## "A" Example for an Alternator Resonance Test.

Expand Messages
• Let us return to some conceptial difficulties regarding how stator currents act when being inputed into a delta junction. The light at the end of the
Message 1 of 1 , Oct 24, 2002
currents act when being inputed into a delta junction. The "light at
the end of the tunnel" concerning the first bit of understanding is
to realize that the stator line current represents the subtraction,
and not the addtion of the vector component currents on the arms of
the delta loads connected to the junction. This is a very obtuse
statement, not easily grasped or visualized as a complete
understanding, so we can go a little "further" and make more concrete
analogies where the concept is better imprinted for complete
understanding. I had noted that the 3 stator inputs might be compared
to the three connections of a center tap transformer on the output
end. This should be easily proven if necessary, but what has been
shown whereby the middle stator line connected to the solitary
junction serving two series resonances, in fact DOES NOT convey that
analogy, when the middle line current is near to, or greater than the
currents entering and leaving the remaining stator lines.

In fact for the center tap transformer analogy, if the loads are
balanced in each direction from the center outwards, no current will
be recorded on the center tap line, because of a net cancellation of
current loops taking place on the shared pathway. If we have only one
load from the center to the top connection only, we can imagine in a
single moment of time a clockwise circle of current taking place. If
we then add a equal load from the bottom terminal to the center
connection, we can imagine another similtaneous clockwise circle of
amperage. The arrows of current on the center shared pathway are then
in opposing directions, which is a net cancellation of current on
that pathway. Essentially the top phase current loop does not
complete its current loop journey through the center pathway, instead
it returns the current on the bottom phase, where the arrows of
simultaneous current directions are identical. At any moment in time
the current "leaving from a top terminal, being momentarily negative,
(considering the charge carrier to be an electron)'' will also have
its return loop of current being made to a positive terminal from the
bottom connection.

Now comparing the same actions with the stator lines of an
alternator, this same exact analogy of having the junction stator
line acting as a center tap can only happen if the entirely of the
current on one phase does not return on the middle junction stator
line, but instead returns on the adjacent phase. If this were to
occur we can also conclude that both of these currents themselves are
in unison, or they themselves are IN PHASE.

Now let us also return to the way these collection of 30 coils are
wired in their directions of current. The coils are made in two rows
of 15 coils each, and they are wired for magnetic unison so that if
the 30 coils were given action as a single loop of current, at any
spot between two coils there will be a north pole facing a south
pole. This fact also applies to the two ending coils of the two rows
on each ending of the two row system. This also implies that when we
look from the endings of the two rows of coils, and compare their
winding directions relative to each other, one will be clockwise, and
the other counterclockwise. This is also the same exact relationship
on the bifilar windings of a center tap transformer secondary, they
are wound oppositely so at the center opposite polarities of
transformation exist, and on the endings opposite polarities also
exist but at twice the voltage then either segment alone. ( Note;
that transformer analogy is probably better ignored for now, as it
raises unnecessary confusion.)

Now think about the statement of Lenz law, where we know that the
magnetic field induced on a coil system will provide "a magnetic
field in opposition," or it will set up induced currents on the coil
system to make a magnetic field to oppose the magnetic field that
created it. This is merely another way of saying that the currents
are 180 out of phase with each other. Now we know, or more precisely,
we thought we knew: that the phases of the alternator 3 phase should
produce 3 currents that are each 120 degrees out of phase with each
other. We also see that in this case of driving two series resonances
in mutual induction, that his has enormously complicated the issue,
and that measurements of those stator line currents indicate that
they are NOT 120 degrees out of phase, but something else. At first
without carefully analysing things we are tempted to think that the
resonant phases in mutual induction might instead be closely in phase
because almost twice, or in some cases (made by the as yet unspoken
assumption), more than twice the current from the shared junction
stator line exists compared to the remaining lines. This is
discounted by the vector subtraction argument, but again FURTHER
arguments are made here so that what is actually going on can be more
easily understood or visualized in a more concrete manner, without
necessarily citing the vector subtraction issue, or in the very least
to make that issue clearer than what the single statement makes.

