The Old Standard Ignition System. Battery. Coil. Points. And Condenser....

[MileHigh]

Magluvin,

You are going a bit nuts, don't you think?  For starters, I had nothing to do with Brad's question.  I asked Carroll in PM if he would post my analysis.  I wasn't going to send it to him without a response from him first.

On more time, your behaviour in posting private PMs in public without asking for my permission was and is unethical.  I called you out on doing it the previous time in the first posting of the thread in a PM a few days ago, and here you are doing it again.

Going back to Brad's questions, I actually posted about the capacitor and ignition timing before Brad even posted his questions.

Here is the quote from post #47, <<< What I learned was the size of the capacitor will affect the ignition timing because the cap accepts the initial inrush of current when the points open and then reaches a voltage point where the current flow stops/the plasma ignites so obviously a larger capacitor will delay the onset of the ignition spark. >>>

So in response to Brad's queries, when you remove the capacitor then the spark plugs fire immediately when the points open and with the capacitor in place the spark plugs fire a few milliseconds after the points open.  So that's why you get the erratic engine running and the backfiring through the carburetor.  And if you replace a bad condenser with a new one that is twice the size in microfarads, that will delay the spark firing even further and mess up the timing of the engine.  I am not an engine person but I will assume that you don't get a plasma spark when the points close in a car engine because the spark has to jump two gaps to ignite the plasma, the spark plug itself and the distributor.  So that's something like 30,000 volts.

As far as your wild rant about the resonance issue goes, well here goes:  I wrote up my analysis completely "cold" without having read anything.  I thought that the secondary was so strong in its HV potential that it ignited the spark plasma right away, even before the capacitor charged up.  If this was the case then the points wold be safe. Then I found out that I was completely wrong.  In hindsight, it was even dumb because I failed to think about the fact that the capacitor was a legitimate path for the coil to keep the current flowing.  So I went online to check into the resonance issue and at the same time I was learning more about the ignition process and the ignition timing.  So what I learned was when the points open, you don't get the ignition spark right away because current flows into the capacitor at first and this delays the onset of the plasma ignition.  Duh!  By the time the primary hits about 300 volts, the secondary is at about 30,000 volts and that is enough voltage to bridge two spark gaps and ignite two instances of plasma.  In your test setup, something similar would happen but with the single spark gap.  I did all of my research and shared my results in postings and learned stuff in the process.  And at this point I think I could even do a preliminary timing diagram for your test setup - but you never ever do timing diagrams, do you?

When inductors discharge into resistive loads, they don't resonate.  The plasma is a non-linear resistor, therefore there is no resonance.  And I know that when an inductor discharges into a plasma, essentially all of the energy stored in the inductor is drained away in one shot.  And that is fundamentally what the ignition of a spark plug is, and that's why I said there was no resonance.

And you and Carroll both basically said, "there is an LC and that's what LCs do, they resonate."  So you and Carroll were also dead wrong.  You thought that there was a big LC ring-down from the get-go making the plasma spark.  It's not the case, what happens from what I can see from my current perspective is that while the secondary is doing the continuous DC plasma burn, the primary stays at high  potential and then when the main burn is over the energy in the cap does an innocuous ring-down to dissipate the remaining energy in the cap with no plasma generation.  There is your "resonance" that you didn't have a clue about (just like me) and now you are trying to hitch a ride on that but in reality it has nothing to do with your original one-liner "explanation" for how the circuit operates.

I posted in good faith and I learned some stuff during my research.  There are some very relevant questions posted at the end of my technical postings that would shed a lot of light into things if you followed through on them.  There are some very simple tests that I suggested the possibility of that could answer some very basic questions.  But I did not say what the simple tests would be, I want to see if you can come up with your own tests to follow through.  In other words, no "paint by numbers" experimenting - come up with some tests yourself.

[MileHigh]

Oh yeah, and as far as me being an "anti-resonance shill" goes or "someone is paying me" goes, that has nothing to do with me and says a lot about you.  It feels like we are on our way towards another "fail" doesn't it?  You yourself brought up the question about the ignition circuit and the capacitor to me, and as of yet we have no data from you, just some "show and don't tell" observational clips.  You claim that you are going to show some real data on Sunday, and all that I can say is bring it on.  After all, it would be a miracle if an experiment could be performed and come to a successful conclusion with everybody understanding what is taking place and everybody being on the same page.

[Magluvin]

Brad thanks for filling in the numbers to what I described. That makes it very clear....
The Tesla circuit it truly multifunctional and STILL VERY USEFULL  today in our internal
combustion engines.

Its too bad we have to have all this other distraction discussion.

Norman

Brad said

The condenser serves many purposes,and here is one to think about.

We all know that if we remove the condenser ,we get very erratic engine running--back firing through the carby-and all sorts.
But how could the timing be that advanced that it would backfire through the carby?..

