HCCT availablity

Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration
Model T Ford Forum: Forum 2016: HCCT availablity
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dave Eddie on Wednesday, August 17, 2016 - 07:01 pm:

Just how rare are the hand crank coil testers?
What would a shrewd buyer expect to pay for one?

Dave Eddie


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ron Patterson-Nicholasville, Kentucky on Wednesday, August 17, 2016 - 07:16 pm:

Dave
I have been collecting and restoring HCCT's for 25 years.
If you can send me some photos I will let you know what it is worth.
Ron Patterson
modeltcoils@windstream.com


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Eric Hylen- Central Minnesota on Wednesday, August 17, 2016 - 07:57 pm:

They're easy to find, if you start waving bills around. Complete and unrestored typically bring around $800, but can sometimes be found as low as $400. Fully restored units go as high as $1,600.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Gary Tillstrom 30 miles N of Memphis TN on Wednesday, August 17, 2016 - 08:22 pm:

If your handy, they aren't that hard to make and will work as well as a commercial unit. Having said that, John Regan came out with the strobo spark right after I built my HCCT. I have used one and if the clock were turned back (and John would have had his available sooner) I would buy the strobo scope. They are smaller, lighter, easier to store, and will allow coils to be accurate producing a smooth engine as will the HCCT.

You might however luck onto an original for under $500 (I never could).


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Robert Lawson-Kingston,TN on Wednesday, August 17, 2016 - 08:57 pm:

I lucked up and bought one a couple of years ago for $125 at a antique store. They did not know what it was. This was the only one that I ever saw. I feel that this was the find of a lifetime.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Bob Jablonski on Wednesday, August 17, 2016 - 08:59 pm:

Thank you for going off topic Gary.

I bought my HCCT from Tom Carnegie years ago.... best investment I made at that time for Model T Coil calibration.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dan B on Wednesday, August 17, 2016 - 09:01 pm:

Robert - We can all dream.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Gary Tillstrom 30 miles N of Memphis TN on Wednesday, August 17, 2016 - 09:25 pm:

"Thanks for going off topic". Who died and left you in charge of what folks are allowed to say or not say?

The original poster didn't specify "original testers" and part of his question was how rare are they. My reply only offered an alternative to the original if the intent is to be able to adjust coils. If his intent is to have a restored tester on his bench, he can ignore it as well.

Not sure what your issue is Bob, don't care either. You don't have to like my comment. I'm ok with that.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dave Eddie on Wednesday, August 17, 2016 - 09:39 pm:

Thanks gentlemen


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Shawn Hayward on Wednesday, August 17, 2016 - 09:42 pm:



I have a motorized unit , I think it is almost the same as the hand cranked ones ?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Michael Garrison - Rice Minnesota on Wednesday, August 17, 2016 - 10:10 pm:

Not that it probably matters but; I like my stroboscope. But, if a HCCT is what Dave Eddie is looking for I hope he finds one for less than $20.00. Just sayin.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Zachary Carrico on Wednesday, August 17, 2016 - 10:31 pm:

I bought mine last year for 200$ it is complete, but needs to be restored. The fellow I got it from had two of them. This is obviously an exception to the pricing rule but I wouldn't have paid more and he seemed happy so it was a good deal for both of us.
(I love the look and history of mine but for more money I would likely get the modern electric version. The nice thing a modern one is ready to go out of the box, right now mine is stored, waiting to be restored but that is apparently off topic:-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dave Eddie on Thursday, August 18, 2016 - 12:37 am:

What is the price of a stroboscope ?

Dave


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Kossor - Kenilworth, NJ on Thursday, August 18, 2016 - 05:33 am:

Dave, many folks prefer the dwell time to fire method to adjust their coils; especially for competition sensitive performance events where best engine performance is very important. If you are considering alternates to the vintage HCCT.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dan B on Thursday, August 18, 2016 - 05:47 am:

Dave - http://www.funprojects.com/products/ct-1.aspx


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Hal Davis-SE Georgia on Thursday, August 18, 2016 - 07:27 am:

I actually had one given to me. It was in rough shape and required a lot of work and a little parts fabrication to get going, but the price was right. All the guy asked of me was to get it fixed and bring it back by his place to show him how it worked, which I most certainly did.

Mine actually had a history to go with it. It came out of the "Colored" (As it was called back then) high school in Claxton GA, where it was used in their shop class back before integration.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Tomaso - Longbranch,WA on Thursday, August 18, 2016 - 11:59 am:

This one could be available - will not ship and I'm just a "South" of B.C. - drop me a note if you're interested.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ron Patterson-Nicholasville, Kentucky on Thursday, August 18, 2016 - 01:31 pm:

As Steve shows, they can be restored very easily to look great. A bad meter is the most difficult part to deal with, but Bob Cascisa can fix that too.
1


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Tim Wrenn-Monroeville OH on Thursday, August 18, 2016 - 08:54 pm:

I dunno...I'm pretty old fashioned and "purist" but I kinda like that Stroboscope thing. Might just have to get one myself.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By BRENT MIZE on Friday, August 19, 2016 - 07:52 am:

Here's one I just finished for my friend Russ Potter. It was missing several parts. Bob Scherzer and Bob Cascica helped in the resurrection of this machine. Two very talented men. Thanks to both!Hcct


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ron Patterson-Nicholasville, Kentucky on Friday, August 19, 2016 - 08:53 am:

The StroboSpark is a great tool and weighs considerably less :-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Bob Jablonski on Friday, August 19, 2016 - 09:59 pm:

Really Patterson ????? clearly off topic. HCCT is the topic.... Not promoting your friend Reagan's item.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John T. Tannehill III, Hot Coffee, MS on Friday, August 19, 2016 - 11:19 pm:

Bob is everything ok? Ron has several HCCTs that he refurbishes and sells. He in fact is cutting his own potential profit by giving his considerable opinion about a product clearly related to the subject and in fact the original poster inquired about. He also gave a truthful tongue in cheek statement of fact on one of its attributes. "Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our forum party guests - we did. But you can't hold a whole forum responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole forum system? And if the whole forum system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but I for one am not going to stand here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!" Oh sorry I got carried away.

(Message edited by Jtt3 on August 19, 2016)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John T. Tannehill III, Hot Coffee, MS on Friday, August 19, 2016 - 11:22 pm:

Life is to short. Let's have fun at what we love.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Rand Ward Payson, Ut. on Saturday, August 20, 2016 - 12:28 am:

Who gives a rat's A$$ if it's on or off topic. It's all great information isn't it. Can't we all just get along here?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Kossor - Kenilworth, NJ on Saturday, August 20, 2016 - 12:41 am:

Bob, its only going off topic, advertising, or an infomercial if one references that other lowest cost, lightest weight coil/capacitor tester. You know, the only coil tester that actually measures coil dwell time to fire spark so all 4 coils can be adjusted for the exact same time to fire to minimize cylinder to cylinder timing variation. Yes, mention that one and you may be put on double secret probation! :-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John T. Tannehill III, Hot Coffee, MS on Saturday, August 20, 2016 - 01:43 am:

Mike as you know There is a little-known codicil in the MTFCA constitution which gives the moderator unlimited power to preserve order in time of forum emergency. Double Secret Probation.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Gary Tillstrom 30 miles N of Memphis TN on Saturday, August 20, 2016 - 08:22 am:

Bob, get a grip on things. Does it really bother you that much when you aren't 100% in agreement with the opinions of others? Or when others aren't 100% in agreement with your opinion?

My initial comment that apparently caused you grief was after it had already been stated they (HCCT) are $. I only pointed out if he was handy, he could make one. I also offered a cheaper option, the Strobo Spark which I have used and like.

I figured someone would mention the ECCT. I didn't because I have no experience with it. I do know this, both the ECCT and the Strobo Spark will fit in a drawer in the garage, are light weight, cost a lot less than an HCCT allowing the buyer to buy other T stuff. Mike would not have been off topic to post a picture of his unit either.

This would have given the original poster 4 options. An original HCCT that will be $ and work no different than a home made unit costing much less. A home made unit from scrap T parts, ECCT, Strobo Scope.

