Received: from PCH.mit.edu (18.7.21.50) by mail.efplus.com (192.168.0.8) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.485.1; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 09:42:10 -0700 Received: from PCH.MIT.EDU (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by PCH.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.8) with ESMTP id 088GYXHA008793; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 12:34:33 -0400 Received: from outgoing-exchange-3.mit.edu (OUTGOING-EXCHANGE-3.MIT.EDU [18.9.28.13]) by PCH.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.8) with ESMTP id 088GYWot008787 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 12:34:32 -0400 Received: from w92exedge4.exchange.mit.edu (W92EXEDGE4.EXCHANGE.MIT.EDU [18.7.73.16]) by outgoing-exchange-3.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 088GYLVw015564 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 12:34:32 -0400 Received: from w92expo31.exchange.mit.edu (18.7.74.43) by w92exedge4.exchange.mit.edu (18.7.73.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1293.2; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 12:32:57 -0400 Received: from oc11exhyb8.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.1.113) by w92expo31.exchange.mit.edu (18.7.74.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1365.1; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 12:33:35 -0400 Received: from NAM12-BN8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (104.47.55.170) by oc11exhyb8.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.1.113) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 12:33:35 -0400 Received: from DM5PR19CA0049.namprd19.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:3:116::11) by BL0PR01MB5251.prod.exchangelabs.com (2603:10b6:208:31::26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3348.15; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 16:33:34 +0000 Received: from DM3NAM03FT014.eop-NAM03.prod.protection.outlook.com (2603:10b6:3:116:cafe::e7) by DM5PR19CA0049.outlook.office365.com (2603:10b6:3:116::11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3370.16 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 16:33:34 +0000 Received: from cedar.nocdirect.com (69.73.180.175) by DM3NAM03FT014.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.82.81) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3348.16 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 16:33:33 +0000 Received: from 25.16.187.81.in-addr.arpa ([81.187.16.25]:52727 helo=[10.0.0.28]) by cedar.nocdirect.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1kFgYn-0001zv-2N for piclist@mit.edu; Tue, 08 Sep 2020 12:33:33 -0400 From: John Lawton To: "piclist@mit.edu" Sender: "piclist-bounces@mit.edu" Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 09:33:31 -0700 Subject: Re: [OT]:: Likelihood of car alternator fault being due to worn field winding brushes? Thread-Topic: [OT]:: Likelihood of car alternator fault being due to worn field winding brushes? Thread-Index: AdaF/v/bKGR9v4ZaTbOyfaEYDYoVYg== Message-ID: <70f3e5ea-822a-8adc-d206-70c9040ec4eb@jle.co.uk> References: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , In-Reply-To: Reply-To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-GB X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Anonymous X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: TS500.efplus4.local X-MS-Has-Attach: X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SenderIdResult: Pass X-MS-Exchange-Organization-PRD: mit.edu X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: jle.co.uk does not designate permitted sender hosts) dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mitprod.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-mitprod-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Wt6FDVTIDOFGS8QXd+XhnFKaRg6p/g0c79a/ttdNZDM=; b=jhJze2dE2NeApvbsNDzu8dQU+MMep8BEL1qhJxW3gYn2Ku+oztqpWs1yf3gKRyAYJt8asYNZeRnQ3OA6bqwlVim/h7kKmJMTNsj+FAvKmh3lDoDHy/m1oUwBqrpVlFSU2wbDua8PFtjNkGXHRQkSdZ9vPWu6rdKSHosc3io01zs= authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is 69.73.180.175) smtp.mailfrom=jle.co.uk; mit.edu; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;mit.edu; dmarc=none action=none header.from=jle.co.uk; user-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 errors-to: piclist-bounces@mit.edu list-id: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." list-post: x-beenthere: piclist@mit.edu x-mailman-version: 2.1.6 x-source-args: x-source-dir: x-antiabuse: Sender Address Domain - jle.co.uk x-source: x-authenticated-sender: cedar.nocdirect.com: piclist@jle.co.uk x-topics: [OT] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Sounds like a clear case for fitting a reconditioned unit. John On 08/09/2020 16:48, Bob Blick wrote: > Hi Russell, > If the brushes have gone bad, it's quite likely that other damage has or = will soon happen to the alternator. Since it's a closed loop system, the re= gulator is going to try to maintain current, so there might be arcing and e= xcess heat which can damage the slip rings and potentially the regulator it= self. Not saying that's what's happening here, but just fyi. The damage to = the slip rings isn't going to be as bad as what happens in a motor with a s= lotted commutator, you can probably clean it up good enough to get a few mo= re years before the new brush is gobbled up. > Cheers, Bob > > ________________________________________ > From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu on behalf of Russ= ellMc > Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 7:03 AM > To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. > Subject: [OT]:: Likelihood of car alternator fault being due to worn fiel= d winding brushes? > > *TL;DR: If a 2001 Toyota Corolla alternator is faulty, how likely it is > that the field winding brushes have gone open circuit?* > It's reasonably likely that the alternator is the original one. > ___________________ > > My son's 2001 Toyota Corolla has stopped charging its battery. > The battery holds charge and the alternator does not draw substantial > current when off. > > Indications are that the alternator system is dead. > It seems likely that there has not been a diode short circuit as in my > experience these draw substantial battery current. > > A mechanic will remove and replace the alternator at an acceptable price. > Alternator replacement is acceptable if necessary. > > *Can anyone suggest how likely it is that the field winding brushes have > gone open circuit?* > For various reasons I'm not inclined to do alternator diode replacements = or > other repairs but if brush failure was the cause then a repair sounds > liable to be a sensible solution. > > > > Russell McMahon > -- > > --=20 http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .