RE: IML: 56 Ballast Resistor

["Dick Benjamin" <dickb@xxxxxxxxx>]

OOPS - Really!?   I was sure that all the manufacturers woke up to that
trick much earlier (Packard did in 1955).  OK< I'll post this to the IML
immediately, and thanks for catching my error, Bob.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Merritt Simplex Mfg [mailto:bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 4:05 AM
To: Dick Benjamin
Subject: Re: IML: 56 Ballist Resistor

Hello Mr. B;

Not until 1960 was the ballast resistor bypassed for starting. That means,
for 1956,7,8,9 a failed ballast resistor won't even allow the car to start.

Best regards,
Bob Merritt


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dick Benjamin" <>
To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 11:47 PM
Subject: RE: IML: 56 Ballist Resistor


> You understand the circuit exactly correctly.  The higher resistance will
> cause the coil to operate below the design primary voltage; however it is
> probably not going to show up in the car's performance except under
unusual
> circumstances.
>
>
>
> The ballast resistor is out of the circuit during start-up, so it won't
> affect the engine starting.


---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]



-----------------  http://www.imperialclub.com  -----------------
This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please 
reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be 
shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the
Administrators should be sent to webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm