X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao107.cox.net ([68.230.241.39] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.11) with ESMTP id 4664326 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 01:12:29 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.39; envelope-from=alventures@cox.net Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao107.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.03.00 201-2260-125-20100507) with ESMTP id <20110105061151.CTAD13015.fed1rmmtao107.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net> for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 01:11:51 -0500 Received: from BigAl ([72.199.216.14]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id riBs1f00c0KDB3c03iBsAt; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 01:11:53 -0500 X-VR-Score: 0.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=yemZdoM8PxlwFVYU2EmwyineP0aT19BeD8GhXVaAh60= c=1 sm=1 a=svIKFco9tjcA:10 a=TPvrVRyicAsl4VeEYn0L5g==:17 a=xdAE0iVK56xThOq-UQQA:9 a=FIE9eI5lrTlnzNPt7HpSnCx-lisA:4 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=OERjHpPKZ9WzkuwQwbsA:9 a=KTNE0_kJf1Oh1U33ADcA:7 a=FX379PkAECcC6C1mEUHSVmWWJTYA:4 a=TPvrVRyicAsl4VeEYn0L5g==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Authentication-Results: cox.net; none From: "Al Gietzen" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: GM Coil Comparison Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 22:13:00 -0800 Message-ID: <726D69ED73714CDA9308D657F1565695@BigAl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0002_01CBAC5C.8CB964C0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6863 Importance: Normal Thread-Index: Acusl/YnoWBHGs3/QBOdLLO1/2X6ewABV2sg In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01CBAC5C.8CB964C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit So I'm still waiting for an answer to the question I posed a few days back. Do we have any real evidence that the higher current spark is needed in our application; or is going to result in any better performance? Perhaps it's obvious to someone, but I'm wondering whether it comparable to watts/channel on a stereo. 50 per channel into good speakers is enough to drive you out of your home; but the salesperson will try to convince you that 1000 watts must be 10 times better. The D580 certainly makes a very good spark, which ignites the mixture just fine. Once the arc is made and the fuel molecules are burning, does 120 ma spark give you anything that a 60 ma spark doesn't if the voltage is the same? Presumably it is just a matter of spark duration. Save me the need to do some research:-) Al ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01CBAC5C.8CB964C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

So I’m still waiting for an = answer to the question I posed a few days back. Do we have any real evidence = that the higher current spark is needed in our application; or is going to result = in any better performance?

 

Perhaps it’s obvious to = someone, but I’m wondering whether it comparable to watts/channel on a = stereo. 50 per channel into good speakers is enough to drive you out of your home; = but the salesperson will try to convince you that 1000 watts must be 10 times = better.  The D580 certainly makes a very good spark, which ignites the mixture just = fine.  Once the arc is made and the fuel molecules are burning, does 120 ma spark = give you anything that a 60 ma spark doesn’t if the voltage is the = same?  = Presumably it is just a matter of spark duration.

 

Save me the need to do some = researchJ

 

Al

------=_NextPart_000_0002_01CBAC5C.8CB964C0--