Vawt update

[CmeBREW]

Hello guys,

     I thought I better give the latest testing information on my Vawt experiment and put it in my diary with the other info.

In a quick word, it was not that good.

I got some good wind today (so-called 20-30mph wind gusts) and the tests were not very favorable. Here is the NEW picture:





There is ALOT of turbulance where I have it now close to the corner of my house---but the best I got out of it in a big wind gust (probably around 30mph) was only 24 watts. It did alot of 4 and 5 watts.  It is no longer in stall, rather it just can't turn fast enough. (rpm)

With 24 blades, it gives the APPEARANCE it is moving fast rpm, but it is not that fast. I also tried it with only 12 blades----it did even worse.

This specific design is NOT that good. (The way and angle I used the pvc)

 I know the Video I made looked convincing --but I mis-judged the TORQUE and SPEED.  It sure fooled me. I did not really know the big amount of Torque it takes to even make 15 watts at THAT LOW of rpm. Now I do. It appeared to have SOME torque, but at that low of rpm, it is nothing.

I am NOT saying that VAWTS are not good or squirrel cage vawts are not good-- I AM saying that I do NOT know much at all about making VAWTS yet!!

Windstuff-ED has a very nice PROVEN vawt design. It is very interesting what he has done.

I still love the LOOK of vawts and still believe I can find a better design or I may make ED's design or something similar.  I still have all kinds of ideas to try with these Vawt rotors! The hardest part was the low rpm alternator.

ON the positive, I DID make a good and working alternator. I believe now , it is exactly about what I wanted. So I'm glad for that.

I am MUCH more confident making coils now (without any super-glue!) ,and making the whole stator. Next time it will be EASIER and BETTER.  

And I have learned quite a bit from this project about Torque, speed, stall, etc.

Thats what its all about--LEARNING and HAVING FUN!!  -I did alot of both. Of course, it would have been sweeter to have made a USEFUL vawt.

I thought I should put this in my Diary so everyone would know the outcome of this specific design with these narrow (3") pvc blades and at this angle.

Thanks for the encouragement. I will keep Trying.

 

[Norm]

  Still think it looks neat but you're having fun

and it does work.

  See there is the difference, even if you can

get a good average of 10 watts... 12/7 it's

steady....While my swing project might make a lot

more I have to be there to make it....but....I'm

having a barrel of fun !   Priceless !

   Wonder how it will work in the snow....

those blades will be snow slinger blades?

  When the snow comes here....got no roof on

this swing of mine yet ! somethin else to look

forward to !

   Did you notice that Ed Lenz's VAWT was also

disappointing to him until he got the right

angle?....Maybe that's what you need different

angle, wider, flater blades fewer blades?

Who knows ...maybe you'll come up with better

results yet !

                ( :>) Norm.

[TAH]

What are the dimensions of the drum?

[s4w2099]

I would try increasing the diameter. That would increase your torque. Maybe would make it not so tall (that would also make it easier for the bearings.

Maybe you could recycle the blades and just make another two disks with larger diameter to test the new machine out. I would love to see that.

Take care

[Kevortex]

Wow, nice work!  Don't you dare give up. You will probably want to change your design a bit. VAWT can be more efficient than prop type turbines if you get the right combo.

Have you looked at the other designs on the market?

You'll need more surface area exposed to catch the wind. More surface area means more torque. And of course you can always gear up to get a greater gen speed.

Keep us posted.   More pics.

Kevortex

[windstuffnow]

  Well CmeBREW, it works .. you learned something from it ... and you had fun building it... I'd say it was a complete success!  I should add it looks great as well.   I've designed and built maybe a couple hundred small prototypes of various forms ( some that look pretty strange ) and some of my earlier ones probably didn't perform as well as yours.  Actually, I'd have to say my failure rate was pretty high overall as far as performance and efficiency - I tend to hold the bar a bit high though.  

  Here is a formula to find the torque of a given output...

.7376 x ( P / ( 6.26 x f / 60 )) = ft lbs torque

P = power in watts

f = rpm

So 24 watts would require .85 ft lbs torque at 200 rpm.  

Keep up the great work!

.

[wdyasq]

"VAWT can be more efficient than prop type turbines if you get the right combo.

Have you looked at the other designs on the market?"

Right ... That is the reason you see so many VAWT designs on the market and the reason all airplanes are driven by VAWT style devices ... Oh, I forget, there are no successful VAWT designs except for Ed's small one and airplanes have propellers.

