John Macartney wrote :
> 2. The change from positive to negative earth appears to have been
> brought about by no less an organisation than 'old Joe' being
> pro-active rather tan re-active. Herewith an extract of a engineering
> paper dated March 1962 which I turned up in the Gaydo archive today.
> It runs to about six pages, is substantially technical and I've taken
> only a few key points from the summary:
>
> QUOTE
<snip>
> * Conventional dynamos are unable to meet anticipated discharge rates.
> Higher output dynamos can be designed and manufactured but this brings
> additional size, weight and cost penalties that vehicle manufacturers
> are likely to find unattractive.
> * The alternator has already proved from research that it is capable
> of providing greatly enhanced electrical performance and at rotational
> speeds significantly lower than establised direct current dynamos.
Jonmac :
Thank you for the extract of the engineering paper. I always enjoy reading
things like that.
However, IMO, this is yet another example of the 'excuses' I made reference
to. There is absolutely no reason that an alternator can't be made in a
positive ground configuration, and in fact some of the early Lucas models
were externally switchable between positive and negative. Even later units
can be switched by installing the diodes backwards (that is, installing the
'positive' diodes on the ground side and vice versa).
Those positive ground Mack trucks I mentioned had *huge* alternators.
Randall
/// triumphs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
/// with nothing in it but
///
/// unsubscribe triumphs
///
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
|