Jump to content

rlbleeker

Members
  • Posts

    256
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by rlbleeker

  1. Given that we can't predict my local weather, I find it difficult to believe that we can predict the effects of greenhouse gasses with any accuracy. The real problem we are facing is uncontrolled global population growth.
  2. I don't know why everybody started with 6V either. Maybe it had to do with battery technology at that time. Maybe the engineers just thought that was plenty. It would be interesting to know. I agree, maintenance has a huge impact on both performance and reliability. I would hazard to guess that the vast majority of owners NEVER service their start/charge system; they wait till they have a critical issue. That's really my point with regards to 6V systems. We know a 12V system is better, but many people tend to blame ALL their problems on the fact that it's 6V, when in reality much of the issue may be the condition of the system. I see the same thing over and over with disc brakes. If your car is breaking really poorly, it's not because it's got drum brakes, it's because something is wrong. I wouldn't be at all surprised if you never have an issue. But if somebody just throws a one wire alternator and a 12V battery in a car with a marginal system, they may. In my shop, if a machine goes down, it's not a big deal. It's just my home shop and I'll put off whatever I was doing till I get it fixed. I'd much rather change a starter at home than a parking lot though. So, for me, it would be worth the extra bucks to go ahead and get a 12V starter. I think that improves my odds a bit. I've got a couple of 5HP DC motors from the 40s in the shop, still running after who knows how many thousands of hours. I should probably check the brushes on those.
  3. I don't know why everybody started with 6V either. Maybe it had to do with battery technology at that time. Maybe the engineers just thought that was plenty. It would be interesting to know. I agree, maintenance has a huge impact on both performance and reliability. I would hazard to guess that the vast majority of owners NEVER service their start/charge system; they wait till they have a critical issue. That's really my point with regards to 6V systems. We know a 12V system is better, but many people tend to blame ALL their problems on the fact that it's 6V, when in reality much of the issue may be the condition of the system. I see the same thing over and over with disc brakes. If your car is breaking really poorly, it's not because it's got drum brakes, it's because something is wrong. I wouldn't be at all surprised if you never have an issue. But if somebody just throws a one wire alternator and a 12V battery in a car with a marginal system, they may. In my shop, if a machine goes down, it's not a big deal. It's just my home shop and I'll put off whatever I was doing till I get it fixed. I'd much rather change a starter at home than a parking lot though. So, for me, it would be worth the extra bucks to go ahead and get a 12V starter. I think that improves my odds a bit. I've got a couple of 5HP DC motors from the 40s in the shop, still running after who knows how many thousands of hours. I should probably check the brushes on those.
  4. Dave, I'm in no way suggesting that a 6V system is better than a 12V system or that people shouldn't convert. My only points are: 1) That converting to 12V is an option, not a requirement. Plenty of cars out there running 6V systems. If it was a car I planned to drive extensively, I'd convert it. 2) That a 6V starter on a 12V system will be more prone to failure. One option, clearly, is to run it till it dies. If it never does, great. That's what I do with VFDs on old 3 phase motors. Why rewind till you have to? But, if it was a car I planned to drive much, I'd run a 12V starter. Or have a spare in the trunk. Maybe I'm just gun shy. If I'm wrong on #2, please explain. Chrysler used gear reduction starters clear back in the '60s, never understood why GM didn't. Enjoying the discussion tremendously. Ryan
  5. Dave, I'm in no way suggesting that a 6V system is better than a 12V system or that people shouldn't convert. My only points are: 1) That converting to 12V is an option, not a requirement. Plenty of cars out there running 6V systems. If it was a car I planned to drive extensively, I'd convert it. 2) That a 6V starter on a 12V system will be more prone to failure. One option, clearly, is to run it till it dies. If it never does, great. That's what I do with VFDs on old 3 phase motors. Why rewind till you have to? But, if it was a car I planned to drive much, I'd run a 12V starter. Or have a spare in the trunk. Maybe I'm just gun shy. If I'm wrong on #2, please explain. Chrysler used gear reduction starters clear back in the '60s, never understood why GM didn't. Enjoying the discussion tremendously. Ryan
  6. Yeah, this is definitely a bit geeky and I suppose we've gotten a bit off topic, but I'm finding it interesting. It's been a long time since I studied flux and all that stuff in college physics. I know I've over simplified my arguments. So inductance is a relationship between flux (size and strength of magnetic field) and current. The current flow creates the magnetic field which creates the inductance which resists the flow of current until a balance is found. Correct? Then doubling the voltage across a winding won't actually flow twice the current (due to inductance), but it will still flow more current and make more torque won't it? I agree, it won't crank the engine twice as fast, it can't. I didn't want to take a guess at it, so just said "somewhere below 2 times". I'll buy your 1.5 number. Isn't it still generating more torque at that speed and using more amps to do so? Am I correct that a 12V starter will, to over simplify, have twice the wire and generate the same torque with half the amps? It won't crank as fast as your 6V starter on 12V correct?
  7. Yeah, this is definitely a bit geeky and I suppose we've gotten a bit off topic, but I'm finding it interesting. It's been a long time since I studied flux and all that stuff in college physics. I know I've over simplified my arguments. So inductance is a relationship between flux (size and strength of magnetic field) and current. The current flow creates the magnetic field which creates the inductance which resists the flow of current until a balance is found. Correct? Then doubling the voltage across a winding won't actually flow twice the current (due to inductance), but it will still flow more current and make more torque won't it? I agree, it won't crank the engine twice as fast, it can't. I didn't want to take a guess at it, so just said "somewhere below 2 times". I'll buy your 1.5 number. Isn't it still generating more torque at that speed and using more amps to do so? Am I correct that a 12V starter will, to over simplify, have twice the wire and generate the same torque with half the amps? It won't crank as fast as your 6V starter on 12V correct?
  8. The torque the motor produces is the result of the opposing magnetic fields and is a function of the windings and current (amps) passing through the windings. A 12V starter will have twice the turns and produce the same torque at the same speed with half the current, watts remains the same. torque = motor constant * amps As the motor turns the fields will induce a counter-voltage (EMF) that opposes the supply voltage. The equation becomes: amps = (supply voltage - counter voltage)/resistance At locked rotor counter voltage is 0, so it simply becomes I = V/R. R is the resistance in the copper and is constant if we ignore heat. So doubling the voltage from 6 to 12, doubles the initial amp draw. Doubling the amps doubles the torque, which is why it accelerates to cranking speed so much faster. As the motor speeds up, the counter voltage increases and the effective voltage (supply voltage - counter voltage) decreases and so amps and torque do likewise. It will accelerate to a stable speed where the load torque equals the motor torque. If we had a constant torque load, then doubling the voltage would double the speed. It would consume twice the watts (2 * volts * amps) and produce twice the mechanical power (2 * RPM * torque). We don't have a constant load situation though. The torque required to crank the engine is greatest when the engine is not in motion, static friction. Once in motion the required torque will decrease significantly and then increase with speed. Cranking the engine faster than the 6V cranking speed will require more torque and therefore more amps, regardless of supply voltage. It will find a balance point (the 12V cranking speed) somewhere below 2 times the 6V cranking speed with amps somewhere above the 6V cranking amps. I get your point that the increased torque is going to significantly decrease cranking time for a well tuned car. Heat is the enemy. The resistive heating is a function of the wire size, the amperage traveling through that wire (voltage doesn't matter) and the length of time it's doing so. The increase in heating due to the increased amps and the decrease in heating due to decreased duration my very well result in a net decrease if the car starts quickly. My caution is that if you crank it as long on 12V as you would on 6V you will have increased heating and risk damaging the starter. Sometimes they don't start right up and if your running a 6V starter on 12V you should keep that in mind. Shorten your starting attempts and leave time for cooling in between. The starter I melted didn't happen while cranking but on that 2X inrush when I hit the key. Melted the solder on two of the bars at the commutator. Maybe it was a weak joint in the first place, a little extra resistance. It was fine on 6V, melted in short order on 12V.
  9. The torque the motor produces is the result of the opposing magnetic fields and is a function of the windings and current (amps) passing through the windings. A 12V starter will have twice the turns and produce the same torque at the same speed with half the current, watts remains the same. torque = motor constant * amps As the motor turns the fields will induce a counter-voltage (EMF) that opposes the supply voltage. The equation becomes: amps = (supply voltage - counter voltage)/resistance At locked rotor counter voltage is 0, so it simply becomes I = V/R. R is the resistance in the copper and is constant if we ignore heat. So doubling the voltage from 6 to 12, doubles the initial amp draw. Doubling the amps doubles the torque, which is why it accelerates to cranking speed so much faster. As the motor speeds up, the counter voltage increases and the effective voltage (supply voltage - counter voltage) decreases and so amps and torque do likewise. It will accelerate to a stable speed where the load torque equals the motor torque. If we had a constant torque load, then doubling the voltage would double the speed. It would consume twice the watts (2 * volts * amps) and produce twice the mechanical power (2 * RPM * torque). We don't have a constant load situation though. The torque required to crank the engine is greatest when the engine is not in motion, static friction. Once in motion the required torque will decrease significantly and then increase with speed. Cranking the engine faster than the 6V cranking speed will require more torque and therefore more amps, regardless of supply voltage. It will find a balance point (the 12V cranking speed) somewhere below 2 times the 6V cranking speed with amps somewhere above the 6V cranking amps. I get your point that the increased torque is going to significantly decrease cranking time for a well tuned car. Heat is the enemy. The resistive heating is a function of the wire size, the amperage traveling through that wire (voltage doesn't matter) and the length of time it's doing so. The increase in heating due to the increased amps and the decrease in heating due to decreased duration my very well result in a net decrease if the car starts quickly. My caution is that if you crank it as long on 12V as you would on 6V you will have increased heating and risk damaging the starter. Sometimes they don't start right up and if your running a 6V starter on 12V you should keep that in mind. Shorten your starting attempts and leave time for cooling in between. The starter I melted didn't happen while cranking but on that 2X inrush when I hit the key. Melted the solder on two of the bars at the commutator. Maybe it was a weak joint in the first place, a little extra resistance. It was fine on 6V, melted in short order on 12V.
  10. What color is the interior? I need a gray dash pad.
  11. Not an expert here, but my understanding of series-wound DC motors is basically that speed is proportional to voltage and torque is proportional to amperage. At startup there is no counter-voltage, so it's simply V = IR. Doubling the voltage doubles the current. So when you hit the key it will draw approximately twice the initial amperage. As speed increases, the counter-voltage increases; decreasing amperage and torque. Speed will increase until the torque matches the load. Turning your engine over faster, means doing more work (compressing air, friction) in the same length of time, thus more torque and hence more amperage. Now, these old starters are definitely over engineered and may handle 12V indefinitely; particularly with reduced cranking time. But I still think they are going to be more prone to failure than a correct 12V starter.
  12. If you do go the 12V route and keep the 6V starter, it will crank very nicely; but remember that it will be drawing approximately twice the amps it was designed for and can overheat if cranked too long. I melted the armature in a straight 8 Chrysler doing this.
  13. The simplest solution is probably to fix whatever is wrong with your system. Surely a new 1950 Buick didn't have this problem? Nothing wrong with 12V (obviously), but it's a bit of work to convert. In my experience, 12V on a 6V starter is not a good thing.
  14. This may sound odd, but I actually like rusty old cars. It's going to be a kinda sad day when they have all been saved or crushed.
  15. This is the earlier style Rochester (4GC?), the secondaries are the same or close to the same size as the primaries. I personally don't like them as well as the Carter and was thinking about switching my '63 the other way.
  16. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Go Poly</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I couldn't help but notice that one of your cars is a 1969 Corvette. You indicate a '396 small block' can I assume you mean 350 small block? I don't believe the 396 was available in 1969 in Corvettes.</div></div> Probably a bored and stroked 350. I had a 406 small block in my '68 Camaro.
  17. If the car's not on a lift, you can just jack up one tire and give it two revs while you watch the drive shaft.
  18. Got the first Buick by chance in 1989. I needed a car for my then girlfriend/now wife. I had a '63 Impala and was actually looking for a Chevelle, saw a '65 Skylark advertised and figured "What the heck." I turned out to be a '67 2dr hardtop and I drug it out of a field for $50. I had it running in a weekend and we drove it for a year until it was lost in a forest fire. I started looking for a replacement Buick and found a '63 Riviera and I was hooked. Almost 20 years later we have 14 Buicks from '16 to '99. I found this site about 6 years ago, and finally got around to joining the BCA last year. Partly because I felt like I should after hanging out here for so long; but mostly to get the Bugle that I'd heard so much about. There is no local chapter here in eastern Washington, and I wouldn't really have the time if there was. I didn't even make it over to the nationals last year. Oh well, got my Bugle yesterday, and it's well worth the dues.
  19. Question #1 I've gotten the paint from CARS in the past and thought it was a good match. Question #2 Yes, that's what they should do.
  20. Yep, that's exactly what it did. Warmer humid air comes into contact with cold metal parts and water condensates. It then runs/drips down and sinks below the oil where it is forever trapped.
  21. I went through the whole adjustment procedure on my Marquette last fall. After 78 years, things were more than a little out of spec. It took me most of a weekend since I had to repair/make a few parts. The difference was amazing. Before it was a little scary, and now it stops really great.
  22. I agree, it looks like a '57 Cad with the center replaced. Check out hubcaps.org
  23. We got our '96 with 36K on it and now have 163K. Aside from normal maintenance items, I've replaced: a wheel bearing, water pump, radiator, idler pulleys, CD player, window motor. It's starting to show it's age, but no signs of giving up. Got a '99 with 60K as a backup last fall. Low mileage examples are still out there.
  24. I've got a '37 and it has a low carpeted shelf. I'm pretty sure it's not original; now wondering if it should be there at all.
×
×
  • Create New...