A question for the experts

[browning]

I play with rebuilding coils just for the fun of it and occasionally find an anomaly that I can't understand. I have accumulated a number of test apparatus and enjoy comparing the results on them when done with a coil. I recently did a coil and tested it on an ecct, a strobospark, a manual hcct and a motor driven hcct. The results were somewhat consistent with the exception of the "double spark". The ecct, strobospark, and hand cranked tester all showed a clean single spark display but the motor driven hcct showed double sparks on almost every indicator mark. I assume the difference has to be in the powered hcct but can't think of what would cause this. Any ideas?

[Jerry VanOoteghem]

I'm no expert, but I'll ask, does the motorized HCCT produce a higher voltage than the other test methods?

[TXGOAT2]

If the HCCT spark gaps are adjustable, that could be the cause. Maybe they're too close together. (?) I'd think the HCCT speed/voltage would need to be at some particular spec for a consistent result.

[MKossor]

Comparing ECCT test results on any other coil testers is like comparing Apples to Watermelons. The ECCT coil test measures the time the coil takes to charge up and fire the very first spark responsible for engine combustion. All other Model T coil testers measure average coil current as an indirect approximation of firing time. For example, the HCCT measures and displays the average coil current of hundreds of sparks. The best way to test how well your ECCT tuned coils perform compared to other coil test methods is in your car on the road.

ECCT tuned coils for equal and consistent firing Time will result in optimal engine performance provided all other ignition variables are in good working order (ie Timer, spark plugs, wires, battery/magneto, carburetor, valves, compression, etc.)

More information on this topic can be found here: https://modeltecct.com/faqs

[browning]

Mike, I'm firmly in your camp with regard to the benefit of the ECCT and the "time to fire" philosophy. It makes sense analytically and proves itself practically. I am still amazed at the varying results I get from the two HCCT's, the Strobospark, and your device. The proof comes when the coils are installed and the car is driven. I was always a believer in coil current as the metric for proper adjustment but have completely changed my mind. It is surprising how much difference there is between four coils with respect to amperage draw when tuned for time to fire.

[Ron Patterson]

Dave
The equation for the rise of current in an inductor includes time.
And remember it is not necessary to measure a football field with a micrometer.
Ron Patterson

[browning]

Ron, I would no more argue the dynamics of coil rebuilding with you than sword fight with Zoro. Even though I have piddled with Model T's for thirty years or so, I still consider myself to be a rank amateur in most respects. I ruminated on your post through the night and awakened this morning with a new perspective on the matter. Back in the early '70's I served an apprenticeship in a mould/machine shop and was fortunate to have worked there while the computer revolution was taking place. When I started, the workforce was made up of highly skilled journeyman machinists who took tremendous pride in their ability to create high quality parts using basic machine tools and they were willing and anxious to tutor us apprentices in their use. The intelligence required to do the work was resident in those men so it was no surprise that they resisted the introduction of nc and later cnc machines where the feeds, speeds, and other discreet parameters were invested in the programming. The fact that it was a union shop exacerbated the reluctance of those men to embrace the obvious benefits. By the time I left, in 1984, the shop had been almost totally reinvented and there was no denying that the change was not only beneficial but necessary. That was forty years ago and one would be hard pressed to find a tried and true machinist these days. There are a lot of button pushers who call themselves machinists but very few who could take a rough casting, grind their own tooling, set up a lathe, mill or grinder, and create a product from start to finish. To be sure, the products that they make now are closer in tolerance, faster, and cheaper. Where we thought a half a thousandth was a close tolerance, parts are now routinely produced rapidly with allowances measured in tenths of a thousandth. Measurements are then confirmed on a cmm which can quantify dimensions and angles that would have been impossible when I was in the trade. For those of us who do not have the benefit of many decades of experience rebuilding coils, the results of a test made on a HCCT can be ambiguous and confusing where the same test done on an ECCT simply reads poor, good, or excellent. Again the skill is resident in the software and equipment and bypasses the intelligence of the operator, which is what I seem to need. I'm glad that there are still professionals like yourself that have a deep understanding of the process but at the same time glad that there are means to make it possible for me to do the work with my limited skill and experience. It isn't necessary to measure a football field with a micrometer but if I could do it more accurately, faster, and for a third the cost that way, I would probably would.

[Chris Barker]

I can't answer the original question - though I have to suspect that there may be some anomaly with that particular powered HCCT.
However, I have been fortunate enough to make similar comparisons between about 20 coils tested (and originally set up) on my Strobospark, a borrowed ECCT, and also a FACT device.
I was pleased - and relieved - to find that my coils set up on the Strobospark also 'passed' on these more advanced devices.
Also, when rebuilding a coil, if it failed on one, it failed on all.
However, coils set up orginally on the Strobospark and then checked in the ECCT or FACT have a time-to-fire which is consistently 2.3ms rather than the 2.0ms recommended/assumed for these other devices. I guess that if you choose one of these figures and stick with it, all will be well - though 0.3ms is only 2.2 degrees at 30mph/1200rpm!
If I adjust a coil back to 2ms on the FACT, it still performs well on the Strobospark.
I found very good correlation between current readings. 1.4A average (or is it rms?) on the Strobospark corresponds consistently with 5.9A peak on the FACT.

So, I would happily use and recommend any of these three, and we should give full credit to John Regan, Mike Kossor and all those involved in the FACT project for their dedication and efforts.

[Jerry VanOoteghem]

In my reply of 10/30, I was supposing, that due to it being motor driven, the HCCT in question had more output than the other devices. Then, further supposing, that the increased output would create a more "energetic" actuation of the coil points, such that it might overcome the ability of the cushion spring to prevent the double spark that you saw. Again, not an expert, just supposin' is all

[Daisy Mae]

Ron, I would no more argue the dynamics of coil rebuilding with you than sword fight with Zoro. Even though I have piddled with Model T's for thirty years or so, I still consider myself to be a rank amateur in most respects. I ruminated on your post through the night and awakened this morning with a new perspective on the matter. Back in the early '70's I served an apprenticeship in a mould/machine shop and was fortunate to have worked there while the computer revolution was taking place. When I started, the workforce was made up of highly skilled journeyman machinists who took tremendous pride in their ability to create high quality parts using basic machine tools and they were willing and anxious to tutor us apprentices in their use. The intelligence required to do the work was resident in those men so it was no surprise that they resisted the introduction of nc and later cnc machines where the feeds, speeds, and other discreet parameters were invested in the programming. The fact that it was a union shop exacerbated the reluctance of those men to embrace the obvious benefits. By the time I left, in 1984, the shop had been almost totally reinvented and there was no denying that the change was not only beneficial but necessary. That was forty years ago and one would be hard pressed to find a tried and true machinist these days. There are a lot of button pushers who call themselves machinists but very few who could take a rough casting, grind their own tooling, set up a lathe, mill or grinder, and create a product from start to finish. To be sure, the products that they make now are closer in tolerance, faster, and cheaper. Where we thought a half a thousandth was a close tolerance, parts are now routinely produced rapidly with allowances measured in tenths of a thousandth. Measurements are then confirmed on a cmm which can quantify dimensions and angles that would have been impossible when I was in the trade. For those of us who do not have the benefit of many decades of experience rebuilding coils, the results of a test made on a HCCT can be ambiguous and confusing where the same test done on an ECCT simply reads poor, good, or excellent. Again the skill is resident in the software and equipment and bypasses the intelligence of the operator, which is what I seem to need. I'm glad that there are still professionals like yourself that have a deep understanding of the process but at the same time glad that there are means to make it possible for me to do the work with my limited skill and experience. It isn't necessary to measure a football field with a micrometer but if I could do it more accurately, faster, and for a third the cost that way, I would probably would.

I certainly won't argue the progression of technical advancement, but it does come with a cost in other respects, the loss of machinist skills being one.
Even with more exacting precision capabilities, I read an article once questioning today's rocket engines compared to the Rocketdyne F-1 engine used on Saturn 5, which, has never been even close to being equalled in today's 'advanced' world. Not just in sheer power, but also in reliability!! Reasons given? The requisite skills required to reverse engineer, the tooling, machining, welding, materials, etc, no longer exist. Such precision/unique skills have retired/died with the prior generation of engineers/machinists.
So, progress often carries curious costs, and skills lost which we all bear witness to just in our hobby alone.

[MKossor]

David, thank you the courage to share your experience with the ECCT and the engine performance using ECCT adjusted coils tuned for equal and consistent firing time. Unfortunately, that makes you a target of Ron’s snide comments which deter others from sharing their similar experiences here. No one should have to defend or justify sharing their honest experience that others may find of interest or benefit from.

