Can stock alternator produce more volts and power?

[DewCatTea-Bob]

" The worst possible outcome for the rest of us is that one of you eventually get's the the s&^ts and stops posting. "

____ I don't think you have to worry about that.
Mike & I still PM if we feel any need and I believe we both remain on friendly terms.
But I wouldn't be surprised if he would really like to give me a bop on the back of the head with a foam-bat, at times. _ And I suppose I'd deserve it half the times too.


" So please don't turn this in to a "pissing contest" to see who can reach highest up the wall. "

__ I'm sure neither of us is coming from that low point of view, I think we both just want to get facts ironed-out so that we both understand that which the other does, to both of our possible benefits, as well as that of anyone else caring to keep pace.
The process here sure gives my brain a much better work-out than anything my wife or neighbor ever does !


" It's Ok to agree to differ. "

____ I don't agree it's okay to differ, at least not in direct opposition as it sometimes SEEMS,, so such as that is what needs to be brought into agreement, while things like exact power & load wattage figures can be left un-etched in stone.


Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob

[machten]

" It's Ok to agree to differ. "

____ I don't agree it's okay to differ

Well, for all your obvious knowledge, I think you should reflect on that a bit, Bob. How important is it to be "right"?

later edit - "What the hell. let me step out at this point. As long as you guys play nice and stay engaged. I dont know half of what you guys are talking about, anyway."


Kev

[MotoMike]

Kev
thanks for your comments. I admit I do get frustrated. I admit that I didn't sufficiently state the goal of my posting in this thread. I wished to help those considering altering the system to 12 volts by lifting the earth and taking the output across the whole of the series connected stator. I thought I had discovered an error in what I thought was that common wisdom on this switch. The error being that when making the switch, you did not increase the wattage capacity of the system. I am not deterred in this opinion. I feel the logic of why the wattage capacity of the altered circuit is double the stock figure clearly laid out and too simple to be argued. I may have misstated (owed to ignorance of the original system loads) the the stock numbers. As such it seems I've been niggled on the fine points at the expense of the main point.

Bob
It is not that I don't enjoy these exchanges, but don't even know at this point, many hundreds of words into it, if you even agree with the main point or not. I've read through it again and feel it is well explained from my point. When I amplify my opinions, you typically speculate on some failing in my training as the reason I don't get your point of view. I don't feel my efforts to make it clearer (not for you but for those you worry will be confused) are productive. Additionally, these exchanges are a real time drain. So I will wait for someone to actually be confused and ask for clarification on something they actually wish to have clarified.

It is gratifying though to know that at least one other person is attempting to follow.

[DewCatTea-Bob]

" It's Ok to agree to differ. "

____ I don't agree it's okay to differ

" How important is it to be "right"? "

____ Again, let me declare that it's not WHO's right that matters here to me !
It's that it's quite important that two true-logic users must agree ! _ Mike & I both use such, and if it seems to be in disagreement, then it ought not be left that way and the issue must be ironed-out so that any possible error (by either of us) can be realized (for the good of all).


" I dont know half of what you guys are talking about, anyway."

____ I'm sure you're selling yourself short on that Kev ! ... You must have what it takes to come to understand all this simple math/logic stuff, and after you do, you'd realize you should've sooner.
In fact most anyone registered here ought to be able to get a grasp of such stuff.
However, this stuff between Mike & I is not a good example to get started with, so just try understanding & getting a grasp on the more basic-stuff first, and once ya do, you'll then find discussions like this to be more interesting cuz you'll want to help get such things straightened-out !


Fun-Cheers,
-Bob

[MotoMike]

" It's Ok to agree to differ. "

____ I don't agree it's okay to differ

" How important is it to be "right"? "

____ Again, let me declare that it's not WHO's right that matters here to me !
It's that it's quite important that two true-logic users must agree ! _ Mike & I both use such, and if it seems to be in disagreement, then it ought not be left that way and the issue must be ironed-out so that any possible error (by either of us) can be realized (for the good of all).


" I dont know half of what you guys are talking about, anyway."

____ I'm sure you're selling yourself short on that Kev ! ... You must have what it takes to come to understand all this simple math/logic stuff, and after you do, you'd realize you should've sooner.
In fact most anyone registered here ought to be able to get a grasp of such stuff.

MM
Here I readily agree. I taught basic electricity and electronics for 3 years and more advanced to staff for about 2 years and found that if you can add and subtract, multiply and divide, you can learn it. I have seen some rather challenged individuals become quite competent techs.