We understand that if the currents were returning on the adjacent
phase, the middle stator line attached to both phases would convey
practically no current, because that current is returning on another
line elsewhere. This would make both of those currents closely in
phase, and it would also mean that on the endings of the two row coil
system we would have both a north and a south on the two coil row
endings. Now let us pretend that we know nothing of the vector
subtraction argument, but we are seeking an understanding of why and
how these stator line currents are working. Here we can use LENZ LAW
to explain our paradox! WE KNOW THAT THE MUTUAL INDUCTANCE BETWEEN
TWO RESONANCES ARE OCCURING, AND THAT THIS MUTUAL INDUCTANCE BY LENZ
LAW WOULD MEAN THAT INSTEAD OF HAVING A NORTH AND SOUTH AT THE
ENDINGS, WE SHOULD HAVE TWO NORTH'S ON ONE END, AND TWO SOUTH'S ON
THE OTHER END!
However we also know that relative to each coil system, each has
relative opposite directions of winding, and if the currents were
going in opposite directions with respect to the junction point, this
would mean that a north would be meeting a south: this would mean
that the current was returning on that branch, not on the junction
stator line,and we are forced by reasoning to conclude that the
currents on each branch MUST be going in the same direction, and each
must be sharing the same junction stator line for the return
currents, hence the apparent addition of those currents. All this
sounds good and fine, until a paradox of enormous ramification hits
us!

If two coiled identical currents in the same direction are making
identical poles, THIS ORDINARILY IMPLIES THAT THEY SHOULD BOTH HAVE
IDENTICAL WINDING DIRECTIONS! Yet we know by definition that this is
NOT THE CASE! Now at first here we become so confused that it
becomes easier to just forget everything we have learned and start
over from square one!

We think, or we suppose by delusion of the above argument that the
winding direction is the only prerequisite for determining polarity.
Going back to square one and removing all of our preconceptions,
starting from a fresh viewpoint, we know the above statement is
rediculous. No the winding direction is not the ONLY determining
factor for a polarity being created, we also have the fact that a
certain winding direction can create either pole, because we also
have the parameter of DECIDING THE CURRENT DIRECTION. In the above
argument we are forced to conclude that some additional unknown
parameter must be present in order for the stator currents to be
present as returning currents in unison at the junction, even though
this should be impossible. What has been done in the above argument
is to first show that we have eliminated one of the parameters of the
current direction, because that is known to be identical directions
on each of the branches in mutual induction, because of the amounts
of current found on the middle stator line.

That again is a delusion fostered by argument, BECAUSE THE LARGE
AMOUNT OF CURRENT FOUND ON THE MIDDLE STATOR LINE M, IS ONLY A LARGE
AMOUNT OF RELATIVE CURRENT WHEN IN FACT THOSE CURRENTS ARE IN
RESONANCE. If we measure just the reactive currents, this in fact no
longer occurs and then a larger amount of current then returns on the
adjacent phase, and the phasing relationships then appear to be a
more normal one! We can in fact make a clockwise wound coil system
produce either pole by the third parameter found with resonance,
WHICH IS HOW WE PHASE THE RESONANCE ITSELF! Thus by taking a
clockwise coil system next to a counterclockwise coil system, the
parameter of how they are wired for current directions get
superceeded by the parameter of how we phase the resonances! If we
wire the both the polarites and the resonances identically as
adjacent branches then of course the coil systems will produce
opposite poles, or identical poles depending on how those winding
directions are made relative to each other. But we can also produce
a kind of "double negative paradox", leading to unity, which is what
is being done here with ordered delta series resonances going around
the three phase circle as {stator line 1}, C1, L1 {stator line M},
C2, L2 {stator line 3}, and finally preserving this order if all
three phases were to be employed, the ending around the circle
connecting back to {stator line 1} would be the elements C3L3. This
is why we call them "ordered" DSR's consisting of C1L1, C2L2, C3L3
around the circle. If one of these orderings were to be reversed,
one of the phase angles would be changed from 120 to 60, and of
course changing this one would change all three of them. But here the
double negative paradox is made into unity by the fact that BOTH the
winding directions on adjacent branches and the resonance phasing
polarities appear opposite in relation to each other, whereby even
though the winding directions are opposite to each other, the
polarities of the endings are not, and if we took the connection to
{stator line 3} and disconnected it and reconnected it to {stator
line 1} we would then have a binary resonance system employed on only
a single phase when one branch C1L1 would be parallel to C2L2 in the
directions of going around that smaller circle, and the resonances
themselves would appear inversely, or oppositely phased to each other.

