PAMCO ISSUES

[jd750ace]

I think the installation page pretty clearly states what you need to know about leaving the key on, plugs installed, and all that good stuff. As long as you READ EVERYTHING before you start, I don't see where the problem comes in. It's not that big a deal to just yank your ignition fuse out while you are jacking with the other stuff to protect your investment. I usually pull my fuses when doing electrical work anyway, to isolate the system I'm working on as the only one I'm going to energize when I re-connect, just in case. A little overkill perhaps, but worth the extra caution IMHO.

Just one guy's opinion. Now watch me go brain fart it an toast my own shit just for saying that!

 

[Scrambled]

This stuff terrifies an old guy. I really wanted the pamco for all the advantages but the thought of being on the side of the road in some remote place prompted me go with the old points. Good luck with your troubles, this stuff makes you puke.

Nothing to be afraid of , Pamco is a very reliable unit . I have been using electronic ignitions since the '70s ( Boyers ) and never had one leave me stranded yet . If you are that worried you could always carry a set of points in your pocket .

How old is your car ? Are you afraid to drive it farther than you can walk because there is no way to fix it at the side of the road if it quits ? Did you know that CAA ( the premium plan anyway) covers motorcycle towing at no extra cost ?

 

[TwoJugs]

Pete, do you know at what RPM the stock advance sytem is supposed to reach full advance?

gggGary,

Thanks for the assist, but the E-Advancer does not have dwell time control. It does have an automatic kill switch feature that prevents the coil from drawing current untill you start or attempt to start the engine.

The target price for the E-Advancer complete with the new simplified sensor plate was < $200. We came in at $189.95.

Dynamic dwell and coil current limiting features can add to the cost, complexity and power requirements and we determined that the engine spends most of it's time above 3,000 RPM so the value of those features would not be worth the extra cost as the dwell would be at maximum with full current most of the time. For those that want that feature, there are systems out there that have it, but generally they cost more than $200.

In addition, it should be noted that the automotive systems mentioned by FB71 with dwell control are necessary in those applications because the coils are sub 1 Ohm and without dwell control at lower RPM's they would not last very long. The PAMCO was designed to be used in the more commonly available coils for motorcycles in the 2.5 to 4.5 Ohm range further reducing the need for dwell control.

 

[Scrambled]

I think the installation page pretty clearly states what you need to know about leaving the key on, plugs installed, and all that good stuff. As long as you READ EVERYTHING before you start, I don't see where the problem comes in. It's not that big a deal to just yank your ignition fuse out while you are jacking with the other stuff to protect your investment. I usually pull my fuses when doing electrical work anyway, to isolate the system I'm working on as the only one I'm going to energize when I re-connect, just in case. A little overkill perhaps, but worth the extra caution IMHO.

Just one guy's opinion. Now watch me go brain fart it an toast my own shit just for saying that!

The instructions I had ( my unit is a few years old ) were a little vague on that point and it would seem that it was not perfectly clear to some people. You don't need to pull the fuse, just use the kill switch to stop the power from going to the coil and the Pamco.

 

[FB71]

gggGary,

Thanks for the assist, but the E-Advancer does not have dwell time control. It does have an automatic kill switch feature that prevents the coil from drawing current untill you start or attempt to start the engine.

The target price for the E-Advancer complete with the new simplified sensor plate was < $200. We came in at $189.95.

Dynamic dwell and coil current limiting features can add to the cost, complexity and power requirements and we determined that the engine spends most of it's time above 3,000 RPM so the value of those features would not be worth the extra cost as the dwell would be at maximum with full current most of the time. For those that want that feature, there are systems out there that have it, but generally they cost more than $200.

In addition, it should be noted that the automotive systems mentioned by FB71 with dwell control are necessary in those applications because the coils are sub 1 Ohm and without dwell control at lower RPM's they would not last very long. The PAMCO was designed to be used in the more commonly available coils for motorcycles in the 2.5 to 4.5 Ohm range further reducing the need for dwell control.

