My voltage readings are opposite of what I'd expect!!

[Guest]

power from the battery goes directly to the fusebox and then the multiple fuses take power in increments of 15, 10, 10, 10,10 from that main line. There is no fuse on any GS between the fuse box and the battery. There is fuse box capacity for as much as 55 amps to be running through the box.

Earl

always keen to learn more about the el :-D

on my 850 the power from the batt goes through a 15amp fuse, then onto the ignition, and when the ignition is on the power goes back to the fuse box and the remaining 3 10amp fuses
this is the factory setup

would you consider the above to mean that there is "a fuse between the fuse box and the batt" or were you trying to say something else?
cheers

 

[duaneage]

always keen to learn more about the el :-D

on my 850 the power from the batt goes through a 15amp fuse, then onto the ignition, and when the ignition is on the power goes back to the fuse box and the remaining 3 10amp fuses
this is the factory setup

would you consider the above to mean that there is "a fuse between the fuse box and the batt" or were you trying to say something else?
cheers

There should be some kind of primary fuse between the battery and anything electronic simply because you never know what can happen, especially on a motorbike. i think there should be a simple fuse inline between the RR and battery if they are directly wired, but that's just my opinion. Some bikes probably don't have a fuse between them, I guess that's OK too.

10 Amp should be OK, 15 even. 25 is a bit heavy, you could do some welding with that much current..

 

[Guest]

i think there should be a simple fuse inline between the RR and battery if they are directly wired, but that's just my opinion. Some bikes probably don't have a fuse between them, I guess that's OK too.

mine does have a direct rr-batt line but no fuse on that line
could you possibly explain what could go wrong that would justify installing a fuse on this line?
(i'll upgrade the fuse box one day anyway, so may as well add the above mentioned fuse if theres a good reason for it)
thank you

 

[t3rmin]

Just a note...

I was experiencing this same thing: voltage drop at higher RPMs.

Today I cleaned the contacts and removed a dodgy section of wire from between the R/R and the battery (positive side), and now the issue is gone.

 

[earlfor]

I'll try again. I said. "power from the battery goes directly to the fusebox and then the multiple fuses take power in increments of 15, 10, 10, 10,10". There is no fuse between the fusebox and the battery. The fusebox IS the fuse. There is absolutely no point in installing a fuse on the wire between the battery and the input line fuse in the box. I dont know how to make it any more clear.

Earl

always keen to learn more about the el :-D

on my 850 the power from the batt goes through a 15amp fuse, then onto the ignition, and when the ignition is on the power goes back to the fuse box and the remaining 3 10amp fuses
this is the factory setup

would you consider the above to mean that there is "a fuse between the fuse box and the batt" or were you trying to say something else?
cheers

 

[duaneage]

mine does have a direct rr-batt line but no fuse on that line
could you possibly explain what could go wrong that would justify installing a fuse on this line?
(i'll upgrade the fuse box one day anyway, so may as well add the above mentioned fuse if theres a good reason for it)
thank you

IF a part goes bad in the regulator the battery would provide power, resulting in overheating and possibly a fire. THe fuse would open and prevent this. That is why there are fuses in the system for other things too

 

[bakalorz]

I wrote this on a word processor, so some of the formating of posplayers stuff may have changed.
I did not expect nor intend that.

Apparently the forum has a size limit,:-D

so this is in three parts

Part 1

I will keep this as clear as possible.

* You are very rude, obnoxious and are trying to turn GSresources into a Yahoo message board.

I'll go as far as saying I appologise for some of the adeversarial tone. However, don't play innocent, you are at least as much to blame as I (Arrogance begets Ignorance, Mr. Berserk, pet rock). Your tone is at least as "Yahoo" as mine.

And, also on the other hand, I'll will not appologize for the big red letters in my first post on the relay thread. You gave incorrect harmful advice, for no reason other than sheer laziness on your part to verify the correct answer.
It deserved to be pointed out.

Initially I was not going to respond to you and still have not even read your post on the other thread. I was told in PM that you seemed to be going off of the deep end. Now you are invading this thread with your filth. It is entirely inappropriate and that is why people are asking you "politely" to refrain.

You just don't get it; that is plain to see and that is not my purpose to have you get it. My purpose is to get you to stop posting in the vulgar style that you favor and to expose you for the loud mouth that you are.

You have continually posted technical details which have little to do with the premise of this thread.

I strongly disagree. In thread after thread, you constantly get the details wrong.

Oten detail matters. In every case where I have pointed out these details, it mattered. It does in this case.

The fact that the SCRs crowbar rather than clip provides a mechanism for a reduction in voltage with increasing RPM. (what I believe you refer to as Voltage Foldback)

Thats what this whole subthread is about. You (not I) highlighted it in red for us all to see. Thanks

In fact if not all ,then most of your arguments would lead one to conclude the opposite of the truth. Your posts are not only rude, they are disruptive to the normal flow of technical information and in fact can be damaging in that in your seal to protect your own defective regulator design

Who's being rude above ...

you are disseminating false information. Contrary to your assertions:

Voltage Fold back is not normal OEM behavior!!!

And yet it still exists. Chucky's was (at last post) still very slightly folded back. According to you it can't be at ALL.

I won't go through you "editorial review of my posts". I said before.
It would be one thing for you to point out what you though might be wrong, but your insistence at doing sentence by sentence critiques to the point where you are leaving the impression that you need to "approve" any statements posted is very arrogant. As I said before, "Arrogance begets Ignorance". You are a very good example of this. There is a tone to your posts that is simply foul and distasteful.

(and no tone to yours ??? ... pot, kettle, black)

In my experience inline comments provide a concrete refrence of which points in a discussion are agreed upon, and which are in dispute. You seem to like vauge generalities, but avoid specifics. When it gets to specifics, you are almost always wrong.

(continued)

 

[bakalorz]

Part 2

Now lets get to the technical discussion and see if you can defend yourself:

You have directly or indirectly made statements that voltage fold back is (i.e. a decreasing voltage level at 5000 RPM ,13.0V, from say 2500 RPM ,13.5V), are a normal part of OEM R/R behavior). I put it in red because that is your style, but I would not stoop to your behavior and use the large RED fonts.

I am stating it in this way as I have literally and purposefully said the said the opposite. A normal OEM GS R/R should not fold back like this and I provided several factors which would cause the intrinsic design of the R/R to not fold back.

And yet I showed that there are intrinsic aspects of the design of the R/R which do act to cause foldback.

This thread started with Chucky wondering about the fact that he had decreasing Voltage with increasing RPM.

I stated that In some cases this DOES occur ... even In a reasonably well functioning charging system.




I probably did not sufficiently qualify my case. Let me provisionally restate it this way:

Normally the charging system will hold the voltage fairly constant as RPMs change.​

However in SOME installations the charging system will show a peak around 1500-2000 RPM and then slowly decrease after that.​

If the charging voltage is somewhere within in the range of (say) 15-13.5 volts over the entire range from 2000 to redline, then I would consider this acceptable.​

Perhaps not optimal, but not unacceptably abnormal.​

If the charging voltage drops below 13.5 volts anywhere within this range than this is unacceptable and must be corrected.​

Even if the charging voltage remains above 13.5 volts the entire way, you should clean all connectors, grounds and fuses.​

I base this not on some (groundless in your particular case here) pie in the sky theoretical argument, but on having read other people say that their system actually does that.

Read post 7 in this thread for an example.
Its not a great example, but I did not solicit for Steve to say what he did.

In my time here I have seen at least 5 other similar posts by others.
Some even more specific about the seeing the effect in an apparently well running bike.
I'd like to find them, but finding semi-random posts from anytime in the last 3 or so years ...

I have seen the effect on my bike, although it is not a particularly relevant example.

Chucky's system is still very slightly folded.

You were right on the SCR. I either forgot what an SCR was or never knew. I assumed it was acting like a simple FET with zener control. As it turns out this is a very much more crude form of control than I had anticipated. The "crowbar" control is more likely see in an application to do overvoltage shunt protection and not a feed back control of a DC supplu voltage. This is a detail that is really irrelevant as anybody following this post will soon figure out.

And this is where you are wrong once again Posplayer.

Once again you screw up a detail. And once again this is a detail that actually is hugely relevant. This little detail changes the charge voltage from monotonically increasing to having a peak and then decreasing with RPM.

previously I wrote:
When an SCR fires, it totally shorts that leg of the stator out. (the other bridge diode prevents it from shorting the battery too)

It will provide absolutely no charging current or voltage. NONE. ZIP. ZERO. Not until the SCR turns off again.

It does not clip the top. the voltage at that point falls to the battery's resting/discharging voltage, and remains there till the next stator leg starts to charge.

And here is the important part. When the RPMs are such that the stator voltage is just below the trigger point, the charging voltage is as high as it will get.

When the RPMs rise a bit more, the SCRs just barely trigger, and it will allow most of the cycle through to charge the battery before it triggers. So the charging voltage is still fairly high, but starting to drop.

As the RPMs get higher, the Stator voltage rises more quickly, so the regulator triggers the SCRs earlier in each stator's positive half cycle.
So although the stator would charge even higher if it could, less of each cycle is allowed to go through. So the average charging voltage actually drops as the RPMs go higher.

As the RPMs go higher and higher, less and less of the stators current is allowed to go through, and the battery is charged less and less.

If you still have trouble picturing what is happening, think of it like PWM (pulse width modulation) where the duty cycle drops as the RPMS increase.

And that ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY does happen, and it ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY does cause the Charge voltage to drop as the RPMS increase.

And that is what this whole discussion is about.

And that is why I told you you had to understand the SCRs and the way they work. In detail.

Details, Details, Details.

Now the above sounds like you should have strongly decreasing charge voltage as the RPMs go up.
But don't forget that only 1 or 2 (depending on model) of the stators legs are regulated.
The other 1 or 2 are actually monotonically increasing.

So when everything is just right, the two effects balance each other out, and the charging voltage is stable with changes in RPM.
But sometimes something doesn't match up perfectly and there is a slight decrease in voltage with increasing RPM.

Even after you've troubleshot everything, and cleaned everything possible.
It just does it.

Its not normal, but its apparently not damagingly abnormal.

And the people are always puzzled by it, because it seems intuitively
wrong.
cause darn it, the voltage SHOULD go up when you go faster, how can it not.

And thats what I believe is going on in those cases.

And thats the point I was trying to make to Chucky.

Some of your other comments are not worth discussing because you appear to have a very possessive affliction for your own Regulator design and since you basically patterned it after the OEM topology you apparently feel since there is "guilt by association" you have to defend the Suzuki design as if some one was assailing your own personnel design.

This isn't really the thread to discuss it, but I'll make a few quick comments.

First of all, talk about rude ...

Second: Defend the topology ??? AFAIK ALL the Permanent Magnet alternator chargers from ALL the OEMs use basically the same topology. From the 70s to today.
Even your vaunted Hondas.
The GS series design has some problems, but the topology apparently works when properly immplemented.
Yet you know better than the manufacturer of just about every motorcyle ever made. Talk about arrogance.

The only real difference is in the triggers, and I don't approve of Suzuki's trigger.

This makes perfect sense since you could not see clear to avoid some of the same obvious error conditions and faults that the OEM regulator has, you need to defend that design in order to defend your own design.

Nice vauge generalities there posplayer, do you have some specific error conditions and faults in mind.

The only really obvious one I can think of for Suzuki is that it is sensitive to overvoltage: Don't jumpstart from a running car.

Mine is protected from that: You could jumpstart from a running semitractor with a 24 volt system and it would survive.

The starter, igniter and every light on the bike would be destroyed, but the rectifier/regulator would survive.

 

[bakalorz]

Part 3

You are doing this to the point of even dismissing the Honda design. You stated:

[Mr Berserk] Quote: "The "honda fix" as you describe it is not nearly as big a deal as you seem to think"​

Well the Honda design may not be designed correctly, but at least they knew enough to not sense battery voltage through the same wire they were providing current to the battery with. That is why experienced engineers designing fault tolerant designs use differential inputs to sense remote voltages. With the normal connection corrosion and the location of the R/R relative to the battery they are basically removed and the battery is "remote".

