat-tires only.
Flowing-current has to be AC, Pulsating-DC or at least rippling-DC, in order for a current-choke to have any reluctance-effect, and a current-choke has to be very much stronger in order to effect any other current than AC !
For non-audio devices such as our DUKEs, there's no concern for smoothing-out any DC-ripple, and the battery does so relatively super-well, anyhow.
I'd say that the silly name 'DC-choke' only came to be because they have to be so much stronger (than an equivalent AC-choke) to accomplish any effect.
__ One theory I've heard of, depends on those coils choking the alt.output when the lights are off, or the battery doesn't require charging-juice.
We'll get into all the various possibilities later, in the coming new thread.


" I hope I'm not just muddying up the water with these questions... just trying to figure out what I'm seeing. "

____ All input, even questions, is of course welcome !


DUKE-Cheers,
-Bob

[MotoMike]

"
" Bob I don't know how much you've been around full wave rectifiers other than bridge, the the circuit is from what I can see identical to a center tapped transformer secondary connected to a classic extremely common full wave rectifier. A pair of diodes(two not four) are often the heart of a full wave rectifier. It is wired just this way so that you get 360 degree rectification. "

____ Yes Mike, all of that is of course quite true (& in accordance with convention) ! _ But I say, that that's not REALLY genuine FULL-wave either ! ...
What we've been arguing-out has been based on a technical misunderstanding...

MM.
The definition of a full wave rectifier is that it rectifies through the full wave. It doesn't require that the full wave being going through one coil. The design that gets the result is open for any number of ways to get there. Because you have decided that the definition must include this doesn't mean it is right. And to insist on a point that no one else in the field would agree with only serves to teach the uninitiated a concept that is contrary to the apparently much despised convention. Your understanding of what is going on in the circuit is mostly correct and if you are happy with naming it other than what it is, I'm ok with it.

As YOU've been staying (rather stuck) in reference to 'conventional' technical-thought, while I-MYSELF feel the need to make more logical-conclusions which make sensible-logic for helping the unTRAINED to properly comprehend what's ACTUALLY what, (in the real-world)!

MM.
Our discussion does not change what happens in the circuit. I don’t think we are disagreeing on that are we. (at least not this part). So to the untrained, your insistence that it be called a “two half wave, half coil added together to make what appears to be a full wave output” rectifier, (or whatever words you would choose) when I feel technicians and engineers would simply and correctly call it a full wave rectifier, serves to only obfuscate and confuse the issue, not make it simpler.

When YOU state "full wave", YOU've been trained to think of the final 'wave-form' which is indeed "full wave" regardless of whether ACTUALly 'FULL-wave' OR simply 'DUAL half-wave' (both of which merely APPEARs the same).

MM
Your logical conclusion seems to be "stuck" on the self imposed requirement that a full wave rectifier must conduct the full wave through the entire length of one coil. No such requirement exists. The requirement is that rectification is done through 360 degrees of the wave form. My conclusion has in part to do with the resulting wave form in so far as it being a function of full wave rectification. The way you can tell is if current though that circuit for the full 360 degrees.

__ Most of my educated life, I've been perplexed because so many identical terms & words have been allowed to have more than just one meaning !
In this case, you're seemingly willing to accept both types of so-called "full wave", as being pretty-much the exact same thing, (yet I'm sure that if you could get around your tech-training, you would then likely agree that that should not be the case in real-actuality).

MM
You are putting words in my mouth. I recognize the differences in the two circuits and why you might choose one of the other. If you would like I’m willing to discuss them too.

MM
The training is what gives one the ability to look at the circuit and see what is going on. This is why I chose to refrain from commenting further about it without the circuit to discuss. The analysis is based on logic and from studying the schematic and tracing current through it. Not on rote rhetoric as you seem to be implying.

The two (quite different) types of full-wave I'm referring to are:
_1st - as in the example you've given above, where two halves of a single-winding are effectively divided in two, with each half then being 'half-wave' rectified and then combined so that we then end-up with your "full wave". _ (I think that type of (fake!) full-wave should've been conventionally termed as 'complete-wave', or anything else more actually-suitable than "full wave" !) _ This type of "full wave" leaves two half-waves un-retained & allowed to be no longer remaining as part of the WHOLE (from which the other two half-waves were retained).

MM
Bob, I think this makes little sense.