[DewCatTea-Bob]

Kev
thanks for your comments. I admit I do get frustrated. I admit that I didn't sufficiently state the goal of my posting in this thread. I wished to help those considering altering the system to 12 volts by lifting the earth and taking the output across the whole of the series connected stator. I thought I had discovered an error in what I thought was that common wisdom on this switch. The error being that when making the switch, you did not increase the wattage capacity of the system. I am not deterred in this opinion. I feel the logic of why the wattage capacity of the altered circuit is double the stock figure clearly laid out and too simple to be argued. I may have misstated (owed to ignorance of the original system loads) the the stock numbers. As such it seems I've been niggled on the fine points at the expense of the main point.

Bob
It is not that I don't enjoy these exchanges, but don't even know at this point, many hundreds of words into it, if you even agree with the main point or not. I've read through it again and feel it is well explained from my point. When I amplify my opinions, you typically speculate on some failing in my training as the reason I don't get your point of view. I don't feel my efforts to make it clearer (not for you but for those you worry will be confused) are productive. Additionally, these exchanges are a real time drain. So I will wait for someone to actually be confused and ask for clarification on something they actually wish to have clarified.

" I wished to help those considering altering the system to 12 volts by lifting the earth and taking the output across the whole of the series connected stator. "

____ I wish to add the detail-point that you also then meant for the whole alt.stator to then become 'full-wave BRIDGE-rectified' (rather than remaining merely half-wave rectified, as stock) ! _ (A point which should be made so as to avoid confusion !)
__ As can still be noted within other related threads, I've been against this fairly common & simple conversion method because it can be wasteful without increased load to match the power increase.


" I thought I had discovered an error in what I thought was that common wisdom on this switch. The error being that when making the switch, you did not increase the wattage capacity of the system. I am not deterred in this opinion. I feel the logic of why the wattage capacity of the altered circuit is double the stock figure clearly laid out and too simple to be argued. "

____ But of course so Mike !
That concerns a prime-example of one of your misconceptions...
That conversion result is so basically basic, that if you had thoughts that another expert's wording is not correct, then you should FIRST suspect that perhaps your own interpretation (of the wording) must be faulty in some way, (which it did turn-out to be! _ As you were ASSUMING fullwave-bridge rectification.).


" Bob
It is not that I don't enjoy these exchanges, but don't even know at this point, many hundreds of words into it, if you even agree with the main point or not. "

____ How could I not Mike ? _ That you've had doubts is no doubt due to vague wording which did not make it clear exactly what it was being in reference to, (stock or modified). _ And I-myself take far more steps than the average, to keep thoughts on-track !


" When I amplify my opinions, you typically speculate on some failing in my training as the reason I don't get your point of view. "

____ That seems too harsh of a conclusion Mike, as your training does serve you very well (as it was meant to) ! _ Yet that does seem to be somewhat so, as I've been otherwise unable to account for why it seems you at times don't seem to see things from any other point-of-view, so as to be able to grasp my offered concepts.
I've been looking for things to lay blame on, but of course really haven't been able to come to a firm conclusion (of what's the most likely explanation).


" So I will wait for someone to actually be confused and ask for clarification on something they actually wish to have clarified. "

____ This abrupt timing to discontinue further discussion is somewhat suspect, as it seems (to me) that a point made in my last post (of our discussion) may have finally had an effect to get you to see something as I-myself see it (from my alternate point of view), and possibly your-own trained-mind has not solved the alternate-concept for you as expected, and so you choose to quit. (?)

[MotoMike]

All right Bob, I will continue.

but if you could re-state the things in a concise way one at a time that you disagree with, I'll try to explain my position.

let me offer a possibility that you have not considered as to my failing to come to your way of thinking. That being that I am correct in my analysis. I have considered the circuits, see what you are saying, think you are wrong, or if you are right the pertinent facts are so obscured that I can't tell. I have in 35+ years of dealing with this stuff been shown the error of my ways on countless occasions. but that requirs a clear and logical explanation of said error and why it is incorrect. So far, I've not gotten that. usually when you request further explanation, I think you haven't read the pertinent section as when I got to the paragraph preceeding it, it is explained there in.

and just to be clear, both the stock and the altered bridge rectified circuit are full wave rectified.

kind regards,
Mike

[DewCatTea-Bob]

" All right Bob, I will continue. "

____ That's so gracious of you Mike ! _ Appreciated !


" but if you could re-state the things in a concise way one at a time that you disagree with, I'll try to explain my position. "

____ I'm not thinking that we've ever actually been in outward disagreement so far, just not in agreement with the correct understanding of each others actual definition of our respective terminology...
You understandably wish to use conventionally-trained terms in a way that's of course most understood by other tech-trained types (and which likely leave Joe-average bike-wrencher left in total-darkness, while I-myself prefer to use terms which he can more easily relate to (but which may possibly tend to elude a tech.type who's not also a mechanic-type). _ For instance I'd state 'average-power' where you'd use 'RMS wattage' .


" let me offer a possibility that you have not considered as to my failing to come to your way of thinking. That being that I am correct in my analysis. "

____ I can't think of any example where I thought that you were outwardly completely wrong on any of your analysis Mike, only that you may not be seeing the whole-picture as I see it from, and that your conclusions can seem to be the final bottom-line when in fact there are other left-out avenues still possible for further consideration.


" I have considered the circuits, see what you are saying, think you are wrong, or if you are right the pertinent facts are so obscured that I can't tell. "

____ It's been possible that I've (temporarily) made statements which aren't quite fully correct but, I usually get all my wording straightened-out by the time I've completely-finished a posting.
But I contend that if you think I wrong about something, I'm sure it was because you outwardly misunderstood my wording's exact meaning, or (at the time you were reading it), you were assuming that my wording should be correct while you ASSUME that I should be in reference only to whatever YOU happen to be thinking in YOUR head, ( which is of course not fair).


" but that requirs a clear and logical explanation of said error and why it is incorrect. So far, I've not gotten that. "

____ And you haven't outwardly asked, plus I prefer that you come to realization on mainly your own, (as I don't want it to seem to others that I may have convinced you of anything that may not actually be true).


" usually when you request further explanation, I think you haven't read the pertinent section as when I got to the paragraph preceeding it, it is explained there in. "

____ I don't agree with that Mike, I only ask for further wording-confirmation because your preceding/previous wording was too vague to be certain of (before I continue-onward from it). _ (Wording by the writer makes clear sense to his-self because he realizes that it says that which he wants it to, but then doesn't go-on to realize that it may also be taken in other ways as well.)


" and just to be clear, both the stock and the altered bridge rectified circuit are full wave rectified. "

____ Yes Mike, 'technically', both wave-form outputs are indeed fullwave... However, I must point-out that it's fairly misleading to refer to both methods of power-output types as if they're the vary-same ! _ As one is half-power (as stock),, while the other (as you're referring to with a FW-bridge-rectifier), is FULL-power !
__ I have all-along been using the term 'full-wave' (in a nontechnical manor) to mean both "full wave" & full-power, (so as to not muddy-up otherwise clear/logical understanding).
(Now our readers are another step towards becoming 'tech-types'.)
Also, I believe it to be quite unfair to call anything "full" when only positive halves are used while their negative halves are ignored !
Furthermore it should not be allowed to be able to refer to something that's only 'one-half', by the very same term as something that's truely 'full' - (as in your presented center-tapped transformer & twin-diode case, verses the fullwave-bridge case). _ To separate the two, we'd have to state: half-fullwave or the like, to specify the difference for the example which your technical-self has thrown into the ring. _ And such as term as that would only help lead to confusion (at least among non tech-types)!
(So now you ought understand where I was coming-from before, when you disagreed as to whether it's less or more confusing to call both methods "full wave".)


____ Now I'm not sure where to continue-on from, but I'll get started with something that should get us back on the track that I wanted to end-up getting straight with you, (for the better understanding of all.)

____ First I think we should further consider the how&why of the so-called "60 watt" alternator...
Off-hand most any 'ave.joe' would assume (without thinking) that it makes 60-watts all the time, while a mech.type would figure it's an average-rating, while a tech.type would assume it's a 'RMS' figure or perhaps it makes 60-watts 'peak to peak' or even possibly 120-watts peak-to-peak. _ Ducati left us in the dark on that, but we can get it somewhat pinned-down (since we're fairly sure that Ducati kept their power-production fairly balanced with the intended load).
I've already given reason for why it seems that Ducati gave the rating of 60-watts only in relation to the intended charging-system expected to go with it.
__ Now here's one of the things we don't see eye-to-eye on... While I see the two alt.windings as two separate power sources (with their phasing not being actually relevant), YOU, (only!)- see them as a whole winding just as a center-tapped transformer, simply because the two windings happen to be 'turned' out-of-phase. _ (I've been trying to point-out that that difference can be a big one within micro-tronics, but not relevant with sizable storage-batteries.)
__ Next you've been claiming that in order for the two out-of-phase current-outputs to be addable, they must have to occur together at the same time (in phase). _ Which of course is a very logical conclusion, (just as ya can't have two glasses of water if ya can only get one at a time!)
So as to keep it simpler lets just use the given-figure of 60-watts (without yet claiming for sure exactly how&why the 60 figure 'is')...
Now YOU-Mike have been saying (in effect) that the half-cycle DC-pulse power-output from one alt.winding & diode can't be 'ADDED' together with that of the other alt.winding & diode, and therefore (as you state), both outputs must be providing the full 60-watts each alone! _ (Is that not correctly understood?)