Well then, you must consider my regulator even better than the Honda regulator. Honda senses the positive, my design provides the option of full differential sensing positive AND negative ...

Thank you for your approval.

And read for context: I don't dismiss the Honda regulator, I have numerous times stated that they are excellent.

I do dismiss your absolute obsession with the sense wire:
The ONLY thing that a sense wire does is compensate for the voltage drop due to resistance in the positive lead (and fuse etc.)

With good connections everywhere this is absolutely insignificant and NO BIG DEAL (and can be compensated for just as well by setting the setpoint .1 volt (or whatever it is) higher)

"fault tolerant design" you say ... when the connections are bad a sense wire compensates and is better ... Well, yes and no; it will maintain a better voltage at the battery, but to do this it will end up raising the system voltage everywhere else.
So all your lights blow out early ... if the positive connection is bad enough, maybe it raises the rest of the system voltage enough to fry the ignition circuit.

The correct answer (and something that should be and is harped on here at the GSR) is ensure you have good connections and low resistance everywhere.

Thats the answer, not the sense wire.

I don't try to keep track, but my understanding is that the newer honda regulators DON'T tend to use the sense wire anymore. Maybe the acctual designers know something you don't.

Note: I am not saying sense wires are BAD (blowing lights, etc up wont happen unless the positive connection gets really bad) but that they provide such a limited benefit that they are barely worth the extra wiring, complexity, and cost.

Lets look at the technical facts:

FACT # 1.) The R/R outputs positive current to the battery and motor cycle loads. Since it is fused for 15 amp, I will use 10 amps (P=IV=120 watts) as a nominal 5000 RPM output current under full load. It might be 7 or it might be 12 amps the analysis is not going to change much.

FACT #2.) Resistance between the R/R red + lead output and the battery positive post will cause a positive drop in voltage according to ohms law (V=IR) as measured from the R/R output to the battery. Since it is impossible for there to be zero ohms resistance between R/R and Batt the battery + is always at a lower voltage than the R/R (in a charging condition).

FACT #3.) It has been demonstrated by several (including me) and most recently by Chuckycheese that by diligently reducing the forward drop (i.e. resistance ) he has increased the charging voltage at 5000 RPM.
I believe he even did this in stages so he observed a direct correlation that incremental reduction on the voltage difference between R/R and the battery caused incremental increases in his 5000 RPM charging voltage. In fact he took a fold back condition and fully corrected it without changing out and any electrical components.

FACT #4.) The various Suzuki manuals describe the 5000 rpm regulator test as requiring between 14V-15.5V battery charging voltage essentially measured at the battery. If it is either lower than this or higher than this the regulator is faulty. Apparently they did not consider the effects of resistance so we have to assume this is for a working system with clean connections.


Mr Berserk, you have steadfastly made the argument that fold back is normal, well there is no basis for this assertion.

No, not normal,

In refrence to Chucky chese's specific question at the very begining of this thread, it I will re-charachterize it as
"A slight amount of foldback is not sufficiently abnormal to worry about if you can achieve a minimum of 13.5 volts throughout the 2000-9000 rpm charging range"

I screwed up being not nearly specific enough about the situation where my statement should apply.

For most charging systems it does not apply, for chucky's situation it would have. (and to a very slight extent still does)

By logical deduction, FACT #4 says expect 14.0V-15.5V output (i.e. normal operation). An open circuit healthy battery will have about 12.8V so the R/R has to increase from 12.8 up 1.2 to 2.7 volts above the battery. There is probably some non linearity in the voltage rise with rising engine RPM, and as you pointed out with the SCR CROWBAR operation there can be a jump in non monotonicity of same, but it really doesn't matter much because you still need to get to 14.0 to 15.5 volts at 5000 RPM. Anything else is an irrelevant detail (this is your specialty I know) that obfuscates the obvious.

So the facts lead us to conclude that a standard and properly operating OEM R/R will exhibit (with perfect connections) on average a loose form of type 0 control (type 0 means in this context there is a positive voltage set point error at high current output). With increasing charging voltage across the battery.

Usually. Not always. I guess Chucky's still got problems then, cause its not increasing.

