Just to be a difficult SOB that I am. <G> and throw a monkey into the
wrench, I have heard of some performance enthusiasts that switch off the
alternator from the battery. The theory is , if I recall ( doubtful at times
at my age) that the mechanical load that the alternator puts on the engine
is significantly lessened if it isn;t producing electricity; conservation of
energy and all that jazz.
So during a race, the overall voltageon the system would decrease slightly,
maybe a volt or two, which, accoding to the original posters viewpoint.
should easily impact performance in a negative way, but alas, it doesn't.


Anyways, Carry on!


Cheers
Dan






"remco" <whybcuzREMOVE@THISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:s1nSd.7408$kQ6.5215@fe12.lga...
> > 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.
>
>

 

Just to be a difficult SOB that I am. <G> and throw a monkey into the
wrench, I have heard of some performance enthusiasts that switch off the
alternator from the battery. The theory is , if I recall ( doubtful at times
at my age) that the mechanical load that the alternator puts on the engine
is significantly lessened if it isn;t producing electricity; conservation of
energy and all that jazz.
So during a race, the overall voltageon the system would decrease slightly,
maybe a volt or two, which, accoding to the original posters viewpoint.
should easily impact performance in a negative way, but alas, it doesn't.


Anyways, Carry on!


Cheers
Dan






"remco" <whybcuzREMOVE@THISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:s1nSd.7408$kQ6.5215@fe12.lga...
> > 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.
>
>

 

"dan martin" <nospamdwmartin@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:Ro-dnXdur9eSB4ffRVn-1w@look.ca...
> Just to be a difficult SOB that I am. <G> and throw a monkey into the
> wrench, I have heard of some performance enthusiasts that switch off the
> alternator from the battery. The theory is , if I recall ( doubtful at
times
> at my age) that the mechanical load that the alternator puts on the engine
> is significantly lessened if it isn;t producing electricity; conservation
of
> energy and all that jazz.
> So during a race, the overall voltageon the system would decrease
slightly,
> maybe a volt or two, which, accoding to the original posters viewpoint.
> should easily impact performance in a negative way, but alas, it doesn't.

Heard similar things and can see how that could theoretically help, at least
initially during a race. As long as the race is not too long, everything
should be cool and the gang.

My racing days are limited to trying to make it to work on time and kinda
like my car starting when I am done for the day, so I'll leave it to you to
try. Bring jumper cables so you can get back to your keyboard and report
back

Good point on how dropping the voltage doesn't seem to affect the
performance - I guess that's just another wrench in the monkey <g>

 

"dan martin" <nospamdwmartin@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:Ro-dnXdur9eSB4ffRVn-1w@look.ca...
> Just to be a difficult SOB that I am. <G> and throw a monkey into the
> wrench, I have heard of some performance enthusiasts that switch off the
> alternator from the battery. The theory is , if I recall ( doubtful at
times
> at my age) that the mechanical load that the alternator puts on the engine
> is significantly lessened if it isn;t producing electricity; conservation
of
> energy and all that jazz.
> So during a race, the overall voltageon the system would decrease
slightly,
> maybe a volt or two, which, accoding to the original posters viewpoint.
> should easily impact performance in a negative way, but alas, it doesn't.

Heard similar things and can see how that could theoretically help, at least
initially during a race. As long as the race is not too long, everything
should be cool and the gang.

My racing days are limited to trying to make it to work on time and kinda
like my car starting when I am done for the day, so I'll leave it to you to
try. Bring jumper cables so you can get back to your keyboard and report
back

Good point on how dropping the voltage doesn't seem to affect the
performance - I guess that's just another wrench in the monkey <g>

 

"dan martin" <nospamdwmartin@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:Ro-dnXdur9eSB4ffRVn-1w@look.ca...
> Just to be a difficult SOB that I am. <G> and throw a monkey into the
> wrench, I have heard of some performance enthusiasts that switch off the
> alternator from the battery. The theory is , if I recall ( doubtful at
> times
> at my age) that the mechanical load that the alternator puts on the engine
> is significantly lessened if it isn;t producing electricity; conservation
> of
> energy and all that jazz.
> So during a race, the overall voltageon the system would decrease
> slightly,
> maybe a volt or two, which, accoding to the original posters viewpoint.
> should easily impact performance in a negative way, but alas, it doesn't.
>
>
> Anyways, Carry on!
>
>
> Cheers
> Dan

Now, that makes sense! Even a 30 amp load at 14V is 420W, more than half a
horsepower. Factor in the losses and the small reasons not to, and it is a
reasonable thing to do for a race. Of course, a 140 ma load from the window
relay is right at 2W, or about 1/370 of a horsepower.

Mike

 

"dan martin" <nospamdwmartin@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:Ro-dnXdur9eSB4ffRVn-1w@look.ca...
> Just to be a difficult SOB that I am. <G> and throw a monkey into the
> wrench, I have heard of some performance enthusiasts that switch off the
> alternator from the battery. The theory is , if I recall ( doubtful at
> times
> at my age) that the mechanical load that the alternator puts on the engine
> is significantly lessened if it isn;t producing electricity; conservation
> of
> energy and all that jazz.
> So during a race, the overall voltageon the system would decrease
> slightly,
> maybe a volt or two, which, accoding to the original posters viewpoint.
> should easily impact performance in a negative way, but alas, it doesn't.
>
>
> Anyways, Carry on!
>
>
> Cheers
> Dan

Now, that makes sense! Even a 30 amp load at 14V is 420W, more than half a
horsepower. Factor in the losses and the small reasons not to, and it is a
reasonable thing to do for a race. Of course, a 140 ma load from the window
relay is right at 2W, or about 1/370 of a horsepower.

Mike

 

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 07:25:41 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
<michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:

>"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.

Google Cheah pet's previous posts in this group. He has stated that
Hondas are defective because they have electric clocks which draw
current. A real looney.

 

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 07:25:41 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
<michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:

>"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.

Google Cheah pet's previous posts in this group. He has stated that
Hondas are defective because they have electric clocks which draw
current. A real looney.

 

> Google Cheah pet's previous posts in this group. He has stated that
> Hondas are defective because they have electric clocks which draw
> current. A real looney.


I remember that thread. I believe one of the claims that time was that
because of that "defect" a Honda could not possibly cruise down the
highway at 60 mph. I say TE Cheah is a troll.

 

> Google Cheah pet's previous posts in this group. He has stated that
> Hondas are defective because they have electric clocks which draw
> current. A real looney.


I remember that thread. I believe one of the claims that time was that
because of that "defect" a Honda could not possibly cruise down the
highway at 60 mph. I say TE Cheah is a troll.