Steve Bigelow

"TE Cheah" <no@spam.biz> wrote in message news:4206098d_2@news.tm.net.my...
> Windows' motors can receive current directly from battery & be usable
> all the time ( instead of only when ignition is switched on ), if user
> removes *, then uses a U shape nail or a bent paper clip to connect the 2
> slots nearest to battery.
> * ( made by Mitsuba ) input pins have a resistance of 105ohm, in use will
> waste 14½ v ÷ 105ohm = 0.138 amp, & produce 2 watt of heat ( both battery
> & aircon's wires will get this heat ).
> Worse still, * enables any voltage leaking from starter switch ( mine
> leaks
> 50-75 mV, although fitted as new only in 10-03, or just 9200 km earlier,
> part # 35130-SM4-305 ) to pass *, & drain battery : my 35Ah low-
> maintenance battery's charge was noticeably higher, after * was removed.
> If engine has low resistance cables & clean rotor arm's top, you'll feel
> a 1
> -2% extra torque ( caused by bigger sparks & faster combustion ) after *
> is
> removed, aircon & battery will be cooler too. Idling rpm can then be
> reduced ; torque @ low (600) rpm ( when alternator's ampere output is low
> ) will be noticeably higher.
> Engine will be easier to start, even in 30º let alone 0ºC air.

138/1000 of an amp will give me 2% extra torque?

You're an idiot.

Steve Bigelow

"TE Cheah" <no@spam.biz> wrote in message news:4206098d_2@news.tm.net.my...
> Windows' motors can receive current directly from battery & be usable
> all the time ( instead of only when ignition is switched on ), if user
> removes *, then uses a U shape nail or a bent paper clip to connect the 2
> slots nearest to battery.
> * ( made by Mitsuba ) input pins have a resistance of 105ohm, in use will
> waste 14½ v ÷ 105ohm = 0.138 amp, & produce 2 watt of heat ( both battery
> & aircon's wires will get this heat ).
> Worse still, * enables any voltage leaking from starter switch ( mine
> leaks
> 50-75 mV, although fitted as new only in 10-03, or just 9200 km earlier,
> part # 35130-SM4-305 ) to pass *, & drain battery : my 35Ah low-
> maintenance battery's charge was noticeably higher, after * was removed.
> If engine has low resistance cables & clean rotor arm's top, you'll feel
> a 1
> -2% extra torque ( caused by bigger sparks & faster combustion ) after *
> is
> removed, aircon & battery will be cooler too. Idling rpm can then be
> reduced ; torque @ low (600) rpm ( when alternator's ampere output is low
> ) will be noticeably higher.
> Engine will be easier to start, even in 30º let alone 0ºC air.

138/1000 of an amp will give me 2% extra torque?

You're an idiot.

TE Cheah

Windows' motors can receive current directly from battery & be usable
all the time ( instead of only when ignition is switched on ), if user
removes *, then uses a U shape nail or a bent paper clip to connect the 2
slots nearest to battery.
* ( made by Mitsuba ) input pins have a resistance of 105ohm, in use will
waste 14½ v ÷ 105ohm = 0.138 amp, & produce 2 watt of heat ( both battery
& aircon's wires will get this heat ).
Worse still, * enables any voltage leaking from starter switch ( mine leaks
50-75 mV, although fitted as new only in 10-03, or just 9200 km earlier,
part # 35130-SM4-305 ) to pass *, & drain battery : my 35Ah low-
maintenance battery's charge was noticeably higher, after * was removed.
If engine has low resistance cables & clean rotor arm's top, you'll feel a 1
-2% extra torque ( caused by bigger sparks & faster combustion ) after * is
removed, aircon & battery will be cooler too. Idling rpm can then be
reduced ; torque @ low (600) rpm ( when alternator's ampere output is low
) will be noticeably higher.
Engine will be easier to start, even in 30º let alone 0ºC air.