If you don't understand basic control theory I will stop using it as I don't want to explain what it means. While you might think this is "pontificating", the Regulator is a "controller" and some basic knowledge of feedback control theory is helpful as there are conclusions that can be drawn from control theory irrespective of how Suzuki implemented the regulator or you designed your own "pet rock" regulator.

Conclusions can be drawn, Unfortunately, when you start with an incorrect understanding of the characteristics of the basic components of the controller and how they interact, then your conclusions are worthless.

Details matter in that case. Don't pretend they don't.

Also, I am no specialist in controls, but I understand basic control theory. However I have never heard fold back used in quite the context you do.
You have a history of not using technical terms correctly but sloppily
(Gain of a relay, calling something a darlington that isn't really quite, etc.)
Do you have a web refrence that explains the concept of foldback the context in which you are using it. Clear meaning aids in communication

So since it is clear that normal R/R operation does not fold back, and from Fact #3 there is one to one demonstrated correlation between incremental drops in forward voltage drop across the power feed wire and the battery charging voltage. From Fact #2 we see that resistance has to make the battery voltage drop.

The obvious conclusion is:
While this may not be the only way to cause voltage fold back, resistance in the charging wire will cause fold back and improper charging battery voltage drops (my point in the beginning).

Ummm ... no, not correct, resistance in the wire will cause a voltage drop, but that voltage drop is proportional to charging current, and not RPM
If we accept your premise that the R/Rs output voltage is flat or rising with RPM, there is no way that resistance can cause a decrease in either charging voltage or current with RPM.
The battery will not fall with RPM, it will rise, just not as fast as the regulator.
This is basic V=IR stuff.

We can by pure logic disprove Mr. Berserk's contention.

You could if your logic was valid.

If foldback can be removed by reduction of resistance (which it has been proven it does)

then foldback can't be part of normal operation. QED.

So then Chucky's bike is not operating normally ???

Because it apparently still had foldback in his last post that provided #s
Granted, it was very slight, but according to you, it must be monotonically increasing.

So Mr. Berserk all of you red letters and enlarged fonts and technical arguments are leading you to support the completely wrong conclusion. This same twisted though process is what probably lead you to simply adopt the same Suzuki OEM charging system topology and coupled with your arrogance is what make you so obnoxious.

As I said before Arrogance begets Ignorance because you are too busy telling other people how good you are that you are not spending any time trying to learn. This is your problem in a nutshell.

I have yet to see anything correct to actually learn from you. You might want to lay off telling me how arrogant I am ... glass houses and all.

I don't think there are any questions left on this subject. I don't thank you have anything to add. I don't want to have to read your spewing now and potential reconciliatory "back tracking" (fat chance).

Don't expect any further response from me.

Posplayr

4) The OEM R/R only means of sensing output voltage (at the battery) is through the same power supply line that charging current is supplied.

 

[Guest]

another cool smiley

another cool smiley

 

[Colin Green]

Lol. That would look good on the business card

 

[Ozmiander]

GSR Deathmatch! :razz:

 

[maclariz]

You guys rock!

You guys rock!

Okay, I detect a few disagreements about details in this thread, but it was really helpful......

I was really stuck since my bike was doing exactly the same as Chuckycheese's. At idle 13.5 V, at 5000 revs it was below 13 V. I had even sent the regulator back for testing, but nothing was wrong with it.

Once I read this thread I realised what the problem probably was: I cleaned all the connectors between the R/R unit and the battery and it improved to 13.6 V at idle. I did the test of where the voltage drops are away from the battery and finally narrowed down the main voltage drop to part of the wiring loom between the main fuse and the solenoid. I rerouted this connection a shorter way directly from the end of the fuse connector onto the solenoid connector. And hey presto! > 14 V at idle and reasonably stable with increasing engine revs (a slight decrease at high revs, but only down to about 13.9 V).

So, at last, I have a healthy charging system and I can start using the bike. So, thanks guys, you sent me in the right direction, and after months of head-scratching, 1 hour's work was enough to fix it.

What a great forum!

Best wishes

Ian

 

[posplayr]

maclariz

maclariz

All I can say to your post is "Mission Accomplished" :-D

Posplayr