All of these things can start to sound so confusing, that at points
in time I begin to wonder if I have even explained it according to my
own understanding, and as to whether I am even confusing my own
understanding of things to myself! So as to not promote any more
confusion let us show this simple test of resonance, for just two
phases of alternator application. This test is to show first just the
individual inductive reactance currents, and this is done by shorting
out the capacitive reactances C1 and C2. Then the opposite procedure
is made by shorting out the inductive reactances L1 and L2. The test
for resonance will consist of the fact that these should show
approximately equal currents for both tests, since for resonance X(L)
= X(C), for equal voltage of application. The only additional
complication here will be the voltage meter left between the
midpoints of C1L1 and C2L2 where that meter will also be employed,
but only the stator voltage meter across C2L2 will be the known
indicator of voltage being delivered on phase 2. Phase 2 is actually
the connection between {stator line M} and {stator line 3} Since
these are two different models of Radio Shack meters, small
differences of voltage registry are noted with these meters. If one
draws out the figure A representing phase 1 to the left, and phase 2
to the right, and note how the shorts appear on the sides of the A,
it becomes apparent that for the first test where X(L) is shorted out
for both sides, the extra voltage meter on the lateral branch of the
A means that two voltage meters are both measuring phase 2. In the
second test showing the X(C) quantites being shorted, this implied
the Midpt 1-2 voltage meter is showing the voltage across phase 1,
and the stator meter is again showing the voltage across phase 2.
2:30 AM, and while I am not exactly sure of this, I suspect that late
at night the power grid may be supplying a slightly higher frequency
than it does in the daytime when more power is consumed by industry.
This means that the motor turning the alternator may be rotating
slightly faster late at night. Thus on these readings the difference
in reactive currents seem more apparent where a higher frequency on a
capacitive reactance will allow for more current, and oppositely for
an inductive reactance, it will allow for less current, so that in
the net effect the conversion to ~ 480 hz by alternator will also
exagerate these differences of reactive currents so that a wider
margin of current differences might exist late at night in these
testings. Two new meters that can show frequency have been
purchased, and these potential differences in making night time and
daytime observations will be noted by those frequency differences of
application in the future, if in fact it exists.

First the test for the inductive reactance currents in supposed
mutual inductance is made by shorting out X(C) elements.

Dual Inductive Reactances X(L) in Mutual Inductance/ 20 Volt Variac
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/IRC/Dsc00301.jpg

14.22 Stator Volts enabling 30.0 ma on phase 1, from {stator line 1}
amperage comsumption indicates that this phase has slightly more
inductive reactance than phase 2, showing 31.7 ma amperage
consumption from {stator line 3} amperage consumption. The important
point here is that {stator line M} is no longer holding in excess to
the addition of these currents, which when these reactances are put
into resonance DOES hold in excess to the addition of those currents.
As theorized more current is now returning on the adjacent phase.
{Stator Line M} holding 54.1 ma has ~ 87.7% of the addition of those X
(L) currents.

2:30 AM Reactance Test for equal values of .75 uf on Phase 1 and 2/
20 volt Variac
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/IRC/Dsc00299.jpg

14.4 Stator Volts enabling ~ equal amperage consumptions of 32.8 ma
on phase 1, and 32.7 ma on phase 2. {Stator Line M} holding 55.2 ma
is ~ 84.3% of the addition of the X(C) currents. The higher stator
voltage for equal field rotor magnetisation of a 20 volt variac when
placed across capacities is typical, and for parametric no field
testings, this difference can become profound. In a test of a
resonant circuit employing low ohmic spirals using a large 160 uf
capacity, a full 1 volt difference of stator voltages was noted in
the past. Here because of the input voltage differences, we cannot
simply use the "Equal Currents" supposition when Z ~= X(L) for
resonance. The former conduction of phase 2 at 31.7 ma @ 14.22 volts
would actually be a 1.26% higher conduction were 14.4 volts actually
present, or a measurement of 32.1 ma, closer to the noted 32.7 ma
conduction noted here on phase 2. Needless to say we can see that
phase 2 will be much more resonant than phase 1 when the reactances
are placed in series, because the reactances are more closely
matched. We can also conclude that the X(L) values of conduction; the
one on phase 1 being 94.6 % less then the conduction on phase 2, does
not at all guarantee that this same % ratio of possible resonances
will develope when the reactances are placed in series. In fact the
lower value will only achieve about 57% of the resonance of the more
closely matched value, which can be shown from former jpegs, here
quickly shown again for comparisons in this end of posting.

The first mistake that is often made when this resonance is done is
to forget to change the amperage scales on the meters. The difference
of amperage that results when this is done can be formed into a ratio
to indicate the "acting" q factor, and when this is compared to the
theoretical q factor that should exist by calculation, this then
shows the limitation brought about by "internal capacity of windings"
at this higher frequency of ~480 hz. When actual frequency meters
are eventually placed into these circuits, we can make those
calculations with some assurance of these deviances, and also to show
how "internal magnetic compression" can be employed to alleviate
those limitations. This will be done on phase 1 to increase its
resonance, by turning one of the coils around to produce
this "magnetic compression" and to show how that method will increase
the acting q to a value closer to the theoretical q.

Finally to conclude this late night work, having gone on entirely too
been noted by jpeg, to show how the "acting q" would be calculated on
phase 2, and to also note the apparent % deviance of resonance on
phase 1, and to note the % of "extra" current being induced
by "poorly tuned resonances in mutual inductance." This older
information is repeated here for reference:

Dual DSR's in Mutual Inductance/20 Volt Variac
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/IRC/Dsc00298.jpg

Here the {Stator Lime M} is showing a 106.6% greater amount of
current than the sum of the curents of .44A on phase 1 and .77A on
phase 2. The differences on the inductive reactance currents was
only 94.6 %, but in actual resonance employing approximately equal
capacitive reactances this has become a 57.1 % difference in actual
currents in resonance. For phase 2 the inductive reactance test at
14.22 volts yeilded 31.7 ma, and if this resonance were made at the
same voltage instead of the shown 13.75 volts that would be a
conduction 3.42% higher at 796 ma. The lower stator voltage with
equal magnetising field rotor influences is a consequence of the laws
of supply and demand, where here in resonance, 25 times more current
will be asked for compared to the reactive tests. The ratio of these
differing amperage consumptions would be an acting q factor of 25.1.
This is how far the voltage would be going up ratio wise on that
branch to accomplish that higher conduction. If both branches were
measured in this manner for actual q factors, the actual phase angle
between the branches could be calculated by noting the reduction of
voltage that is actually measured by the Midpt Volt meter. The
theoretical q factor would be obtained by assuming 480 hz, (which is
why we need an actual frequency meter here to make more exact
predictions of the theoretical q factor): then we would find the
actual inductive reactance value X(L) in ohms based on the amperage
consumption at that frequency and imposed voltage, and this would
then be compared to what amperage consumption would be developed at
Ohms Law to determine that theoretical Q factor based on
calculations. Since we know that the branch is ~ 12.5 ohms, this
would mean that at Ohms law the branch at 13.75 volts was only
delivering .77 A, but it should be delivering 1.1 A at ohms law. We
might then conclude without exactness that only .77/1.1 = 70% of the
possible resonance is being delivered, and this ~ 30 % of
undeliverable resonance represents the portion of resonance being
limited by internal capacity at this frequency, but that figure in
actuality should only be cited when in fact we have MORE EXACTLY
SHOWN THE CANCELLING REACTANCES, AND THE AVAILABLE AMOUNT OF CURRENT
DERIVED WITH THAT EXACT CANCELLATION OF REACTANCES, which has not yet
taken place here with these figures. To do that with the phase 2
example we would want at least a tenth of a ma difference between
reactances, and here it has only been shown with a difference of 31.2
ma inductive reactance vs 31.7 ma capacitive reactance for phase 2.
We might also conclude with these preliminary figures then that the
resonance might have an availability of 30% of its total inductance
to be employed for magnetic compression schemes to possibly improve
its resonance. These things however are mere guesswork at this point
in the game, and until the improvement of phase 1's resonance
percentage wise can be compared to the percentage of total inductance
used for magnetic compression in that branch, these things can only
be considered "probable methods" for increasing a resonance by the
cancellation of internal capacity made by magnetic compression.
These numerical methods of noting what developes, and why, are
crucial to the scientific regimen employed by serious researchers of
resonance. If we do not employ these more exact methods of noting the
results of experimentation on components by serious meter study, we
can only expect the many accusations made by others, that we are
only practicizing "psuedo science" in our investigations. An
interesting thing to also be shown here next would be to short out an
inductive reactance on one side of the A, and to instead short out an
opposite capacitive reactance on the other side of the A, and to note
what happens with the amount of current obtained on the {stator Line
M}. This in fact should represent a possible variant on the forms of
resonance availalble with source frequency 3 phase alternator inputs,
since once again cancelling reactances would be employed, but in that
case they would be residing on separate phases.

Sincerely Harvey D Norris
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.