BUT, Kevortex - If you could point to successful VAWT designs with testing data verified by a national laboratory or other respected institution, I'll be more than happy to avoid from calling your claims a bald-faced lie, which I believe they are.

Too many folks hear claims such as yours and waste the few of recourses they have chasing the impossible or near impossible. I wasted my share 30 year ago and hate to see others 'taken in' by an impossible, or near impossible, chore because some boastful bastard lied about a product or process. It would be more honest to stick a knife to a fellow's throat and demand money than bull-snuff about 'hey, it's better over here' when 'over here' has never been.

Specifications, - it must be an a credible national laboratory and the turbine must be large enough to power a refrigerator. Show me one and I'll partially retract my attitude about VAWT designs. I won't retract my attacks on folks who want other to build their own or another's venture that has not been proven.

Ron

[tecker]

 I guess your not in the mood for grins ,but let's say you were and just for those  virtual grins . Start taking the blades off .First every other one etc etc .I looks like the build is  too dense and the drag is limited As the  air is pushed away  forcing on coming wind  to skip off the outside  .I'll bet the you'll find better numbers from a 75% reduction in blades. Just a guess really but  when I tested the Squirrel cage fans before I could feel air coming off the fans standing 3 feet away .    

[tecker]

You may have enough to take it up on an H frame.

[thefinis]

Not sure of what the finished size was, probably could look it up but I don't think that the output was that far out of line. The style you built was mostly a drag type so you only get to figure in about half the frontal area. With it being hard to match an alt to the low rpms and losing about half ot your swept area see how the output stacks up to a hawt 1/2 the size.

The low rpms is the killer and the fact that the vawts tend to not take advantage of higher winds cause they seem to be self limiting. I think that may be caused by the cylinder shape so they start to flow the air around them when the turbulence caused by the blades gets very high especially in the stronger winds. The turbine starts to act like an airfoil and some of the energy of the wind is diverted to create a force at 90 degrees to the oncoming wind. The side which spins in the same direction as the wind is the bottom of the air foil and the side which spins into the wind is the top of the air foil. Magus effect.

Hey you never know what will happen till you try. I think it looks great. My barrel vawts are a big success but only as yard art. I have 3 orders to fill by Xmas. No energy made just spinning eye candy.

Have fun learning

Finis

[electrondady1]

it's got a swept area of of only 9.6 sq. ft.

so for a direct comparison with a hawt,use a blade lenth of 1.75 ft

we all know that a drag vawt at any given moment is less efficient than a prop.

that's a given.

 but we can compare it over time and factor in it's ability to work well in turbulent

air and with directional shifts.

i would very much  like to see you build a single phase stator for this mill.

with a coil for every pole.

that should bring your cut in speed way down and boost your amps.

[windstuffnow]

  Wow Ron, your really down on the VAWT's... My claims of 41% have been verified by the aeronautics lab at Western Michigan University.  This is equal to and in some cases better than some of the prop type turbines out there.  It's not an impossible dream but it did take quite a few years of building many many turbines.

  The biggest downside to VAWT's, which is why you won't see many of them on the market, is the amount of material it takes to construct them.  The HAWT's are efficient enough and can be packaged using less material which makes them less expensive to build in mass production and package for shipping.  That is the main issue with them amoung a few other minor problems.  

  They are, however, easier for the homebrewer to scrounge parts for and build without extreem knowledge of airfoils which makes them popular as a DIY project.  Even with thier issues there is a place for them. I doubt you'll ever see huge VAWT's taking the place of prop type wind farms but in small power applications where the HAWT's simply can't be used they are a safe and viable alternative.

  I agree about some of the claims out there are a bit over the edge, some are so exadurated that it couldn't possibly happen except in someones dream.  There should be a set standard for evaluating performance for all turbines ( even HAWT's are being over rated on the web ).   It's easy to make a 50 watt turbine look like a machine that will "rock and roll".    If I used an accumulation method of rating my 3x4 Lenz2 turbine I could give it a 12kw rating.  Assuming it would be placed in an area of 12-15 mph winds for a minimum of 8 hours per day it would accumulate 12kw per month.  Personally I prefer the instantanious method based on windspeed.  There is a fine line on advertizing a product and a good example of that unethical line is the sandwich commercials.  How often have you seen a commercial advertizing a sandwich that the internal components are bursting all over the place, looks so yummmy... but when you actually get it all you see is bun, you literally have to open it up to see the stuff which is nothing like the ad. It would be difficult to sell them if they didn't exadurate a bit( or a lot in most cases ) and only showed the buns. If everyone went to their favorite sandwich shop and demanded a sandwich that looked like the one in the picture then things might change.  It seems that everyone has become oblivious to the truth in advertizing that it seems acceptable.  Wind turbines are no different, if it takes a half naked beauty and a fancy jingle to divert your attention away from the actual product but make you feel like something less than human if you don't own one then that's what they will do to sell you one.  With the right marketing you can sell a nickle for a buck.

