-
Hi Guest!
You can help ensure that British Car Forum (BCF) continues to provide a great place to engage in the British car hobby! If you find BCF a beneficial community, please consider supporting our efforts with a subscription.
There are some perks with a member upgrade!**Upgrade Now**
(PS: Subscribers don't see this gawd-aweful banner
Hey - did you know if you click on the title of a thread it will take you to the first unread post since you last visited that thread?
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
Why positive ground?
- Thread starter Lonnie
- Start date
Share this page
dklawson
Yoda
Offline
It wasn't just LBCs. If you go back far enough you'll find other makes (even American) with positive ground. Like so many things, there was no standard. I suspect it wasn't until people started adding a lot of accessories to their cars that they needed to decide on one ground or the other.
Roger
Luke Skywalker
Offline
At my age I have difficulty sorting out my anodes from my cathodes, to say nothing of electrons and things.
However, it was done, starting in the late 40s - early 50s to reduce battery terminal corrosion. Up till then, in UK anyway, negative earth was common.
Of course, reducing terminal corrosion increased body corrosion, so cars rotted (even) faster.
However, it was done, starting in the late 40s - early 50s to reduce battery terminal corrosion. Up till then, in UK anyway, negative earth was common.
Of course, reducing terminal corrosion increased body corrosion, so cars rotted (even) faster.
77MidgetMkIV
Jedi Trainee
Offline
Therefore, you don't have to refresh your low cost battery as much, but you have to replace your car twice as much.......I smell a conspiracy! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/devilgrin.gif
703MGB
Senior Member
Offline
Interesting topic.
There are positive ground system because like anything new there were no standard at the time.
Remember the Ford Model T. 3 pedals on the floor from left to right(1st 2nd gear, reverse and brake) and the accelerator is on the sterring wheel.
That was before standards were established.
By the way if you remember Physics although the standard mentions that electric current flows from the positive to the negative in actual reality it flows the other way around.
Thus positive ground system would actually make sense...
There are positive ground system because like anything new there were no standard at the time.
Remember the Ford Model T. 3 pedals on the floor from left to right(1st 2nd gear, reverse and brake) and the accelerator is on the sterring wheel.
That was before standards were established.
By the way if you remember Physics although the standard mentions that electric current flows from the positive to the negative in actual reality it flows the other way around.
Thus positive ground system would actually make sense...
Bret
Yoda
Offline
[ QUOTE ]
It's interesting -to me at least- that all of the threads on converting positive to negative earth never mention the body/frame corrosion issue. How much does it contribute??
[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting thought. But I wouldn’t think it would matter one way or the other.
To all those little electrons the body of the car is just pathway to get where they need to go. So a rusty body wouldn’t make anymore of a difference to the direction of the electron flow, than a road filled with pot holes would be to you commuting to or from work. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
It's interesting -to me at least- that all of the threads on converting positive to negative earth never mention the body/frame corrosion issue. How much does it contribute??
[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting thought. But I wouldn’t think it would matter one way or the other.
To all those little electrons the body of the car is just pathway to get where they need to go. So a rusty body wouldn’t make anymore of a difference to the direction of the electron flow, than a road filled with pot holes would be to you commuting to or from work. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Offline
[ QUOTE ]
Why did the earlier LBCs have positive ground?
Lonnie
[/ QUOTE ]
I once read That the English thought there would be less corrosion of the chassis metals with a positive ground system. Ford used it in the 1930's also. I've never been able to substantiate this idea. Can't imagine why Brit cars needed corrosion protection in the first place. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
D
Why did the earlier LBCs have positive ground?
Lonnie
[/ QUOTE ]
I once read That the English thought there would be less corrosion of the chassis metals with a positive ground system. Ford used it in the 1930's also. I've never been able to substantiate this idea. Can't imagine why Brit cars needed corrosion protection in the first place. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
D
Keoke
Great Pumpkin
Offline
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's interesting -to me at least- that all of the threads on converting positive to negative earth never mention the body/frame corrosion issue. How much does it contribute??
[/ QUOTE ]----------- Body/Frame corrosion is less of an issue now because a common metal is predominantly used throughout the car.---Keoke
Interesting thought. But I wouldn’t think it would matter one way or the other.
To all those little electrons the body of the car is just pathway to get where they need to go. So a rusty body wouldn’t make anymore of a difference to the direction of the electron flow, than a road filled with pot holes would be to you commuting to or from work. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
Now Bret, I think if you saw a bunch of pot holes in the road commuting to or from work you would try to avoid them. Those little electrons are just as smart and they would try to avoid the pot holes,Rust Spots, too, preferring to travel easier in good metal.---Keoke /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yesnod.gif
[ QUOTE ]
It's interesting -to me at least- that all of the threads on converting positive to negative earth never mention the body/frame corrosion issue. How much does it contribute??
[/ QUOTE ]----------- Body/Frame corrosion is less of an issue now because a common metal is predominantly used throughout the car.---Keoke
Interesting thought. But I wouldn’t think it would matter one way or the other.
To all those little electrons the body of the car is just pathway to get where they need to go. So a rusty body wouldn’t make anymore of a difference to the direction of the electron flow, than a road filled with pot holes would be to you commuting to or from work. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
Now Bret, I think if you saw a bunch of pot holes in the road commuting to or from work you would try to avoid them. Those little electrons are just as smart and they would try to avoid the pot holes,Rust Spots, too, preferring to travel easier in good metal.---Keoke /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yesnod.gif
danmas
Jedi Trainee
Offline
[ QUOTE ]
Because the body would actually serve as the return circuit.
[/ QUOTE ]
The body serves as part of the circuit regardless of which polarity is grounded. One way, it's the supply circuit, the other, it's the return circuit. If one approach decreases corrosion and the other increases it, I'd like to know how and why.
I sure hope someone can provide a definitive answer to this question, because it has puzzled me for a long time. Somewhere, in the annals of the past, there must be a scientific paper that gives the rationale for each of the two options, and for the conversion. I've looked for it, but haven't yet found it.
Because the body would actually serve as the return circuit.
[/ QUOTE ]
The body serves as part of the circuit regardless of which polarity is grounded. One way, it's the supply circuit, the other, it's the return circuit. If one approach decreases corrosion and the other increases it, I'd like to know how and why.
I sure hope someone can provide a definitive answer to this question, because it has puzzled me for a long time. Somewhere, in the annals of the past, there must be a scientific paper that gives the rationale for each of the two options, and for the conversion. I've looked for it, but haven't yet found it.
Banjo
Yoda
Offline
Also,the spark jumps the opposite direction on the plugs. Take a look at the wear patterns on plugs pulled from each type setup. on a standard neg. ground car the center electrode wears. on a pos. ground car the electrode tab tends to wear more. It was reported to have increased plug life and provide a slight(and I mean very slight) performance advantage.