Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:38 AM - =?ISO-8859-1?Q?A=E9roclub_de_Montaigu? (Iberplanes IGL)
2. 06:30 AM - Re: Continuous Lacing (bcrnfnp@sbcglobal.net)
3. 06:45 AM - Re: Re: Dry Cell Batteries? (ROGER & JEAN CURTIS)
4. 07:06 AM - Re: Re: Dry Cell Batteries? (Sam Hoskins)
5. 09:51 AM - Re: Re: Dry Cell Batteries? (Sam Hoskins)
6. 10:14 AM - Re: Re: Dry Cell Batteries? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 10:42 AM - local grounding for wingtip lights (Lincoln Keill)
8. 12:06 PM - Re: local grounding for wingtip lights (Peter Pengilly)
9. 12:21 PM - Re: local grounding for wingtip lights (Vernon Little)
10. 12:28 PM - Installing Audio Jacks (Carlos Trigo)
11. 01:26 PM - Re: Installing Audio Jacks (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 01:49 PM - Re: Installing Audio Jacks (Charlie England)
13. 01:56 PM - Re: Installing Audio Jacks (Carlos Trigo)
14. 03:04 PM - Re: Re: Dry Cell Batteries? (Mike Pienaar)
15. 09:22 PM - Durocell Leaking Batteries (jerb)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | =?ISO-8859-1?Q?A=E9roclub_de_Montaigu? |
*Hello Friends,
I=B4m looking for someone near or currently flying at this French Aerodrome
. I
need to stablish an email contact off-line.
many thanks in advance.
A=E9ro-Clubs**A=E9roclub de Montaigu*
Adresse : A=E9rodrome Montaigu
Les landes de Corprais
85600 SAINT-GEORGES DE MONTAIGU
http://www.flygoto.com/OACI/Aerodrome/GPS/Gpx/LFFW/
Alberto Martin
www.iberplanes.es
Igualada - Barcelona - Spain
----------------------------------------------
Zodiac 601 XL Builder
Serial: 6-7011
Tail Kit: Finished
Wings: Not Started
Fuselage: Ordered
Engine: Jabiru 3300
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Continuous Lacing |
Bob, et al
I agree. Not hard core "don't do lacing". It has it's place.
Two things for lacing. 1) Neater 2) some weight savings.
I too was taught in the older days of the Air Force (70s) to do the continuous
lacing. I feel lacing of any kind has its place in our wiring scheme. I was
all for the continuous, until I had to pull out the old nav radio harness out
of the 172. It had so many twists and turns under the floor that it was very
difficult (not impossible) to follow the wires. As I didn't have a wiring schematic,
I was at the mercy of following the wires down through the winding route
that Cessna put the wires. It had continuous lacing. Having to pull the wire
back and forth to get at the lacing was the pain I had. I eventually got
it out though.
My suggestion is that if you are going to use continuos lacing, use it somewhere
that every loop is accessible (for that inevitable day that you will need to
get into the harness for whatever reason). If you can't access it after the
area is covered I suggest not doing lacing or tie wraps. I suggest conduit.
I guess what I'm trying to get across is: think of the day that you or someone
will have to acess that wire bundle. Think about how accessible it may or may
not be at that time. Also think of the mechanic (you) when it comes time to
repair the wiring.
Cheers,
Barry Chapman RV-9A
________________________________
>From: "BobsV35B@aol.com" <BobsV35B@aol.com>
Good Morning Barry,
Just to prove there are always differences of opinion, may I say that I
prefer proper lacing to Tywraps?
What I do is use Tywraps during the layout and build up process, then
replace them with flat waxed lacing cord after the build up is complete. I
do NOT use a continuous string as was taught fifty to sixty years ago and
as is shown in Manual 18, but use individual ties where needed. I think such
ties are at least as easy to remove as are Tywraps, and they do not have the
large protrusions such as cutoff Tywraps have. I think they are even just a tiny
bit lighter!<G>
Back when I attended Aviation Electrician Mate training, we were told
to use continuous lacing cord because it supplied some support for the wire run.