Thats my rant for the day...

.

   

[Volvo farmer]

Whew!

When I saw the picture of that thing, with an actual alternator mounted to it, I started reaching for my wallet!

It really seems as if swept area is everything with these things. I'm surpised nobody has cut three or four 55 gallon drums in half, stacked them, built an alternator and taken my money yet.

[DanB]

Hi Ed - You get credit for building my favorite VAWT ;-) and I don't care much for most of the rest of them.  One thing I have always wondered about yours - how do you keep it under control in very high wind?  I've always assumed the alternator must just stall the machine at some point but even that seems risky - at some point I expect the machine could overpower the alternator.

[wdyasq]

Ed,

I admire your work and don't think for a minute you are 'shading the truth'. However, you seem to be the ONLY one to be building successful VAWT designs.

I regularly visit folks claiming to have the 'best thing since sliced bread' and it is a VAWT or such. Most are manure sites and many actually quote MORE power than is available in the wind. There is a site in Australia that CLAIMS to have a working VAWT. The pictures of it are impressive. It sits on a low tower and below the tops of trees. It has a 'real time output' page where one can see the 'actual' output of the mill. There are some impressive outputs shown on the graphs and output indicators.

There is also a separate connected site that reports the wind speed at the site. I have seen the 'Mill' putting out over 2kW at times. This was when the wind speed was less than 2kmh. I can just imagine the output if the tower was in a clear area and there was a bit of wind.

In short, all of this is BULL MANURE. Now, I don't mind buying bull manure. Personally, I can't tell bull manure from steer or cow manure but, I don't know manure. BUT, I do know how much energy is in a unit of wind and if there is no energy, one cannot extract it.

I have also read reams of reports on the VAWT designs tested and built as production units by Sandia Labs (now worth scrap aluminum prices or less). I don't like government agencies wasting money on my behalf. I would rather waste it myself. I think I can waste it more efficiently. But, since they have wasted my money and wrote the reports and I am interested in wind turbines, I read them. I am familiar with the problems they encountered. I didn't see any efficient solutions.

I am all for experimentation. Kevortex talks about designs CmeBrew should 'look at'. He also makes statements about design, swept area, torque and gearing up. My main point is I'd like these flippin' 'do it my way, you're way doesn't work' posters to show us the designs that will work or at least say 'hey, this is my theory, I don't know if it will work or not.' Instead, they want others spend time and money. Other than yours, which has been in development for years, by a talented, educated and knowledgeable builder, I don't know of any successful VAWTs.

As I state Ed, I am NOT against VAWTs. I would really like to see a successful design that can output 200-500W and is practical for a homebuilder. I AM against the miss-representation and plain flat lies told by the arm-chair builders ... oops, insert dreamers rather than builders.

That's MY rant ...

Ron

[tecker]

It's rotor wable

[windstuffnow]

  Thanks Dan for the kind words.  As far as control, for the most part as the wind increases the wings loose their efficiency very quickly after around 20mph.  The fat wing does very nicely creating lift/drag in low winds and for the same reason in high winds they create lots of drag basically stalling the wing.   It will continue to increase the output and overpower the alternator in winds over 40 mph.  It hasn't seen any winds over 60mph so I can't say for sure how it would react ( or self destruct ) beyond that.  I usually short the alternator when I know some storm winds are comming through and on 2 occasions I actually went up and locked the rotor.  If it wasn't on my house I might simply let it go to see what it would take.  This small one really doesn't need as much attention as a larger unit would but with any VAWT I would recommend a braking system of some sort passive or otherwise.

.

[Kevortex]

Excellent idea !

[disaray1]

 You nailed it.

[CmeBREW]

Thanks guys for the comments. Sorry for delay. Mondays are hecktic for me.

Sorry I can't answer everyone without it becoming a novel.  All are interesting ideas!

