Welcome! Please use the navigational links to explore our website.
PartsASAP LogoCompany Logo Auction Link (800) 853-2651

Shop Now

   Allis Chalmers Case Farmall IH Ford 8N,9N,2N Ford
   Ferguson John Deere Massey Ferguson Minn. Moline Oliver

Farmall & IHC Tractors Discussion Forum
:

why + ground

Welcome Guest, Log in or Register
Author 
james in mo

05-01-2007 12:59:28




Report to Moderator

why were tractors originly + ground.




[Log in to Reply]   [No Email]
SKK-Big Red Fan

05-01-2007 20:35:27




Report to Moderator
 Re: why + ground in reply to james in mo, 05-01-2007 12:59:28  
I believe, the actual current flow is from the battery's negative terminal to the positive terminal, [ In an electrolytic cell, the cathode is the negative terminal, which sends current back to the external generator. ] So actually Farmall and the British had it technically right, if memory serves me right. But heck, Im old and senile.

AC systems use a negative ground as its standard, and things were universally switched to match, at least in the US.

If memory serves me right.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
JayWalt

05-01-2007 21:32:27




Report to Moderator
 Re: why + ground in reply to SKK-Big Red Fan, 05-01-2007 20:35:27  
yep flow is from cathode to anode, or from neg to positive. Positive is an absence of electrons, and the negative is an abundance. to normalize the charge, the electrons flow from the negative to the positive. In fact I have a very old electronics book I read when I was younger. They said something along the lines of the "virtual" flow is from positive to neg, but recent discoveries indicate the opposite?! I was confused there for a while til I asked dad. I was 8 at the time.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
KEB

05-01-2007 18:58:49




Report to Moderator
 Re: why + ground in reply to james in mo, 05-01-2007 12:59:28  
If anyone finds a good profession reference which explains this, I'd be very interested. I've looked a number of time & never found anything more than speculation.

Having done a little work at one time on protecting dis-similar metals against galvanic corrosion, I don't think the direction of current flow through a structure such as an automobile body would have a noticeable effect on the longevity of the structure.

Confusion over the nature of electrical flow doesn't make sense either. The nature of current transfer in metals was well understood long before negative ground became a de-facto standard. Conventional current flows from positive to negative, and in some conductive materials the charge carriers actually are positively charged ions and physically move from positive to negative. In metals, the charge carriers are electrons, which carry a negative charge, and physically move from negative to positive. Blame Ben Franklin for the confusion...he had a 50% change & got it wrong.

I suspect that selection of negative as the structural reference (i.e., "ground") was probably the result of whoever introducted the first popular installation did it that way. As I say, though, I can't find anything to confirm that supposition or provide another answer. The engineer in me would love to find a definitive answer.

Keith

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
A. Bohemian

05-01-2007 20:46:50




Report to Moderator
 KEB: Some (But Not All) the Answers (Long Post!) in reply to KEB, 05-01-2007 18:58:49  
A dozen years ago or so a friend of mine was restoring an old Studebaker pickup, and in the process of aksing about converting it from 12 negative ground back to the original 6 volt positive ground, he accidentally started quite a debate on one of the early e-mail lists about this very subject.

Eventually one Simon Favre claimed that the idea of positive-to-negative electrical current flow orginated with Benjamin Franklin. He did not give any citations. It ought not to be too difficult to find it in Franklin's experimental writings.

This is confirmed by the following, which I found on a NASA web page:

"Franklin knew of two types of electric charge, depending on the material one rubbed. He thought that one kind signified a little excess of the "electric fluid" over the usual amount, and he called that "positive" electricity (marked by +), while the other kind was "negative" (marked -), signifying a slight deficiency. It is not known whether he tossed a coin before deciding to call the kind produced by rubbing glass "positive" and the other "resinous" type "negative" (rather than the other way around), but he might just as well have.


Later, when electric batteries were discovered, scientists naturally assigned the direction of the flow of current to be from (+) to (-). A century after that electrons were discovered" (in 1897 by J.J. Thompson at Cambridge - A.) "and it was suddenly realized that in metal wires the electrons were the ones that carried the current, moving in exactly the opposite direction. Also, it was an excess of electrons which produced a negative electric charge. However, it was much too late to change Franklin's naming convention."

(End of citation from NASA web page.)

I don't know the reasoning that Charles Kettering used when decided to employ postive ground in the system he developed for the 1912 Cadillac (which became the pattern for almost all manufacturers for the next sixty years); but he seems to have been under the influence of prevailing engineering practices of 1910-11 (when the system was actually developed and finalized for mass production).

I am sure most automotive historians would agree that the predominance throughout the industry of electrical systems either made under license from Kettering, or simply bought wholesale from Kettering's Dayton Engineering Laboratories Company (Delco) was the original reason for the standardization of postive-ground systems.

In my friend's e-mail discussion, Mr. Favre also claimed that the switch to negative ground was prompted by the fact that this had long been the standard in radio engineering practice (true to my personal knowledge) and that as silicon devices and other electronic improvements were invented in the field of radio, the collective opinion in the automotive industry was that it was better to change to negative ground so as to more easily accomodate these devices and techniques.

Mr. Favre's explanation for the switch to negative ground sounds more likely to me than the idea that the switch was undertaken specifically to reduce corrosion, but then, I also have a background in radio electronics and that may degrade my objectivity...

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
John T

05-01-2007 15:10:25




Report to Moderator
 Re: why + ground in reply to james in mo, 05-01-2007 12:59:28  
I read somewhere wayyyyy y back (prior to standardization to neg ground) that Ford and Chrysler I believe and other makers thought there would be less corrosion where frame members were joined using Positive ground.

John T



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
old

05-01-2007 14:06:40




Report to Moderator
 Re: why + ground in reply to james in mo, 05-01-2007 12:59:28  
Had to do with how they belived eleticity worked back then. But since then they found they where thinking back wards sort of so they switched to - ground, either one works well but what ever its one it needs to be set up for one way or the other or you can have problems



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Andy Motteberg

05-01-2007 13:56:02




Report to Moderator
 Re: why + ground in reply to james in mo, 05-01-2007 12:59:28  
They were just made that way. My Dad changed that on his SMTA so it has NEG ground.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
[Options]  [Printer Friendly]  [Posting Help]  [Return to Forum]   [Log in to Reply]

Hop to:


TRACTOR PARTS TRACTOR MANUALS
We sell tractor parts!  We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today. [ About Us ]

Home  |  Forums


Copyright © 1997-2023 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy

TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters

Website Accessibility Policy