Don't take life to seriously, none of us get out alive. BTW, you still haven't identified who died and left you boss.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By David Dewey, N. California on Saturday, August 20, 2016 - 02:48 pm:

IF you've got your health, a roof over your head and enough "free" money to enjoy this hobby, then life is more than good--it's great! So enjoy it while you can, and take it easy on others.
It does seem obvious to me; the modern electronic testers do use up less bench space then the mechanical ones! Everything else is probably open to debate and scientific discussion, most of which goes over my head!
My easy solution? Send the coils out!! They come back ready to install. Yep, that solution does cost some $$, and some of us would rather "fiddle around" with our time and do it ourselves. Either solution is acceptable here!!
To paraphrase Gary above, "Enjoy life while you can, none of us are here forever." And I might add, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, unless you're a masochist!! :-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dave Eddie on Saturday, August 20, 2016 - 04:45 pm:

I agree that probably the best any easiest option is too send the coils out to have rebuilt to Ron or one of the other coil Masters (which I am in the process of doing). However I enjoy doing the hands on stuff myself whenever I can, I find it rewarding.
So.... for me I think I will someday buy one of the new ECCT or Strobo Spark testers, or if a too-good-to-be-true deal on a HCCT comes up I'll buy it.
In the mean time I will have a set of coils that are set up properly to use as a benchmark.

Dave Eddie


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Larry Reed on Saturday, August 20, 2016 - 05:10 pm:

Brent Mize. Beautiful restoration. I am currently doing one like it and am wondering about the availability of the instruction plaque.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ron Patterson-Nicholasville, Kentucky on Saturday, August 20, 2016 - 05:46 pm:

Larry
Contact Bob Scherzer Telephone 989-642-8649 or email bscheerzeratjunodotcom about the instruction plate for Allen Electric HCCT's.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Larry Reed on Saturday, August 20, 2016 - 06:44 pm:

Thanks Ron.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Derek Kiefer - Mantorville, MN on Saturday, August 20, 2016 - 07:02 pm:

I only have experience with a Strobo-spark, and I am very pleased with it. Any time a T runs poorly, my first instinct is to check the coils and eliminate guess work.

I would love to have an HCCT, but can't justify the cost when other options are available that accomplish the same goal for way lower cost.

I haven't rebuilt any coils, but for diagnosing an ignition problem, any one of the three devices discussed here is a lot better than guessing.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Garnet on Sunday, August 21, 2016 - 07:48 pm:

Might be one too many e's in that email address Ron.

Regards,
Garnet


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Hal Davis-SE Georgia on Sunday, August 21, 2016 - 08:15 pm:

Too many e's? Now that's a Freudian slip if I ever heard one.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By JohnH on Sunday, August 21, 2016 - 09:46 pm:

In my part of the world, about $700 will get a HCCT, if you can find one for sale!
It all depends whether the OP just wants a HCCT for display, or something specifically for coil adjustment.
HCCT's look nice, but the accuracy, lower cost, and other features of the ECCT make it preferable in my opinion, when it comes to coil adjustment.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Duey_C on Tuesday, August 23, 2016 - 11:37 pm:

My two little penny's.
Sheesh you guys! :-)
I'd love to have a hand cranked HCCT, a motor driven one or an ELECtronic version! But the more money we gots, the cheaper we gets here at this house. ;-)
Ehh Hem. Got me about 8 coils I'd like to set up. :-) Wait, 12 coils, 4 for my buddy.
My buddy's '25 TT? I just fiddle with the offender until it's firing Ok. Oof but that one FAT coil that I stuffed in there two years ago... Ouch.
Tin Cup will be a vibrator car. Forever. WHEN I get the correct coil box repaired.
Lizzie has a "dizzy" so he don't care. Oh wait, I gotta clean the points finally (after 15 years) and maybe put in a new condenser. Ran like turds yester.
Dave, if you find one in your budget? Buy it. :-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Eric Hylen- Central Minnesota on Wednesday, August 24, 2016 - 07:22 pm:

Duey,

"If you find one in your budget? Buy it." I've followed that mantra way too many times in my life. I guess that might explain why I currently have four HCCTs at my house. Two are restored and one is in process as a project that I can do with my boy when I can pry him away from video games. The last one is a really unique Ford unit that pre-dates the style that we typically see. I only buy them when I can get them for a low price. But, as I'm sure you know, the deal of a lifetime only comes along a couple of times per year.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Gene Carrothers Huntington Beach on Thursday, August 25, 2016 - 03:09 am:

Dave, Have you considered the ECCT? So many here have been promoting the Strobo Spark probably just because its been around for awhile but the latest and greatest for fine tuning the Model T coils has to be the ECCT.

Wherever you send your coils to be adjusted make sure they are using one so you get the best possible settings to start out with.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Hal Davis-SE Georgia on Thursday, August 25, 2016 - 07:08 am:

Are you saying if someone sends their coils to someone who uses a HCCT or Strobospark, they will be getting an inferior job?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Kossor - Kenilworth, NJ on Thursday, August 25, 2016 - 09:00 am:

Yes Hal, That is in fact what an increasing number of ECCT users, experienced with using the other coil testers, are reporting.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Chris Laughary on Friday, August 26, 2016 - 06:13 am:

I'm suspecting a possible occasional double-spark. Will an HCCT detect it?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Hal Davis-SE Georgia on Friday, August 26, 2016 - 06:41 am:

Absolutely. But it won't tell you down to the nanosecond, how far apart they are.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Friday, August 26, 2016 - 09:05 am:

Here is the visual when a double spark is detected on an HCCT. This is the primary purpose of any coil tester, without this ability you can't test a coil at all. You cannot adjust the coil's current output successfully until you eliminate the possibility that the coil is double sparking. When the coil double sparks it limits the time until the coil discharges. This causes the spark in that cylinder to occur at a different time than when the coil is functioning properly.



Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Kossor - Kenilworth, NJ on Friday, August 26, 2016 - 01:34 pm:

Ah yes, the HCCT Double Spark Doctrine that contradicts Ford's own instructions on the proper use of the Ford Agent's coil unit test stand (HCCT).

Turns out, HCCT adjusted coils that produce double sparks CAN be improperly adjusted but Not Necessarily improperly adjusted. In fact, coils that produce double sparks on the HCCT may actually perform superior to those which only produce a single spark as per Ford manual and independently verified. Thanks Royce, for motivating the detailed investigation to explain Ford's seemingly paradoxical guidance. Much more on this to come....


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Willie K Cordes on Friday, August 26, 2016 - 03:06 pm:

I was looking for a HCCT a while back and decided to just built one out of surplus parts. I used a mag ring, magnets and a brake drum along with a variable speed motor control. It does the same thing as the HCCT except I control the speed with a knob. The results seem good when I run the car on coils I set up on the tester.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Friday, August 26, 2016 - 03:14 pm:

Well, as it turns out you can only detect double sparking by operating the coil on AC power. This is because a coil won't double spark using DC power. The HCCT produces a source of AC power that simulates what is available at hand cranking speed, but fires the coil on every magnet passing a field coil. Thus it is presenting the coil with a very hard to follow regimen at a low voltage / high frequency. This results in a well adjusted coil, if all the coils for a particular car are set on the same coil tester.

This is why you need to have all your coils set on - first of all - a device that tests coils using AC voltage, and - second - also to always use the same device.

The ECCT appears to have no way to detect a double sparking coil, at least the one that was here was unable to do so despite repeated testing with Mr. Kossor's guidance. I suspect it is probably because the little plastic unit is testing using DC only, so it has no way to simulate what a coil does when the car is running on MAG. Coils act quite differently on AC voltage than they do on DC.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Hal Davis-SE Georgia on Friday, August 26, 2016 - 08:13 pm:

Oh boy. I see oscilloscope pictures and colored graphs that don't diverge until 3000 rpm in our future.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Kossor - Kenilworth, NJ on Saturday, August 27, 2016 - 12:16 am:

No, not here this time Hal. Hopefully folks recognize dubious, unsubstantiated misinformation by who regularly spews it here.

The ECCT is earning its own reputation as the preferred Model T coil adjusting tool. Earned from folks with direct experience using it and engine performance using ECCT adjusted coils. Something any Model T enthusiast can understand and appreciate regardless of the technical details behind how it works.

Anyone interested in learning more about my research on HCCT double sparking and why Ford actually said double sparking was sometimes advisable are welcome to PM me.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Hal Davis-SE Georgia on Saturday, August 27, 2016 - 04:50 am:

You know, Mike? I have no quarrel with someone who wants to use an ECCT to adjust their coils. What I DO have a problem with is the implication that if you send your coils to someone who's not using an ECCT, then somehow, you are throwing your money away. You know damn well an HCCT will do a fine job of testing coils and to try to dissuade someone from sending their coils to someone who uses one is down right shameful.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Saturday, August 27, 2016 - 08:49 am:

You would think his efforts would be better directed at fixing the problem rather than hurling insults at honest people who try to help other club members.

Seriously Kossor, you need to go back to the drawing board and try to figure out what makes coils double spark, then figure out a way to detect it using an instrument in a plastic box. Once you have done that successfully, THEN you sell them.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Gary Tillstrom 30 miles N of Memphis TN on Saturday, August 27, 2016 - 09:00 am:

The double spark issue was well researched years ago and is no great secret. Someone back in the day advocated a double spark during cold weather to aid in hand crank starting on mag. I don't remember if it was Ford or KR Wilson or Dykes that stated it may be preferable in those instances. It seems there was also the explanation as to why. The car didn't have to be cranked as fast as one set up to single spark because there wasn't as much energy available (weaker spark). Given the cold oil holding the engine back in these cases I understand the thinking at the time.

I don't believe there is benefit to double spark in the warm weather most of us drive in.

I don't believe Hal nor I have spewed anything inaccurate.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Kossor - Kenilworth, NJ on Saturday, August 27, 2016 - 11:31 am:

So Hal, you have a problem with me stating what others, with considerable experience using the other coil testers, have honestly reported to me about their use of the ECCT and ECCT adjusted coils? Sorry, but I don't see that as an ethical problem there. Not at all.

What I see as an huge ethical problem tolerated here is how a single individual, Royce, is permitted to malign good products like the E-Timer, ECCT and others like Evans Coolant with little to no accountability. Remarkably in direct contrast with what ALL other users have experienced, absent any adverse experiences. That I consider not only shameful but inexcusable and a gross disservice to this forum. May I suggest you direct your outrage there where it is clearly earned.

Gary, I don't think the HCCT double spark issue was researched at all, at least I could not find anything scientific to explain why the Ford manual ( http://www.funprojects.com/pdf/HCCTManual.pdf ) said what it says on page 4 about double sparking. There was Lots of speculation and theories but no data that I could find. Only the HCCT Double Spark Doctrine: Double Spark = BAD, Single Spark = Good. That's why I decided to take my own data on it. My conclusion is the HCCT Double Spark Doctrine is a easy to understand, over simplification of a more complex operation. A coil that produces double sparks on the HCCT CAN be improperly adjusted and perform poorly in car as is known now but Not Necessarily improperly adjusted and run well in car as Ford acknowledged. Case in point, ECCT adjusted coils that can produce double sparks when tested on the HCCT are known to perform really well on engine performance road tests which is what really matters. Only Royce reports otherwise.... If interested, I'd be happy to share with you my research.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Bob Jablonski on Saturday, August 27, 2016 - 03:02 pm:

Mike: I agree with your response and share in your frustration

Bob J.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Gary Tillstrom 30 miles N of Memphis TN on Saturday, August 27, 2016 - 06:22 pm:

Taking your argument, one would need all four coils to double spark at each of the sixteen points. Since timing is controlled by the magnet pass and not the timer, you need each coil to behave the same each and every time. The checking for the double spark thing is the observed reaction time of the points. The double spark doesn't have the same energy as the single spark as the spark happens before the core is fully saturated. If coil 2 is giving doubles and the remaining aren't, it causes needless roughness.

The limit rivet on the points serves the same purpose as setting e-gap on a high tension mag as opposed to setting points with a feeler gauge. It is best if the points open a few degrees after the magnets are in the full register position as that is when the best spark will occur. This is an intentional delay.

If one takes a piece of tape and marks the spark ring of a HCCT, a set of coils set to give only single sparks will all occur at the same point on the tape (everytime). There is no variation. One that throws doubles occasionally causes timing error and will appear at a different place on the tape. You advocating for doubles isn't correct unless it happens each and every time. Even then, the energy isn't at its peak. One would need all four to behave identical.

Can your tester detect for doubles and if so are they occasional or constant or unknown?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dave Hjortnaes, Men Falls, WI on Saturday, August 27, 2016 - 06:36 pm:

Royce has a great picture up above with double sparking. This is when the HCCT is spun at normal speed. If I remember correctly there are some HCCT's that have a motor attached, so they can be spun at a faster speed.

My question is, will the double sparks still show up if the HCCT spins 2x as fast, 4x as fast, etc?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Hal Davis-SE Georgia on Saturday, August 27, 2016 - 06:57 pm:

"Mike: I agree with your response......."

Now, THERE'S a surprise!

And where is Gene? He's the one I was asking to clarify his statement when Mike took over.

There ain't a damned thing wrong with a HCCT adjusted coil, and the fact it takes $1000's worth of high tech test equipment to show a nickle's worth of difference is nothing less than proof of it.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Kossor - Kenilworth, NJ on Saturday, August 27, 2016 - 11:45 pm:

Gary, there are way too many interacting variables involved to theorize what exactly is going on. The actual measured voltages and current are necessary to study what is happening during HCCT testing. The timing variations taking place to disrupt engine performance are thousands of a second which the human eye just cannot follow with precision if at all. Yes, the ECCT coil dwell time test does detect double sparking, from rest, using a step response like when the timer comes on contact operating on 12V battery. The fast rise time more closely mimics magneto operation, especially at higher engine RPMs.

Dave, the double sparks produced by the ECCT adjusted coil cease to occur when the HCCT is cranked at higher speeds; 200+ RPM which is tough to do but still abnormally slow compared with typical engine operation.

Hal, appreciate your consideration and reasoning. I completely agree, there is nothing wrong with using the HCCT (or any other coil tester for that matter) to adjust coils if you have one and are satisfied with the results.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Eric Hylen- Central Minnesota on Sunday, August 28, 2016 - 02:25 am:

Mike,
I think that you're still confused as to how an HCCT works. In your response to Dave, you stated that the double sparks produced by coils adjusted with your device cease to occur when the HCCT is cranked at 200 RPM and referenced that as abnormally low compared with typical engine operation. Please note that a coil being tested in an HCCT fires 16 times per revolution. At 200 RPM, that equals 3200 sparks per minute, the equivalent of an engine running at 6400 RPM, well above typical engine operation.

We all understand that you think your product is better than the tool designed by Ford to adjust Ford coils. You clearly have your supporters and detractors. You will never be able to bully your detractors into agreeing with you. Can you please allow us to discuss these wonderful, historic tools without turning every thread on HCCTs into a fight about your product?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Michael Deichmann, Blistrup, Denmark on Sunday, August 28, 2016 - 04:33 am:

My HCCT is unique that it is danish. Most it probably FORD and other US vendor, but the instrument is with danish text.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Bob Jablonski on Sunday, August 28, 2016 - 08:35 am:

"Spinning" the HCCT faster than 60 rpm's, maybe up to 80 rpms, will over ride the physical capability of the points to function as intended.....and maybe will show on the HCCT as double sparking.

Remember, the HCCT will show sparks at each of the 16 segments on the spark ring on each revolution of the crank..... and at about 60 rpm's will mirror real time engine speed at about 1800-2000 rpms.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Greg Adkisson on Sunday, August 28, 2016 - 10:36 am:

Why did Henry update the ignition go to a distributor and single coil? Perhaps owners were not satisfied with the way their car ran.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Sunday, August 28, 2016 - 10:50 am:

Here's the problem, without any insults, and 100% truthful as usual.

To dispense with being repetitive here's a link to a previous discussion:

The ECCT is not setting coils successfully to be able to run the car on magneto. Coils set on the ECCT are wildly out of whack. In our side by side test with the HCCT and the Strobospark the ECCT set coils were within limits 20 percent of the time, which is probably the same as not adjusting or testing the coils on any device. Even those two coils that were close to right were not close to each other, as tested on an HCCT.

Of the ten coils that were rebuilt and adjusted to read perfectly on the ECCT, 4 were double sparking when tested on the other two devices. 6 had current readings that were above 2 amps, with two of the ECCT coils pegging the amp meters on both the HCCT and the Strobe O Spark.

Running the car on the ECCT set coils resulted in poor operation on MAG. We randomly chose four coils for the test. As it turned out there was only one of the double sparking coils installed in the car, so it could have been much worse.

Bottom line: not a useful tool by any stretch of the imagination. Any honest person is welcome to duplicate this test - all you have to do is rebuild ten coils and set them on an ECCT. Then check them on a real coil tester.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Kossor - Kenilworth, NJ on Sunday, August 28, 2016 - 10:52 am:

Eric, I respectfully disagree; it is you who are confused about HCCT operation; which is really very surprising given your interest in them.

