Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

"A" Example for an Alternator Resonance Test.

Expand Messages
  • Harvey D Norris
    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
      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 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
      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

      If two coiled identical currents in the same direction are making
      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
      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,
      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.
      Additional complications here is that these readings were made at
      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

      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

      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
      long past original expectations, let us return to what has already
      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

      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
      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.