TE Cheah

| 138/1000 of an amp will give me 2% extra torque?
U twit, 1-2% is not a minimum 2%.
The extra ampere ignition will get is 0.138 A + a decrease in battery's
self*discharge, from the ( 2watt ) reduction of heat received by battery.
* depends on the type & size of battery & how well battery is insulated
/ cooled.
After leakage is stopped, my battery's charge rose, then sparks grew even
bigger, extra torque @600rpm grew to 5%. My cables have just 2ohm
resistance, plug gaps are 3mm, original cables & gaps can produce only
smaller increases.

| You're an idiot.
Then why have u not filtered me off your screen, & why read my post ?
You're a lying honda salesman, will slur any1 who exposes honda's design
flaws. Other salesmen here keep quiet this time ; this is 1 flaw u & they
can't deny.
This thread is to help SM4 owners start their engines, salesmen can curse
all u & they want.

TE Cheah

| 138/1000 of an amp will give me 2% extra torque?
U twit, 1-2% is not a minimum 2%.
The extra ampere ignition will get is 0.138 A + a decrease in battery's
self*discharge, from the ( 2watt ) reduction of heat received by battery.
* depends on the type & size of battery & how well battery is insulated
/ cooled.
After leakage is stopped, my battery's charge rose, then sparks grew even
bigger, extra torque @600rpm grew to 5%. My cables have just 2ohm
resistance, plug gaps are 3mm, original cables & gaps can produce only
smaller increases.

| You're an idiot.
Then why have u not filtered me off your screen, & why read my post ?
You're a lying honda salesman, will slur any1 who exposes honda's design
flaws. Other salesmen here keep quiet this time ; this is 1 flaw u & they
can't deny.
This thread is to help SM4 owners start their engines, salesmen can curse
all u & they want.

Michael Pardee

"TE Cheah" <no@spam.biz> wrote in message news:42184c0a_1@news.tm.net.my...
>| 138/1000 of an amp will give me 2% extra torque?
> U twit, 1-2% is not a minimum 2%.
> The extra ampere ignition will get is 0.138 A + a decrease in battery's
> self*discharge, from the ( 2watt ) reduction of heat received by battery.
> * depends on the type & size of battery & how well battery is insulated
> / cooled.
> After leakage is stopped, my battery's charge rose, then sparks grew even
> bigger, extra torque @600rpm grew to 5%. My cables have just 2ohm
> resistance, plug gaps are 3mm, original cables & gaps can produce only
> smaller increases.
>
>
This does not make sense. Removing 138 ma of load when the engine is off
would be a big improvement, since that much drain would kill the battery in
a few days. But that drain when the engine is on is insignificant.

The state of charge of the battery won't be affected at all by current draws
under a few amps when the engine is on, and not significantly affected by
current drain at all as long as the alternator capacity is not exceeded. The
cars headlights/taillights consume a hundred times that much current, and
the battery likes it just fine. The battery temperature is unaffected
because the voltage is regulated - reducing current draw by 1 amp simply
reduces alternator output by 1 amp.

When you turn your lights on, you shouldn't experience a noticeable change
in engine power. (You may hear a change in idle because of the additional
drag from the alternator: 50 amps is about a 1 hp loss.) That is because the
engine power is not affected by variations in ignition power unless
something is very wrong with the ignition. Racers use special ignitions
because they have done modifications that demand firing under increased
cylinder pressures - the stock ignition in any modern car is more than
powerful enough for the stock engine. That is the third layer of "don't
care" betwen a 138 ma draw and engine power: 1) 138 ma is insignificant when
the engine is running; 2) current changes don't significantly affect battery
voltage if the charging system is not defective; 3) engine power is not
significantly affected by ignition power unless the ignition is defective.

If you are experiencing a reduction in engine power when you connect the
window motor relay, you either have a heavy short in the relay circuit or
have serious defects in both your charging system and ignition system.

Mike

Michael Pardee

"TE Cheah" <no@spam.biz> wrote in message news:42184c0a_1@news.tm.net.my...
>| 138/1000 of an amp will give me 2% extra torque?
> U twit, 1-2% is not a minimum 2%.
> The extra ampere ignition will get is 0.138 A + a decrease in battery's
> self*discharge, from the ( 2watt ) reduction of heat received by battery.
> * depends on the type & size of battery & how well battery is insulated
> / cooled.
> After leakage is stopped, my battery's charge rose, then sparks grew even
> bigger, extra torque @600rpm grew to 5%. My cables have just 2ohm
> resistance, plug gaps are 3mm, original cables & gaps can produce only
> smaller increases.
>
>
This does not make sense. Removing 138 ma of load when the engine is off
would be a big improvement, since that much drain would kill the battery in
a few days. But that drain when the engine is on is insignificant.