I think that thought is no longer in vogue. It probably went away with Manual
18!
Happy
Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th
Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman
N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Dry Cell Batteries? |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam
Hoskins
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 9:17 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dry Cell Batteries?
Bob,
What would be the proper way to parallel two batteries? I am using Z19/RB
Sam
Sam,
Just tie them together with "fat" wires, + to + and - to -.
Roger
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Dry Cell Batteries? |
Well I KNOW that!
I mean, if you have gone to the trouble to install two batteries, wouldn't
you generally keep them separate, unless you were operating in the enduranc
e
mode?
Otherwise, why go to the trouble to install the engine battery bus and
contactor?
Again, the model is Z19/RB
Sam
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 8:41 AM, ROGER & JEAN CURTIS <
mrspudandcompany@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Sam Hoskins
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 25, 2008 9:17 PM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dry Cell Batteries?
>
>
> Bob,
>
> What would be the proper way to parallel two batteries? I am using Z19/R
B
>
> Sam
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> *Sam,*
>
> * *
>
> *Just tie them together with "fat" wires, + to + and ' to -.*
>
> * *
>
> *Roger*
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Dry Cell Batteries? |
Never mind. I found the answer here:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/bat_iso2.pdf
Sam
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bob,
>
> What would be the proper way to parallel two batteries? I am using Z19/RB
>
> Sam
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 9:39 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>>
>>
>> >
>>> > What are your requirements for capacity? Have you
>>> > done an energy study for battery-only endurance?
>>> > The 310 is not cheap and it's fragile compared to it's
>>> > larger siblings.
>>> >
>>> > Bob . . .
>>> >
>>> > After much discussion, we think this is how my electrically-dependent
>>> engine breaks out...
>>>
>>> > Current draw on 4 cylinder EFI engines:
>>> >
>>> > Pump at 40 psi- 5-8 amps
>>> > Injectors at 5000 rpm- 3-4 amps
>>> > Ignition at 5000 rpm- 2.5-4 amps (depends on coil charge time)
>>> > ECU- .15- .6 amps depending on ECU
>>> >
>>> > My total current draw in flight at 4500 rpm with 2 pumps on (one LP
>>> > Facet, one HP Bosch 048), transponder, comm, gps, injectors, coils,
>>> > ECU and scavenge pump is 18 amps.
>>>
>>>
>>> We seem to think that the 17ah PC680 clone would give just about 15
>>> minutes of realistic run time, given some age on the battery. I guess I
>>> might have to carry the weight of another battery around to be safe.
>>>
>>
>> According to the performance curves at:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/5p6d4w
>>
>> a 17A load on a 100% battery will give you just
>> under 30 minutes of run time down to about 10V. So
>> a battery due for replacement would be suited
>> for about 20 minutes of operation.
>>
>> Consider running both batteries of a 2-battery
>> architecture in parallel. Losses in any given battery is an
>> I(squared)*R function. By cutting the current per
>> battery by about 1/2, the energy lost in each battery
>> drops to 1/4th the original amount. Doing 1/4
>> per battery in two batteries gets you 1/2 the
>> lost watts. Two 17 a.h. batteries gives you
>> 34 a.h. of total capacity. An 18A load on this
>> combo goes to a 60+ minutes of duration.
>>
>> A savings of 5 or so pounds can be realized by
>> going to a single 28 a.h. battery.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/6eu2p8
>>
>> The internal impedance of this battery seems
>> better than two 17 a.h. in parallel. It gives
>> you the same 60+ minutes at less weight
>> and total capacity.