____ This post has gotten too long, so I'll end the discussion for now so that you can respond to what's been brought-up thus far (without needing most of a day to cover everything [you wish to]).


Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob

[MotoMike]

Bob
_ Yes Mike, 'technically', both wave-form outputs are indeed fullwave... However, I must point-out that it's fairly misleading to refer to both methods of power-output types as if they're the vary-same ! _ As one is half-power (as stock),, while the other (as you're referring to with a FW-bridge-rectifier), is FULL-power !
__ I have all-along been using the term 'full-wave' (in a nontechnical manor) to mean both "full wave" & full-power, (so as to not muddy-up otherwise clear/logical understanding).
(Now our readers are another step towards becoming 'tech-types'.posting.php?mode=quote&f=3&p=4137# )
Also, I believe it to be quite unfair to call anything "full" when only positive halves are used while their negative halves are ignored !
Furthermore it should not be allowed to be able to refer to something that's only 'one-half', by the very same term as something that's truely 'full' - (as in your presented center-tapped transformer & twin-diode case, verses the fullwave-bridge case). _ To separate the two, we'd have to state: half-fullwave or the like, to specify the difference for the example which your technical-self has thrown into the ring. _ And such as term as that would only help lead to confusion (at least among non tech-types)!
(So now you ought understand where I was coming-from before, when you disagreed as to whether it's less or more confusing to call both methods "full wave".)


MM
Bob, I think I see where you are coming from. I think I have all along. the problem is that your "simplification" for the average joe is no simpler than the accepted version. Just because you don't understand the circuit is no reason to learn it wrong. who knows if he might with very little work get to a proper understanding and then find himself at odds with everyone else.

It doesn't take much exposure to these two versions of the two rectifiers in question to know that since the bridge takes its input across the whole secondary or stator in this case unlike the orginal which takes turns taking it's input from half of the center tapped coil. it will have the full potential (read voltage) and have the same current rating all else being equal that twice the voltage and the same current will equal twice the power. Incidentally this is the whole point of my initial post. so without adding your additional wording most people who see the stock full wave differentiate it from the Bridge full wave. they are already named differently, so no need to come up with more words that are not needed to describe them.

Also we might note that if you were to design the two different circuits to provide the same output, you would simply change your windings to double output in the two diode circuit . a disadvantage in weight and size, but the demands on the circuit could be such that you want to engineer reliability into it owed to the 50% duty cycle. the two diode circuit is not inherently inferior to the bridge.

[MotoMike]

Bob wrote:
First I think we should further consider the how&why of the so-called "60 watt" alternator...
Off-hand most any 'ave.joe' would assume (without thinking) that it makes 60-watts all the time, while a mech.type would figure it's an average-rating, while a tech.type would assume it's a 'RMS' figure or perhaps it makes 60-watts 'peak to peak' or even possibly 120-watts peak-to-peak. _ Ducati left us in the dark on that, but we can get it somewhat pinned-down (since we're fairly sure that Ducati kept their power-production fairly balanced with the intended load).
I've already given reason for why it seems that Ducati gave the rating of 60-watts only in relation to the intended charging-system expected to go with it.

MM
More complex than it needs to be. The engineers were speaking RMS for us so we can think in terms of the DC loads. If the loads are 50 watts (including the battery being charged) then the alternator is providing 50 watts. Average Joe, tech type and mechanic alike don't need to get wrapped around the axle doing p-p, and RMS calculations.

Only as an academic point and to show that it is not needed and unduly complex to this issue, RMS is not really average but the root of the average squared. The simplified formula for RMS is peak to peak divided by 2 x .707. Or peak times .707. So if you had 200 volts peak to peak, peak would be 100 volts times .707 would be 70.7 volts rms. to employ ohms law for all your other calculations on the example circuit you would use the 70 volt figure. Then all your calculations would be converted for you. And in the case of the Ducati alternator, the engineers have done it for you. This formula converts ac to the equivalent of dc in terms of how much work it can do. I take from your comments that when you talk average you are referring to how much power is being produced over a period of time where we might spend a lot of time at lower rpms and producing less power and then a short time wound up and producing near the max output and that the average would be arrived at by sampling the output over a number of time checks, adding them up and then dividing by the number of checks or something like that. Obviously the alternator will produce less wattage at low revs than at high. No need to try to bring in all your peak to peak and RMS into it.