The state of charge of the battery won't be affected at all by current draws
under a few amps when the engine is on, and not significantly affected by
current drain at all as long as the alternator capacity is not exceeded. The
cars headlights/taillights consume a hundred times that much current, and
the battery likes it just fine. The battery temperature is unaffected
because the voltage is regulated - reducing current draw by 1 amp simply
reduces alternator output by 1 amp.

When you turn your lights on, you shouldn't experience a noticeable change
in engine power. (You may hear a change in idle because of the additional
drag from the alternator: 50 amps is about a 1 hp loss.) That is because the
engine power is not affected by variations in ignition power unless
something is very wrong with the ignition. Racers use special ignitions
because they have done modifications that demand firing under increased
cylinder pressures - the stock ignition in any modern car is more than
powerful enough for the stock engine. That is the third layer of "don't
care" betwen a 138 ma draw and engine power: 1) 138 ma is insignificant when
the engine is running; 2) current changes don't significantly affect battery
voltage if the charging system is not defective; 3) engine power is not
significantly affected by ignition power unless the ignition is defective.

If you are experiencing a reduction in engine power when you connect the
window motor relay, you either have a heavy short in the relay circuit or
have serious defects in both your charging system and ignition system.

Mike

remco

>
> If you are experiencing a reduction in engine power when you connect the
> window motor relay, you either have a heavy short in the relay circuit or
> have serious defects in both your charging system and ignition system.

Hey Mike - I think the suggestion is that both Ohm's and Kirchhoff's laws
were repealed.
If the car radio is turned off, my spark will be hotter?? Maybe if I turn my
lights off in the house, my PC will run faster???

I was lurking the same thread and it didn't make much sense to me either --
it sounded like trolling to me.
Remco

remco

>
> If you are experiencing a reduction in engine power when you connect the
> window motor relay, you either have a heavy short in the relay circuit or
> have serious defects in both your charging system and ignition system.

Hey Mike - I think the suggestion is that both Ohm's and Kirchhoff's laws
were repealed.
If the car radio is turned off, my spark will be hotter?? Maybe if I turn my
lights off in the house, my PC will run faster???

I was lurking the same thread and it didn't make much sense to me either --
it sounded like trolling to me.
Remco

TE Cheah

| the stock ignition in any modern car is more than
| powerful enough for the stock engine.
Bullshit, F20A's small coil inside distributor is adequate @ up to just
3000rpm unless low resistance cables replace the original Sumitomo
cables, if not @3000+ rpm sparks will be too small to ignite fuel fast
enough for complete combustion before piston reaches BDC, this is
why exhaust noise would rise fast @>3000rpm.
http://circletrack.com/tipstricks/13...er/index3.html
CRV's non vtec engine & Mitsubishi 4G15P both have this same limit.
Manufacturers know 99.9% buyers will not test drive new cars on high
ways.

| engine power is not
| significantly affected by ignition power unless the ignition is defective.
100% bullshit ; the fewer amps are received by spark plugs, [i] the smaller
are sparks [ii] the slower is ignition & combustion [iii] the louder is
exhaust noise [iv] the lower is torque.

| you either have a heavy short in the relay circuit
105ohm, what short ?

| or have serious defects in both your charging system and ignition system.
U want to [i] bluff that no design flaw exists, only defects exist [ii] sell
more parts. My F20A can idle @550rpm, no rise in exhaust noise @ even
3200rpm, better than new, no "defect" can possibly exist. You're another
honda salesman.

TE Cheah

| the stock ignition in any modern car is more than
| powerful enough for the stock engine.
Bullshit, F20A's small coil inside distributor is adequate @ up to just
3000rpm unless low resistance cables replace the original Sumitomo
cables, if not @3000+ rpm sparks will be too small to ignite fuel fast
enough for complete combustion before piston reaches BDC, this is
why exhaust noise would rise fast @>3000rpm.
http://circletrack.com/tipstricks/13...er/index3.html
CRV's non vtec engine & Mitsubishi 4G15P both have this same limit.
Manufacturers know 99.9% buyers will not test drive new cars on high
ways.

| engine power is not
| significantly affected by ignition power unless the ignition is defective.
100% bullshit ; the fewer amps are received by spark plugs, [i] the smaller
are sparks [ii] the slower is ignition & combustion [iii] the louder is
exhaust noise [iv] the lower is torque.

| you either have a heavy short in the relay circuit
105ohm, what short ?

| or have serious defects in both your charging system and ignition system.
U want to [i] bluff that no design flaw exists, only defects exist [ii] sell
more parts. My F20A can idle @550rpm, no rise in exhaust noise @ even
3200rpm, better than new, no "defect" can possibly exist. You're another
honda salesman.

Michael Pardee

"TE Cheah" <no@spam.biz> wrote in message news:42198997_2@news.tm.net.my...
>| the stock ignition in any modern car is more than
> | powerful enough for the stock engine.
> Bullshit, F20A's small coil inside distributor is adequate @ up to just
> 3000rpm unless low resistance cables replace the original Sumitomo
> cables, if not @3000+ rpm sparks will be too small to ignite fuel fast
> enough for complete combustion before piston reaches BDC, this is
> why exhaust noise would rise fast @>3000rpm.
> http://circletrack.com/tipstricks/13...er/index3.html
> CRV's non vtec engine & Mitsubishi 4G15P both have this same limit.
> Manufacturers know 99.9% buyers will not test drive new cars on high
> ways.
>
Your central premise is based on the fiction that more powerful sparks
produce more engine power. The concept of hotter sparks igniting the fuel
"faster" makes no sense at all - in stock ignition systems more recent than
the model T there is one spark, and it is timed to provide proper operation.
You can buy multi-spark ignition systems that make the same sort of claims
you do, but you notice they are not mainstream. The stock systems work fine
for street use. They fire when they are supposed to, and they do it
reliably. Even an occasional misfire will set the MIL light, so plenty of
ignition power is designed into all modern cars - far more than in the cars
of my youth.

Suggesting a miniscule reduction in electrical load will materially affect
the engine power through increasing ignition power is just plain odd.
However, if you haven't learned that yet I doubt you will learn anything
from me.

Mike

Michael Pardee

"TE Cheah" <no@spam.biz> wrote in message news:42198997_2@news.tm.net.my...
>| the stock ignition in any modern car is more than
> | powerful enough for the stock engine.
> Bullshit, F20A's small coil inside distributor is adequate @ up to just
> 3000rpm unless low resistance cables replace the original Sumitomo
> cables, if not @3000+ rpm sparks will be too small to ignite fuel fast
> enough for complete combustion before piston reaches BDC, this is
> why exhaust noise would rise fast @>3000rpm.
> http://circletrack.com/tipstricks/13...er/index3.html
> CRV's non vtec engine & Mitsubishi 4G15P both have this same limit.
> Manufacturers know 99.9% buyers will not test drive new cars on high
> ways.
>
Your central premise is based on the fiction that more powerful sparks
produce more engine power. The concept of hotter sparks igniting the fuel
"faster" makes no sense at all - in stock ignition systems more recent than
the model T there is one spark, and it is timed to provide proper operation.
You can buy multi-spark ignition systems that make the same sort of claims
you do, but you notice they are not mainstream. The stock systems work fine
for street use. They fire when they are supposed to, and they do it
reliably. Even an occasional misfire will set the MIL light, so plenty of
ignition power is designed into all modern cars - far more than in the cars
of my youth.

Suggesting a miniscule reduction in electrical load will materially affect
the engine power through increasing ignition power is just plain odd.
However, if you haven't learned that yet I doubt you will learn anything
from me.

Mike

remco

> 100% bullshit ; the fewer amps are received by spark plugs, [i] the
smaller
> are sparks [ii] the slower is ignition & combustion [iii] the louder is
> exhaust noise [iv] the lower is torque.

Fewer amps received by spark plugs? For one, the current through the relay
is 130 some mA. The battery has one fat lead going to the fuse box - let's
assume that this is 0.2 ohms.(it is short, pretty fat and of course you do
have ground resistance somewhere, so that's probably about right).

