|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
February 24th 05, 06:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Positive ground or Negative ground
92 Eagle Vision (Intrepid basically). Issues with the tail lights and a
reverse warning light installation. Someone suggested that it might be a negative ground system which will effect the end result of what I was trying to achieve. Anyone have an answer on this one? Don Manning 
|
| Ads |
|
#2
February 24th 05, 06:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 06:54:50 GMT, "2.3Sleeper"
> wrote: >92 Eagle Vision (Intrepid basically). Issues with the tail lights and a >reverse warning light installation. Someone suggested that it might be a >negative ground system which will effect the end result of what I was trying >to achieve. > >Anyone have an answer on this one? > >Don Manning > Virtually ALL vehicles built in North America since the mid-1950s have negative-ground electrical systems.
|
|
#3
February 24th 05, 07:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Actually, Chrysler likes to do some electrical things the other way,
with ground-switched tail lights. Even Ford has done ground-switched tail lights, and the Ford air suspension solenoid valves are all ground-switched. Ground-switching IS the superior way to handle DC switching (less wear & tear on switches), but costs a little more to implement, so the majority of automakers avoid it. the fly wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 06:54:50 GMT, "2.3Sleeper" > > wrote: > > >92 Eagle Vision (Intrepid basically). Issues with the tail lights and a > >reverse warning light installation. Someone suggested that it might be a > >negative ground system which will effect the end result of what I was trying > >to achieve. > > > >Anyone have an answer on this one? > > > >Don Manning > > > > Virtually ALL vehicles built in North America since the > mid-1950s have negative-ground electrical systems.
|
|
#4
February 25th 05, 02:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Sharon K.Cooke" > wrote in message ... > Actually, Chrysler likes to do some electrical things the other way, > with ground-switched tail lights. Even Ford has done ground-switched > tail lights, and the Ford air suspension solenoid valves are all > ground-switched. Ground-switching IS the superior way to handle DC > switching (less wear & tear on switches), but costs a little more to > implement, so the majority of automakers avoid it. Yes! That is what I meant. I tried to install a reverse flasher on this car and only the left side brake light flashes. Both reverse lights work as they should though. I hooked everything up both ways possible and had no luck. I then got very d.e.l.i.b.e.r.a.t.e. with the wiring and still had the same result. I called the company and spoke with an engineer and they suggested that maybe this model of car uses a ground-switching system, which would require me to install a relay -inline- to alter this. Anyone have suggestions? Don Manning > > the fly wrote: > > > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 06:54:50 GMT, "2.3Sleeper" > > > wrote: > > > > >92 Eagle Vision (Intrepid basically). Issues with the tail lights and a > > >reverse warning light installation. Someone suggested that it might be a > > >negative ground system which will effect the end result of what I was trying > > >to achieve. > > > > > >Anyone have an answer on this one? > > > > > >Don Manning > > > > > > > Virtually ALL vehicles built in North America since the > > mid-1950s have negative-ground electrical systems.
|
|
#5
February 25th 05, 04:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:06:40 -0600, "Sharon K.Cooke" >
wrote: >Actually, Chrysler likes to do some electrical things the other way, >with ground-switched tail lights. Even Ford has done ground-switched >tail lights, and the Ford air suspension solenoid valves are all >ground-switched. Ground-switching IS the superior way to handle DC >switching (less wear & tear on switches), but costs a little more to >implement, so the majority of automakers avoid it. > I'd like you to explain THAT in a scientific manner. The only reason some things are ground switched is to simplify electronic control. Interior lamps are often ground switched, because there are at leat 3 switches controlling the lamps, and grounding switches on the doors are infinitely simpler than power switches in the door jams. Ground switching rewuires a lot more wiring in most other cases, as power must be supplied (by wire) from the battery, and the ground must be returned(by wire) to the switch. With the new can-bus systems, the actual switch can be at the back of the car, connected only to the "power" wire which also carries the networked control signal. In this case, ground switching may be used - and may be the simplest. >the fly wrote: >> >> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 06:54:50 GMT, "2.3Sleeper" >> > wrote: >> >> >92 Eagle Vision (Intrepid basically). Issues with the tail lights and a >> >reverse warning light installation. Someone suggested that it might be a >> >negative ground system which will effect the end result of what I was trying >> >to achieve. >> > >> >Anyone have an answer on this one? >> > >> >Don Manning >> > >> >> Virtually ALL vehicles built in North America since the >> mid-1950s have negative-ground electrical systems.