Ron, has long rejected the merits of the ECCT as a useful and effective Model T tool capable of improving the experience and enjoyment of the Model T enthusiast. Despite sound engineering principals it was developed and consistently positive reports it receives such as yours. 10 years of sowing discord challenging posted praise, dismissed as hype, branding discussion as advertising and marketing infomercials, dissuading its use and even efforts to ban ECCT discussion on this Forum. I never understood the vitriol and often pondered Why? Then I read his recent post below and suddenly, it all seems to make perfect sense and far simpler than you give credit.

https://mtfca.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php? ... 53#p350201

I think its past time Ron cease the charade and the snide comments whenever someone dares share their ECCT experience here others may find of interest or benefit from. A despicable disservice to the hobby and the Forum all these years that has nothing to do with merit.

[Art M]

I am not familiar with FACT for coil testing. Can someone explain this.

Art Mirtes

[Luke]

I am not familiar with FACT for coil testing. Can someone explain this.

Art,

The main thread regarding the 'FACT' is here: viewtopic.php?t=9072

It's a fairly long thread but given it's winter over your way you could pull up a chair and, armed with your favourite drink, set to reading

The quick intro though is that it's an electronic means of accurately testing coils that was initially developed by me as a community project then carried on by various others including Matt who has produced quite a nice PCB for it. I called it a 'FACT' simply because it is a Ford Arduino Coil Tester (Arduino being the small micro board that I used) and it seemed a handy name at the time. It works similarly to Mike's ECCT but his unit is of course professionally and homogeneously built in a nice case whereas the FACT requires some construction knowledge on behalf of the erstwhile owner, and few will be exactly the same - indeed experimentation and improvement etc is to be encouraged.

That said it works pretty well and I was interested to read Chris' earlier post that suggests he's obtained similar results on a FACT to an ECCT, which is satisfying but probably not surprising given the measurement methodology of, and accuracy obtainable with, such devices. BTW Chris a moving coil meter will read average AC current but the scale is typically calibrated in RMS (more in the thread mentioned above).

Finally, while I have no desire to be drawn into any debate it has to be said the Model T's have run for more than a hundred years without the need for very accurate coil setting, and no doubt one could happily continue along that vein. In this I'd also note that, in my view, there's a certain 'art' in setting coils and ensuring they'll run well over an extended time, much of which comes from experience. However as Mike has demonstrably shown through a series of empirical tests (and others have acknowledged) a set of accurately timed coils can make a considerable difference to the running of a vehicle. It may also, arguably, be somewhat easier for the novice to set a coils via an electronic methodology, and of course the units will properly and very usefully test the capacitor etc at the same time.

Luke.

[Jerry VanOoteghem]

Ron, has long rejected the merits of the ECCT as a useful and effective Model T tool capable of improving the experience and enjoyment of the Model T enthusiast. Despite sound engineering principals it was developed and consistently positive reports it receives such as yours. 10 years of sowing discord challenging posted praise, dismissed as hype, branding discussion as advertising and marketing infomercials, dissuading its use and even efforts to ban ECCT discussion on this Forum. I never understood the vitriol and often pondered Why? Then I read his recent post below and suddenly, it all seems to make perfect sense and far simpler than you give credit.

https://mtfca.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php? ... 53#p350201

113024 post.JPG


I think its past time Ron cease the charade and the snide comments whenever someone dares share their ECCT experience here others may find of interest or benefit from. A despicable disservice to the hobby and the Forum all these years that has nothing to do with merit.

Deleted....

[Moxie26]

Jerry... Doesn't surprise me that you put a response like you did, unfortunately. Mike speaks the truth of what he has gone through with the negativity and blasphemy he has received from Ron Patterson. If you can't accept it fine, but Mike speaks the truth.

[Jerry VanOoteghem]

Deleted....

[Moxie26]

You're absolutely correct Jerry. You were not addressing me. ..... Mike has already presented his credibility and truthfulness on the Forum , and the postings of very satisfied users of Mike's ECCT. .....ARE YOU IMPLYING THAT THE SATISFIED ECCT CUSTOMERS ARE LYING ABOUT THEIR ECCT COIL CALIBRATION RESULTS ????

[Jerry VanOoteghem]

You're absolutely correct Jerry. You were not addressing me. ..... Mike has already presented his credibility and truthfulness on the Forum , and the postings of very satisfied users of Mike's ECCT. .....ARE YOU IMPLYING THAT THE SATISFIED ECCT CUSTOMERS ARE LYING ABOUT THEIR ECCT COIL CALIBRATION RESULTS ????

Robert,

Forget it. I'm not going to play this game any longer. I'm really hating what this forum is becoming. Have fun.

[DHort]

Can we just state that coils tuned on an HCCT, a Strobospark, and the ECCT will all work well in your car.

The importance is that you do have them adjusted, preferably every 2 years, or yearly if you drive your car a lot.

This results in a WIN-WIN situation for everyone.

p.s. Jerry, I missed you at the last Speedster Rally. Hope to see you again at this years Rally.

[Chris Barker]

Further to my post above where I thanked the designers of three coil testers, I would also like to thank Ron who, more than 15 years ago, guided me in The Ways Of Truth on coils - in both theory and practice.

[Jones in Aiken SC]

I have a set of Ron's rebuilt coils in my 26 Coupe, and the rebuilt coils made an enormous improvement in the car's performance. I also own an ECCT for my 1912 Heinz coils too. Kind of a "best of both worlds" for me anyway. We are lucky to be in a position to even have this discussion, meaning that we have great service providers to the Model T hobby.

[Drobnock]

This discussion begs the question to be answered for me, when was the HCCT for this discussion last calbrated?

[browning]

The hcct in question was rebuilt and the meter was recallibrated by Bob Cascisa several years ago.

[MKossor]

Brief redirect; the best tool for any Model T task is one you have available, choose to use and are satisfied with the results it achieves. Using period correct vintage tools whenever possible is another facet of the hobby that makes it more enjoyable for some and having knowledgeable vendors supporting that aspect of the hobby is a really good thing. Others prefer technology of varying degrees to enhance safety and enjoyment of the hobby with equal appreciation for supporting vendors. To each his own.

Now regarding answers sought by the OP, the following thread should provide some additional detail on coil point operation which the HCCT is vulnerable and contributes to the differing test results observed between test methods:

https://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/7 ... OST1029145

The abnormally slow voltage rise time of HCCT excitation, being hand cranked, is another significant contributing factor influencing coil point operation during HCCT testing that the coil will never be subjected to in normal operation. The ECCT applies a very fast pulse that more closely mimics the magneto pulse during high RPM operation where ignition timing is most critical. The difference in voltage rise time explains why an ECCT adjusted coil may produce a double spark on the slowly cranked (60 – 120 RPM) HCCT and yet not exhibit a double spark on the ECCT or during normal engine/magneto operation (500-2300 RPM).

New folks or others interested in the context of my other comments may find these links insightful:
https://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/4 ... POST603890
https://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/5 ... POST823222
https://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/5 ... POST823419
https://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/5 ... POST834548
https://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/5 ... POST886690
https://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/8 ... OST1107869
https://mtfca.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php? ... 88#p135607
https://mtfca.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php? ... 63#p115719
https://mtfca.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php? ... 63#p115885

[Moxie26]

Very interesting... And well documented with past Forum postings from several people.

[MKossor]

Here are typical Multi-Spark firing consistency results of 4 properly adjusted coils using a HCCT by an experienced HCCT user. 100 sparks are fired at the rate of 2000 RPM. The computer keeps track of the time each spark fires and plotted on graph for each coil. The firing distribution results may vary a fair amount each time the test is repeated for each coil.

If your coils test similar to these on the ECCT, they were very likely tuned using a HCCT

Shown below are typical Multi-Spark firing consistency test results of 4 properly adjusted coils using a ECCT by a typical user. A nice attribute of the ECCT adjusted coils very repeatable results. If your coils test similar to these on the ECCT, they were very likely tuned using a ECCT.

If your 4 coils test similar to these and told they were adjusted using a HCCT, you are almost certainly being deceived.

These are results and observations in my experience and consistent with other users. Hopefully Dave and the others can openly share their own experiences, lessons learned and tips going forward without scorn. The best way to judge how well your adjusted coils perform is in your car on the road. If they perform to your satisfaction, coil tuning objective achieved.

In some instances, no difference in engine performance may be noted between various coil adjusting methods. In such cases, the variation in coil to coil firing time may not be the sole or primary performance limiting issue. Timer, spark plug, wires, coil box, Low cylinder compression and carburetor/fuel issues could be present and of equal or greater factor in limiting engine performance. It is, after all, a spark ignition system.