I took you for a troll -- Now I see you are just confused and want to be
right, in spite of natural laws we all agree exist:

There are several legs from the fuse box to various parts of the car. One of
these legs might have 130 mA more going through it than normal, according to
you. Electically, draw a supply (battery), a series resistance (common wire)
going to a parallel resistor circuit (the electrical systems of the car, all
fused separately).
..
How can that significantly affect the current through the circuit that makes
the spark since that is on a separate leg? It is not like that current now
is allowed to go to the other leg - that is not how it works (see Kirchhoff
laws). The only way it affects the voltage and thus the current on the other
leg is because the common leg has less current on it and thus less drop
across it (Ohms law)

So that 130 mA contributes to the drop across that common wire by (0.130 *
0.2 = ) 26 mV!! 0.026 over 14.5 volt represents maybe 0.2 percent possible
increase in voltage on that common point in the fuse box. Even rounding
these numbers up makes them still insignificant.

Since spark is generated by a coil and the voltage on the output of the coil
is in direct proportion to what is on the input you can at best only expect
0.2 higher voltage across your sparkgap -- and this is assuming a 100%
efficient lossless coil and lossless ignitor, 0 mS rise/fall times,
voltage/spark 'hotness' is linear, etc, etc. None of these conditions are
true in real life but even assming they are, that is a fart in a wind
storm!!

No way that translates into the power gain you claim. Turning my radio off
or not blinking my turn signals buy me tremendous power gains (they draw a
lot more that 130 some mA) and they don't, do they?
(rheatoric, by the way -- answering that will make you not look too bright)

Calling people stupid because they don't agree with you does not change the
laws of physics.
Anyone with a US high school physics background can see you are mistaken. If
you keep on replying with this theory you will be treated like a troll. If
you do persist, let us know when you get that pesky cold fusion problem
licked.

remco

> 100% bullshit ; the fewer amps are received by spark plugs, [i] the
smaller
> are sparks [ii] the slower is ignition & combustion [iii] the louder is
> exhaust noise [iv] the lower is torque.

Fewer amps received by spark plugs? For one, the current through the relay
is 130 some mA. The battery has one fat lead going to the fuse box - let's
assume that this is 0.2 ohms.(it is short, pretty fat and of course you do
have ground resistance somewhere, so that's probably about right).

I took you for a troll -- Now I see you are just confused and want to be
right, in spite of natural laws we all agree exist:

There are several legs from the fuse box to various parts of the car. One of
these legs might have 130 mA more going through it than normal, according to
you. Electically, draw a supply (battery), a series resistance (common wire)
going to a parallel resistor circuit (the electrical systems of the car, all
fused separately).
..
How can that significantly affect the current through the circuit that makes
the spark since that is on a separate leg? It is not like that current now
is allowed to go to the other leg - that is not how it works (see Kirchhoff
laws). The only way it affects the voltage and thus the current on the other
leg is because the common leg has less current on it and thus less drop
across it (Ohms law)

So that 130 mA contributes to the drop across that common wire by (0.130 *
0.2 = ) 26 mV!! 0.026 over 14.5 volt represents maybe 0.2 percent possible
increase in voltage on that common point in the fuse box. Even rounding
these numbers up makes them still insignificant.

Since spark is generated by a coil and the voltage on the output of the coil
is in direct proportion to what is on the input you can at best only expect
0.2 higher voltage across your sparkgap -- and this is assuming a 100%
efficient lossless coil and lossless ignitor, 0 mS rise/fall times,
voltage/spark 'hotness' is linear, etc, etc. None of these conditions are
true in real life but even assming they are, that is a fart in a wind
storm!!

No way that translates into the power gain you claim. Turning my radio off
or not blinking my turn signals buy me tremendous power gains (they draw a
lot more that 130 some mA) and they don't, do they?
(rheatoric, by the way -- answering that will make you not look too bright)

Calling people stupid because they don't agree with you does not change the
laws of physics.
Anyone with a US high school physics background can see you are mistaken. If
you keep on replying with this theory you will be treated like a troll. If
you do persist, let us know when you get that pesky cold fusion problem
licked.