I really believe this rotor design is WRONG. Making this specific design Bigger or Taller would be a waste of time I think.(little gained) I am going to try one last thing with it though-- I'm going to reduce the diameter DOWN to about 20 inches diameter and this time make the angle of each blade much steeper. (probably try 16 blades)

I highly suspect the wind did NOT 'swirl' around correctly inside the cylinder, thus adding some extra torque. It was acting more like a big 'Air brake'.  This thing certainly gave the IMPRESSION it was going to make some OK power. I am still trying to figure it out.

BTW, for you who asked, the dimensions were the same-- 24" diameter by almost 5 feet high.

Yes, There certainly Are ALOT of scams and exaggerations out there concerning VAWTS.(And Hawts)  

I wish they would pass a new law enforcing independant testing on ALL windmills as ED said,  And put liars out of business by imposing giant fines on them. Who knows if it will happen.

However, everyone here though that I know of tries their best to tell the TRUTH. We have NOTHING to do with those liars. I never said I just made a 1k Vawt!  I was only hoping for a VERY reasonable 100 watts in a giant wind gust! I was WAY off!

Believe me, it wasnt easy confessing the SAD output of this latest Vawt experiment!  But I did not want to mislead anyone about this specific design.

YES, to me it is obvious that Hawts are easier to make and, in most all cases (exept ED's design) , make much more power since the blades get to work in the same direction and at many times the speed of the wind.

However, ED's design PROVES that there IS some very good potential there with making a smaller Vawt unit that can be just as useful and powerful as a similar sized small hawt. He no doubt did ALOT of hard work and expenses to get that unique design by testing. Bigger Vawts??? Well, thats yet to be seen.

Even though it was not designed to do so, the Lenz2 even got upto 450 watts (I believe) in a very big wind storm. I keep looking at his design trying to figure it out!

I am really experimenting with Vawts more for just a HOBBY and because I like 'different' things, I like the looks of them, And simply because it is a CHALLENGE. (like the thrill of fishing)

And, of course, at this time, I am afraid of putting up a 8 or 10 foot hawt because of neihbors and outrageous local government codes.  I WISH I could--but i don't have extra thousands of dollars to meet their 'requirements'.  Sorry,,this is becoming a novel.

So thanks for the ideas guys-- and I WILL keep experimenting and having fun, and possible one day, God willing, catch that big fish. (Or, just make ED's design!!)

[GeeMac]

At first glance, I thought of the attic vents they use out west where I am. Perhaps a shorter and wider design will give you a better result.

Here's a link to what I referred.

http://www.airvent.com/professional/products/staticVents-windTurb.shtml

I have wondered why no one has put a genny under one of these. Oh well . . .

[feral air]

Rotor wobble isn't the real problem. That can be dealt with the same way you would deal with a wobbling ceiling fan, with pennies or washers....only you'll probably use a few more and caulking them into place might be a good idea.

The real problem with a stack of 3 barrels is the weight. Even using plastic barrels you're still looking at 75lbs. I wouldn't try stitching 3 barrels together, no way - the rotor would be too heavy and would want to flex - I think it would be better to make 3 separate rotors and put them in a 'Y' config. around the pole or something like that. I'd still count that as one windmill (same tower/pole) and the output of the 3 (once combined) should be pretty decent - whether Volvo would count it for his contest is a different matter.

I've read a claim (can't remember to whom it belongs) of someone getting 50-60w from a steel, double barrel vawt. If that's true then switching from 2 steel barrels to 2 plastic barrels (half the weight, or close) ought to get you some nice gains. Probably not enough to hit the magic 100w mark, though you might get close if you're good. Stitching 2 barrels together is still 50lbs but that seems way more do-able (sane) than stitching 3 together.

I'm really surprised by the low output, CmeBREW...I figured it'd put out 20w no problem and 50w in a hearty gust. I would look at the weight and shed as much as you can. Then I'd start thinking about the best combo of blades, angles, diameter and all that. Maybe acrylic plates would work in place of the plywood, I dunno, but that's the kind of direction I'd be thinking in.

I'm pretty satisfied with the mini squirrel cage I built (1/4" plywood plates, 9" diameter, 2.88sqft) but with the load I put on it, it won't turn in anything less than 15mph and doesn't hit its stride until 30mph....and it's so small I'd be lucky to see 5w when it's spinning full throttle.

I have some ideas for improving these but it's all general, untested...stuff. Nothing worth sharing yet. It's all in good fun so I hope to see more. Good work and take it easy.

[SparWeb]

CmeBrew,

You are way ahead of where I arrived when trying to build VAWT's, but I want to pass on an important lesson I did learn:  When changing the rotor diameter, you think you are gaining in torque, but you are also changing the "solidity" of the rotor, and its preferred tip speed.  The operating RPM could drop drastically, compared to the proportional increase in diameter, robbing your alternator of the RPM to produce enough EMF.

Ed has witnessed a phenomenon called "powering up", which is actually what happens if your rotor exits the stall zone, and the wind speed provides more power to the rotor than the generator can remove.  On a HAWT, this is commonly dealt with by furling, but there's no such system on a VAWT.  You don't want to be around if that happens.  Ed's rotor is designed to run at low enough RPM, even in high wind, that it doesn't get into trouble.  If yours runs in a faster speed range, watch out.

Now re-read what I just wrote:

paragraph one - don't reduce the speed, you can lose power instead of gain.

paragraph two - don't increase the speed, it can blow up.

I was boxed in.  That is why I abandoned my VAWT project.

You're having more success than I, so there's hope, yet.

You might even pull a few notes out of Volvo Farmer's wallet!

[Janne]

Your VAWT looks very nice.. I hope you can still improve it more to get a little more power. Heck, i might make a similar smaller thing, and mayby light a led with it.. just because it would look cool on my yard

[CmeBREW]

Thanks Ed--appreciate it. I don't know if you will see this comment or not since its late---but I keep thinking about that torque formula you showed. It just don't make much sense to me.

You said:    

"...So 24 watts would require .85 ft lbs torque at 200 rpm."

I had made the temporary crank on my alternator below,,to get a real 'feel' for the torque that is required to make 20 watts or 50 watts going into my 12volt battery.

IT is exactly one Foot from center-- and it feels more like 20 ft lbs of pressure to crank it and get 20 watts at 200rpm!

 You're saying less than a pound of pressure to get 20 watts?  AM I understanding that right? I'm rusty on math and formulas.

I should have a general idea because I curl 30lb dumbells each, in my bathroom quite often. (I leave them on the floor to force myself to keep at least my biceps in shape. ha)

It feels like cranking more than 30lbs of pressure to get 52watts! I watch the ammeter as I crank it.

I wonder if something is either wrong with the formula you gave or wrong with my first 3-phase alternator?     -If you have the time. Thanks.

[CmeBREW]

Correction:  Change this:

 "...and it feels more like 20 ft lbs of pressure to crank it and get 20 watts at 200rpm!"

To this:

I meant to say: " it feels more like 20 ft lbs of pressure to crank it and get 20 watts at about 120rpm --  and 52 watts at about 200rpm."

[electrondady1]

cmebrew,

you can email ed directly through his site address.

just be sure to mention something he will recognize in the subject line.

he has been very generous and helpfull to me at times.

looking at the formula again, it does seem kind of optimistic

only .85 ft.lbs. @200rpm = 24 watts.

i have no stop watch.

i use a metronome

i just set the tempo at whatever beats per minuet i want and crank away.

when your speed is correct, your handle will be in the same position at each beat.

once you get up to speed it's easy to keep it there and you can concentrate

on what ever readings you are getting.

it's good you have received a lot of advice about your windmill.

some of it of course ,less helpful than others .

my background is in design and so the visual aspect of things is very important.

whats the point in building something if it looks ugly.

i think id rather have one that looked good,

 even if it was slightly less efficient overall.

i think you could try some tweaking with the angle of the vanes.

that could give the wind more bite.

as well , if you reduce the no. of vanes and increase the spacing

it might allow more penetration or increase the amount of time the wind can

lend energy to your devise.

that is pure research and you will need a bit of equipment in order to make accurate

observations on any changes you make.

i installed a magnetic speedometer on a friends bike last week .

i think he paid 20.oo for it at wallmart. i'm going to get one.

with one of those, the meter you already have, and some sort of wind speed indicator next to your mill, you could measure and keep track of what ever you do.

three phase generation is the standard here for hawt type mills

but for direct drive, drag type mills, and there limited rpm range,  it may be a luxury.

i am prepared to give up a phase or even two in order to achieve the levels of energy

i want at the speeds i can produce.

looking forward to building another mill when i get a few things off my plate.

thanks for the inspiration.

good luck!

[windstuffnow]

  If your cranking it at a radius of 12 inches (2 ft diameter ) then the torque would be .85 ft lbs.  On the other hand, if your trying to crank it at the shaft then your probably feeling 20 lbs of force.

.

[windstuffnow]

Here is a link to a rough description on building the blades... http://www.windstuffnow.com/main/lenz2_turbine.htm

.

[windstuffnow]

  I missed your first post stating the arm was 12" from center.  That sounds odd that it would take that much force.   20 ft lbs at 120 rpm is .45 hp or 340 watts. ( torque x rpm / 5252 = hp ) torque in the formula is in ft lbs ) Maybe you have a wire crossed? shorted?  You might want to double check before you give up on your design, it might be doing better than you think.

  .

[CmeBREW]

Thanks Ed for reply.  

YOu've GOT to be kidding me! What you are saying still seems very strange to me.  Wouldn't that be like a 700watt Pedal-generator!  I thought Ped-gens only did about 100watts or so.  That really freaks me out, because I think I invented something new then--- MAGNETIC RESISTANCE BODY BUILDING EQUIPMENT!!  

Forget my big dumbells-- Cranking this 'peice of equipment' works ALL the muscle groups at once! (including jaw muscles--from cursing so much turning the thing)

OK. I must have done something wrong then with the alternator. I do know there is SOME cancelling (over about 4 of the coils) because the whole stator is OFF-SET in one direction from the center of all the magnets. (or;the center CIRCLE of all the magnets)   This is because of the stator thread rod mounts (or;bolts) were alittle off. So, the magnets are coming across also the bottom part of about 4 of the coils. But I wouldn't think that small amount of cancelling would cause it to 'brake' THAT bad.

Also, am I correct in assuming that it doesnt make any difference about the ORDER the 3-phase wires are attached to the AC phase corners on the bridge rectifiers.  According to DANB's diagram , it doesn't seem to make any difference.

Also, am I correct in assuming The polarity of the magnets in each phase are the SAME and so therefore the  direction (wrapping direction) of the coils in each phase (and in fact, ALL the coils together) also run the SAME direction. I hope thats correct! And for each phase of coils, I hooked the OUTSIDE wire of the first coil to the INSIDE of the next coil, and then the outside of that coil to the inside of the next coil , and so on. I hope thats right too.

I was fairly confident that I had all this understood .

Perhaps I should draw up the whole 20 pole wiring diagram and show it.  I can't imagine I did something incorrect. I re-checked things about 20 times over!

I wonder, IF one of the coils is shorted, if the AC voltage would still show the same output on my volt meter for all 3 of the phases?

(this actually is a possiblity, because I used a razor blade to get one coil unstuck from plywood and super glue-- before I realized how to wrap coils WITHOUT any super glue at all.  )

If anyone wants to comment. -would be appreciated.

Sure sounds like something is wrong.  

[windstuffnow]

  I'll assume it's a 20 pole 15 coil layout wired in star.  The three wires connected to block rectifiers shouldn't be a problem unless one of the rectifiers has a bad diode.  The off center shouldn't be a problem.  The wiring of the coils sounds right and all the poles I assume are NSNS etc.  If two coils together are shorted could cause a feedback current between phases ( I've done that myself ).  Does it freewheel when it's disconnected or running slower than cut in or does it take a bit of torque to rotate it?  It might not show up on a voltage test but it seems like it would give you varying resistance readings.  If you have access to all 6 wires you can check continuity from one phase to another to make sure there is no connection between them.  Also, if you get your starts and ends mixed up when wiring in star this would reverse one set of coils which might not show up until it was loaded.

Can't think of anything else right now...

.

 

[CmeBREW]

Thanks Ed.  It is becoming quite the stinkin' puzzle.  I do not have access to the other 3 points.  Just like Danb's diagram , I simply hooked all 3 of the 'inside' wires (of the end coils of each phase) together.

I did fail to mention that it DOES 'half' light up a normal 100 watt light bulb. (direct hook up/ no batteries)  This is AFTER the diodes in the picture.

In that case, the alternator is VERy easy to turn fast due to the high resistance of the light bulb.  So I can easily spin it up to a much faster rpm by the hub thread rods. I think I can get over 40 volts if I spin it real fast.

I will keep trying to figure out what, if anything, is wrong.  It is amazing how much crapola beginners get themselves into.  -Thanks for info.