_2nd - is the type of (real!) FULL-wave which DOES retain ALL halves of the WHOLE -(AC-waveform) ! _ Which is what's obtained with a 4 diode-bridge, (not just 2 diodes!).
__ So while both types of 'full-wave' may look to have the same waveform, how can they both be considered "FULL", if that which you accept as being a "full wave", leaves behind two halves of that which the retained halves came from ?

MM
It doesn't leave behind the halves, it just switches from which coil it takes the half from.

__ (If I may use an analogy,, if ya took identical-twin/clones & divided each one into right & left halves, discarding opposite-halves of each, and then combined the two retained halves,, would ya then expect to have a single 'full' clone ? _ I [for one] don't think anyone would fully agree that the resulted-clone is still exactly the very-same as the two original doner-clones,, however it seems that according to your-way of conventionized-thinking, you'd maintain that the resulted-clone is STILL just the very-same as an original/full-one.)

MM
Bob that is one of the worse analogies I have ever seen.

" The output of the alternator is indeed the same source, just opposite ends of it. "

____ Yes, of-course both power-outputs are from the same power-production device !
BUT, each (of the two power-outputs) is from a SEPARATE alt.stator-winding ! _ Thus separate power-sources (which NEED-NOT be thought-of as just one-single source) !

MM
Need not be thought of as one power source, just should be.
The physical often needs to be simplified to make sense of it, or to use as a teaching aid. That is why I untangled the physical layout of the stator coils in my drawing. From the electrons point of view, it sees them just as the center tapped secondary of a transformer. The connecting wires I drew between each individual coil are completely unnecessary, but done to help identify it as the stator in this circuit. It could have been drawn exactly like a center tapped secondary and would have allowed analysis in exactly the same way. The power source is the same in this circuit, not separate sources. It is a system where you add the outputs of each coil together to get the potential across their output. In the transformer if you had 1000 windings in the secondary, you could add together output of each 100 windings in the same way.

" If you connect an o-scope to each of the stator outputs the sign waves will be equal in amplitude and opposite in polarity. The stator winding acts exactly like the secondary of a transformer. It doesn't matter if the voltage across it is induced by a magnetic rotating field or a changing field from a primary winding. "

____ That's pretty-much fairly-true,, however, with 'transformers' the driving-power is provided from refined-power with a set-voltage (& resulted current with corresponding-set flux-fields), that's fed into the primary-winding, which induces a CORRESPONDINGly-set voltage into the 'secondary-winding'. _ Where-as with 'stator-windings', the induced-power comes from UNrefined flux-fields which in-turn can thus only induce RAW-power into the stator-windings, which therefore can-not already include any refined/set voltage-amount, (until connected to a circuit).

" To state that differing demands on the circuit could in theory place a 25 watt load during one diodes 180 degree shift and migh reduce to 10 watt demand on the other diodes shift, doesn't change the circuit design from being what it is. "

____ Of-course not, (and an irrelevant point to my-case) !
My point was akin to one diode being connected to a 25-watt power-source while the second diode is connected to a 10-watt power-source... the combined-output of both might be considered as a complete "full wave" wave-form but, it's non-uniform amplitude would be a sure sign that the wave-form is not FULL ! - As would be the case if the two power-sources had been actually FULL-wave rectified (as by a bridge-rectifier).

MM
In a Bridge only half of the diodes conduct at a time. 2 during one half cycle and the other two during the opposite half cycle. Instantaneous demands from the loads could cause 10 watts from the coil during one half and 25 watts during the next. This is an immaterial point to determine if it is a full wave rectifier. It is only material in determining if the whole coil or half coil is being used. But we are talking waves, not coils.

I think you have created in your lexicon the "Full Coil Full time Full wave" rectifier. Only the last condition of the three is required to make a full wave rectifier.
I would wager that there are many different full wave rectifier designs that were tried until these two designs have come to the top.

" Still standing by it being a full wave rectifier circuit. "

____ Yes of course, but only according to 'conventional' tech.thought/theory, and RESULTING wave-form !

MM
It is not the wave form, but rectification through full cycle that determines correct nomenclature

__ I'm sure that anyone-ELSE here who's read-through this far, by now understands that what we're REALLY actually talking about are two separate HALF-waves which have been combined to be same as a "full wave" wave-form,, but ACTUALLY (in the real-world), is not really "FULL" wave. _ Because a real/FULL full-wave contains BOTH negative AND positive halves of the WHOLE AC-cycle, (and NOT two disconected halves, from two separate full AC-cycles) !

