Found: URGENTLY - Fan Pulley Ford Lynx 12V Generator

[Lynn Eades]

Tony W. the difference in the field windings has to be the number of windings, and therefore the strength of the magnetic field. How this converts to voltage I am not sure (I remember less than I've forgotten) but my guess is that the stronger the magnetic field the higher the voltage at any given armature speed.
The problem unregulated, is the overheating and melt down. (melting and throwing of the commutator solder? etc.)
With the part number prefix, the C01W the C= Canada production, and the "0" is 1940. The other bits I cant help with.
Ford built a Carrier engine that was a "79E 6004 C.S. I think the 79 refers to a basic engine build. (I dont know)
On that note:
There is a Chilwell publication No. 79/49 titled "Engine Build Up Data" Anyone have a copy?

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Lynn Eades

Tony W. the difference in the field windings has to be the number of windings, and therefore the strength of the magnetic field. How this converts to voltage I am not sure (I remember less than I've forgotten) but my guess is that the stronger the magnetic field the higher the voltage at any given armature speed.
The problem unregulated, is the overheating and melt down. (melting and throwing of the commutator solder? etc.)

Yes but you're forgetting current Lynn, since magnetic field strength = current x number of windings. What I'm thinking is the 12V field coils have more windings, and therefore more resistance, so they draw less current. The net result is the same, ie. same magnetic field strength, because the lower current cancels out the extra windings. Conversely, if you put 12V through a 6V field coil, let's say a Ford 6V field coil rated at 3 ohms, it will draw twice the current it was designed to carry, and potentially overheat like you say. Evidently they can handle it, because some of the rodders leave the 6V field coils in and report no problems, but you wouldn't put 12V through a 6V globe and expect it to last as long, so why expect it from a 6V field coil? Correct practice in theory would be to match the field coil to the voltage it will operate at, so I'm thinking the use of 12V field coils is IDEAL practice, although not necessarily ESSENTIAL practice. For example I notice the professionally converted 6V gennys all have 12V field coils fitted, possibly because they have to give a warranty...?

The same doesn't apply to the armature, because the situation is reversed. That is, the 6V armature is designed to carry more current than the 12V armature, because you need twice the current at 6V to produce the same wattage. Which means the 6V Ford armature running a 12V system is operating well BELOW its designed current load. Which would explain why no one changes them, including the professional genny converters.

On the question of magnetic field strength - like you I'm a little hazy on some of the complexities of generators, but I know they operate fundamentally under Faraday's Law, which dictates that voltage output is proportional to the number of armature windings x the speed they move through the magnetic field. In other words - RPM. Which means voltage has nothing to do with magnetic field strength, that just determines the potential current output at a given RPM. And of course if you draw more current you need more power to drive it, eg. when you turn on the headlights at idle you can hear the motor being loaded up. So what I'm wondering is if you run 6V field coils on 12V, which doubles the current through them, and therefore doubles the field strength, does it double the potential current output? And is that a good thing or a bad thing? Maybe it's a reason to change the field coils....?

Anyway I'm thinking a lot of this genny theory has more to do with current than voltage, which is simply the job of the regulator. Like you said earlier the 6V Lucas genny will put out 50V if you let it, so they're really not a voltage critical device - it's only the field coils which are voltage rated, because they're fixed resistance.

My brain is hurting now so I might get back to something mechanical!

[Lynn Eades]

Tony, my brain hurts just reading your post. I going to go the easy option and say "Yes!, I agree with what ever it was that you just said"

[Tony Wheeler]

Very wise Lynn, sometimes I think I write stuff just to convince myself, but this time I haven't even managed to do that! At least I've cured myself of electromagnetism, I never want to think about it again!

[Lynn Eades]

Tony, to be a bit more serious, what you've said sounds pretty good to me.
Thanks for the input. It all helps.

[Richard Farrant]

Originally Posted by Lynn Eades

Ford built a Carrier engine that was a "79E 6004 C.S. I think the 79 refers to a basic engine build. (I dont know)
On that note:
There is a Chilwell publication No. 79/49 titled "Engine Build Up Data" Anyone have a copy?

Lynn,
There were two variations of engines for the Carrier No.1 Universal (inc. other types).
Type - DS No.1 engine assy. no. 79E-6004-DS which had Lucas starter, dynamo, coil and distributor (assume this to be an English engine)
then there was;
Type - CS No.1 engine assy no. 79-6004-C this had a slight difference in external parts, inc. fitment of a Ford distributor and dynamo

ref. to Chilwell no 81/49 Engine Build-Up Data Book

[Lynn Eades]

Richard, I have written down that the 79E-6004 came in the following suffixes;
C.S.
D.S.
F.S.
G.S.
and H.S.
Is the "C" separate again?

Other carrier engines;
EGAEA-6004, L.S.
EGAEA-6004, U.S.
EGAE-6004, L.S.
EGAE-6004, U.S.
Along with 3 models of C1OUC-6097

If you have a Chilwell book on engine build data, does it detail these other engines as well?
If so, any chance of a copy?

Hanno, maybe you could take these last two posts over to the Carrier forum as a new thread. (British and Canadian Carrier Engine Variations) Then the right people are seeing it.

[Richard Farrant]

Originally Posted by Lynn Eades

Richard, I have written down that the 79E-6004 came in the following suffixes;
C.S.
D.S.
F.S.
G.S.
and H.S.
Is the "C" separate again?

Other carrier engines;
EGAEA-6004, L.S.
EGAEA-6004, U.S.
EGAE-6004, L.S.
EGAE-6004, U.S.
Along with 3 models of C1OUC-6097

If you have a Chilwell book on engine build data, does it detail these other engines as well?
If so, any chance of a copy?

Hanno, maybe you could take these last two posts over to the Carrier forum as a new thread. (British and Canadian Carrier Engine Variations) Then the right people are seeing it.

Hi Lynn,
The Type CS No.1 engine assembly number is 79-6004-CS , a typo, I missed the S off. But definitely no E in that number.

My copy is Feb 1945, yes it lists T16 and Loyd variants as well. PM your email address.

regards, Richard