| Fox's Mercantile <jdangus@att.net>: Feb 05 10:43AM -0600 On 2/5/19 10:05 AM, John-Del wrote: > Depends on the car, but between self discharge of the > battery and the particular car's parasitic loss, cars > need much more than "72" seconds to keep charged. You will never be able to convince anyone who insists on talking just to hear them selves talk. Or those that insist on posting every really obscure exception to what normally happens. -- "I am a river to my people." Jeff-1.0 WA6FWi http:foxsmercantile.com |
| bitrex <user@example.net>: Feb 05 12:50PM -0500 On 02/05/2019 10:44 AM, Fox's Mercantile wrote: > I have a '96 Chevy Astro van. It's juuuuunk throw it in the garbage |
| bitrex <user@example.net>: Feb 05 12:51PM -0500 On 02/05/2019 11:05 AM, John-Del wrote: >> WA6FWi >> http:foxsmercantile.com > I have a C5 Corvette which I store for the winter. If that car is not run in 5 weeks, the battery is DEAD (won't even click the starter solenoid). That is normal behavior for this particular car. When I had an early 2000s Mustang, that car could sit 5 months and start in the spring like it was run the day before. Depends on the car, but between self discharge of the battery and the particular car's parasitic loss, cars need much more than "72" seconds to keep charged. Throw that junk away man it's an antique |
| Look165 <look165@numericable.fr>: Feb 05 02:22PM +0100 It's just an equation. (I suppose a 12V car battery). 3s of starter, means 3*(900/12) C = 225C = 62.5mAh=0.0625Ah (900W is the starter power). Just add this to the loss of the battery. Knowing that the alternator charges at 13.8V about 500W (500/(13.8-12) i.e. 200As=0.55Ah , it's easy. Tom Del Rosso a écrit le 04/02/2019 à 22:45 : |
| Fox's Mercantile <jdangus@att.net>: Feb 05 12:36PM -0600 On 2/5/19 11:50 AM, bitrex wrote: > On 02/05/2019 10:44 AM, Fox's Mercantile wrote: >> I have a '96 Chevy Astro van. > It's juuuuunk throw it in the garbage I bought it used in 2000. It's been a daily driver for past 19 years. Still going strong. -- "I am a river to my people." Jeff-1.0 WA6FWi http:foxsmercantile.com |
| Rob <nomail@example.com>: Feb 05 02:03PM > c) Fuel-injected, 7 - 12 minutes. This directly related to engine displacement. Big = more time. > The physics of removing moisture from the oil becomes the driver (pun intended). The system must reach full operating temperature and stay there for a couple of minutes. Pretty much when moisture (steam) stops coming out of the tailpipe - and then a few minutes. > If you open the oil-fill cap and find a milky foam, you haven't been doing it long enough. Those times are probably not long enough. Even in my small car (4-cyl 1.6L engine) I find that after a lot of 15-minute runs the oil temperature caps at 100C when driving a bit longer, and it requires a 45 minute drive or so before it rises to 110-120C. |
| ggherold@gmail.com: Feb 05 11:05AM -0800 On Monday, February 4, 2019 at 4:45:38 PM UTC-5, Tom Del Rosso wrote: > In this case it's my neighbor's 87 Buick Regal while he's in the > hospital. > -- Drive it around the block. It's good to have the wheels spin and the brakes engage too. George H. |
| arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com>: Feb 05 02:26PM On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 00:03:14 -0500, bitrex wrote: > <https://www.jstor.org/stable/44611429?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents> > It's behind a pay-wall but I can probably get my hands on a copy Having authored peer-reviewed papers myself (in a different field), I took a quick peek at the abstract of that paper, titled: o Computer Simulation of an I.C. Engine During Cranking by a Starter Motor <https://www.jstor.org/stable/44611429?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents> "A mathematical model is developed to study the transient behavior of a two stroke or four stroke, single cylinder I.C. engine during cranking and starting by a starter motor. The engine model includes forces due to inertia of reciprocating and rotating parts of engine, gas pressure, frictional loss while starter motor dynamics is determined by the motor's torque versus speed behavior. The numerical results of the analysis when compared with the experimental results showed close correlation. Engine starting by three models of starter motor is presented for a given battery. Effect of different parameters like engine inertia and reduction ratio between engine and a starter motor is described. It is shown here how this analysis can be effectively used as a first step by an engine designer for determining a suitable starter motor characteristic and its related transmission parameters." Hmmm... they _might_ cover the charge payback component, but I suspect likely it will only be an ancillary input to the mathematical model, and certainly it won't apply _directly_ to an 87 Buick Regal. We should note that the given "battery" is seemingly incidental in this paper, which seems to be aimed more toward designing starter motors, and, specifically between choosing among three different types of fundamental starter motor designs. Still, it may be an interesting read, where, I'd be curious how the three types of starter motors affected the model - but - I hazard a guess that we won't find a direct answer for our charge component in that paper. |
| arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com>: Feb 06 12:01AM On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 04:42:57 -0800 (PST), John-Del wrote: > You don't have a clue how to answer that question. Hi John-Del, You prove with every post, you are an idiot (you prove it yourself). You say I don't have a clue, & yet, at least I _comprehended_ the question! o Not only did you (and your child buddies) not _comprehend_ the question o All you _can_ do, is worthless chitchat (ala' the child you prove to be) *I used to think people like you were _only_ incredibly stupid* o But now I realize it's worse - because your brain can't comprehend facts. *I used to think people like you were simply incessantly pulling our leg* o But now I think it's far worse - since you appear to _believe_ what you write Since you _are_ clearly stupid, & you prove to _remain_ ignorant... o The only viable conclusion is you own the left-side brain of Dunning Kruger <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DlG0kwCXoAYC-75.jpg> Since your brain is wired as that of the lemon-juice bank robber, John-Del, o There is no possibly way for an adult to communicate with you. You will _still_ believe, even in the complete absence of evidence, that lemon juice works to hide your face from the bank surveillance cameras. While all people are on the DK scale when it comes to cognitive skills assessment, you, John-Del, appear to be far to the left of Mount Stupid: <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DrQGXxKXcAAFaVt.jpg> I don't even need to prove this fact; you prove it yourself - in every post. o Just watch. NOTE: To save _others_ from your drivel, John-Del, I will not respond to your unfathomably childish posts any further in this thread. |
| arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com>: Feb 06 12:03AM > Only then will it be rendered very nearly harmless. *Jesus Christ, pfjw proves in every post, his brain stem is that of a child!* I don't even need to prove pfjw can _only_ write as that of a child. o You prove it yourself _every_ time you post your childish off-topic drivel (For example, "it", is, I'm sure, *hilariously* witty to you & your ilk.) HINT: You clearly don't even have a clue what the OP's question is asking. DOUBLEHINT: You certainly have no chance at _answering_ the OP's question. TRIPLEHINT: You can't even _insult_ someone using >3rd-grade retorts Jesus Christ, pfjw, o You prove yourself, in _every_ post to own the brain of a mere child. -- NOTE: To save others from having to deal with the worthless pfjw's drivel, I will no longer respond to his always child-like posts any further in this thread. |
| arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com>: Feb 06 12:07AM > 100A would only be delivered to a flat battery, it'll charge much slower than that. > There's also the parasitic loads to make up for, the electronics that eats power when the vehicle is off and on. > You're better off testing battery voltage and not doing anything until it drops enough to warrant charging. Leads acids don't like sitting even half discharged, keep it near full. Since you are a logical sentient adult, you speak on-topic wisdom. o I agree to everything you said, where I basically said the same thing. To _directly_ answer the OP's question, we only need to replace Coulombs o However, there is _more_ to "maintaining" the battery status than just that. We agree. o Adults easily agree on such things simply because they are related facts. |
| Fox's Mercantile <jdangus@att.net>: Feb 05 06:56PM -0600 On 2/5/19 6:01 PM, arlen holder wrote: His usual incoherent drivel. Like I said, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XfQidTbUjk> -- "I am a river to my people." Jeff-1.0 WA6FWi http:foxsmercantile.com |
| John-Del <ohger1s@gmail.com>: Feb 05 07:04PM -0800 On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 7:01:47 PM UTC-5, arlen holder wrote: >>pure, unadulterated bullshit (with a metric shitload of flies..) LOL! If you think a car can maintain it's battery with a 72 second run, you need more help than the folks here can possibly provide for you. I suggest you go away and troll another group - you know, the type of group that might fall for your crap. I suggest a moon landing hoax site. You should be a big hit there as those folks love equations that prove nothing and mean nothing. You can start with Van Allen radiation calculations. All you've done here is drop your pants to show the group your clueless ass. The secret to bullshitting is to bullshit a group that knows *less* than you do, not more than you do. You don't have the slightest idea what's involved in battery charging and your Google searching let you down in a big way. Google was not your friend, so you're still zero for life. None of your on-the-spectrum mathematical masturbation proves anything except that you're a complete troll and a joke. |
| Fox's Mercantile <jdangus@att.net>: Feb 05 09:26PM -0600 On 2/5/19 9:04 PM, John-Del wrote: > None of your on-the-spectrum mathematical masturbation > proves anything except that you're a complete troll and > a joke. *Laughs* Where's the Like button? -- "I am a river to my people." Jeff-1.0 WA6FWi http:foxsmercantile.com |
