Patent Date of the HCCT

[Been Here Before]

I would like to know the time line for the introduction of the Hand Crank Coil Tester based on a patent date.

Bob Cascisa and Ron Patterson researched the HCCT Handbook in 2020. I did not see any information on patent or credit to maker of the HCCT. Was the original (1912 HCCT) a residual from the introduction of the magneto patent model by E.S. Huff?

The Model T Ford was not the only vehicle in the early years to use the tremble or buzz coil for ignition. And there were a few coil manufactures around. Ford was successful in using the trembler coil up until 1927 or so. C and P indicate that it was in 1919 that Ford introduced for servicing ignition the HCCT. And by 1920 Ford ceased production with others , Fairbanks for example, keep the tester in manufacture and available to dealers and shops.

The HCCT handbook indicated that Ford introduced the tester in 1912, if so and the tester is a Ford product, did the ford employees responsible for the tester apply for a patent for the FMC?

And if there was no HCCT available prior to 1912, how did the coils get adjusted for best performance?

[Scott_Conger]

The earliest coils were adjusted at the factory, using equipment which predated the HCCT, but allowed for performing rudimentary settings. They weren't adjusted for best performance as matched sets, as early coils lacked the mechanical attributes to achieve sufficient uniformity in firing characteristics as to achieve consistent firing timing.

Due to this unsolved problem, master vibrators were tried, all the while that coils were being improved itteratively to the point where some bit of regularity and uniformity could be achieved. This happened around 1912-13.

Prior to that, they were pretty much simply adjusted to work and the buyer was left to their own devices to make one or more play nicely with the others. Dykes Manual and others routinely described the automobilist as getting the car running and then adjusting each coil to the point where the car ran the strongest. That primitive method was abandoned for all practical purposes when traveling-point coils came to being, and there was methodology in place whereby coils could be adjusted for consistency where prior, they really could not.

In 1914 J. Williams patented a new style of coil that contained a "hidden" grub screw which set the vibrator spring's tension, designed as he stated:

Williams had hidden in the vibrator spring’s base.
This hidden location was chosen “so as to afford the
least possible chance for ignorant, careless or unintentional displacement.”

“The consequence is that an engine
operator can adjust the [contact bridge] screw...to
his heart’s content without interfering with the
regularity of sparking the various cylinders.

Concurrent with this and other patents, knurled thumb screws disappeared completely from coils, replaced by a double jam nut arrangement which fixed adjustments into a semi-permanent condition, eliminating the possibility of casual intentional adjustments of the coil in the car. This pretty much debunks all of the claims that one "tuned coils by ear" successfully. That old-style method of "tuning" fell to the wayside during this period as new style coils overwhelmed the market, despite periodic claims to the contrary which sometimes persist to this day.

It's all very nicely described in this paper by Boggess and Patterson:

Model_T_Ignition_System.pdf

(8.87 MiB) Downloaded 58 times

We all owe these fellows a debt of gratitude for bringing this old technology and history back into the light of day and explaining in terms easily understood by the layman, for all of our mutual benefit

We are fortunate now, that there exist multiple ways to entice much more consistent operation out of even the earliest coils, using devices and methods that did not exist at that time.

[Been Here Before]

Can any one answer this question?

Bob Cascisa and Ron Patterson researched the HCCT Handbook in 2020. I did not see any information on patent or credit to maker of the HCCT. Was the original (1912 HCCT) a residual from the introduction of the magneto patent model by E.S. Huff?

The Model T Ford was not the only vehicle in the early years to use the tremble or buzz coil for ignition. And there were a few coil manufactures around. Ford was successful in using the trembler coil up until 1927 or so. C and P indicate that it was in 1919 that Ford introduced for servicing ignition the HCCT. And by 1920 Ford ceased production with others , Fairbanks for example, keep the tester in manufacture and available to dealers and shops.

The HCCT handbook indicated that Ford introduced the tester in 1912, if so and the tester is a Ford product, did the Ford employees responsible for the tester apply for a patent for the FMC?

If so, how is the original patent presented and date, please.

[BE_ZERO_BE]

The HCCT as we know it today was originally a Ford "Z" tool.
The first Ford HCCT was the 17 Z 803.
As near as we can determine it was not produced in any great numbers.
We suspect (unconfirmed) that it was redesigned into what we
know as a HCCT today - the 18 Z 245.
I have been told by people that have researched "Z" tools, that there are no drawings or
archival information on any "Z" tool in the Ford archives.
In the over 2,000+ photos gathered for the book, we found no patent number or
patent pending markings on any Ford or Ford like HCCT.
As best as we could ascertain, Ford made one production run of the 18 Z 245 tool
then turned over any remaining inventory to Fairbanks-Morse for further production.
Allen, Weidenhoff and KR Wilson are different designs and may have patents.
I have seen at least one photo of "Patent Applied For" on an Allen tester.

Based on not seeing any patent claim on any of the "Z" tools I have encountered,
I don't believe Ford patented any of the "Z" tools.

As with all things Model T - For every Model T fact there are at least three exceptions.

[MKossor]

The earliest coils were adjusted at the factory, using equipment which predated the HCCT, but allowed for performing rudimentary settings. They weren't adjusted for best performance as matched sets, as early coils lacked the mechanical attributes to achieve sufficient uniformity in firing characteristics as to achieve consistent firing timing.

Nope, completely disagree with this statement, specifically with regard to early Heinze coils after studying them extensively. The problem was not the early Heinze coil design lacking mechanical attributes to achieve sufficient uniformity, far from it. Heinze coils typically out perform Ford and KW coils even with their later innovation of moving cushion spring contact.

The problem was the inability to properly adjust Heinze coil points for equal firing time using the tools and technology of the day. Heinze coils cannot be tuned for equal firing time using an HCCT and will nearly always exhibit double sparking that totally misleads the operator to badly mis-tune the Heinze coil. See my previous post for more details:
https://mtfca.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php? ... an#p205560

[Scott_Conger]

The earliest coils were adjusted at the factory, using equipment which predated the HCCT, but allowed for performing rudimentary settings

The problem was the inability to properly adjust Heinze coil points for equal firing time using the tools and technology of the day

Well, Mike, you may not agree with me, but oddly enough, I agree with you. I myself can see absolutely no distinction between those two statements.

My point of "lacking mechanical attributes to achieve sufficient uniformity in firing characteristics as to achieve consistent firing timing was specifically mentioned in reference to the primitive testing equipment and those coils not having traveling cushion springs like later coils which changed the adjustment potential of coils dramatically (relative to the test equipment of the day). Any conflict with my statement vs your points are probably due to my inability to make the best use of the English language (?)

If there is anyone else who I misled, please accept my apology.

and yes, with modern equipment, early coils can in fact be matched as a set

[MKossor]

No apology necessary Scott, Sharing individual experiences on what works well from different perspectives is what makes the forum so great and clarification is welcome.

My specific comment pertained specifically to the Bold highlighted portion of your statement. I added the whole quote for context. Your clarification captured it very well.