The HCCT firing rate and voltage pulse rise time are two entirely different things. The HCCT firing rate is cranking speed (RPM) x 16 voltage pulses (firings) per revolution due to the lack of timer function which does simulate moderate engine firing rate of 960 coil firings per minute. That does NOT change the fact you are physically turning the magnets past the coils at the abnormally slow rate of 60 RPM or 1 revolution per second. The magnets are physically moving from one coil to the next at the rate of 1/16 second (0.0625s). When the Model T engine is operating at 960RPM, 1 revolution takes that long; 1/(960/60) = 0.0626s and since 16 pulses are produced in 1 revolution, magnets are physically moving from one coil to the next at the rate of (0.0625/16)= 0.0039s. That is a huge difference and 100% correct. Regarding coil tester performance, I only stated what other, much more experienced users of coil testers, reported to me.

Again Eric, I take exception to your rude accusation. Next time you accuse someone of being a Bully, I strongly suggest you get your facts straight Eric and know what you are talking about before embarrassing yourself on a public forum.

Michael, that is a really neat HCCT! Didn't realize they were made abroad.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Kossor - Kenilworth, NJ on Sunday, August 28, 2016 - 11:37 am:

Royce, Scores of others have done engine performance road performance testing of ECCT adjusted coils; some very experienced with other coil testers. You are the only one reporting results that ECCT adjusted coils were not equal to or better than coils adjusted using other coil testers. I am not at all surprised given your reputation here.

The ECCT is earning a good reputation based on its performance reported by users. I am confident a set of properly adjusted ECCT coils will perform equal to or better than coils set up with any other tester in a blind engine performance road tests where the evaluator does not know which coil test tool was used.

That is what really matters, not coil tester to coil tester comparisons which function on different principals.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Eric Hylen- Central Minnesota on Sunday, August 28, 2016 - 11:51 am:

Mike,

In summary, you're saying that I'm confused about how an ingeniously simple device works to fire a coil 16 times per revolution, mimicking the demands of an engine running at moderate to high speed while producing AC voltage output comparable to an engine running at low idle. Without ever having spoken to me, you've accused me of having inferior experience with a device that I find interesting. You imply that I'm inexperienced without having any actual knowledge of my background. You've twisted the discussion from coil firing rate to voltage pulse rise time and provided numbers to distract away from the original topic of coil firing rate. You've accused me of being rude, an embarrassment, and not having my facts straight. Despite all your bluster, you did not address or disprove the simple facts that I presented. An HCCT cranked at 200 RPM will require the coil to fire at a rate equivalent to an engine running at 6400 RPM, well out of normal range for the Model T.

If that's not bullying, I don't know how to define it. I hope that the good members of this forum will observe your tone in these discussions and recognize what they can expect from you when they require customer service after purchasing one of your products.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Sunday, August 28, 2016 - 12:20 pm:

What matters is the ability to actually set the coils to function in the Model T on MAG. The ECCT does not have that capability.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Walt Berdan, Bellevue, WA on Sunday, August 28, 2016 - 12:33 pm:

Mike -

I frequently dislike the tome from both Mike and Royce when this topic comes up and I wish all concerned could can the attitudes. I'm pretty firmly convinced that very few if any of us could detect a seat of the pants difference in the performance of our cars with coils that were properly set up on any of the three devices commonly advocated.

I do take issue with one of your comments though and that i with regards to Mike and customer service. I have an E-timer and encountered some intermittent ignition issues. I happened to be on tour with only occasional phone coverage and even less frequent email access. Mike contacted me within 24 hours and asked me to return the device for testing, repair or replacement. In the end, the device was just fine, I had an unrelated sporadic open circuit issue. No complaints from Mike, no attitude issues, just prompt attention and a quick return of the timer. I could not have asked for any faster, more professional or friendly customer service.

Walt


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Eric Hylen- Central Minnesota on Sunday, August 28, 2016 - 12:49 pm:

Walt,
I agree. All I want, is to be able to read constructive, interesting, or entertaining posts about the hobby. I don't alike seeing every mention of any type of coil tester devolve into a pissing contest.

I'm glad that Mike addressed your customer service concern in a professional manner.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Sunday, August 28, 2016 - 12:53 pm:

For some reason the link to the previous discussion did not appear - here it is.

http://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/599638/649858.html?1465900442

Walt I don't have any attitude, my posts are done respectfully and out of a love for the hobby. I am all for any thing that works if it indeed works.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Walt Berdan, Bellevue, WA on Sunday, August 28, 2016 - 01:17 pm:

Royce - Sure


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Kossor - Kenilworth, NJ on Sunday, August 28, 2016 - 02:08 pm:

Eric, I respectfully suggest you go back and review the information I provided in a constructive way when you calm down. I think it will be crystal clear who turned this thread into a pissing contest complete with baseless accusations and unwarranted personal attacks.

Coil operation occurs in response to a magnetic field and the rate at which it is applied to cause the coil points to open. The rate of rise of the magnetic field is directly proportional to the rate of rise of the voltage pulse applied to the coil; which in return produces a corresponding current pulse in the coil that generates the magnetic field that opens the points. The rate of rise of the voltage pulse is a very important factor in coil point operation. That is why I called your attention to it and proceeded to explain the difference between rate of rise of the voltage pulse and firing rate; including numerical examples. The rate the coil fires per minute is a completely different issue. I agree, cranking an HCCT at 200 RPM produces 200*16 = 3200 pulses per minute lacking the timer function which is higher than typical.

As anyone who purchased one of my products knows, their complete satisfaction is my greatest consideration and don't consider the sale complete until it is earned.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Hal Schedler, Sacramento on Sunday, August 28, 2016 - 03:05 pm:

OK, after all this, how do you deal with double spark? One of my HCCT er shows a double spark on almost every coil where the other one does not. Or is this the wrong place for this, question?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Gene Carrothers Huntington Beach on Sunday, August 28, 2016 - 07:20 pm:

Royce stated:

"What matters is the ability to actually set the coils to function in the Model T on MAG. The ECCT does not have that capability"

Boy This sure doesn't sound like your last post Royce?

I find it interesting if "Your all for anything that works" but you have been the biggest poster of negative comments about the ETimer and the ECCT both have proven to work quite well and with customer support that no other Model T parts seller can match.

Common logic would have to believe that it must work for some people especially the Montana 500 guys if many of them use the ECCT to fine tune their coils for ultimate performance.

Coils adjusted on an HCCT by an experienced person will perform Very good in a Model T. There are many guys with tons more knowledge about the coil operation than me that know they can be adjusted much better with an oscilloscope or the plastic ECCT.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By JohnH on Sunday, August 28, 2016 - 08:48 pm:

The comment; "...you can only detect double sparking by operating the coil on AC power. This is because a coil won't double spark using DC power." is clearly false. Here is the current waveform of a coil that is being tested in exactly the same way as the ECCT. The multiple sparking is obvious.

sparks


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Monday, August 29, 2016 - 07:55 am:

John,

Not sure what your photo represents, but the fact is an ECCT cannot detect a coil that double sparks on MAG. We repeatedly tested six double sparking coils in the ECCT and it passed all of them.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Kossor - Kenilworth, NJ on Monday, August 29, 2016 - 09:29 am:

Royce, The ECCT can and does detect double spark maladjustment when tested with voltage pulses that represent actual Model T engine magneto operation; not abnormally slowly rising voltage pulses of a hand cranked coil tester; physically rotating at 60-120RPM. That is completely different from the equivalent firing rate of 60RPMx16firings per revolution =960 coil firings per minute. Coil point operation is highly dependent upon the rate of rise of the voltage pulse. Cranking at 60RPM, the HCCT magnets are still physically rotating form one coil to the next at the rate of 60RPM; even though the coil fires at the rate of 960 times a minute, the HCCT voltage output rotating at the abnormally slow speed of 60RPM is abnormally low in amplitude and takes an abnormally long time to reach the peak amplitude compared with normal Model T engine operation at 600 - 2300RPM (That's more than 10 times the speed an HCCT operates; hence abnormally slow). Try this test: Snap your fingers and listen to the sound. Then repeat the exact same process at 1/10 the speed and see what happens. NO SOUND! The rate of change in a system can produce an entirely different result. The ECCT tests coils at normal engine speed, not 1/10th the normal engine speed which it NEVER operates!

Perhaps put another way; Yes! You are 100% correct; the ECCT does not detect double sparking coil maladjustment when the coil is operated at abnormally slow engine conditions.

STOP trying to judge coil performance with coil tester comparisons. They work on different principals. The only thing that really matters is how Model T coils make the engine perform on the road. It has been well established Properly adjusted ECCT coils perform as good or better than coils adjusted using other test methods according to independent performance reports from experienced users. If they perform worse, you have other problems! There are many other ignition and fuel variables that can cause a Model T engine to perform poorly.

I am NOT saying the HCCT is not a viable coil test tool; it obviously is. If you have one and are satisfied with the results, Great!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Monday, August 29, 2016 - 10:04 am:

I guess we will have to agree to disagree respectfully Mr. Kossor. Your unit as unable to detect a typical double sparking coil using multiple examples and multiple brands of coils. The HCCT and the Strobo Spark were able to detect all of them every time.

John, check your PM.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jay - In Northern California on Monday, August 29, 2016 - 10:27 am:

Tomato, Tomahto! I say Cut the baby in half! :-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By JohnH on Monday, August 29, 2016 - 10:18 pm:

Royce, the photo is the current waveform of a coil with a misadjusted cushion spring. It shows the coil is firing three times incompletely, instead of once. Even though I measured this particular waveform on a homemade tester, I have confirmed the same method is used inside the ECCT by actually measuring it.
If the oscilloscope waveform shows multiple sparking, then so does the ECCT, and vice versa. The spark occurs at the point where the current suddenly drops. A properly adjusted coil with no double sparking produces this waveform:
spark
I'd say a lot of confusion is arising between the two testers because of how the coil is presented with current; i.e. rapid like in the ECCT, or slow like for the HCCT. So when a coil set on one is tested on the other, the results may be different. But it doesn't mean they're necessarily incorrect.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Tuesday, August 30, 2016 - 07:54 am:

Actually you are just plain wrong John. If a coil double sparks on an HCCT or a Strobo Spark the car runs like poo on MAG. That is one of the primary functions of a coil tester. Without the ability to detect a double sparking coil the ECCT can't be useful for the job.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Kossor - Kenilworth, NJ on Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - 12:42 am:

Royce, So what you are saying is FORD Engineers were are just plain wrong? WOW! Because on Page 4 of the FORD Agent's Coil Unit Test Stand (HCCT) Instructions it says:

HCCT Instructions from FORD

FORD HCCT Instruction Note 4

Clearly FORD knew double sparking coils on the HCCT could perform well just like many have observed with ECCT adjusted coils. Unfortunately Ford did not realize double sparking coils could also indicate improperly adjusted coil points that perform poorly.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Gary Tillstrom 30 miles N of Memphis TN on Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - 06:58 am:

What your missing Mike is if you have that, you will need it on all four coils to have the engine at optimum. The inter cylinder timing will be off by about 2 degrees from one showing single sparks.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - 07:19 am:

The other thing is that a double sparking coils have a weaker spark,so not only is it off in terms of cylinder to cylinder event timing, the plug fouls quickly due to intermittent and incomplete combustion of the mixture in that cylinder.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ron Patterson-Nicholasville, Kentucky on Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - 01:24 pm:

Ford was incorrect about some things published about the Model T.
In addition to being wrong about double sparking benefits in the "HCCT Instructions" as Royce aptly points out, they were wrong about other published electrical data
The following chart is an example, was first published by Ford and many others followed suit published erroneous information without every checking for correctness.
1
One needs to be careful about believing everything you read, Forum post included.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By James A. Golden on Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - 01:56 pm:

Michael, your K. R. Wilson coil tester does not have the original meter.

Shawn is showing the correct original meter on his HCCT.

I have one just like it and an original ad showing the same Jewell meter.

HCCT


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John F. Regan on Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - 03:15 pm:

Mike:

There is an example at the archives that demonstrate where Ford didn't completely understand the timer because they tested timers offered to them for evaluation and flunked them for not having enough dwell time. Those were timers that had only slightly less than 45 camshaft degrees of dwell. Clearly they didn't understand that the first spark was the only real event of importance.

They also made up a drawing for a front engine timer cover for a distributor and decided not to proceed with that either for whatever reason. This was early on in T production but I am pretty sure it was after the later KW points came into common use. I think Henry had enough issues with the timer/coils during 1909-1913 that he probably didn't want to open up that can of worms again now that the KW points had proven to be workable when properly adjusted.

Henry hated batteries and didn't want them mentioned in any sales literature. Starting and running the car on magneto was of paramount importance in Ford's sales message. All earlier cars only could go until the dry cells went dead unless the cars were fitted with an impulse magneto of some sort or other.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Kossor - Kenilworth, NJ on Thursday, September 01, 2016 - 12:45 am:

Gary, I disagree; just having 4 coils that double spark at the same time is not sufficient to insure optimum engine operation.

In this instance, Royce actually has it right. The dreaded double spark fires early but is also of weak energy which is vulnerable to fouling and misfire.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Kossor - Kenilworth, NJ on Thursday, September 01, 2016 - 01:27 am:

Ron, Thanks for pointing out Ford can make mistakes but think your example of published magneto data falls into the category of typo as opposed to misunderstanding their observations of engine performance while operating on magneto.

The data I recently took on a purposely misadjusted coil operating on an Allen HCCT at showed there are 2 reasons why a coil can double spark operating at abnormally slow hand cranking speeds. First; Because of insufficient cushion spring tension; the points open quickly (early/advanced) as the magneto voltage pulse is still rising (so the coil current is low (weak, cold spark, vulnerable to fouling); points close then open again (late/retarded) as the magneto voltage pulse is falling (so the coil current is again low (weak, cold/spark) - this is the "dreaded double spark". The second reason a double spark can occur on the HCCT is when the points are adjusted to fire spark at the peak of the HCCT voltage pulse with normal firing current (that insures a good, hot spark). This firing occurs early (advanced) enough in the HCCT voltage pulse to provide benefit of spark advance with normal energy AND while the HCCT voltage pulse is still sufficiently high in to initiate and produce a 2nd spark of near normal energy. This 2nd spark is of no significance if combustion already occurred; but could be of significance if cranking cold and the first spark fouled. This second scenario is typical of coils adjusted using the ECCT and could be the case Ford observed and cited in their HCCT instructions.

There is, of course, the Third HCCT coil firing scenario; the "desired single spark". The data from a professionally adjusted HCCT coil clearly showed that coil firing After the HCCT voltage had peaked and was on the falling edge of the voltage pulse(late/regarded) in the HCCT voltage pulse. The coil current was the highest so more than sufficient spark energy. No second spark was produced because the HCCT voltage pulse continues falling and is too weak to supply sufficient current to produce a 2nd spark by the time the points recovered from the first spark. Such late firing in the HCCT voltage pulse could actually mask detection of improper cushion spring adjustment that can disrupt coil operation at high engine RPM. These scenarios are what the ECCT is good at detecting and correcting. The ECCT can tell the difference between the "dreaded double spark", the "advisable double spark" and the late firing "desirable single spark".

I have written an article describing all 3 of these scenarios in detail with corresponding coil voltage and current waveforms. I would welcome comments from both you and John. I'll post a link to it on the ECCT website soon.

I appreciate and respect your differing views on coil testing dynamics based on 12VDC step excitation versus AC excitation. The fact is, a lot of folks have now tried the ECCT and found it to work, and work really well (except for Royce, of course...). I wanted to understand why ECCT adjusted coils often produce double sparks when tested on an HCCT because it was supposed to mean it should perform poorly but the exact opposite was true! Similar to what Ford cited in their HCCT instruction manual. I will post the article to the website tomorrow.

(Message edited by mkossor on September 01, 2016)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Kossor - Kenilworth, NJ on Thursday, September 01, 2016 - 02:06 am:

John, Interesting history on Ford's consideration of other timers. That is very surprising! Did they specifically state their objection was due to inadequate dwell time? I could understand if they were concerned about contact integrity/bounce throughout the dwell interval but not the duration near 45 degrees.

Other details indicate Ford understood the magneto ignition system VERY well. For example; In Ron and Steve's article on the Ford Ignition system, they pointed out that Ford oriented the magneto magnets 7 degrees advanced with respect to the crank position. They explained the consequence of doing so but never explained why!. Ford knew to advance the magnets on the magneto by 7 degrees with respect to the crank shaft because of the phase relationship between magneto voltage pulse and the coil current (an inductive load). The coil current lags the magneto voltage in time and peaks AFTER the magneto voltage pulse (by about 7 degrees at mid engine RPM for a 3.3mH ignition coil). The piston would be too far advanced when the coil fires at that time so to improve performance, Ford advanced the magneto magnets by 7 degrees with respect to the crank (piston position) to advance when the coil actually fires spark relative to the magneto. Note that this has Nothing to do with spark lever adjustment because it the magnet advance determines the timing between the availability of magneto power and when spark is needed. For high performance engine operation, it would be really neat if there were some way you could adjust the magnet orientation with respect to the crank on the fly like the spark lever. Anyway, that detail of 7 degree magnet advance indicates to me Ford really knew what they were doing with the low tension magneto system.