MM
The half cycles are from the same whole cycle induced across the stator winding.
I guess we are reaching the point where we have to agree to disagree.

__ Try thinking of what would happen if ONE of the alt.windings happened to burn-open... you'd then still have a (unrelated) half-wave left (for use). _ But if that remaining half-wave had actually been a part of the very-same (full!)- AC-cycle, then it would've been lost (along with), as well !

MM
Burning out one of the coils is not how it was designed. The same argument could be made in your bridge if you try to think what would happen if one of your diodes burned open. You’d then have a half wave rectifier. This is true in both cases, but doesn’t change what the circuit was designed to do. That being to rectify through the full wave form. Which both do.

__ I'm just proclaiming that if a single-complete full-wave P.DC (2-pulse) wave-form is not created from the very-same single-cycle of AC, then it's NOT a genuine 'FULL-wave' DC-cycle !

MM.
Proclaim away. It’s a free country and it’s not illegal to state your opinion. Since it is a relatively insignificant point and not critical to the understanding of the circuit, I doubt it is doing any damage to anyone trying to follow along. I mean it is really coming down to semantics isn’t it?

____ (Mike, you really have to be seeing my point, [at least by now],, so if you continue to seem to think that I'm not making any valid point, [distinctly nameless as it may be, according to convention],, I'll THEN have to consider that perhaps you may be as a mindless-robotron, hopelessly brainwashed by convention-oversight.)

MM
Bob, this must be some of that jesting you alluded to earlier. In the same vein, if by now you have not begun to think that some of your acquired opinions and thought on the circuit merit reconsideration, I’ll then have to consider perhaps that you may be a crusty old fart too set in his ways to listen to reason or to accept that you might be wrong, hopelessly stuck with non-conventional thought.

I see what you are saying Bob, I just think you got it wrong. Maybe we should get together have a cup of coffee and arm wrestle over it.



Mike

[DewCatTea-Bob]

The definition of a full wave rectifier is that it rectifies through the full wave. It doesn't require that the full wave being going through one coil. The design that gets the result is open for any number of ways to get there. Because you have decided that the definition must include this doesn't mean it is right. And to insist on a point that no one else in the field would agree with only serves to teach the uninitiated a concept that is contrary to the apparently much despised convention. Your understanding of what is going on in the circuit is mostly correct and if you are happy with naming it other than what it is, I'm ok with it.

____ I well understand where-YOU're-coming-from in your preference to promote the convention-ruling concepts,, but as you must have heard before, there's been many others (than just myself) who aren't in full agreement with all the concessions which were adopted by the "convention" (which had agreed on many conception-rules in their attempt to make electricity-related concepts easier for the average-population to grasp), and-so whenever I-myself find that their stanardized-concepts are insufficient to independantly catagorize what I believe to be signifficant differences, I then have to term different-things so as to keep them from becoming mixed-up & confused. _ (Don't forget, the-convention were originally responsible for the [finally abandoned] POSITIVE current-flow diection concept, which has left us stuck with electronics that 'point' in the WRONG-direction ! )
__ In our-case here, if convention had bothered to provide specifically-independent terms for EACH varied type of full-wave rectification-circuit, then you & I would've had nothing here to get confused about, as we have. _ But while I-MYSELF care to keep the type of 'full-wave' rectification destintified, YOU however continue to promote confusion by insisting that it's all the same (when it's ACTUALLY not !).

So to the untrained, your insistence that it be called a “two half wave, half coil added together to make what appears to be a full wave output” rectifier, (or whatever words you would choose) when I feel technicians and engineers would simply and correctly call it a full wave rectifier, serves to only obfuscate and confuse the issue, not make it simpler.

____ The reason YOU think that is simply because you've allowed your mind to have been brainwashed to think that way ! _ And that's the only reason you can't accept understanding an alternate concept even when it actually makes BETTER sense. _ So while my straight-forward conceptions may confuse such as yourself, (who've been 'TRAINED'),, to those who haven't been so mind-conditioned, most-all of my offered (possibly non-conventional) concepts are easier for the untrained to grasp, since my offered enlightened concepts are more distintly tangible to the 'real-world'.
__ And with absolutely no doubt whatsoever, I STILL DECLARE that the Ducati rectifier-system is actually a 'DUAL half-wave' rectification circuit, (even if everyone like yourself can only conceive of it as being the same as any "full wave" circuit) !

Your logical conclusion seems to be "stuck" on the self imposed requirement that a full wave rectifier must conduct the full wave through the entire length of one coil. No such requirement exists.

____ Perhaps no such requirement by 'CONVENTION', that is,, but such overlooked destintion is NOT one which ought to be dismissed & allowed to be unclassified as non-destinct ! ...

The requirement is that rectification is done through 360 degrees of the wave form. My conclusion has in part to do with the resulting wave form in so far as it being a function of full wave rectification. The way you can tell is if current though that circuit for the full 360 degrees.

____ That's somewhat fair enough, BUT, it leaves out in the cold much to be desired, as it's insufficient to cover rather important (overlooked) distiguishing details ! ...
TRUE full-wave REQUIRES four diode-valves so as to harvast 100% of the entire available waveform-cycles, and thus really DESERVES to be termed as 'FULL-wave' ! _ However that which you ALSO wish to consider as being "full wave" as well, only allows merely-just 50% of the available waveform-cycles of the two windings ! _ So what's-up with that !? _ Seems like a pretty NOTEWORTHY distintion to ME !
__ It seems that if left up-to you & the-convention, a 'spade' would simply be referred-to as merely-just a black-suit card, where-as I-myself believe in straight-forwardly calling a 'spade' a "spade" !

The two (quite different) types of full-wave I'm referring to are:
__1st - as in the example you've given above, where two halves of a single-winding are effectively divided in two (with use of a center-tap), with each half then being 'half-wave' rectified and then their separate-outputs combined-together so that we then end-up with your "full wave". _ (I think that type of [fake!] full-wave should've been conventionally termed as 'completed-wave', or anything-else more actually-suitable than simply "full wave" !) _ This type of "full wave" leaves two half-waves un-retained & allowed to be no-longer remaining as part of the WHOLE (from which the retained half-waves came).

Bob, I think this makes little sense.

____ While I now realize that it wasn't worded too well, I think the reason why you don't get what I mean is partly because you're probably looking at it as-if a transformer with a sine-wave inputted into it's primary-winding and thus see the same wave-cycle spread-over the entire secondary-winding and so-thus as the cycle's wave procedes from positive to negative you then of-course see a full-wave 'completed' (at the rectified-output) as the positive-half comes from one side of the center-tap while the negative-half soon comes from the opposite-side, (thus resulting in "full wave").
__ However I-myself don't look at it from the viewpoint of the primary-side (and only it's effect on the entire secondary), but rather from the view-point of the CENTER-TAP's location-point... and in THAT case, I see side-A live with a positive-pulse WHILST side-B offers an ignored negative-pulse,, and in the next half-cycle, I see side-A offering an ignored negative-pulse whilst side-B is then live with a positive-pulse !
So certainly NOW you must understand why your-accepted "full wave" ought-NOT actually be considered as REAL 'FULL-wave' !

__ So while both types of 'full-wave' may look to have the same waveform, how can they both be considered "FULL", if that which you accept as being a "full wave", leaves behind two halves of that which the retained halves came from ?

It doesn't leave behind the halves, it just switches from which coil it takes the half from.

____ By left "behind", I had meant 'ignored' & left unused.
__ Anyhow,, you're STILL apparently just considering ONLY the input-waveform into the primary & it's corresponding waveform over the ENTIRE secondary-winding, without consideration of the resulted-pair of (half-sized)- waveform-cycles which both develop in respect to the center-tap's neutral MIDPOINT-circuit, (on BOTH sides of the center-tap, simultaniously !).
And from THAT center-point location,, from IT's perspective, it can see both positive AND negative polarities (alternately) on BOTH sides of itself (at ALL times) !
But with only-just two diodes, ya can merely obtain EITHER just the positive OR just the negative power-pulses, ONLY ! _ NOT both, as is only possible with FOUR diodes !
__ So when you bother to consider positive & negative with 'respect' to the CENTER-TAP's own resulted neutral-point, THEN you should finally conceive & understand the aspects of the rather 2-in-1 like conception-matter which I've been professing-of.

____ Yes, of-course both power-outputs are from the same power-production device !
BUT, each (of the two power-outputs) is from a SEPARATE & electrically-isolated alt.stator-winding ! _ Thus separate power-sources (which NEED-NOT be thought-of as just one-single electrical-source) !

Need not be thought of as one power source, just should be.

____ NO, they should-NOT be ! ... Mainly because the two independent stator-windings are-NOT simply "opposite ends" of a single-continuous stator-winding with a 'center-tap' (as YOU consistently insist on them being as) !!
As the twin stator-winding arrangment is signifficantly different than that of an ordinary center-tapped transformer's winding arrangement !
__ And besides that,, once a center-tap is utilized, it then becomes same as a 'common' *, which also then effectively converts an otherwise single power-source (such as a 'secondary') into two separate power-sources, either of which can function independently of the other ! _ And-so that certainly qualifies as TWO (virtually-entirely) SEPARATE power-source circuits ! _ So-thus ought-NOT be thought-of as merely-just ONE power-source !
ESPECIALLY in THIS-case where the twin-alt.stator-windings are certainly-NOT very-much the same as that of a center-tapped transformer !

The physical often needs to be simplified to make sense of it, or to use as a teaching aid.

____ So then the only reason for YOU to prefer to consider Ducati's twin-circuit winding-arrangment as being the same as a common 'center-tap arrangment', is so that you-yourself can simplify it into something that's more common which you've been long familiar with,, and that is what's keeping you from conceiving an unfamiliar & fairly DIFFERENT conception of the separate-windings arangement.
I can certainly understand why you think it's okay to condense-down the twin-circuit arrangement into being simply the very-same as a mere center-tap arrangement,, but by being so hasty to CONCLUDE such a deduction, you're thus-then leaving yourself closed-minded to seeing ANOTHER conception (which apparently you're not familiar with).

My point was akin to one of the diodes being connected to a 25-watt power-source while the second diode is connected to a 10-watt power-source, (from opposite-ends of the center-tap)... The combined-output of both (180-degree out-of-phase) rectified half-cycles could possibly be considered as "full wave" due-to the result of rectification of a complete AC.cycle-waveform (taken from across the ENTIRE secondary) BUT, the resulting NON-uniform amplitude (from the two combined outputs) however, would be an OBVIOUS & sure sign that the resulted COMBINED-pair of half-cycle waveforms are actually NOT that of just ONE/single-original full-AC.cycle, (as taken from the two separate outputs [at either side of the center-tap]) ! - As would otherwise naturally be the actual-case, IF-providing that the two power-sources had been actually FULL-wave rectified (as by a 4-diode bridge-rectifier).

In a Bridge only half of the diodes conduct at a time. 2 during one half cycle and the other two during the opposite half cycle. Instantaneous demands from the loads could cause 10 watts from the coil during one half and 25 watts during the next. This is an immaterial point to determine if it is a full wave rectifier. It is only material in determining if the whole coil or half coil is being used. But we are talking waves, not coils.

____ STILL again, you've missed my intended-point, and diverged-away with "immaterial" & non-relevant thought ! ...
I was never referring to such as: "differing" "Instantaneous" load "demands",, but rather, in such case as the two stator-windings only being able to offer (rather obvious [@ 25w & 10w, for example]) UNequal amounts of power-output (for powering any consistantly-constant load-demand). _ And of-course the same 'rippled' P.DC rectified-output would also result as-well with a center-tapped transformer that happens to have it's center-tap tapped (into the secondary) OFF-center !
__ With REAL FULL-wave rectification, the fully-whole P.DC-waveform is naturally with only CONSTANT-amplitude ! _ Wheras the 'dual half-wave' rectification (which YOU've continually insisted is also "full wave"), can possibly (& somewhat likely) provide combined-P.DC with 'ripple-effect' - (since the 'combined' sets of half-waves are-not of exactly equal amplitude [with respect to a center-tap that's not being ignored]) ! _ Thus a SURE sign of "fake" full-wave rectification without FOUR diodes !
__ Surely this extended-explanation should allow my intended-point to have become clear to you by now !? _ (As someone with your training & experience shouldn't have to have such shown to them displayed on an o.scope-screen !)

I think you have created in your lexicon the "Full Coil Full time Full wave" rectifier.

____ ALRIGHT, that's now a tip-off that you may actually reallize at-least one aspect of the differences which I've been trying to point-out between the 'dual half-wave'/"full wave" -(achieved with just 2 diodes) and REAL 'full-wave' -(achieved with 4 diodes) rectification-processes,, (because you seem to have deduced that I-myself believe that 'full-wave' MUST-be "Full Coil Full time Full wave".) _ And that's indeed certainly correct ! - If 'full-wave' is not also FULL-time, THEN it certainly should-not be referred-to as "full wave" also ! _ Such part-time "full wave" (done with only 2 diodes [and connected to separate winding-circuits]) really OUGHT-to not be referred-to as (real) full-wave, since it doesn't include 50% of the rectified waveform-cycles ! _ Wheras real full-wave (done with 4 diodes) retains 100% of the involved waveform-cycles !
__ So therefore, I believe that it's certainly of-cource NOT fair to allow the untrained to believe that the two (clearly different) rectification-processes are both 'full wave' !
While I do agree of-course that both processes end-up with a resulting full-wave waveform, REAL (bridge-rectified type) full-wave is 100%/full-duty, while the other (twin-diode retified type) retification-process is merely-just 50%/HALF-duty ! _ And-so THEREFORE, since there's such a SIGNIFFICANT-difference, the two rectification-processes should-not both be left with the very-same 'full wave' terminalogy ! _ As doing-so (as YOU have) would leave the 'untrained' unclear (& possibly confused !) about what's REALLY what (whenever it comes to 'full-wave rectification').
And since this forum is not specifically meant for convenually-trained technicians, it's thus-then best to use terms which actually make the BEST sense ! _ Thus it's certainly better to call a 'spade' a "spade" and refer to the 'half-duty fw.rectification-process' as that which it most-clearly actually is - "dual half-wave" !

Only the last condition of the three is required to make a full wave rectifier.

____ That may indeed be so, according to 'convention' and those like yourself who've been 'trained' according-to convention-rules,, but you must also understand how such rulings are-not so clearly automatically understood by most of those who haven't been so well trained,, and without that specific-training, can thus possibly become confused and/or misled !
__ It's really too-bad that some of the 'convention' rulings (such as that related to what we've been discussing), were specifically aimed merely at just those to be 'trained' in the tect.field, without also being straight-forwardly logically-clear to the average-joe as well !
These two different rectification-methods for obtaining a fullwave-waveform ought to have been separately-specified as '100% duty-cycle full-wave' & '50% duty-cycle full-wave',
(so as to help prevent any such disconcertation between those who're enlightened [such as myself], and those who've allowed their minds to have become 'conditioned' [by convention] ).

It is not the wave form, but rectification through full cycle that determines correct nomenclature

____ Right, and I've concluded that that requirement has been actually fully met by MY-OWN point, as well ! _ Because not-only does that (rather FULL)- 'full-wave' which I've been referring-to include the entire AC.cycle INputted into the fw.rectifier, it ALSO includes the entire RESULTED full-wave P.DC-waveform OUTputted by the rectifier, as well ! _ Wheras 'dual
half-wave' (that's still "full wave" according to you), doesn't retain BOTH the negative AND positive halves of the inputted AC.cycles at the output of each of the diode-rectifiers !

__
... what we're REALLY actually talking about are two separate HALF-waves which have been combined-together (in line) to become the same as a 'full wave' DC.wave-form,, but ACTUALLY is not really "FULL" full-wave. _ Because a real/FULL full-wave contains BOTH negative AND positive halves of the WHOLE AC-cycle, and NOT merely-just two disconected rectified-halves (from two separate [simultanious] full AC-cycles) placed in line with one-another !

The half cycles are from the same whole cycle induced across the stator winding.

____ Of-course, BUT you're overlooking that there are TWO stator-windings (which are both being separately half-wave rectified) !! _ And this quite noteworthy difference is also the case with a transformer-secondary, once it's center-tap is UTILIZED to then create two separate AC.circuits (to become separately rectified [by half-wave, or even full-wave, rectification]).

I guess we are reaching the point where we have to agree to disagree.

____ No, not really,, as I'M actually really-not in outward-dissagreement with any of that which you've stated ! _ Rather however, it's apparent that you just aren't realizing that I've only been in referrance to just the rather-PERTANENT resulted OUTPUT-waveformS,, whilst YOU-yourself on the other-hand, have been left stuck in referrance ONLY to the relatively-irrelevant originally-INPUTted AC.cycle, (whenever you've been in reqards-to the "full cycle").
So it has become clear to ME, that you & I have not been in referrance to the very-SAME aspect of what-all is going-on within the ENTIRE rectification-process... As I've only been concerned with just the OUTPUTTED-waveform from the rectifier-circuits, whilst apparently, YOU've been overlooking that and remaining-stuck only in referrence to just the AC.cycle of the ENTIRE-secondary.

__ Try thinking of what would happen if ONE of the alt.windings happened to burn-open (or somehow otherwise go off-line) ... you'd then STILL have the other (unrelated !) half-wave DC.power-pulse (that's provided by the OTHER alt.winding & diode circuit), left for charging-use, (from the still-working/remaining side [of the twin-diode charging-system] ). _ But if that remaining half-wave could've actually been a continuous-part of the very-same (full)- AC-cycle, THEN in such case, the OTHER-half would've then of-course ALSO been lost along-with, as well !
So the fact that one half-cycle is still available (when it's step-mate half-cycle no-longer is), is obvious proof that the paired-up half-cycles -(which when combined-together APPEAR as same as full-wave), are NOT from the exact-same AC.source !

Burning out one of the coils is not how it was designed.

____ That reply-response skirts-around the submitted problem-senario that I had meant for you to solve & see (what I'm trying to get you to realize) !

The same argument could be made in your bridge if you try to think what would happen if one of your diodes burned open. You’d then have a half wave rectifier.

____ That's of-course quite-true, BUT only for just ONE side of the center-tap !
(Ducati half-ware rectifies both sides of the effective-centertap, and not full-wave rectify the entire effective-secondary [@ full-duty].)

This is true in both cases, but doesn’t change what the circuit was designed to do. That being to rectify through the full wave form. Which both do.

____ Yes, of-course,, but that's in the case of the AC.waveform across the primary and the ENTIRE secondary ! _ You're STILL continuing-on to overlook the fact that once a center-tap becomes utilized as a common-circuit, that there's thus-THEN a full AC.cycle available for rectfication from BOTH sides of the center-tap ! _ And YOUR supposed "full wave" (which is also my 'dual half-wave') can only provide just a single half-wave from EACH side (of the center-tap) !
Certainly by-now you must conceive that which you've thus-far been failing to realize & directly-respond to ! - And that's that there are TWO (not just one !) separate circuits to rectify full-AC from, once the center-tap position becomes utilized as a 'common' circuit-pathway, (which is exactly what Ducati's twin diode-rectifier circuit is set-up to do !). _ Cuz if that center-tap/common circuit-pathway became opened, then the SINGLE-pair of connected diodes would thus-then allow absolutely NO current-flow ! - NONE at all, (not even just half-wave) !

Since it is a relatively insignificant point and not critical to the understanding of the circuit, I doubt it is doing any damage to anyone trying to follow along.

____ Well actually I think it IS a fairly significant difference to be concerned with because, some of your readers may otherwise conclude that there's no need to consider upgrading to FULLY-authantic full-wave rectification
IF 'dual half-wave' also actually provides (YOUR professed) "full wave".
__ For the untrained, it's not fair to allow possible-conclusion (by such others) that both rectification processs (with either 2-pairs OR 1-pair of diodes) will both achieve 'full-wave' EQUALLY ! _ Cuz 'dual half-wave' / (YOUR "full wave"), rectification ONLY 'provides' just the positive (OR just the negative, [as in w-c.systems]) halves of the full AC.cycle, from each of the two alt.stator-windings ! _ While REAL/FULL full-wave rectification, (which is only possible with a 4-diode 'bridge' rectifier-circuit), provides ALL positive AND negative halves of the AC.cycle, (for powering a load-system) !

if by now you have not begun to think that some of your acquired opinions and thought on the circuit merit reconsideration, I’ll then have to consider perhaps that you may be a crusty old fart too set in his ways to listen to reason or to accept that you might be wrong, hopelessly stuck with non-conventional thought.

____ Well Mike, I may possibly be some-sort of "crusty old fart" but MY conclusions concerning the PARTICULAR circuits in question (which you must still be constantly-overlooking), really do-NOT warrent any reconsideration at all, as I'M definately NOT wrong !
__ I won't argue-against any suspection that my understanding of this-stuff expands beyond the confinds of basic 'conventional' limitations, and I don't see the need (as YOU do) to discuss such stuff (in THIS forum) as if most-all of our readers are conventionally-trained elec.techs, either.

I see what you are saying Bob, I just think you got it wrong.

____ NO Mike, I do-NOT have what I'M saying wrong ! _ And if you REALLY understood what I'm saying, you'd THEN realize that everything I've been proclaiming is actually CORRECT !
I really don't much appreciate that you state that you "see" what I'm saying, and-yet can also suggest that I "got it wrong". _ That clearly lets me KNOW for-sure that you have yet to comprehend that which I've been trying to make-clear to you, (and I hold your 'convention' mind-training responsible for your failure to be able to 'see' an alternative/non-conventional circuit-arrangement).
__ When you & I first begain to seem to be at-odds, I back-then couldn't understand why you didn't simply agree with me,, but as we continued-on, I came to realize that you were not in referrence to the very-same circuitS as I was... Rather YOU were only seeing the pair of alt.stator-circuits AS-IF the same as that of a transformer's secondary (with center-tap),,
whilst I-myself, (although willing to accept that transformer-like comparison-example of yours), have been concentrating MY-own circuit-concerns specifically on the resulted PAIR of circuits which are separated by the EFFECTIVE-centertap/common-ground circuit-pathway !
Therefore, all this time we haven't both been concerned with the very-same 'circuiting' ! ...
And YOU've only been in referrence to a common/standard (50% duty) "full wave" type of rectification-circuit which (in YOUR view) happens to appear virtually the same as Ducati's dual-diode & twin stator-winding circuits setup.
__ So now that this MIS-meeting of our minds is cleared-up, you should finally pretty-much understand most-all of that which I've been intending to proclaim as ACTUAL (not merely 'virtual') fact, (despite your somewhat fairly-limited 'conventional' mind-set).
__ At-least by-now you ought-to agree that what I refer-to as 'dual half-wave' (which RESULTS with what YOU accept as being "full wave"), is ONLY-just 50%/half duty-cycle rectification, and therefore should-NOT be fair to go-by the very-same FW.term as REAL 'full-wave' which is 100%/FULL duty-cycle rectification !

One of the limitations of the stock coils is the fact that wire used is quite small in diameter. The advantage of going to six coils is that you can have thicker wire and still have a similar wind count.

[/quote][/quote]____ JB, it's understood that you had chosen to use a larger gauge of wire, but
would you please be so kind as to also tell us of the coil-winding pattern you chose to use for your rewound stator ? _ Did you maintain the same complex pattern as stock, or switch to a simpler more conventional winding-pattern ?
__ And any other related details you care to add would no doubt be of interest, as well.
I'm adding an improved-view of the pic of your modified alt.stator.



Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob

[jbcollier]

Hi Everyone,

I don't monitor this board that closely: sorry, too many other pots on the boil.

I wrench on European sport cars for a living and am an electrical specialist. This does not, however, mean that I am an electrical engineer. We use a specialist rewinding shop when required. For example, the fuel pump on series one Jaguar E-types has an armature that tends to overheat and burn out so we get them rewound. Not cheap ($$$) but they are otherwise made of unobtainium and, the heavier gauge wire used, eliminates the problem.

When I was redoing my single, there was nothing else available at the time other than isolating the ground to convert it to a nominal 12v. This does not increase the wattage though, due to the high internal resistance of the stock design. I wanted to use a Lucas Rita ignition system so 12v was a must but the Rita is a current hog and I also needed a daytime headlight due to local regulations. Thankfully, even to my diminutive intellect, it was obvious that adding the "missing" coils to the six pole stator could only make things better.

So I gathered up two stators and went to my rewinder and explained the problem carefully. He understood the issues right away and it was he who made the suggestion that I needed to use thicker wire. Though they mostly do oilfield equipment, he had done several motorcycle stators over the years. I left it with him with the understanding that it was going to be expensive. He did not fail me with either the quality or the bill! Over $400 if I remember correctly (ouch!). However, the stator has performed flawlessly with my only charging issues being due to a duff regulator/rectifier. I recently upgraded to an AGM battery and there must have been a suspect cell in my previous battery as now it charges the battery at idle (2500 rpm) with the 35w headlight on!

The windings are sealed in the usual shellac and, frankly, not even the interests of advancing the scientific knowledge of this list will induce me to open it up.

Now, all that said, and, despite the fact that I am very happy with the results, I would not follow the same route again. There are now at least three different uprated charging systems available for single on the market. One even incorporates an electronic ignition system and another hits the dizzy heights of 150 watts. No question at all, I would put one of these newly available systems in any new single I built up.

Best Regards,

John