I agree that the GM HEI system uses a coil rated 1.0 ohm or less, but the Duraspark system used a 3.0 ohm coil, and a current limiting resistor wire. Dwell control has always been extremely important, even back to the days of points. Dwell angle was controlled by the gap of the points. Too little dwell resulted in high engine speed misfires, and too long a dwell resulted in damaged coils. I'm not an electronic engineer, by any means, but I am a hobbyist. I've actually discussed dwell control a good bit with Bruce Bowling, one of the two inventors behind MegaSquirt (him and I are in the same SAE chapter here in MD). Having built a few MS, I know the basic circuitry is not necessarily that complex, nor expensive, depending on the microprocessor you are using. The code should not be terribly complex (for a programmer) either. I'm certainly not telling you how to run your business, or build your product. I'm just attempting to offer constructive criticism. If this is becomming a concern for your customers, it may warrant some additional investigation and cost analysis.

 

[jd750ace]

I'm not gonna dwell on it, (pun intended) because it runs better than it ever has, even when it was new and my cousin brought it home from the dealership. I'm just going to ride! I think the Pamco ignition with electronic advance is a fantastic product. Reading reviews of it here is the reason I bought it. I have zero concerns with dwell.

 

[pamcopete]

I agree that the GM HEI system uses a coil rated 1.0 ohm or less, but the Duraspark system used a 3.0 ohm coil, and a current limiting resistor wire. Dwell control has always been extremely important, even back to the days of points. Dwell angle was controlled by the gap of the points. Too little dwell resulted in high engine speed misfires, and too long a dwell resulted in damaged coils. I'm not an electronic engineer, by any means, but I am a hobbyist. I've actually discussed dwell control a good bit with Bruce Bowling, one of the two inventors behind MegaSquirt (him and I are in the same SAE chapter here in MD). Having built a few MS, I know the basic circuitry is not necessarily that complex, nor expensive, depending on the microprocessor you are using. The code should not be terribly complex (for a programmer) either. I'm certainly not telling you how to run your business, or build your product. I'm just attempting to offer constructive criticism. If this is becomming a concern for your customers, it may warrant some additional investigation and cost analysis.

I think we need to define what we each mean by dwell control. The control you are referring to in the case of points is taken care of by the very precise spacing of the magnets on the rotor of the PAMCO which are spaced in two pairs 60 degrees apart, one pair for each cylinder. So, each cylinder has a 60 degree angle +/- .5 degrees of dwell.

Dynamic dwell control changes the dwell angle in response to various conditions that the engine is experiencing, most notably engine speed, but other factors are also used to control the dwell including temperature, starting, battery condition etc. That type of dynamic dwell control is not in the PAMCO E-Advancer.

I think I would have understood you better if you had used the term dwell angle setting, which is static, rather than dwell angle control, which is dynamic.

 

[FB71]

fair enough. I'm not always very clear. And just for clarity, I have nothing bad to say about your products. I'm glad to see something as nice as the PAMCO units available for these old bikes! Thank you for taking enough time and effort to help us improve our toys!
My point was simply that dwell angle, in the case of points, provides a type of current limiting, in conjunction with a ballast resistor. If the cost can be justified, realizing that this would be an issue of economy over a limited scale (niche/specialty market), it might a feature some folks would be willing to pay for.

 

[pamcopete]

FB71,

Well, again with points. The dwell angle is fixed. You do have a limited range that you can adjust the dwell to, but once it is set, it doesn't change except for the effects of wear on the rubbing block. Dwell is the time in degrees that the coil is on and a typical points dwell angle is in the 90 degree range which means that the coil is on for 90/360 = 25% of the time.

I'm not sure why you are still saying that dwell angle would be a feature that people would pay for. The PAMCO has a dwell angle. In the case of the PAMCO, the magnets are spaced at 60 degrees and that is the dwell angle, so the coil is on for 60/360 = 16% of the time. However, even though the coil is on for less time than points, you will still get a hotter spark from a given coil because there is no capacitor to slow things down so an electronic ignition system has a much faster rise time. Typically, a given coil will produce 50% more voltage to the plugs than the same coil will with points.

Use of a ballast resistor for either points or an electronic ignition is wasteful and unnecessary if you instead choose the coil to match either points or the electronic ignition requirements. Typical coils for points are in the 3 to 5 Ohm primary resistance range whereas coils for an electronic system are in the 2.5 to 5 Ohm range, meaning that you can use a coil designed for points in an electronic ignition system, but NOT IF THAT SYSTEM HAS DYNAMIC DWELL AND CURRENT CONTROL such as the factory TCI because those systems are designed to work with a specific primary resistance. That is another reason to not use a system with dynamic dwell control because it limits your choices of coils.

People are in the habit of trying to use a low resistance "flame thrower" coil in their points system and think they can just install a ballast resistor to protect the points from the higher current of a low resistance coil, well, guess what? Using a ballast resistor with a low resistance coil defeats the purpose of the low resistance, which is to produce a higher current and therefore a hotter spark. So, those expensive "flame thrower" coils with their wild colors and wild high price really look cool, but if you use a ballast resistor with them, it's like taking a bath with your socks on, or using a condominium ..why bother?

A flame thrower coil used in an electronic ignition system, however, will deliver the goods.

 

[TwoJugs]

FB71,

Well, again with points. The dwell angle is fixed. You do have a limited range that you can adjust the dwell to, but once it is set, it doesn't change except for the effects of wear on the rubbing block. Dwell is the time in degrees that the coil is on and a typical points dwell angle is in the 90 degree range which means that the coil is on for 90/360 = 25% of the time.

I'm not sure why you are still saying that dwell angle would be a feature that people would pay for. The PAMCO has a dwell angle. In the case of the PAMCO, the magnets are spaced at 60 degrees and that is the dwell angle, so the coil is on for 60/360 = 16% of the time. However, even though the coil is on for less time than points, you will still get a hotter spark from a given coil because there is no capacitor to slow things down so an electronic ignition system has a much faster rise time. Typically, a given coil will produce 50% more voltage to the plugs than the same coil will with points.

Use of a ballast resistor for either points or an electronic ignition is wasteful and unnecessary if you instead choose the coil to match either points or the electronic ignition requirements. Typical coils for points are in the 3 to 5 Ohm primary resistance range whereas coils for an electronic system are in the 2.5 to 5 Ohm range, meaning that you can use a coil designed for points in an electronic ignition system, but NOT IF THAT SYSTEM HAS DYNAMIC DWELL AND CURRENT CONTROL such as the factory TCI because those systems are designed to work with a specific primary resistance. That is another reason to not use a system with dynamic dwell control because it limits your choices of coils.

People are in the habit of trying to use a low resistance "flame thrower" coil in their points system and think they can just install a ballast resistor to protect the points from the higher current of a low resistance coil, well, guess what? Using a ballast resistor with a low resistance coil defeats the purpose of the low resistance, which is to produce a higher current and therefore a hotter spark. So, those expensive "flame thrower" coils with their wild colors and wild high price really look cool, but if you use a ballast resistor with them, it's like taking a bath with your socks on, or using a condominium ..why bother?

A flame thrower coil used in an electronic ignition system, however, will deliver the goods.

I always thought that a ballast resistor with points is to limit amps going through the points during normal operation, extending point life but giving better spark for starts. As the ballast warms up resistance changes. With less resistance at start while cold, more amps, more coil output. As it warms up the resistance goes up, less amps, less coil output. Theory is you need less coil power once running and the points will operate better and longer. The HiPo coils put out plenty of power and the loss at warmer operating voltages are not noticed? I never heard of anyone using points without some sort of resistor feeding a stronger coil than stock? The stock coils get away without one since the internal resistance is very low, and the output is too.

 

[FB71]

Pete, not saying anything about dwell angle. I'm talking about current control. I was simply pointing out that dwell angle has an influence on current. Yes, I do realize that a current limiting ballast resistor would significantly reduce the output of the coil. Anything that drops voltage to the coil will reduce its output. My entire point in this dicussion was that OEMs now manage coil current via microprocessor control, allowing the coil to saturate at full system voltage, then ramping back current at the saturation to prevent overheating of the coil. THAT is what I was suggesting customers might be willing to pay for. That would eliminate the possibility of damaging the coil if the ignition is left on without the engine running.

 

[FB71]

I always thought that a ballast resistor with points is to limit amps going through the points during normal operation, extending point life but giving better spark for starts. As the ballast warms up resistance changes. With less resistance at start while cold, more amps, more coil output. As it warms up the resistance goes up, less amps, less coil output. Theory is you need less coil power once running and the points will operate better and longer. The HiPo coils put out plenty of power and the loss at warmer operating voltages are not noticed? I never heard of anyone using points without some sort of resistor feeding a stronger coil than stock? The stock coils get away without one since the internal resistance is very low, and the output is too.

TwoJugs, I think you're a bit confused. the ballast resistor has nothing to do with point life. That is the job of the condensor (capacitor). Temperature of the coil and ballast have little to do with their internal resistances. They aren't PTC thermistors. At operating temp, their resistance might change by +5-10%. Here's how and why a ballast resistor is present: During cranking (e-start), batt voltage drops to 9-10v. Stock points and early transistor ignitions used a coil designed to provide 15-20kV secondary voltage at a 9v primary, usually about 3 ohms primary. Once the engine is running and the charging system comes on, system voltage is anywhere from 12.6-14.4v. A 0.5-1.0 ohm ballast resistor drops about 25-30% of the system voltage, leaving the coil running about 9v at the primary, exactly what it was designed utilize. If the coil was designed to operate (secondary output of 15-20kV) at say, 13.2v primary, then during cranking, it would only output a portion of that, say 8-9kV. Cold start is one of the most difficult times to initiate ignition, and requires the highest available secondary voltage to reduce crank time, cold start emissions, and plug fouling. Aftermarket coils tend to have LOWER resistance than stock, drawing greater current. exceeding the current capacity of the contacts in the points set. Adding a ballast resistor to that system is just a band-aid to prolong the life of the points, at the expense of the coils ability to generate secondary voltage. Amperage has nothing to do with a coil's output voltage, it has everything to do with saturation time. Primary voltage dictates secondary voltage output, as a transformer (coil), is nothing more than a voltage multiplier.

 

[FB71]

FB71,

However, even though the coil is on for less time than points, you will still get a hotter spark from a given coil because there is no capacitor to slow things down so an electronic ignition system has a much faster rise time. Typically, a given coil will produce 50% more voltage to the plugs than the same coil will with points.

??? How exactly does the cap "slow things down"? Its in parallel with the points, to absorb flyback voltage, and shouldn't have any affect on saturation time or voltage? The resulting increase in secondary voltage would be a direct result of the elimination of the ballast resistor, and over-driving the coil?

Use of a ballast resistor for either points or an electronic ignition is wasteful and unnecessary if you instead choose the coil to match either points or the electronic ignition requirements. Typical coils for points are in the 3 to 5 Ohm primary resistance range whereas coils for an electronic system are in the 2.5 to 5 Ohm range, meaning that you can use a coil designed for points in an electronic ignition system, but NOT IF THAT SYSTEM HAS DYNAMIC DWELL AND CURRENT CONTROL such as the factory TCI because those systems are designed to work with a specific primary resistance. That is another reason to not use a system with dynamic dwell control because it limits your choices of coils.

Again, this is why I asked what microprocessor you are running. If its anything more than the most rudimentary 2 bit (literally, not a reference to money) mp with any kind of onboard memory, code can be included to monitor voltage drop across a reference pull-down resistor in parallel with coil driver transistor's emitter leg, and ramp down coil current, via duty-cycle, to maintain saturation, while preventing coil damage. In a closed-loop scenario, such as this, the mp wouldn't really care what the primary resistance of the coil was, provided it fell within the operating range of the coil driver's current capacity.

Lastly, I'm not attempting to argue with you. I really am just asking questions and postulating answers in order to learn more. Please do not consider anything I've posted as hostile.

 

[retiredgentleman]

TwoJugs, I think you're a bit confused. the ballast resistor has nothing to do with point life. That is the job of the condensor (capacitor). Temperature of the coil and ballast have little to do with their internal resistances. They aren't PTC thermistors. At operating temp, their resistance might change by +5-10%. Here's how and why a ballast resistor is present: During cranking (e-start), batt voltage drops to 9-10v. Stock points and early transistor ignitions used a coil designed to provide 15-20kV secondary voltage at a 9v primary, usually about 3 ohms primary. Once the engine is running and the charging system comes on, system voltage is anywhere from 12.6-14.4v. A 0.5-1.0 ohm ballast resistor drops about 25-30% of the system voltage, leaving the coil running about 9v at the primary, exactly what it was designed utilize. If the coil was designed to operate (secondary output of 15-20kV) at say, 13.2v primary, then during cranking, it would only output a portion of that, say 8-9kV. Cold start is one of the most difficult times to initiate ignition, and requires the highest available secondary voltage to reduce crank time, cold start emissions, and plug fouling. Aftermarket coils tend to have LOWER resistance than stock, drawing greater current. exceeding the current capacity of the contacts in the points set. Adding a ballast resistor to that system is just a band-aid to prolong the life of the points, at the expense of the coils ability to generate secondary voltage. Amperage has nothing to do with a coil's output voltage, it has everything to do with saturation time. Primary voltage dictates secondary voltage output, as a transformer (coil), is nothing more than a voltage multiplier.

Just a comment about ballast resistors. Many automotive ignitions used to by-pass the ballast resistor during starting, when voltage is low, in order to apply full available voltage to the coil. As soon as the engine started, the ballast resistor was placed in series with the coil to limit voltage and current to the coil, for normal running.

 

[FB71]

Just a comment about ballast resistors. Many automotive ignitions used to by-pass the ballast resistor during starting, when voltage is low, in order to apply full available voltage to the coil. As soon as the engine started, the ballast resistor was placed in series with the coil to limit voltage and current to the coil, for normal running.

basically what I was trying to say. Again, I often get ahead of myself, and may not be too clear. Thanks!

 

[buddy]

Here is another take on the problem.
It is all about money.
If you sold a product that did a great job and was bullet proof with great durability and long life - wonderful. But if you were in business to make money wouldn't it be better to have a product that did a great job but had a flaw that brought the customer back to buy another one maybe a third!
That, my friends, would make that Shark Tank salivate.
Seems to working just fine.

 

[FB71]

I highly doubt Pete is intentionally marketing a product with an intentional flaw. I would never call the absence of an advanced feature a flaw. Especially since we have a forum like this, with PAMCO Pete's presence, to help us avoid any problems to begin with.

 

[pamcopete]

??? How exactly does the cap "slow things down"? Its in parallel with the points, to absorb flyback voltage, and shouldn't have any affect on saturation time or voltage? The resulting increase in secondary voltage would be a direct result of the elimination of the ballast resistor, and over-driving the coil?

There is a myth about the purpose of the condenser in a conventional points type system. The main purpose is to form a tuned circuit with the coil at the instant that the points open. That tuned circuit then produces a brief AC voltage (it's called ringing) that is transformed to the secondary of the coil to produce a much higher voltage. The fact that the condenser also serves to protect the points is incidental.

The slowing down process is related to the relatively low frequency of this brief ringing as compared to an electronic ignition system that does not have a condenser, but still has the much smaller distributed capacitance of the winding's of the coil so when the transistor cuts off, the rise time is several magnitudes of order faster because the distributed capacitance combined with the inductance of the coil is still a tuned circuit but it operates at a much higher frequency.

 

[pamcopete]

???

Again, this is why I asked what microprocessor you are running. If its anything more than the most rudimentary 2 bit (literally, not a reference to money) mp with any kind of onboard memory, code can be included to monitor voltage drop across a reference pull-down resistor in parallel with coil driver transistor's emitter leg, and ramp down coil current, via duty-cycle, to maintain saturation, while preventing coil damage. In a closed-loop scenario, such as this, the mp wouldn't really care what the primary resistance of the coil was, provided it fell within the operating range of the coil driver's current capacity.

Lastly, I'm not attempting to argue with you. I really am just asking questions and postulating answers in order to learn more. Please do not consider anything I've posted as hostile.

All of those functions are available in the Motorola MC33094 chip or equivalent. Sounds like you are quoting from the tech sheet! Next, give me an estimate of the cost to implement that chip and its associated discrete components and why you think it is necessary or would be beneficial for the target market, the XS650? The product already has a 16 bit MCU, so just an estimate of the added cost and selling price above the $189.95 of the existing product.

 

[FB71]

There is a myth about the purpose of the condenser in a conventional points type system. The main purpose is to form a tuned circuit with the coil at the instant that the points open. That tuned circuit then produces a brief AC voltage (it's called ringing) that is transformed to the secondary of the coil to produce a much higher voltage. The fact that the condenser also serves to protect the points is incidental.

The slowing down process is related to the relatively low frequency of this brief ringing as compared to an electronic ignition system that does not have a condenser, but still has the much smaller distributed capacitance of the winding's of the coil so when the transistor cuts off, the rise time is several magnitudes of order faster because the distributed capacitance combined with the inductance of the coil is still a tuned circuit but it operates at a much higher frequency.

I'm familiar with the ringing during discharge. I had no idea about that change in frequency. Thank you!!