| "pfjw@aol.com" <peterwieck33@gmail.com>: Feb 06 04:49AM -0800 On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 9:03:06 AM UTC-5, Rob wrote: > (4-cyl 1.6L engine) I find that after a lot of 15-minute runs the oil > temperature caps at 100C when driving a bit longer, and it requires a > 45 minute drive or so before it rises to 110-120C. 15 minutes at 1,000 rpm sitting still (using only the radiator fan if needed) is substantially different from moving down the road. Not to suggest that you are wrong. Every engine is different, and the goal is to drive all the moisture products-of-combustion out of the engine oil and exhaust system. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
| tabbypurr@gmail.com: Feb 06 05:11AM -0800 > > temperature caps at 100C when driving a bit longer, and it requires a > > 45 minute drive or so before it rises to 110-120C. > 15 minutes at 1,000 rpm sitting still (using only the radiator fan if needed) is substantially different from moving down the road. Not to suggest that you are wrong. Every engine is different, and the goal is to drive all the moisture products-of-combustion out of the engine oil and exhaust system. is it? Why would the OP need to do that every 2 weeks? A 1987 car will have fairly low parasitic loads. It should be fine sat there for a month. NT |
| "pfjw@aol.com" <peterwieck33@gmail.com>: Feb 06 07:13AM -0800 > is it? Why would the OP need to do that every 2 weeks? > A 1987 car will have fairly low parasitic loads. It should be fine sat there for a month. Not sure where the OP and that Buick might be, but we just had a week of below-10F weather, not good for batteries, engine oil or other things. Every two weeks is good practice. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
| tabbypurr@gmail.com: Feb 06 08:09AM -0800 > Every two weeks is good practice. > Peter Wieck > Melrose Park, PA If it's below freezing the air is bone dry & any water from combustion frozen solid. Regardless of temperature cars do not need running every 2 weeks unless electrically faulty. NT |
| John-Del <ohger1s@gmail.com>: Feb 06 08:36AM -0800 > > Peter Wieck > > Melrose Park, PA > If it's below freezing the air is bone dry & any water from combustion frozen solid. Why does every little thing need to be challenged to absolutes in this NG? I've never seen so much mental dick-wagging on a "professional" group. Is the car going to explode if started and run every two weeks? It might be overkill, but old cars in particular should be exercised often. Even the seals in the engine, transmission, rear end, and hydraulic systems are happier when kept lubricated by routine. Solenoids and vacuum actuators can stick from sitting long periods. And here's another reason: cars stored out of doors around where I live become fodder for squirrels and chipmunks when sitting in the same spot. I friend stored a low mileage Acura at my house (interior fire) while he located another from Copart to use as a donor. 6 months later, he went to drive the car out of my property and found the transmission harness eaten right down to the casting. So... OP: start the Buick every two or three weeks, let it idle for a good half hour or so to get it good and hot if you can't drive it. If you can, take that old Buick for a good half hour drive - fedora and cigar optional... |
| "pfjw@aol.com" <peterwieck33@gmail.com>: Feb 06 08:44AM -0800 > If it's below freezing the air is bone dry & any water from combustion frozen solid. Regardless of temperature cars do not need running every 2 weeks unless electrically faulty. Water in the air is not the issue, and never was. Water from products-of-combustion are the issue. Ideally, the battery would be float-charged with an actual "smart" charger. Most of the Chinese Junque chargers these days run a continuous charge into the battery - AKA a "trickle" charger. Not hardly the same thing. A trickle charge will either: a) Destroy the battery by charging faster than the self-discharge rate. b) Allow the battery to run flat by charging slower than the self-discharge rate. c) Miraculously match the self-discharge rate... odds of this? A Float Charger will activate at some point when the battery charge drops below the trigger level, charge to a specific set-point, and then shut off until the next cycle. Failing the availability of a float charger, and, especially in extreme (hot or cold) weather conditions, "about every two weeks" is a good rule-of-thumb. One never quite knows the actual condition of the battery, charging system, parasitic loads and so forth, so 'designing to the specific need' may not be ideal. And more than a month or so starts getting into the risk of seals drying out - especially in 30+ year old engines. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
| arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com>: Feb 06 01:00AM On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 20:19:53 -0800, The Real Bev wrote: > opposite side from the spout or something completely different. There > are do-it-yourself or buy-it-yourself solutions to the problem. Years > ago, and our steel jerry cans might have been made by actual Jerries. This is off topic to the original question, but with all the snow today, I ended up teaching the grandkids how to throw snowballs and to make little snowmen (since the snow doesn't last more than a few hours out here). On those California gas cans... I spent a lot of time on the phone with the CARB folks over the years o I wrote it up on alt.home.repair at the time in its gory detail o From memory, they only allowed 6 "brands" in California at the time o Each had to certify losses of almost zero ounces after six months storage (I don't remember the specific amount, nor the exact temperature and pressure conditions, so take that as a general summary). I believe that the comment by Ralph Mowery is apropos that the EPA "may" have followed suit in the intervening years since CARB promulgated those standards. My remarks to CARB were, at the time, the "irony" that they spec'd that the gas _stay inside_ the can ... but not that it could reasonably come _out_. Literally, there is no spec for the ease of gas coming out. o Where all our complaints are generally about getting the gas out. As I recall, there were 3 standards that greatly affected the handyman: 1. There is no longer a vent (which, IMHO, isn't really the problem here) 2. There must be child proof caps (which, most of us know how to defeat) 3. The gas must stay inside (they measure loss by weight over time) Actually #1 is simply a component of #3 I think, but #1 is noticeable. What I do is very simple. Since I live in the mountains, and since I'm long retired, as is my wife, I gas up with 70 gallons or so at Costco once every few weeks. Then I put the cans along a wall that is about 10 feet high (give or take), where they stay until we drive a car up to that wall, and siphon the gas out. I keep three 10 foot long 1/2 inch OD vinyl hoses (Ace is better than either Lowes or Home Depot for _clear_ vinyl hose, which yellows over time), so that I can put 15 gallons in any one tank during any one setting. You can get away with almost half of that 10 feet but why bother, since the longer the hose, the more time you have, where 10 feet is just about perfect. I have a pipe that I sometimes use to keep the bottom of the hose in the bottom corner, and a wooden wedge that tilts the cans up a bit at the front, but that's just finesse. In addition, I have a modified funnel, with more of that hose taped to the bottom, so that it's easy to get the last few drops out of the gas cans (where again, the Blitz cans suck compared to the Costco cans). Notice that the spout is just a bung cap, where it serves no purpose other than to cap the can. Hence the best caps are the STRONGEST ones, which tend to be the type that have the spout that stores inside the can. The "shiny" plastic caps suck, compared to the dull plastic ones (I'd have to check the brand to be sure which brand it is), where it's flimsy by way of comparison. What I really need, I haven't looked for, is a simple "bung" cap for _all_ my gas cans, since it's kind of a pain that the inside storage caps "drip" a bit since I fill the cans to the utmost. Funnily enough, California recently enacted a law (a year or two ago?) that you can no longer fill cans larger than 6 gallons, but other than that, you can put as many cans in your car, legally, as you can fit (as long as you don't exceed FEDERAL (DOT) laws which are 600 POUNDS (not gallons, but pounds) of "hazardous material" when transporting it). NOTE: Last I checked, NY was one state which limited gasoline to 25 gallons, which I haven't checked since because I'm in California. For storage at home, the Fire Marshal doesn't care how many jerry jugs you have as long as they're in approved containers, and as long as they aren't stored next to the propane tanks (which, themselves, have to be a certain distance, I think 10 feet but maybe 15 or 20?) from flammable material. OSHA doesn't play a role, but they told me exactly how to build a safe container which has a pan to catch spillage and vents to allow venting and it's covered otherwise, to prevent exposure to the elements. The EPA plays a role only when the containers get to a certain size, I think it was 49 gallons (but I'd have to check), where then you need to deal with capturing venting during filling, where you can buy at McMasters for a few hundred bucks a gas dispensing setup for 50-gallon enamel inside steel drums for storage. The problem with the 50-gallon drums (which are slightly less for the reasons stated above, I was told), is that it's really hard to get a DELIVERY here in California of fewer than about 300 gallons. There was one more spec, as I recall, which kicks in at 300 gallons when stored at a residence, but I forget what it was (EPA maybe?). Years ago I wrote all this up when I first set up my fuel attainment, storage, and delivery system - which has been working beautifully ever since. In fact, my wife in the past 25 years has _never_ been to a gas station. Her vehicle is always perpetually filled up by me. Even the neighbors know they can borrow five gallons for their generators any time they want (our power goes out at least monthly, on average) although most have their own generators, as I do, which run on separate 1000 gallon propane tanks. If you want pictures of anything I've said above, just ask, as my credibility is not like that of the 3 children who frequent this newsgroup who (a) are stupid, and who (b) don't know anything as a result, and (c) who just make everything up, and (d) who always prove to act like children. You know who you the 3 children are since they chitchat so well together: From: Fox's Mercantile <jdangus@att.net> From: John-Del <ohger1s@gmail.com> From: "pfjw@aol.com" <peterwieck33@gmail.com> et al. |
| arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com>: Feb 06 01:06AM On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 01:00:28 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote: > Then I put the cans along a wall that is about 10 feet high (give or take), > where they stay until we drive a car up to that wall, and siphon the gas > out. Hi The Real Bev, One more interesting related detail... BTW, I was once surprised, many years ago, that you can no longer siphon gas from one vehicle to another (depending on the vehicle, of course), due not necessarily to "anti-siphon" devices, but due to a "ball" that is intended to prevent spillage when the vehicle rolls over. The ball "acts" as an anti-siphon device though - but I was told when I asked about it on the respective automotive forums, that the main intent of the ball was to prevent rollover leakage. That may or may not be the case, but the empirical fact is that it's not possible to siphon easily from one vehicle to another for many vehicles (without playing with the fuel injection system anyway). |
| arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com>: Feb 06 01:26AM On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 01:06:33 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote: > One more interesting related detail... Hi The Real Bev, Off the cuff, while we're at the detail of gas cans for perpetual home refueling, I found that it's best to fill the trunk with as many cans as can fit, since that prevents them bouncing around on windy mountain roads. Also, if octane ratings are an issue, most people on these two newsgroups should know the basic math (except the 3 little kids, pfjw, John-Del, & Fox's Mercantile). Given I buy only at Costco (which is Top Tier with respect to poly ether amines, but I buy it for price and ease of filling since they're almost always empty in San Jose once they expanded their station to a huge size), they only have 87 and 91 AKI (which is the average of the research and motor methods for anti-knock index). You can just mix proportionate parts of each to get any rating in between that you may care about. I have vehicles that "require" the higher octane rated fuel but I rarely, if ever, bother to mix the appropriate mix since they have knock sensors on the side of the engine which enable the engine electronics to retard the timing, if I were to need it. In reality, I've studied it for my particular vehicle (a bimmer) which pretty much, the way I drive anyway, doesn't _need_ the higher octane rated fuel, which, as you may know, isn't "better" (it's just different). A ton of morons out there think a higher octane rating means it's more flammable (how many times have you heard about "high octane fuel" fires, where only a moron thinks they burn any better or worse than lower-octane rated fuel fires, within the settings of the typical automotive fuel. Heck, kerosene has a higher octane rating than does automotive gasoline, which is lost on those morons who think "hi-test" gives them "better performance" (if their engine is working correctly and if it's spec'd for the "regular"), where the octane rating is simply an average computed by making a comparison to a mixture of heptane & what people refer to as "iso-octane" but it's really 2,2,4-tri-methyl pentane. All this you probably know, but I only state it because in my household, there are vehicles spec'd for different octane ratings, where, if I cared to mix the fuel, I could, but I don't bother for reasons that I know when a vehicle will ping (e.g., high load, high heat, malfunctioning EGR, etc.) and where it won't ping - and even if it "tried", the timing would be momentarily retarded (which has a momentary negative effect, to be sure, on performance but it won't "hurt" the engine). In short, you can go to Costco, fill up as many cans as you can fit in your trunk, and put them high alongside the driveway (or on the roof of the vehicle under a towel) and fuel up at your own convenience. In general, it takes four minutes and change for every five gallons. Again, if you want photos of anything I've stated, let me know, as my credibility is stellar on facts, since I only speak facts as any reasonably intelligent adult would. Note that any response from the 3 children will _always_ be that of a child. o "pfjw@aol.com" <peterwieck33@gmail.com> o Fox's Mercantile <jdangus@att.net> o John-Del <ohger1s@gmail.com> |
| The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>: Feb 05 05:39PM -0800 On 02/05/2019 05:06 PM, arlen holder wrote: > That may or may not be the case, but the empirical fact is that it's not > possible to siphon easily from one vehicle to another for many vehicles > (without playing with the fuel injection system anyway). This would have been useful maybe 10 years ago when our 1970 Dodge truck ran out of gas on the freeway. The gas gauge had never worked, so I just kept track of the mileage and filled up when appropriate. Little did I know that somebody had siphoned my tank. Tow home, much diagnosis, and ultimately added some gas to the tank. Feh. Bought a locking cap the next day. -- Cheers, Bev A spokesperson for 60s band 'the animals' has today made a public apology saying they were mistaken and there isn't a house in New Orleans after all. |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No Response to "Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 24 updates in 2 topics"
Post a Comment