>>
>> Of course, with a single battery or treating
>> two batteries as one battery dictates an
>> aggressive capacity tracking protocol. If
>> ever there was an power plant begging for
>> a second, small alternator, it's this one.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Dry Cell Batteries? |
At 08:17 PM 10/25/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>What would be the proper way to parallel two batteries? I am using Z19/RB
>Sam
If you're paralleling two batteries for
a simple increase of capacity and reduction
of internal resistance, then just hook 'em
up.
If you have two batteries that need to be
partitioned off to separate tasks during alternator
out operations, then separate battery contactors
and busses are called for . . . precisely as
illustrated in Z-19. Those batteries are operated
in parallel when the alternator is working . . .
and separated to separate tasks when the alternator
is not working.
Bob . . .
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | local grounding for wingtip lights |
Can't find this specifically addressed in Aeroelectric connection, but I think
I have it figured out -- comments please. Here's the situation:
RV-7, each wingtip has LED position light (22AWG), strobe light (18AWG shielded)
and 75W landing light (14AWG due to length of wire run). I think I read somewhere
that you should NOT ground the shielding of the strobe wires at the wingtip,
only at the power supply. The position lights and landing lights will have
two different size crimped ring terminals running from each of their ground
wires, so I need to have a #6 nutplate/screw to ground the position lights to
the outboard wing rib, and a #8 nutplate/screw to ground the landing lights
to the outboard wing rib. Since I don't know what material the ring terminals
are made out of (I don't think they're aluminum), once I bottle brush the two
locations where the grounding will occur, I need a cadmium washer between the
rib and the ring terminal to avoid corrosion. I was also planning on coating
all components with vaseline before installation. Have I got this all correct
or am I over-thinking?
Comments/suggestions please.
Jim Lincoln
RV-7A wings
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | local grounding for wingtip lights |
In my view you're over thinking! I would put the same size ring terminal
on the end of all the wires, say #10. Then see AC43.13-1B pages 11-76 to
11-78 and take your choice. Terminals are usually copper. If you coat
everything in vaseline before installation it probably won't work.
Install dry, if you have to apply vaseline do it once everything is
screwed up (perhaps only worthwhile if you live in a very damp maritime
environment). Does the earth for the strobe go back down the shielded
cable? Yes, don't earth the shield at the wing tip. I'm sure others will
have differing views!;)
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Lincoln Keill
Sent: 26 October 2008 17:39
Subject: AeroElectric-List: local grounding for wingtip lights
<airlincoln@sbcglobal.net>
Can't find this specifically addressed in Aeroelectric connection, but I
think I have it figured out -- comments please. Here's the situation:
RV-7, each wingtip has LED position light (22AWG), strobe light (18AWG
shielded) and 75W landing light (14AWG due to length of wire run). I
think I read somewhere that you should NOT ground the shielding of the
strobe wires at the wingtip, only at the power supply. The position
lights and landing lights will have two different size crimped ring
terminals running from each of their ground wires, so I need to have a
#6 nutplate/screw to ground the position lights to the outboard wing
rib, and a #8 nutplate/screw to ground the landing lights to the
outboard wing rib. Since I don't know what material the ring terminals
are made out of (I don't think they're aluminum), once I bottle brush
the two locations where the grounding will occur, I need a cadmium
washer between the rib and the ring terminal to avoid corrosion. I was
also planning on coating all components with vaseline before
installation. Have I got this all correct or am I over-thinking?
Comments/suggestions please.
Jim Lincoln
RV-7A wings
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 9
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | local grounding for wingtip lights |
Hi Jim. AC43-13 covers this in some detail. My copy is at the hangar, so I
can't quote from it directly. The sequence and material of the washers,
lock washers and terminals is covered precisely. My recollection is for a
nutplate mount: cadmium plated bolt, cadmium plated lockwasher, cadmium
plated washer, terminal (tinned), aluminum alloy washer, substrate.
I actually drilled a hole in my spar (don't panic, it was cleared by the
factory) for the ground point. Although the rib is probably fine, I just
wanted a lower resistance path. I used dielectric grease rather than
Vaseline.
You can always crimp on new ring terminals with the same hole diameters and
use a single point for grounding if you want.
You are correct about the strobe shield, don't ground it at the wingtip.
Vern
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Lincoln Keill
> Sent: October 26, 2008 10:39 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: local grounding for wingtip lights
>
>
>
> --> <airlincoln@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Can't find this specifically addressed in Aeroelectric
> connection, but I think I have it figured out -- comments
> please. Here's the situation:
>
> RV-7, each wingtip has LED position light (22AWG), strobe
> light (18AWG shielded) and 75W landing light (14AWG due to
> length of wire run). I think I read somewhere that you
> should NOT ground the shielding of the strobe wires at the
> wingtip, only at the power supply. The position lights and
> landing lights will have two different size crimped ring
> terminals running from each of their ground wires, so I need
> to have a #6 nutplate/screw to ground the position lights to
> the outboard wing rib, and a #8 nutplate/screw to ground the
> landing lights to the outboard wing rib. Since I don't know
> what material the ring terminals are made out of (I don't
> think they're aluminum), once I bottle brush the two
> locations where the grounding will occur, I need a cadmium
> washer between the rib and the ring terminal to avoid
> corrosion. I was also planning on coating all components
> with vaseline before installation. Have I got this all
> correct or am I over-thinking?
> Comments/suggestions please.
>
> Jim Lincoln
> RV-7A wings
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
>
>
>
Message 10
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Installing Audio Jacks |
I am installing the Intercom in my RV and I remember reading in this forum
that, when installing the audio jacks on the panel or any other aluminium
surface of the cockpit, one shall isolate the jacks from the metal surface
with plastic or rubber insulating washers.
However, in the Flightcom instructions they only recommend (and include
washers to) isolation of the Microphone jack and not in the Headphone jack.
They even show in the schematic drawing the Headphone jack locally grounded.
Is this correct? If yes, why?
Carlos
Message 11
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Installing Audio Jacks |
At 07:25 PM 10/26/2008 +0000, you wrote:
>I am installing the Intercom in my RV and I remember reading in this forum
>that, when installing the audio jacks on the panel or any other aluminium
>surface of the cockpit, one shall isolate the jacks from the metal surface
>with plastic or rubber insulating washers.
>
>However, in the Flightcom instructions they only recommend (and include
>washers to) isolation of the Microphone jack and not in the Headphone jack.
>
>They even show in the schematic drawing the Headphone jack locally grounded.
>
>
>Is this correct? If yes, why?
It's a good idea if not a necessary thing to isolate
small signal systems from airframe ground . . .
See
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/18Audio_R11.pdf
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
Message 12
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Installing Audio Jacks |
Carlos Trigo wrote:
>
> I am installing the Intercom in my RV and I remember reading in this
> forum that, when installing the audio jacks on the panel or any other
> aluminium surface of the cockpit, one shall isolate the jacks from the
> metal surface with plastic or rubber insulating washers.
>
> However, in the Flightcom instructions they only recommend (and
> include washers to) isolation of the Microphone jack and not in the
> Headphone jack.
>
> They even show in the schematic drawing the Headphone jack locally
> grounded.
>
>
>
> Is this correct? If yes, why?
>
>
>
> Carlos
>
The non-physics-based answer is probably: ground loop induced noise on
the input (mic) side gets amplified; the output side is less likely to
cause problems.
Message 13
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Installing Audio Jacks |
Bob
I really didn't find anything about my question in the link you provided,
although it is your book's chapter about Audio Systems.
Can you please be more specific about what you think about not insulating
the Headphone jack?
And if I isolate it, to where exactly should I connect the ground lug of the
Headphone jack?
Carlos
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> Sent: domingo, 26 de Outubro de 2008 20:23
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Installing Audio Jacks
>
> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>
> At 07:25 PM 10/26/2008 +0000, you wrote:
>
> >I am installing the Intercom in my RV and I remember reading in this
forum
> >that, when installing the audio jacks on the panel or any other aluminium
> >surface of the cockpit, one shall isolate the jacks from the metal
surface
> >with plastic or rubber insulating washers.