|
|
#7
February 25th 05, 03:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:36:49 -0600, "Sharon K.Cooke" >
wrote: >Explain WHAT in a scientific manner? It's a given that if you use a >switch to close a ground, it's easier on the switch and it (the switch) >will last until it breaks simply from mechanical wear & tear. Going the >other way, with a fixed ground and using an electrical path thru the >switch to power the device will burn out the contacts on switches >"before their time". I have replaced a number of MF & headlight switches >(FoMoCo mostly) as proof of that. I have NEVER replaced one on a Toyota. Obviously someone has never been in an electronics/electrical class You know what circuits are, i take it? I work a lot with high-power DC stuff (110V+, at sometimes 1200A) and it doesn't matter where on the circuit a switch is, as, you see, a circuit is a loop, and electron flow goes around ALL of the circuit equally. Why, in your opinion are ground switches better? is it because the electrons 'aren't as tired' as they've only just left the battery, and so can make a cleaner spark at near contact, one which won't deteriorate the contact, unlike if they were positive switched, where they'd be exhausted and jump any old way, destroying contacts? > >Ground switching (of headlights, anyway) has been around for at least 30 >years - look at any Toyota or Datsun (Nissan, now) - and has zero to do >with CANBUS, explained as; http://www.cetrek.co.uk/CanbusSet.html > > > wrote: >> >> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:06:40 -0600, "Sharon K.Cooke" > >> wrote: >> >> >Actually, Chrysler likes to do some electrical things the other way, >> >with ground-switched tail lights. Even Ford has done ground-switched >> >tail lights, and the Ford air suspension solenoid valves are all >> >ground-switched. Ground-switching IS the superior way to handle DC >> >switching (less wear & tear on switches), but costs a little more to >> >implement, so the majority of automakers avoid it. >> > >> >> I'd like you to explain THAT in a scientific manner. >> >> The only reason some things are ground switched is to simplify >> electronic control. >> >> Interior lamps are often ground switched, because there are at leat 3 >> switches controlling the lamps, and grounding switches on the doors >> are infinitely simpler than power switches in the door jams. >> >> Ground switching rewuires a lot more wiring in most other cases, as >> power must be supplied (by wire) from the battery, and the ground must >> be returned(by wire) to the switch. >> >> With the new can-bus systems, the actual switch can be at the back of >> the car, connected only to the "power" wire which also carries the >> networked control signal. In this case, ground switching may be used - >> and may be the simplest. >> >the fly wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 06:54:50 GMT, "2.3Sleeper" >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >92 Eagle Vision (Intrepid basically). Issues with the tail lights and a >> >> >reverse warning light installation. Someone suggested that it might be a >> >> >negative ground system which will effect the end result of what I was trying >> >> >to achieve. >> >> > >> >> >Anyone have an answer on this one? >> >> > >> >> >Don Manning >> >> > >> >> >> >> Virtually ALL vehicles built in North America since the >> >> mid-1950s have negative-ground electrical systems.
|
|
#8
February 25th 05, 03:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not sure about high-powered DC current, but I do know what happens in
the real world for 12VDC. BTW, I do have an engineering degree, and have had several courses in electrical/electronics theory. Also, if it counts for "creds", I moonlighted repairing TV sets while I was going to school.  K`Tetch wrote: > > On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:36:49 -0600, "Sharon K.Cooke" > > wrote: > > >Explain WHAT in a scientific manner? It's a given that if you use a > >switch to close a ground, it's easier on the switch and it (the switch) > >will last until it breaks simply from mechanical wear & tear. Going the > >other way, with a fixed ground and using an electrical path thru the > >switch to power the device will burn out the contacts on switches > >"before their time". I have replaced a number of MF & headlight switches > >(FoMoCo mostly) as proof of that. I have NEVER replaced one on a Toyota. > > Obviously someone has never been in an electronics/electrical class > > You know what circuits are, i take it? > > I work a lot with high-power DC stuff (110V+, at sometimes 1200A) and > it doesn't matter where on the circuit a switch is, as, you see, a > circuit is a loop, and electron flow goes around ALL of the circuit > equally. > > Why, in your opinion are ground switches better? is it because the > electrons 'aren't as tired' as they've only just left the battery, and > so can make a cleaner spark at near contact, one which won't > deteriorate the contact, unlike if they were positive switched, where > they'd be exhausted and jump any old way, destroying contacts? > > > > >Ground switching (of headlights, anyway) has been around for at least 30 > >years - look at any Toyota or Datsun (Nissan, now) - and has zero to do > >with CANBUS, explained as; http://www.cetrek.co.uk/CanbusSet.html > > > > > > > wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:06:40 -0600, "Sharon K.Cooke" > > >> wrote: > >> > >> >Actually, Chrysler likes to do some electrical things the other way, > >> >with ground-switched tail lights. Even Ford has done ground-switched > >> >tail lights, and the Ford air suspension solenoid valves are all > >> >ground-switched. Ground-switching IS the superior way to handle DC > >> >switching (less wear & tear on switches), but costs a little more to > >> >implement, so the majority of automakers avoid it. > >> > > >> > >> I'd like you to explain THAT in a scientific manner. > >> > >> The only reason some things are ground switched is to simplify > >> electronic control. > >> > >> Interior lamps are often ground switched, because there are at leat 3 > >> switches controlling the lamps, and grounding switches on the doors > >> are infinitely simpler than power switches in the door jams. > >> > >> Ground switching rewuires a lot more wiring in most other cases, as > >> power must be supplied (by wire) from the battery, and the ground must > >> be returned(by wire) to the switch. > >> > >> With the new can-bus systems, the actual switch can be at the back of > >> the car, connected only to the "power" wire which also carries the > >> networked control signal. In this case, ground switching may be used - > >> and may be the simplest. > >> >the fly wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 06:54:50 GMT, "2.3Sleeper" > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >92 Eagle Vision (Intrepid basically). Issues with the tail lights and a > >> >> >reverse warning light installation. Someone suggested that it might be a > >> >> >negative ground system which will effect the end result of what I was trying > >> >> >to achieve. > >> >> > > >> >> >Anyone have an answer on this one? > >> >> > > >> >> >Don Manning > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> Virtually ALL vehicles built in North America since the > >> >> mid-1950s have negative-ground electrical systems.
