ION-related IGN Comments & Coil Quest

[garfield at pilgrimhouse.com]

On Tue, 2 Jun 1998 00:03:16 -0700 (PDT), T Hergen <thergen at svn.net>
wrote:

>           ||o-------to plug
>primary    ||o
>           ||o
>Bat+ -----o||o
>          o||o
>          o||o  secondary
>       ---o||o
>       |   ||o
>       |   ||o
>       |   ||o-----
>       |          |
>       x----------| 
>       |
>       |
>     To Points (or ignition module)
>
>Is this correct for most common inductive style ignitions?

I'd say this is most UNcommon; I'd like to know what systems actually
use this connection scheme today. If it exists at all, I'd say it's WAY
in the minority.

>Some of the posts seem to indicate that the primary and secondary have the
>Bat+ terminal in common.
>...
>Does anyone know which is "right" (maybe both are depending on the
>application) 1) secondary has Bat+ in common with primary or 2) secondary
>has points side in common with primary? 

ALL of the coils I'm familiar with use the +BAT as common; I don't know
of any that fit the description of (2), but hey whatawino? A coil
terminal these days that has the + mark on it is meant to go to +BAT,
and that terminal IS the common for secondary and primary inside the
coil.

Secondly, I also don't know of any coils that use the frame/core as a
conductor, so measuring from a mounting hole or sumpin to any of the
connectors really shouldn't show a circuit. The core is really always a
bad choice as a conductor, since it's composed of piles of laminated
sheet steel usually, and sometimes for assembly, the core pieces aren't
even one continuous piece of steel, and they don't normally have to
create a good electrical circuit, just a good magnetic one.

Gar