> >
> >However, in the Flightcom instructions they only recommend (and include
> >washers to) isolation of the Microphone jack and not in the Headphone
jack.
> >
> >They even show in the schematic drawing the Headphone jack locally
grounded.
> >
> >
> >
> >Is this correct? If yes, why?
>
> It's a good idea if not a necessary thing to isolate
> small signal systems from airframe ground . . .
>
> See
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/18Audio_R11.pdf
>
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
Message 14
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Dry Cell Batteries? |
The "AUX BATTERY MANAGEMENT MODULE" illustrated on page 2 in the article
mentioned, can I buy that or do I have to make it.
Cheers
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Sam Hoskins
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dry Cell Batteries?
Never mind. I found the answer here:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/bat_iso2.pdf
Sam
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins@gmail.com>
wrote:
Bob,
What would be the proper way to parallel two batteries? I am using
Z19/RB
Sam
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 9:39 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
<nuckolls.bob@cox.net> wrote:
<nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>
> What are your requirements for capacity? Have you
> done an energy study for battery-only endurance?
> The 310 is not cheap and it's fragile compared to it's
> larger siblings.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> After much discussion, we think this is how my
electrically-dependent engine breaks out...
> Current draw on 4 cylinder EFI engines:
>
> Pump at 40 psi- 5-8 amps
> Injectors at 5000 rpm- 3-4 amps
> Ignition at 5000 rpm- 2.5-4 amps (depends on coil charge time)
> ECU- .15- .6 amps depending on ECU
>
> My total current draw in flight at 4500 rpm with 2 pumps on
(one LP
> Facet, one HP Bosch 048), transponder, comm, gps, injectors,
coils,
> ECU and scavenge pump is 18 amps.
We seem to think that the 17ah PC680 clone would give just about
15 minutes of realistic run time, given some age on the battery. I guess
I might have to carry the weight of another battery around to be safe.
According to the performance curves at:
http://tinyurl.com/5p6d4w
a 17A load on a 100% battery will give you just
under 30 minutes of run time down to about 10V. So
a battery due for replacement would be suited
for about 20 minutes of operation.
Consider running both batteries of a 2-battery
architecture in parallel. Losses in any given battery is an
I(squared)*R function. By cutting the current per
battery by about 1/2, the energy lost in each battery
drops to 1/4th the original amount. Doing 1/4
per battery in two batteries gets you 1/2 the
lost watts. Two 17 a.h. batteries gives you
34 a.h. of total capacity. An 18A load on this
combo goes to a 60+ minutes of duration.
A savings of 5 or so pounds can be realized by
going to a single 28 a.h. battery.
http://tinyurl.com/6eu2p8
The internal impedance of this battery seems
better than two 17 a.h. in parallel. It gives
you the same 60+ minutes at less weight
and total capacity.
Of course, with a single battery or treating
two batteries as one battery dictates an
aggressive capacity tracking protocol. If
ever there was an power plant begging for
a second, small alternator, it's this one.
Bob . . .
Message 15
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Durocell Leaking Batteries |
Hi,
Has anyone else experienced an increase of Durocell batteries leaking
in devices in the last couple years. I've used them for years in
test equipment, cameras, and high dollar radios because they didn't
leak. Can't say that no more. So far I had them leak in a couple
small Mag flashlights, my PDA device, and my GPS. A little further
back they done in my red/white lens aviation flash light also. I
never used to have a problem with them. They cost more than ever
today and appear to leak more, is there a relationship here. I never
recharge them.
Darn, I just looked behind me at a package to see if I had spelled
the name right, and found another one of a few I had sitting their
has leaked. Crap.... Might they relabeling Rayovac's. What is
different with these batteries selling now?
jerb
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|