ensys

Members
  • Content Count

    103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15 Good

About ensys

  • Rank
    Registered User

Contact

  • Map Location
    America's Auto Heartland

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I can't help wondering.... I have seen OEM parts for other old cars, some produced after the series production for which they were intended, that had a protective coating to enhance their shelf life. Just a thought...
  2. Maybe not, but you're certainly losing. But hey, who's keeping score? You?
  3. Mr.Head: My, aren't you the helpful fellow. I can tell you I appreciate the effort, no matter how aspirational it may be. A clumsy attempt at cutesy sarcasm to be sure, but you have unknowingly added the icing on this half-baked cake of boorish behavior. "why are you here?" Exactly. While the first post of this thread was quite specific about its purpose (help solve an electrical problem), by the fourth post, that train of thought had been switched to the siding of personality issues, so it's no wonder that you (and the others) have forgotten the point. I reckon it's that attention-span thing. I know I'm tired of this lame excuse for repartee that has nothing to do with the electrical systems of a Z, a subject that can inspire more widespread interest than a dust-up by the kids on the playground. Believe it or else, there are a respectable number of sincere enthusiasts that would like to know about wiring diagram issues beyond the kerfuffle over a mistake I acknowledged immediately. Still waiting in the wings are diagram issues that could effect the pursuit of problem solutions for 280Z owners. After all, isn't that kind of information sharing the whole idea of this joint; or have hissy fits, cat fights, and ego-strutting become the forum's reason for existence. Which do you think it should be, Mr.Mike? And while I have your attention Sir, got any ideas about how I lost the ability to post an image in just 30-some days (with no changes in equipment or programs, and over three different platforms)? Inquiring minds want to know...
  4. Mr.Head: Et tu, Brutus? Just when I thought you had a handle on something besides a knife. Let me set you straight: Not being possessed of a fragile ego, asking questions, seeking learned advice, or occasionally putting my foot in my mouth in the process, has never been a problem issue for me; it's how one learns. That is, until I started to do so around here, which is more akin to putting a target on your back.. By the same token, it never occurs to me that "gracious" is the correct response to ill-mannered behavior and hostile demeanor, in what is supposed to be a civil and non-judgmental conversation about cars. If one expects "thank you sir, may I have another" after none-too-subtle pokes in the eye, yer barkin' up the wrong tree. You're right about one thing tho: My Bad for not better adjusting my presentations to suit the lower common denominator of this specific audience. So of course, I must take the blame for optimistically assuming an inappropriate level of reading skill, attention span, and comprehension, let alone any real desire to communicate that which does not enhance a web image or provoke a laff, especially at someone else's expense. And of course, in certain circles here, literacy earns extra penalty points. But I'm learning... much that has nothing to do with Zs.
  5. Thank you Mr.Head for injecting a note of maturity among this mean-spirited nattering of adolescent bully boys. The only effect I'm trying to achieve is clarity, and hopefully with a little panache. Apparently, this scares some folks, tho I can't, no, I don't want to imagine why. Yes, a problem was solved, but not without the price of being the butt of derision. Frankly, the "brilliance" of the solution was not worth it. Still, it's my own fault for misjudging the situation. I made the error of assuming that helpful advice is more important than stroking egos, and that shared problem solving is more entertaining than seizing/fabricating any reason to ridicule and insult. It's my bad for forgetting these very lessons from the last thread. I should have known that for some folks, asking for help on this forum is taken as a sign of weakness. I don't think that's how this is supposed to work, but it's my bad for forgetting that no one here ever needs a hand or makes a mistake. It's also my fault for not realizing that reading comprehension is so obviously in short supply, as its lack is the true source of the petty and pointless dialogs in reply. And of course, my biggest error was in assuming I am dealing with adults, not high school rowdies, making fun of the kid with glasses. I'll keep this in mind in the future and lower my expectations accordingly. And yes, I would still like to know why I cannot now post images, when I could a month ago.
  6. Mr.C.O.: You have aptly demonstrated the value of a fresh perspective. So my Kudos to you, Sir You're half wrong (no.1), but I think you're spot on with no.2, and I'm embarrassed that I did not see it, given the obvious clues. Clearly, not my shinning moment in Deductive Logic. Too many follow-the-wires distractions to notice the diagram's indication of identical harness plugs for the two indicators. I reckon if I had re-installed the seat belt indicator, I would have seen this sooner. I'll have to verify of course, but as that will require doing the inconvenient unmounting of the console (it's gotten quite crowded back there, making the fit something of a pain), it will probably be a while (not the most pressing issue on my to-do list) before I do. Now, if someone could figure out why I suddenly cannot post jpegs, we could talk about the diagram errors....
  7. Today's saga is lifted from the pages of reality... In the course of the re-install of the '77 280's floor console, I discovered an anomaly in the operation of the hatch window Defogger; the switch activates the heating grid, but not the indicator at the console. No need to chase a bulb issue tho, as switching the ign. to "On" activates a "test" cycle (that is clearly operated by the "Seat Belt Warning Timer located in the relay group in the pass. footwell) that successfully activates the Defog indicator for a few seconds, so clearly the fault in not in the indicator. Nor is it in the connectors of each to the main harness, as all are original plugs that are clean and properly connected. Some intensive research using the wiring diagrams from both the FSM and the most excellent ClassicZcar version, resulted only in two interesting questions: Why does the Defog switch operate the heating elements, but not the indicator? How is the indicator connected to the Timer? This last is particularly vexing, as none of the diagrams in the FSM, nor the CZc version indicate any connection whatsoever (that I can see) to the timer relay. Not thru the switch, nor the Defogger relay, nor the ign. relay or F.I. relay. So there's the challenge. Any takers? Of collateral interest: While poring over the diagrams, I became aware of three new (to me) errors in the CZc version, one of which is shared with the Factory full diagram. As they would be difficult to describe verbally (a process fraught with opportunities for misunderstanding), I had prepared a small (220k.) .jpg as a visual aid, only to discover that apparently my "uploading" mojo has failed/been foiled in the last 30 days, prohibiting its posting. So the short form verbal is that they involve the internal diagrams of the Defog and Ign. relays and their connection to Body Ground. Of the bunch, the sudden inability to upload is the most perplexing and annoying, so a reasonable answer to this is worth Big Bonus Points. Any takers?
  8. ensys

    Wheels w/Z cap

    What size (dia.+width) are these, are all straight, and what are you asking. Thanks.
  9. You can put your hand down Mr.Obvious; we saw them the first time. I'm sure they're fine solutions in their own right, but as none meet the critical criteria of my particular project goals, they are still of no interest to me. To Work: Plan C This iteration taps the nearby feed from the fusible links to provide a switchable and unencumbered source for the Secondary Relay's coil. I believe this resolves the previous issue of contention. The question is, are there more in the wings. The area of change is highlighted on the detail below.
  10. Sorry I didn't meet your standards.
  11. Mr.J: When you put that way.... I don't want to seem ungrateful for the properly explicit analysis, but you could have saved us both a lot of verbiage, if you had said as much 3 or 4 posts ago. But hey, better late than never. Clearly, I am painted into a very tricky corner. Well, if at first you don't succeed... it's back to the drawing board. While I do not yet know how to best use this information, it does make clear the wisdom of getting input from those whose understanding of some complex situation exceeds one's own. I'd like to thank you Mr.J (and all that generously offered something helpful) for your patience and expertise. But as a man once said, "I'll be back". Call it a fetish.
  12. Mr.J: First and foremost, I appreciate your persistence in the effort to offer constructive criticism. Thank you. Editorial sidebar: However, as the Man once said, "what we have here is a failure to communicate". The first issue is mine, as my old eyes have great difficulty in distinguishing the colors in which your stick-figure diagram is rendered. Add to this that one cannot distinguish a connection from a crossing and, for me, confusion has its head. And frankly, the decision to use your own line colors instead of those in the diagram we are actually discussing, doesn't promote clarity. So I hope you will understand that my comments will always reference those colors in my presentation diagram. While I can understand feeling a need to dumb things down enough for the challenged to get your point, I would again submit that your simplifications are too extreme and at the cost of relevant details. But, to work. Off the top, I have two big clouds of fog that obscure my vision of truth: Fist is wonder how you consider the relay coil to be in series in the feed flow from both headlights. While I have often felt my ignorance is boundless, I have long thought that I know a parallel circuit when I see one, like, as shown in your first diagram, and in mine. Again, when two circuits start and stop at the same points, is this not a parallel circuit? I would maintain that your garage experiment did not replicate the situation accurately. Second, for the life of me, I cannot grasp this business of disappearing current once the coil is energized. The feed presents the same voltage for both legs at the Y, and both legs of the parallel circuit possess the same potential current differential to ground, yes? This one stumps me. Of course, I designed it as a parallel circuit... Perhaps clarity would come from you addressing just these two issues, should you still be inclined to help. Here's something else I don't know (the list is getting long, eh?): how big is the window of voltage tolerance for a typical 12v relay coil? Does it vary with the number of contacts? By the by, are we in agreement about the Power relay being workable as shown? Nice math; shows a laudable dexterity. No sense in quibbling about the assumptions, like that the coil is in series and on only one headlight circuit. I don't think the corrections would change the fundamental issues here. Now, I don't mean to be a difficult student, but I'm getting a feeling that your not really reading my homework. Keep those cards and letters coming folks. Like the clown at the dunk tank, I'll take all shots, as long as you hit the bullseye of addressing the topic/approach at hand.
  13. Mr.J: With all due respect for your obvious acumen, I believe that your diagram has simplified some germane events out of the circuits. And while the narrative may simply be beyond my grasp, some elements puzzle me. With your indulgence, I would hope some dialog might illuminate my errors. Following the path of your narrative, let us begin with the Secondary relay: While I acknowledge that the metaphor of hi/low switch removal baffles me (as does the notion that the HL could somehow operate without it), it is the case that the returning hi (wh/red) and low (blk/red) HL circuit wires both have 12v potential on their way to the switch, looking for ground. However, please note that the low bm. circuit is diverted before the connector, leaving only the hi beam circuit to enter the switch to become the coil activator for the Secondary relay via the (e) ground path when hi bms. are selected. Thus, low bms. are the relay default when HL are activated, by virtue of no current to the coil, and the N.C. low bm. switch in the relay. My problem is in seeing how this arrangement would leave too little current to power the low-amp coil draw. And while being wrong is always on the table for me, isn't it the case that when two circuits share a common source and termination, they are in parallel? Wouldn't this obviate the whole "voltage drop" thing? I understand the "norm" of design you describe, but hey, flow is flow. Dipping into circuits to power their own flow control seems little different than the multitude of taps and diversions that are characteristic of every harness. Besides, in a lighting circuit, what is the actual consequence of the failure of the coil circuit, when the flow it controls fails? To me, this is the essence of a "moot point". If I seem stubborn in my ignorance, it's because I am strongly motivated by the potential elegance of a solution that integrates into the function of two complex switches to accomplish their functions in a different way, while providing operation indistinguishable from original, without a single permanent alteration of the orig. harness. Call it a fetish. Finally, yeah well, if I was smart, I wouldn't fool around with old cars because I am entranced by their time machine qualities. Or; if I wanted the affliction/affectation of hi-tek, I'd drive newer cars. So, Sir, in full realization that I risk exposure of being electrically inept, I fervently hope my narrative will help my on-going education.. Please, fire away.one and all.
  14. Now that's what I'm talkin' about. I thank you Mr.J for your thoughtful contribution. Since my forte runs more to structural than electrical engineering, I must beg some patience with my slow grip. I will have to chew on this a bit before I can offer a proper rely. More later, and again, my thanks for helping me out.
  15. Mr.K: Well, there we are; I wasn't working with a '76 wiring diag. and you don't have one for '77. I don't know what to tell you about the differences between them, but I used the familiar "Classic Zcar" version, which I have found to be quite accurate for '77s like my own. Meanwhile, while my relay diagrams may not be mechanically precise, but they are diagrammatically correct, taken from those shown for the respective relays. Still, I appreciate a continuing education; for example, I have never seen a 2-pole relay that is both Normally Open and Normally Closed at the same time. Live and learn. Mr.C.O.: What makes you think it isn't? You tell me. After all, isn't that the point of such discussions among learned gentlemen? I must admit Sir, that it's hard to find anything constructive in baseless scoffing at my temerity for trying a clean-sheet solution. I'm not selling anything, nor am I here shouting "Eureka, ain't I great?"; I'm looking for someone to tell me where I go wrong. What would be constructive would be some clear representations of a few of those time-tested solutions of which you speak. Especially those that preserve all the functions of the (e) controls and indicators without materially altering the stock harness. I'll look forward to that. Again, all constructive criticism is welcome. We're all here to learn from each other, are we not?