|
|
#9
February 25th 05, 08:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:34:04 -0600, "Sharon K.Cooke" >
wrote: >Not sure about high-powered DC current, but I do know what happens in >the real world for 12VDC. BTW, I do have an engineering degree, and have >had several courses in electrical/electronics theory. Also, if it counts >for "creds", I moonlighted repairing TV sets while I was going to >school. Well then, you should be able to tell us why 'negative side switches' last longer than, so, please, enlighten us. > >K`Tetch wrote: >> >> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:36:49 -0600, "Sharon K.Cooke" > >> wrote: >> >> >Explain WHAT in a scientific manner? It's a given that if you use a >> >switch to close a ground, it's easier on the switch and it (the switch) >> >will last until it breaks simply from mechanical wear & tear. Going the >> >other way, with a fixed ground and using an electrical path thru the >> >switch to power the device will burn out the contacts on switches >> >"before their time". I have replaced a number of MF & headlight switches >> >(FoMoCo mostly) as proof of that. I have NEVER replaced one on a Toyota. >> >> Obviously someone has never been in an electronics/electrical class >> >> You know what circuits are, i take it? >> >> I work a lot with high-power DC stuff (110V+, at sometimes 1200A) and >> it doesn't matter where on the circuit a switch is, as, you see, a >> circuit is a loop, and electron flow goes around ALL of the circuit >> equally. >> >> Why, in your opinion are ground switches better? is it because the >> electrons 'aren't as tired' as they've only just left the battery, and >> so can make a cleaner spark at near contact, one which won't >> deteriorate the contact, unlike if they were positive switched, where >> they'd be exhausted and jump any old way, destroying contacts? >> >> > >> >Ground switching (of headlights, anyway) has been around for at least 30 >> >years - look at any Toyota or Datsun (Nissan, now) - and has zero to do >> >with CANBUS, explained as; http://www.cetrek.co.uk/CanbusSet.html >> > >> > >> > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:06:40 -0600, "Sharon K.Cooke" > >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Actually, Chrysler likes to do some electrical things the other way, >> >> >with ground-switched tail lights. Even Ford has done ground-switched >> >> >tail lights, and the Ford air suspension solenoid valves are all >> >> >ground-switched. Ground-switching IS the superior way to handle DC >> >> >switching (less wear & tear on switches), but costs a little more to >> >> >implement, so the majority of automakers avoid it. >> >> > >> >> >> >> I'd like you to explain THAT in a scientific manner. >> >> >> >> The only reason some things are ground switched is to simplify >> >> electronic control. >> >> >> >> Interior lamps are often ground switched, because there are at leat 3 >> >> switches controlling the lamps, and grounding switches on the doors >> >> are infinitely simpler than power switches in the door jams. >> >> >> >> Ground switching rewuires a lot more wiring in most other cases, as >> >> power must be supplied (by wire) from the battery, and the ground must >> >> be returned(by wire) to the switch. >> >> >> >> With the new can-bus systems, the actual switch can be at the back of >> >> the car, connected only to the "power" wire which also carries the >> >> networked control signal. In this case, ground switching may be used - >> >> and may be the simplest. >> >> >the fly wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 06:54:50 GMT, "2.3Sleeper" >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >92 Eagle Vision (Intrepid basically). Issues with the tail lights and a >> >> >> >reverse warning light installation. Someone suggested that it might be a >> >> >> >negative ground system which will effect the end result of what I was trying >> >> >> >to achieve. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Anyone have an answer on this one? >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Don Manning >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Virtually ALL vehicles built in North America since the >> >> >> mid-1950s have negative-ground electrical systems.
|
|
#10
February 25th 05, 08:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
K`Tetch wrote: > > On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:34:04 -0600, "Sharon K.Cooke" > > wrote: > > >Not sure about high-powered DC current, but I do know what happens in > >the real world for 12VDC. BTW, I do have an engineering degree, and have > >had several courses in electrical/electronics theory. Also, if it counts > >for "creds", I moonlighted repairing TV sets while I was going to > >school. > > Well then, you should be able to tell us why 'negative side switches' > last longer than, so, please, enlighten us. > Stating it as simply as possible, when a device is powered via ground switching, the device acts a capacitor to minimize surge & 'bounce'. If you don't believe that a grounding switch lasts longer than a switch used to turn on a positive current thru the switch and then to the device, please let me know when & where you'll be changing your nest car battery; I'd like to watch, Hell, I could probably sell tickets if you promise to remove the positive terminal on the old battery first, and also promise to connect the ground teminal on the new battery before you connect the positive terminal.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| electrically stupid | BDragon | Corvette | 32 | February 6th 05 08:14 AM |
| Battery charging | Peter | Technology | 30 | January 28th 05 05:37 PM |
| How ground is ground? | Thomas G. Marshall | Honda | 53 | December 7th 04 11:31 PM |
| Help with Positive Ground issues | thunderbeast | Antique cars | 5 | March 28th 04 07:51 AM |
Linear Mode