I would welcome your comments on the article I mentioned in the above post to Ron when I get it uploaded tomorrow.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Rob Heyen - Eastern Nebraska on Thursday, September 01, 2016 - 06:52 am:

Here's what I think.........

(bet this will set everything straight)

I've been trying to follow this thread. Lot's of great information, along with technical data. Only problem, I have the attention span of my teenagers.......when they were six years old. I'm simply never going to understand all the workings of the Ford magneto/coil system.

However, I do know many of the key players adding information to this thread. I have the good fortune of knowing Mike Kosser, Eric Hylen and Ron Patterson quite well, and consider each of them to be personal friends. I also have the good fortune of knowing John Regan and Brent Mize to a lesser extent, and consider them friends,

My point is, each has provided our hobby with invaluable research, products and help. While they may have differences between themselves concerning the benefits, theory, and performance of different equipment, each of provide wonderful assistance to our hobby.

I refuse to be drawn into a pissing contest where I am forced to "take sides" about one or the other. They may have disagreements, but I don't have to be drawn in by others who seem to enjoy seeing the fireworks by pitting them against each other.

I benefit from their work and opinions, and will continue to learn as they present their information and theories.

I'm a lucky guy........


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dave Dufault on Thursday, September 01, 2016 - 07:24 am:

Rob,
You wrote:

".... each has provided our hobby with invaluable research, products and help...

So VERY, VERY true ! !

(And, I might add, there are a few others who through their research and/or manufacturing processes of other items also make this hobby enjoyable.)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Hal Davis-SE Georgia on Thursday, September 01, 2016 - 07:41 am:

Of the ones mentioned, most limit their input to technical help and humbly keep quiet when it comes to the products/services they sell rather than using the forum as their free advertising and encouraging members to only do business with someone who uses THEIR product. The mark of a gentleman, in my opinion.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Rob Heyen - Eastern Nebraska on Thursday, September 01, 2016 - 08:12 am:

Hal, I know Mike Kosser, as well as several others mentioned. In my opinion, he is indeed a gentleman. Mike took the time to review technical data I sent him about the Magneto used on the Ford Model K, designed by Ed Huff and patented by Henry Ford. Mike's in depth analysis and several page explanation with diagrams revealed the advanced nature of this Huff-Ford creation (first Capacitive Discharge Ignition system, or CDI). I had floated this information by many others who did not recognize the technology of this unique system before Mike took the time and made the effort to explain it to me in writing. At that point I didn't know Mike from "Adam," just emailed him the specs because Dean Yoder suggested I ask him.

If Mike would allow, I would be happy to provide his detailed analysis to anyone who would like to see a sample of Mike's work. And his work was all free of charge. Mike took the time, and applied his extensive knowledge to this project, with no expectation of payment or personal gain. He did it because of his genuine interest in automotive electrical engineering history, and because he is indeed, in my opinion, a gentleman.

I will say, when someone attacks my motives, and insinuates that my interests are less than honorable, I too become "ruffled," as Mike has on occasion (justifiably so, in my opinion).

Again, thank you Mike, Ron, John, Brent and Eric for all you do for our hobby.....


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Kossor - Kenilworth, NJ on Thursday, September 01, 2016 - 08:30 am:

Hal, so you must really detest self appointed surrogates who function to do the exact same thing here on the forum while spewing lies and misinformation about competitors products; discouraging and deterring them from any consideration of a competing product or need of service. Funny though... you seem mute on that behavior; in fact, you seem to even get a real chuckle from it from what I've read you post.


The fact is the Model T hobby is a very small market. You and a FEW others act like there are infinite ways to promote a Model T product like advertising in Walmart or Autozone and should be restricted there; their isn't! Information exchange here on the forum is Very important to the success or failure of a Model T product; it will either sink or flourish depending upon what users think of it and share here. There will be a lot less suppliers and Model T products you and others now have the OPTION of buying or not buying if it were not for the discussion of those products here in my view.

I DO invest in $1000's paid advertising supporting both the Vintage Ford magazine AND The Model T Times magazine with half page ads. I DO donate to the Model T museum; many hundred dollars. I do not routinely post product promotions, deals, sales, etc.that several other forum users have routinely posted. I try to limit my mention and discussion of my products to technical principals and merits of use and rely on potential customers interested in my products to do learn the sales details of them from the established websites.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Kossor - Kenilworth, NJ on Thursday, September 01, 2016 - 08:34 am:

Rob, Dave, Thanks for your posts, acknowledgment and support. It means a great deal to know your work is helping others enjoy the hobby more.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Hal Davis-SE Georgia on Thursday, September 01, 2016 - 10:13 am:

I didn't name any names. It's interesting that you would take my comments so personally, Mike.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Rob Heyen - Eastern Nebraska on Thursday, September 01, 2016 - 10:22 am:

If you weren't addressing your comments toward Mike, now would be a good time to say so. If you were, then so be it. That's the way I took it. Maybe I was mistaken.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Hal Davis-SE Georgia on Thursday, September 01, 2016 - 10:53 am:

I meant exactly what I said. Readers can to take from it, whatever they choose.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Kossor - Kenilworth, NJ on Thursday, September 01, 2016 - 10:54 am:

I did Hal, because is common occurrence of surrogates accusing me of advertising anytime I (or others) discuss the technical details or merits of one of my products but turn a blind eye when anyone mentions the merits of products or services of the other folks mentioned.

So if mistaken, please be the piller we all know you are and correct my error.

If you doubt my first statement, just try spewing lies about one of the other folks products or services and see how fast you get a terse response from one of the surrogates or PM from the coil service provider.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Thursday, September 01, 2016 - 11:11 am:

Let's make one thing clear - the double sparking coils that were unable to be detected by the ECCT were the typical, expected double spark that is commonly encountered any time coils are rebuilt. It can sometimes be fixed by adjusting the cushion spring tension, other times it is necessary to re - swage the rivet on the cushion spring. Sometimes you just need to toss a particular set of points because they are requiring too much time to repair. Brand new points are better than they were a few years ago, but still not perfect.

I've never personally encountered any other type of double sparking using either the HCCT or the Strobe - O - Spark. In any case there are other defects with the ECCT, even if it were able to detect the typical double sparking coil, that make it inappropriate for cars operated on Magneto. The problem is, I think, that when you perfectly synchronize spark event timing on DC, that the coil performs poorly on AC. From my experience the ECCT set coils, the ones that don't double spark are all over the map in terms of spark event timing when tested on either an HCCT or a Strobe O Spark. And the car, predictably, doesn't perform well either.

The ECCT set coils randomly have very low current (early, weak spark event) on the other machines, or very high current (late spark event). Thus cylinder - to - cylinder spark timing is terrible when using ECCT set coils on MAG.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Kossor - Kenilworth, NJ on Thursday, September 01, 2016 - 11:26 am:

Well Royce, scores of ECCT users have not experienced what you describe. They ALL report equal or on several cases better engine performance using their ECCT adjusted coils. You are the only one experiencing otherwise so that would suggest something else is wrong with your ignition or fuel system.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Thursday, September 01, 2016 - 11:36 am:

Well Mike we will have to agree to disagree.

I and several others now have had the same results. Not everyone is able to post here and say what they want to say, since the end result when communicating with you is the same every time.

You've spoken with the fellow who witnessed all of the testing and who adjusted the coils with your instruction, on your personal device. He is a personal friend of the MTFCA Forum moderator, and both of us are reporting honestly to all who have contacted us.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By James Baker on Thursday, September 01, 2016 - 01:10 pm:

Thank you Royce, your knowledge is an asset to the hobby.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Richard Gould, Folsom, CA on Thursday, September 01, 2016 - 02:08 pm:

I value what Royce says. Its healthy to have someone with practical experience give his take. I don't have the technical expertise to follow all that has been said but and would take the same approach as Royce did. Test coils on the various testers and report the results. Too often all we hear is how wonderful a product is from those with positive experiences.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Garnet on Thursday, September 01, 2016 - 02:23 pm:

Why don't you send Mike the coils so he can investigate the issue Royce ... you can still complain in the meantime.

Garnet


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jim Eviston on Thursday, September 01, 2016 - 03:02 pm:

I appreciate and am somewhat in awe of the knowledge everyone above possess. But, the old saying 'ignorance is bliss'applies to me. Bring home a pile of coils,sort out the ones that are giving off good karma ,file the points,make sure the cushion spring is free and clean up the contacts.Put it into the coilboxes, switch to battery and bend the vibrator until it buzzes at about the same sound as the other coils. See that the points aren't smoking,and away we go. Battery or Mag. Free start once in awhile. I am so glad I was unaware of the hairs'breadth precision required for them to run. And run OK. I have had enough things to due in my life that have required absolute accuracy. The 'close is good 'is a refreshing way to look at a hobby. Otherwise, sounds like work.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jim Eviston on Thursday, September 01, 2016 - 03:05 pm:

And, yeah, I forgot. Mercury dime worn totally smooth for feeler gauge. I think it was about. 033,so I set points just a little snug .


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Richard Gould, Folsom, CA on Thursday, September 01, 2016 - 03:27 pm:

Mike, couple of questions.
As I read your response, the reason Royce is not seeing double sparking on your instrument is because HCCTs do not simulate responses occuring in the car at driving speeds as yours does. The implication being if an HCCT were to replicate in car conditions, the double sparking would disappear. Royce stated he also observed double sparking on the Strobo tester that did not appear yours. Does the Strobo tester also suffer from not replicating driving conditions?

Second question. I missed whether you addressed Gary's concern that a double spark occurs at a different time than a single spark and that if one coil double sparks, it will be out of time with those that produce a single spark. I think he was addressing your statement that not all double spark events should be avoided. However, if double sparking does occur at a different time than a single spark, it would seem that all double sparking should be avoided. What is your response?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Richard Gould, Folsom, CA on Thursday, September 01, 2016 - 03:30 pm:

Mike, couple of questions.
As I read your response, the reason Royce is not seeing double sparking on your instrument is because HCCTs do not simulate responses occuring in the car at driving speeds as yours does. The implication being if an HCCT were to replicate in car conditions, the double sparking would disappear. Royce stated he also observed double sparking on the Strobo tester that did not appear yours. Does the Strobo tester also suffer from not replicating driving conditions?

Second question. I missed whether you addressed Gary's concern that a double spark occurs at a different time than a single spark and that if one coil double sparks, it will be out of time with those that produce a single spark. I think he was addressing your statement that not all double spark events should be avoided. However, if double sparking does occur at a different time than a single spark, it would seem that all double sparking should be avoided. What is your response?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Hal Davis-SE Georgia on Thursday, September 01, 2016 - 04:33 pm:

Jim,

I bet if you were to have a set of coils professionally adjusted, you would be surprised at how much better your car ran than with coils adjusted by ear. Some of the professional coil builders will loan you a set to try out if you pay shipping.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jim Eviston on Thursday, September 01, 2016 - 05:13 pm:

Hal, I have no doubt about that. I have had several sets rebuilt by friend Mark Durst of West Virginia. In fact, he does coils for my whole group. But the majority of the T's I have built,for myself anyway, were just like what some kid would have had or built up back when used T parts would have been available. So there were so many things 'wrong 'with them, the use of prescion coils would be an insult to the coils. But, for some reason Model T and me seem to have an affinity for one another. Ron Knepper, an old brass T guy that some here will remember,was unhappy when one of his restored cars could not keep up with one of my flapping fenders barn-siding-bodied creations. I told him mine was faster because it didn't bind up anywhere.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Thursday, September 01, 2016 - 07:33 pm:

LOL @ Garnet.

All the coils have been properly adjusted on the Strobe - O - Spark. There is no problem with any of the coils any more.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By James L. Bodkin - Jim on Thursday, September 01, 2016 - 09:00 pm:

I have been following this entire thread and feel I can add some insight. My background as first, an electrical engineer, and subsequently a dentist
involved in laboratory and clinical research, I do have the 'luxury' of understanding some of the technical (I said some) aspects of this discussion.
The problem is similar to the difference between laboratory research and clinical, evidence-based research. We can test a filling material in the laboratory for superior physical properties, only to find it rapidly fail physically in the mouth. There are forces exerted in the mouth that we did not test for in the laboratory. The actual,clinical result is of most value to us. When we are adjusting T coils, each device is testing slightly different parameters and under different conditions. Our 'laboratory' results - HCCT, etc., may not guarantee the best clinical results (best running T). There are possibly some electrical differences between the coils that we are not testing for, or differences that we are assuming have more or less influence on the actual performance of T engine in the clinical setting eg: propelling the Model T. Is a double spark, as produced and detected on the HCCT going to adversely effect the performance of our T?. From the 'evidenced-based', 'clinical results' Mike has reported, maybe not. Maybe we're not as smart as we think we are!!

Jim


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Thursday, September 01, 2016 - 09:54 pm:

Jim,

Anyone who understands Model T coils will tell you that double sparking coils make the car run badly. Anyone who says otherwise has no experience and is showing that.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Cliff Colee on Thursday, September 01, 2016 - 10:05 pm:

Gents, discussion is healthy, but much more heat on this thread is going to cause my computer to burst into flames...and I was not ready for a new machine yet......


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By David L Corman on Thursday, September 01, 2016 - 10:49 pm:

Breaking news gentlemen, Royce finally comes clean and admits to electronically testing his coils with great success.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Kossor - Kenilworth, NJ on Thursday, September 01, 2016 - 11:45 pm:

Unfortunately Royce, its NOT that simple. A coil can produce a double spark on an HCCT for 2 reasons. 1 reason will make the engine run poorly, especially at low RPM. The other will not adversely effect engine performance you can't tell the difference by eye which is which; you need some why of measuring coil firing current and firing time. I have tried to explain this numerous times in several ways just like I have explained the ECCT DOES have the ability to detect and display coils that double spark. You choose to ignore the information I provide and keep repeating your incorrect assumption over and over until it becomes truth.

I would be happy to supply 4 properly adjusted ECCT coils AND ECCT to verify performance to any club that wishes to conduct an impartial, blind coil comparison test where the evaluators do not know which tester was used to adjust the coils being evaluated until ALL the results are tabulated. I am 100% confident the ECCT adjusted coils will score equal or better than coils adjusted using any other test method.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Kossor - Kenilworth, NJ on Friday, September 02, 2016 - 12:05 am:

Richard, you are correct! The type of double spark being displayed on the HCCT that does not show up on the ECCT will not cause the engine to perform poorly. That's because the ECCT measures the firing time and current to make sure it fires at the expected time and desired energy for a hot spark.

This type of double spark will stop being displayed by moderate to high engine speeds. It may still be displayed at low engine RPMs but will not degrade engine performance because combustion occurs as a result of the 1st spark. As long as the ECCT insures the 1st spark fires at the proper time and with proper energy, there is no negative effect of the 2nd spark that fires after combustion. That is why the ECCT test results can be GOOD even though a double spark is indicated.

Model T coil performance comparisons need to be done in the car on the road as engine performance tests. coil tester versus coil tester comparisons are not valid because they are based on different principals of operation.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Eric Hylen- Central Minnesota on Friday, September 02, 2016 - 01:08 am:

I feel bad for Dave Eddie. He just asked a simple question about HCCT availability, and look what he got! Wouldn't it be great if the buzz box fans would leave the HCCT threads alone and vice versa? The same thing happens every time. People argue, denigrate one another and nobody ever changes anyone's mind about the tools, just about one another. For my part, I promise never again to post on any thread that has ECCT in the title.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Kossor - Kenilworth, NJ on Friday, September 02, 2016 - 08:00 am:

Eric, you are more confused about the coil testing discussion than I originally thought. There have not been any discussions in this thread pertaining to "buzz boxes" coil testers; they are an entirely different category altogether.

Dave seems to have received the information he sought and useful suggestions for near term and long term alternate solutions according to his post back on 8/20. The subsequent discussions in this thread are related and relevant to the OP for the most part.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Kossor - Kenilworth, NJ on Friday, September 02, 2016 - 08:36 am:

By the way Eric, I have received several PMs and phone calls from folks expressing interest and appreciation for the technical considerations and explanations I presented in this thread. I understand their preference not to engage here directly considering the belligerent tones frequently encountered.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Erik Johnson on Friday, September 02, 2016 - 10:48 am:

I believe Eric was using a little poetic license when he used the term "buzz box" when referring to the ECCT.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Eric Hylen- Central Minnesota on Friday, September 02, 2016 - 11:16 am:

Erik, let's give up. I've been consistent in asking people to allow conversations about HCCTs to remain on topic, without devolving into arguments about modern electronic coil testers, whatever the brand or specific type. My last post was clearly a plea for that. Sadly, Mike chose to attack again, but that's what bullies do.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By James L. Bodkin - Jim on Friday, September 02, 2016 - 12:15 pm:

Mike,
I am impressed that you NEVER state that an ECCT adjusted coil will perform BETTER than a HCCT adjusted coil. You just have a different, and in my PERSONAL view, more theoretically valid method of testing and adjusting. Whether it actually makes a difference in actual performance is still up for debate in MY mind, not debatable in other's. I do buy your conclusion that a second spark, occurring after a properly timed initial ignition has no negative effect, assuming the initial spark is strong enough to RELIABLY ignite the air-fuel mixture. The strength of the spark, as long as it is above a certain threshold, has no effect on performance, other than POSSIBLY minimizing spark plug fouling. The consistency of the firing time between cylinders is the important factor.

