At 10:36 AM 10/20/00 -0700, you wrote:
>Regardless of what the Dodge article and all the advertising claims, I'm
>uncomfortable with the idea that Platinum would conduct better than Copper.
>Especially, since it is bonded to the copper as Luke points out.
>Tom Wickessor sent me an interresting link. Check it out!
>This is the proof:
>http://wulff.mit.edu/pt/pert7.html
>AG=gold, CU=copper, PT=platinum
>Gold is the best electrical conductor, then copper.
I came a web article that said that copper was a better electrical conductor
than platinum, and that platinum was a better anti-erosion material.
>Another question. Duck!
>Would a +4 design, regardless of whatever advantage it may offer in
>presenting the spark to the mixture, require more spark energy to jump the
>gap(s)??? Sometimes, I'd just love to be able to download multiple
>engineering degrees and plug it in to spare memory. -STE
I don't know if the +4 design requires more spark energy but, according to
another web site, the coil-on-wire provides 28 percent more energy under
normal
(note their stress on 'normal') operating conditions than that provided by the
former DIS (direct ignition system), to improve combustion of lean mixtures
used
to increase fuel economy.
BTW, these sites were non-commercial ones.
Bob
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:56:14 EDT