First thing to do,would to be to look at the ignition coil,which is just a transformer--what is it's rated output voltage?
Most are between 30,000-40,000 volt's
So,the average supply voltage(battery voltage) when an engine is running,is around 14.4 volts.
Lets say our coil is one of the 30,000 volt one's.
The average turn ratio in an ignition coil is around 100:1

So in a transformer sense,100 x 14.4 would give us a voltage of 1440v at the secondary when the points close.-->Remember,we are talking about normal transformer voltage produced here,and not flyback voltage produced across the secondary--which is where the 30,000 volts comes from.

Most plug gaps are between 1 and 1.2mm
It takes 1000v per mm to form an arc within the environment of the engine cylinder  (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif)

Ok norman. He describes in detail that there can be a spark when the points connect. This is not when the spark happens.  Try it. Cap or no cap, 14.4v, 12vin or even 7vin. You will never get a spark at the plug when the contacts close like brad described. Cannot happen. So if there were this spark when the switch closes, the cap would not do anything in the circuit to stop that spark brad is talking about, because the switch is shorting the cap when the switch is closed.  So it is not correct. Not at all. Just try and find the info brad presented on the net.  You will not find that explanation anywhere. Because it does not occur ever when the contacts close. Never.

Brads post was all a fabrication of imagination, and I dont believe it was his fabrication, I believe MH gave him the explanation to post. Brad is too sharp for that I believe. I dont know why brad even posted it, whether it was his own words or MHs. Just dont know why.

And if the ballast resistor is in series with the primary, there would only be 6-7v across the primary when the switch closes not 14.4v.  So in his 100:1 transformer, the transformer action would only provide 699-700v at the secondary, not 1440v like he said.   Its all wrong bud, from beginning to end all wrong. 

I was running the coil in my 2 vids with a 12v battery direct without a ballast resistor and there was no sparks when the switch closes, let alone a very weak spark that the gap i had for showing the spark had to be within only a mm  to happen when the switch opens without the cap installed. And that only happens when the contacts open and there is a very quick field collapse after the contacts open, and never happens when we just first close the contact for the primary field to first build. Never happens, not even at 14.4v input while the car is running, and surely not at 12.8v battery when trying to start, and it wouldt even be 12.8v during the engine start period, because the starter motor pulls that 12.8v down even further while cranking.  His story is absolutely not true.  You can count on that Norman.

I did a lot of thinking and writing here last night.  All of it, making sure it was all as accurate as my tired eyes could see. Almost 11hrs straight. Why?  Well being brads explanation was just as bad as MHs explanation, it all needed to be said for the record. Im simply astonished that brad would post such a thing.  Look it over.  Brads is all wrong for the explanation of the cap function. MHs explanation for the cap is all wrong. I felt like Al Pacino.  Your out of order! And your out of order! Your all out of order!! lol And Im right to say so.

I dare anyone else to step up to the plate and defend either NHs or brads explanations. I will beat that challenge up and down these pages again and again, with just words alone.

Mags

[norman6538]

Brad said a few messages back.

So in a transformer sense,100 x 14.4 would give us a voltage of 1440v at the secondary when the points close.--

And I missed that. I was enamered by the numbers that he plugged in and overlooked the CLOSE word.

I think Mags is partly right and partly wrong. A rising voltage could cause induction and 100 x 14.4 when the
magnetic field builds up and 1440 may jump the gap but the most spark will come  when the points
open and the backemf has more than 14.4 to put into the cap and then the secondary more than 1440 each time
after when it recycles back and forth till the voltage drops and the spark cannot jump the gap anymore.

We'll get this wikipedia thing right soon.

Norman

[Magluvin]

Brad said a few messages back.

So in a transformer sense,100 x 14.4 would give us a voltage of 1440v at the secondary when the points close.--

And I missed that. I was enamered by the numbers that he plugged in and overlooked the CLOSE word.

I think Mags is partly right and partly wrong. A rising voltage could cause induction and 100 x 14.4 when the
magnetic field builds up and 1440 may jump the gap but the most spark will come  when the points
open and the backemf has more than 14.4 to put into the cap and then the secondary more than 1440 each time
after when it recycles back and forth till the voltage drops and the spark cannot jump the gap anymore.

We'll get this wikipedia thing right soon.

Norman

Im not gettig where you think Im part wrong. I do not agree with anything of brads explanation except the 100:1 ratios, and some are different. But that 100:1 will work here


Wikipedia is not a source that I trust on all things

If resonance gives a gain as i claim, then why are these 2 guys coming up with circuits to dispute that resonance even exists, and the circuits they use to do so are so flawed that they wont work as they say it does, and I have proved that for both to the T.  So why cant they explain why the resonance doesnt exist with an actual circuit explanation that ACTUALLY WORKS?? Think man!   Mh will use anything and everything to instill into the readers minds that resonance does not even exist in the circuit let alone that there is a gain to be had.  Why?  Because this is his job. He is the disinformation man. OU does not exist.  And he is trying to discredit my claim with everything in the book to try and ensure that the readers do not take what i say seriously.  He is the Monsanto of free energy. Monsanto is trying to rid the world of organic God made foods and say their gmo is better, when it its not. It has major porblems. If you dont know what Im talking about then i suggest you dig into the subject for the safety of you and yours. Mh is the same for any claims of free energy and the components there of that could get us free energy, like resonance and the gains I claim it gives for one..

Mags