My only question, and your explanation may help other 'non believers', is why does the second spark occur, and if you had a way adjust it out, wouldn't this negatively affect other, more critical parameters?

Jim


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By James L. Bodkin - Jim on Friday, September 02, 2016 - 12:33 pm:

Mike,
To state my last question in another way, to eliminate a second spark, adjusted on an ECCT and detected on an HCCT, wouldn't you have to 'de-tune' the coil on the ECCT? A follow-up question is if you test a carefully adjusted coil on an HCCT, would you possibly have to change adjustments to maximize results on the ECCT?

JIM


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Hal Davis-SE Georgia on Friday, September 02, 2016 - 01:40 pm:

James, look back at August 25 at 9:00 AM. Mike's halo ain't as shiny as you think. And I wasn't even talking to him. Then it took him 2 days to back off of it.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Friday, September 02, 2016 - 01:59 pm:

James,

A double sparking coil produces two sparks in the same timer event, each weaker than if the coil was adjusted to properly give a single spark per timer event. This causes the affected cylinder(s) to have intermittent ignition due to poor spark. Eventually that plug fouls completely.

This is why before you adjust a coil to the appropriate current you must eliminate double sparking. Otherwise you have a coil that is going to perform poorly on MAG.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By James L. Bodkin - Jim on Friday, September 02, 2016 - 04:26 pm:

OK Hal,
In that post Mike is indeed claiming some users are claiming superior results. That, I'm not convinced of. I'm not taking sides here, Just looking for the facts. So far I see no PROOF validating EITHER side. The fact that the initial spark is not as strong proves nothing, as long as it reliably does its job. Again, we may be avoiding a second spark at the expense of another parameter. An engineer or scientist must keep an open mind! Too many people rely on "that's the way it's been done for 100 years". Technology does have its place (though maybe not so much in a Model T, as we've seen many times). The results of a dynamometer comparison is what we need. Ford's recommendations and analysis is over 100 years old. It is possible that technology and our understanding of electrical principles has progressed in 100 years! Isn't it possible that there's a better way? I'm NOT saying this is!

Jim

Jim


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Kossor - Kenilworth, NJ on Friday, September 02, 2016 - 05:58 pm:

James, Thanks for your comments. I never said ECCT adjusted coils will perform better than HCCT adjusted coils (or any other method of coil point adjustment for that matter) because I don't have any solid data that supports that. What I DO have is several reports from ECCT users who are very experienced with the other recognized coil testers and they feel their ECCT adjusted coils perform superior. They report smother engine operation and better hill climb performance. I shared that information because Hal asked that question.

There are literally scores of ECCT users now who well know what Royce is reporting is total BS; there is something else going on if the ECCT adjusted coils they tested don't perform at least as well as the coils adjusted using other test methods. I made my offer to provide ECCT adjusted coils and an ECCT available to any club who wants to conduct an open and impartial, blind engine performance road test which includes ECCT adjusted coils. So far, no takers.

By the way, its interesting that Royce never made available the test results of the ECCT adjusted coils they claim performed poorly. Its Easy to do and tells everything needed to know if the coils will function well or not in the car, on the road. Similar test reports will be made available for each coil if/when a coil comparison test takes place. Here is an example:

ECCT Coil Test Results


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By James L. Bodkin - Jim on Friday, September 02, 2016 - 07:20 pm:

Royce,
We put resistors in the primary of conventional ignition coils. Does this necessarily cause misfires? It does, in fact, reduce spark intensity. The fouling argument certainly seems plausible, and should be studied further.

Jim


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Kossor - Kenilworth, NJ on Friday, September 02, 2016 - 08:28 pm:

James, since you asked, I will present a comparison between a two coils which both produce double sparks on the HCCT at hand cranking speeds (60-150RPM) but at normal engine speeds one of the coils still double sparks and performs poorly, but the other coil ceases to produce double sparks and performs well.

Here is the coil current of the double sparking coil caused by improper cushion spring tension at simulated mid to high engine speed:

DS coil

The Blue trace is the coil current and the yellow trace depicts timer contact which activates the coil. Note that the above coil follows the classic description of a double sparking coil; a weak spark (3.8A subject to fouling) that occurs early (advanced) followed by another weak spark that fires late (retarded). This behavior occurs at HCCT hand cranking speeds and at normal engine speeds which results in a poor running engine.

Here is the ECCT adjusted coil that DOES double spark on the HCCT at hand cranking (slow) speed BUT single sparks at the correct TIME and correct ENERGY at normal engine speeds simulated here:

ECCT Adjusted Coil

Note that only a single, hot spark (6A) is produced. All 4 coils adjusted to fire after this same dwell time (2ms) and good firing consistency (see my last post for an example of what that looks like; 98%) will result in an optimal running engine despite the fact this same coil WILL produce double sparks on an HCCT at slow hand cranking speeds. I hope this answers your question James.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Friday, September 02, 2016 - 08:28 pm:

James,

In modern ignition circuits (approximately 1955 to date for most USA manufacturers) automakers place resistors in series of conventional ignition coils so that the resistors can be removed from the circuit during cranking. This maintains the SAME voltage to the coil during cranking as during run operation. The reason for this is to have a good hot spark during cold starts. The starter load causes a voltage drop at the battery, so removing the resistor keeps voltage at the coil within a usable range.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Model T Ford ignition operation. I just wanted to explain why they are there so that you could understand it. It does not reduce spark intensity. It keeps it the same during starting cycles and run cycles.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Frank van Ekeren (Australia) on Friday, September 02, 2016 - 09:10 pm:

Interesting thread'
Now I'm no sparky and have said so before today.
But Royce, you have lost me in when you state,

"The starter load causes voltage drop at the battery, so removing the resistor keeps voltage at the coil within a usable range"

I thought the resistor was fitted to do just that, keep the coil within a usable range?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Friday, September 02, 2016 - 09:34 pm:

When the key is in the "start" position in modern cars the resistor is bypassed so the coil receives full battery voltage Frank.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By David Dewey, N. California on Friday, September 02, 2016 - 09:45 pm:

Frank,
Yes, the resistor is there to do that during normal operation of the engine. During starting, the resistor is taken out of the circuit to keep the coil voltage up while the starter is dragging it down.
Uh, does that make sense now?? Not certain when I re-read what I wrote!!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Frank van Ekeren (Australia) on Friday, September 02, 2016 - 10:15 pm:

Thanks, got it now, so just reading up on it running a resistor was for no other reason than reducing coil temperature.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Bob Jablonski on Saturday, September 03, 2016 - 07:57 am:

Eric I kind of feel the same way myself... Threads start with hand crank coil tester and then go off topic and then I get accused of being the one in charge of moderating.. if more people to speak up to keep the threads on topic maybe this form would benefit. Be prepared to have any thread to go off topic no matter if it's ECCT, HCCT, STROBO, BUZZ, DISFRIBUTOR, TRUE FIRE, or what oil to use.....


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Bob Jablonski on Saturday, September 03, 2016 - 10:47 am:

Eric H. .....

you posted.." Erik, let's give up. I've been consistent in asking people to allow conversations about HCCTs to remain on topic, without devolving into arguments about modern electronic coil testers, whatever the brand or specific type. My last post was clearly a plea for that. Sadly, Mike chose to attack again, but that's what bullies do."

Wow, you are calling a man who has repeatedly defended his product a BULLY ?????????? Take a look at your posts,,, who's the bully ????

Hopefully you have had a restful night's sleep and your morning coffee before you respond.


Bob Jablonski


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By David L Corman on Saturday, September 03, 2016 - 12:54 pm:

Royce, you are very incorrect when you say resistors were put in ignition circuits beginning in 1955 to date. Ford used them from the beginning of the flat-head days 1932 The resistor was used to limit current to the points and coil to extend their life. I believe that when electronic ignition came out, early 1970s, they were no longer needed. Also modern cars have coil packs or coil on each plug technology not just a single coil as you indicate. Coil on each plug is similar to the Model T and fired electronically like the E-Timer does.


Add a Message


This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Username:  
Password:

Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration