Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:37 AM - Re: parallel batteries on maintainer (bob noffs)
2. 05:57 AM - Re: parallel batteries on maintainer (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 06:04 AM - Re: parallel batteries on maintainer (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 06:44 AM - Re: Anderson PowerPole connectors (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 08:14 AM - Re: Re: Aeroled wiring (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 09:10 AM - Re: parallel batteries on maintainer (rayj)
7. 09:40 AM - Re: parallel batteries on maintainer (rayj)
8. 10:07 AM - Re: parallel batteries on maintainer (rayj)
9. 10:23 AM - Re: parallel batteries on maintainer (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 10:25 AM - Re: parallel batteries on maintainer (rayj)
11. 10:28 AM - Re: parallel batteries on maintainer (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 11:23 AM - Re: parallel batteries on maintainer (David Lloyd)
13. 11:46 AM - Battery spoofer for testing smart charger maintainers (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 11:49 AM - Re: parallel batteries on maintainer (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 12:46 PM - Re: parallel batteries on maintainer (rayj)
16. 04:09 PM - Battery spoofer for testing smart charger maintainers (CORRECTION) (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
17. 04:50 PM - Re: Battery spoofer for testing smart charger maintainers (CORRECTION) (rayj)
18. 05:03 PM - Starting my build. (rayj)
19. 05:05 PM - Re: Battery spoofer for testing smart charger maintainers (CORRECTION) (rayj)
20. 05:31 PM - Re: Starting my build. (n801bh@netzero.com)
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: | Re: parallel batteries on maintainer |
my experience in my cild barn last winter is that it works poorly or not at
all. i think it is because one marginal battery always calls for power and
the others don't get the right voltage. anyway, this year i bought a bunch
of harbor frt. maintainers and every battery gets its own.
bob noffs
n. wi.
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:46 PM, rayj <raymondj@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> I am set up to use 1 maintainer to keep 4-5 or more batteries charged
> over the winter. How can I tell if I've exceeded the capacity of the
> maintainer? Will the voltage drop? How much of the total amperage of
> the charger is available for maintaining the batteries? One of my
> charger/maintainers is rated 6amps. I can't imagine any reasonable
> number of batteries needing that much current to be kept topped up. The
> batteries are at outside temp (currently below 0deg F). Is this a factor
> I need to consider?
>
> Thanks for any information/opinions/warnings.
>
> do not archive
>
> --
> Raymond Julian
> Kettle River, MN.
>
> "And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
> and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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: parallel batteries on maintainer |
At 10:46 PM 1/13/2013, you wrote:
>I am set up to use 1 maintainer to keep 4-5 or
>more batteries charged over the winter. How can
>I tell if I've exceeded the capacity of the maintainer?
Not possible to do with batteries that are capable of
being maintained. A smart charger-maintainer (SCM) has
two phases of operation (1) top off the battery's state
of charge and (2) support the battery at a voltage just
above the open-terminal voltage for the battery in
storage. The 'effort' required to do (1) has some battery
size issues associated with it. Obviously, a maintainer
with a 1 amp charge rate will take longer to top off a
32 a.h. battery than for a 17 a.h. battery.
Once top-off is achieved, the SCM will switch output
voltage to some level too LOW to deliver a practical
charge to a battery but just HIGHER than the battery's
normal open circuit resting voltage. For the SVLA battery,
OCV is on the order of 12.8 to 13.1 volts depending
on room temperature. So a MAINTENANCE voltage on the
order of 13.2 to 13.5 volts is called for. See:
http://tinyurl.com/b4td78b
In the maintenance mode, the LOAD on the SCM is
equal to the SELF DISCHARGE current built into
the battery itself. Given the very long self life
of SVLA batteries, this means that self discharge
currents are very low.
>Will the voltage drop? How much of the total
>amperage of the charger is available for
>maintaining the batteries? One of my
>charger/maintainers is rated 6amps. I can't
>imagine any reasonable number of batteries
>needing that much current to be kept topped
>up. The batteries are at outside temp
>(currently below 0deg F). Is this a factor I need to consider?
No and no. At lower temperatures the OCV of the
battery goes down but the self discharge rate
goes down too. Here is an excerpt from an essay
on battery management I found at:
http://tinyurl.com/bys7ty6
---------------------------
Few batteries do not die a natural death =AD most
batteries are murdered. They are murdered by
owners that charge them improperly, cycle them
too deeply, let them sit discharged for too long,
or store them at too high a temperature. Since
our UPS units have built-in controllers and the
units are rarely deeply discharged, the primary battery killer is heat.
Batteries are electrochemical machines. Chemical
reactions govern how they work and chemical
reactions govern how they fail. Chemical
reactions exist within a battery that cause them
to discharge just sitting in storage. Other
chemical reactions cause them to form crystalline
lead sulfate. Both of these reactions are
accelerated by temperature according to the
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrhenius_equation>Arrhenius
equation, which I state in Equation 1.
Eq. 1
k=A \cdot {{e}^{-{{E}_{a}}/R \cdot T}}
Emacs!
where
* k is the
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_constant>rate of the chemical reaction
* Ea is the
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activation_energy>activation energy.
* R is the R is the
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_gas_constant>universal gas constant.
* T is the
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin>absolute temperature in =B0K.
* A is a constant.
Equation 1 tells us that increasing temperature
produces an exponential increase in reaction
rate. Let=92s examine how this reaction rate
affects a battery that appears to just be sitting
there =AD it actually is experiencing an internal
chemical reaction that is discharging the
battery. I also want to examine a common rule of
thumb for electrical engineers.
A battery at a temperature of T+10 =B0C self-discharges
twice as fast as the same battery at a temperature of T.
Is this rule true? If it is true, the customer
that I mentioned earlier who stored his batteries
at 50 =B0C would see his batteries discharged in
his warehouse within about two and half months.
At that point, the sulphation process begins. His
batteries were dying right before his eyes.
----------------- end of excerpt -----------------
So the short answer to your question is first place each battery
in turn on the SCM and allow it to top off. Then place the array
of batteries in parallel with each other and connected to the
SCM. Storing the batteries in a cold location is beneficial
to the general health and well being of the battery's chemistry.
The number of batteries in the storage array has no practical
limit.
Bob . . .
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: parallel batteries on maintainer |
At 06:35 AM 1/14/2013, you wrote:
my experience in my cild barn last winter is that it works poorly or
not at all. i think it is because one marginal battery always calls
for power and the others don't get the right voltage. anyway, this
year i bought a bunch of harbor frt. maintainers and every battery
gets its own.
bob noffs
The bit I just posted on the use of a single maintainer
for an array of batteries assumes that the batteries are
capable and worthy of maintenance. In other words, the
candidates for storage are reasonably well known for
their state of useful capacity. A battery that is damaged
and in need of recovery (suffers from light, short term
sulphation) needs to be attended to and tested for useful
capacity before adding it to an array of batteries already
know to be worthy of retention in anticipation of future
service.
A battery badly sulphated is not recoverable. Placing
crippled batteries in parallel with topped-off, good
batteries will degrade if not negate the benefits of the
maintenance mode.
Bob . . .
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: Anderson PowerPole connectors |
At 09:07 PM 1/13/2013, you wrote:
Thanks, Bob.
I've looked at these before. I'm planning to install, from time to
time, an electric air conditioner into the aft baggage compartment.
It has a maximum draw, the manufacturer says, of 50 amps. I was
considering the 75 amp Anderson PowerPole connector, but then saw
mention here that 100% lagniappe above expected current flow is best
for long connector/crimp connection life. Should I be concerned
about my app, or simply accept that, perhaps, I may need to renew
these connectors from time to time... hopefully before they start an
inflight fire?
Your concerns are not without foundation in practical
experience and physics. As mentioned in my post of a
few minutes ago on the chemistry of battery self
discharge rates, I'll suggest that the chemistry
of ohmic joints between current carrying conductors
is similarly if not identically influenced by
the temperature of the reactants where the two
contacts come together.
I(squared)R dissipation in the joint elevates
temperatures above existing ambient. De-rating
a joint by 50% drops rise by 75% for a profound
benefit to chemical degradation of contact surfaces
over time. This contactor was being used well within
it's ratings . . .
http://tinyurl.com/qmk6gm
but located in an area of the airplane that was
already hot. It performed as advertised for many
hours but ultimately succumbed to the sum total
of physics arrayed against it.
This is the 'magic' of the gas-tight union between
two conductors. Keeping the air and moisture out
of the joint prevents the influences of chemistry
driven by the Arrhenius equation cited a few minutes
ago with reference to chemical reactions in batteries.
The gas-tight joint takes chemistry completely
out of the picture. Mated connectors have
CHEMISTRY in common with contactors, switches
and relays. Joint make-up forces for crimps and
mated PIDG terminal suffer no such influences.
The fact that PowerPole connectors are silver
plated certainly goes to improved performance
at 'ordinary' temperatures. At the same time,
silver is not known for resistance to chemical
reaction. I'm thinking that mated contacts of
the PowerPoles used in highly stressed situation
(current induced rise + ambients) would benefit
from some silicone grease applied to mating
surfaces of the contacts.
A google search for silicone and powerpole
yielded these two of many paired references
on the 'net.
http://tinyurl.com/b45y7da
By ed from Louisiana
I started using regular hand crimpers which was a disaster, then I
started soldering all my Andersons, which isn't bad but takes time
and is inconvenient in the field. I finally broke down and bought
this crimper and I'm still kicking myself in the rear for not doing
it earlier. This crimper will make a very reliable and firm crimp
along the full length of the wire insertion barrel. Just make sure to
insert the pin so that it rolls into and digs into the stripped wire
that was inserted. Great low resistance connection. Just add a little
silicon grease when you're done and it is good to go almost anywhere.
Im converting my whole operation over to Anderson connectors.
Bob . . .
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: Aeroled wiring |
At 09:04 PM 1/13/2013, you wrote:
The noise I have is characterised by:
1.Noticeable dead spot from signals to the rear
(at least prior to sorting out a ground as indicated below)
2.Noise on all comm frequencies caused by the NAV
lights. It does not break squelch but can be
heard when the squelch is disengaged and the navs turned on
3.Reduction in effective range of the Comms over
my Whelen System 7. I used to be able to get the
ATIS on my home field from 50nm and 7000=99. I
still can with the aeroleds turned off. If they
are on I get nothing until I turn the lights off.
4.I can hear Nav and strobe noise in weak comm signals.
5.Navs + Strobe is even worse
6.The whole setup does not compair favourably to Whelen.
I use my aircraft for IFR/night etc and have over
500 hours in four years or so, so probably fairly
aware of how the systems should work.
Richard,
Thanks for the detailed and concise description of your
experience and observations. You've confirmed my skepticism
as to the validity of their DO-160/TSO qualification. Looking
at the installation manual for one of their nav/strobe
combo products we find this wiring diagram:
Emacs!
This 'smells' . . . If I had proposed a product that REQUIRED
such accommodation by the system integrator/installer, I would
have been summoned to the boss' office for a come-to-jesus-meeting.
More importantly, I'm not sure just how I could take such a product
to the EMC lab for testing with shielded hookup wires. If one places
a conducted emissions probe over a shielded wire, it is EXPECTED
that measured energies will be attenuated with respect to that
which flows on the wires. I'd really like to read their EMC
report. If the system just barely passed conducted EMC emissions
with a shield, what would they have measured without the shield
or at the end of the shield where the wire break out to hook
up to the rest of the airplane?
I've written, observed and/or orchestrated hundreds of DO-160
EMC qualification programs . . . the experiences of List
members combined with AEROLED's published installation
requirements suggests that somebody dropped the ball for
getting this product to market.
I spent a few hours in the hanger looking at my
Aeroleds on the weekend and some more yesterday. I came to a few
conclusions:
1.I have/had wired them as per the instructions.
2.I did find that the tail light was not properly
grounded between the case and the black ground
wire so I fixed that and it did reduce the noise
but still not to where I am happy. (took for a test flight)
3.The wiring scheme suggested by Aeroleds
actually looks like it would causes a ground loop
between the airframe and the shield (when
grounding both ends of the shield) . When
connected on the Left wing it reduces the pop
from the strobe on right and tail it appears to make no difference.
4.The tail nav is by far the noisiest and
virtually impossible to quiet down. I assume
because it has a lot more LEDs in it. I reduced
noise by disconnecting the ground wire entirely
(runs to my aft fuselage bulkhead). This seems
to imply that local grounding is required. I may
need to look at how I can achieve that with my rudder.
5.The Green (RHS) nav light is the next noisiest,
followed by the red one (LHS). Both of these are very quiet in comparison.
6.Shortening the ground lead at the light end is
not only impractical it makes little difference.
7.One of these lights causes minimal noise, the
combined effect adds up. Worst case is all three plugged in and nav +
strobe.
8.Noise can be heard using a portable Airband
radio with the squelch disabled. In some cases
the lights will break squelch but not often and
not with the wiring as per the instructions
9.Noise is still present and can be clearly heard
in weak signals (like listening to Sydney Centre on the ground).
10.My tail light gets extremely hot in operation. (burn your hands hot)
I had been of the opinion that the noise was most
likely caused by a poorly filtered switch mode
power supply injecting noise back into the power
system. That coupled with the very fast rise
time from the strobes when they are turned on
leads to the issues. What surprised me was that
with my handheld radio I could easily receive the
signal when I placed the antenna near the lights,
and also when the antenna was placed near my belly mounted Comm antennas.
Getting the wiring correct seems to virtually
eliminate the emitted RFI. You must be very
close to the wing light fixtures with the
portable antenna. The tail light is worse but noticably better when
grounded.
Interesting observations. I wonder how they might
have been different in a Glasair or a Pulsar?
Being IFR I have a few other issues:
What about VOR, MKR, GPS etc?
The noises you've wrestle with are VHF RF in nature
and probably represent a similar threat to VOR. Not so
much Marker Beacons which are VERY weak receivers
an STRONG signals. GPS . . . dunno . . . like I wrote,
I'd REALLY like to see their EMC lab test report.
How much of this noise could cause issues in electronics such as EFIS?
Less likely but again, without a the blessing of a
golden test report by a qualified EMC lab, we're not
sure that other manifestations of emitted energy DO
NOT exist.
What are these things doing to the airframe
ground and could it play havoc with my WX-500
storm scope? I have not noticed any strikes
detected but it could perhaps reduce its range or
accuracy - especially as the antenna is in the
return path from the tail strobe.
Good question. Don't know. If ONE aspect of the DO-160
qualification protocols are suspect, we have no basis
for assuming that other protocols are not similarly
compromised.
What happens when the grounds become ineffective
due to corrosion under the screws etc?
Gas tight original installation should preclude
drifts of performance with age.
I think these products need to be looked at again
for a second opinion as to the validity of their
TSO.
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: parallel batteries on maintainer |
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: | Re: parallel batteries on maintainer |
Greetings Bob Noffs,
I bought 6+ of the HF battery maintainers and was planning on doing the
same thing. In the process I started looking at the voltage provided by
them andwas surprised to find that NONE of the units I had provided more
than about 12.75 volts. Some were as low as 12.4. As I understand the
process it is necessary to provide a voltage higher than the OCV to the
battery inorder to offset the internal process. My conclusion is that
the maintainers would only keep the batteries charged to a level which
would result in an OCV lower that the maintainervoltage and less then
100% charge. Given that the maintainer I'm now using is at 13.5 volts in
maintenance modeI don't think 12.75 or less isacceptable for maintaining
my batteries.
Just my experience, hope you find it useful.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
On 01/14/2013 06:35 AM, bob noffs wrote:
> my experience in my cild barn last winter is that it works poorly or
> not at all. i think it is because one marginal battery always calls
> for power and the others don't get the right voltage. anyway, this
> year i bought a bunch of harbor frt. maintainers and every battery
> gets its own.
> bob noffs
> n. wi.
>
> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:46 PM, rayj <raymondj@frontiernet.net
> <mailto:raymondj@frontiernet.net>> wrote:
>
> I am setup to use 1 maintainer to keep 4-5 or more batteries
> charged over the winter. How can I tell if I've exceeded the
> capacity of the maintainer? Will the voltage drop? How much of
> the total amperage of the charger is available for maintaining the
> batteries? One of my charger/maintainers is rated 6amps. I can't
> imagine any reasonable number of batteries needing that much
> current to be kept topped up. The batteries are at outside
> temp(currently below 0degF). Is this a factor I need to consider?
>
> Thanks for any information/opinions/warnings.
>
> do not archive
>
> --
> Raymond Julian
> Kettle River, MN.
>
> "And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
> and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
>
> *
>
> ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
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: | Re: parallel batteries on maintainer |
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: | Re: parallel batteries on maintainer |
At 11:39 AM 1/14/2013, you wrote:
Greetings Bob Noffs,
I bought 6+ of the HF battery maintainers and was planning on doing
the same thing. In the process I started looking at the voltage
provided by them and was surprised to find that NONE of the units I
had provided more than about 12.75 volts. Some were as low as
12.4. As I understand the process it is necessary to provide a
voltage higher than the OCV to the battery in order to offset the
internal process. My conclusion is that the maintainers would only
keep the batteries charged to a level which would result in an OCV
lower that the maintainer voltage and less then 100% charge. Given
that the maintainer I'm now using is at 13.5 volts in maintenance
mode I don't think 12.75 or less is acceptable for maintaining my batteries.
Just my experience, hope you find it useful.
I tried a couple of HF devices about 5
years ago that purported to be smart-charger-maintainers
but found their performance disappointing. Don't
recall the details now. I've not tried them again
since.
Your note prompted me to take a peek at the two
Battery Tenders and one Schumacher 1562A charger
maintainers currently plugged into walls around
here.
Batteries not connected but recently topped off
were running 12.7 to 13.1 at 55F in the wood-shop
with two other batteries on SCMs were being held
at 13.4 (Battery Tender) and 13.58 (1562A).
In the house I have two batteries sitting open
12.95 and 13.01 and one on a Battery Tender
at 13.45 volts.
For the moment, my peronal stable of battery
maintenance tools seem to be functioning as
advertised. There's a handful of Schumacher
products here and perhaps another one coming.
I put a 12 a.h. battery on the cap meter for
discharge. I'll use the discharged battery to stroke
one of these chargers and see if they purr, snarl
or just lay there.
Thanks for the narrative.
Bob . . .
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: | Re: parallel batteries on maintainer |
Bob,
Thanks for the very educational reply. Always appreciate having myplans
reviewed, rather than waiting 'till spring to find out I'm wrong.
Understand the prohibition on including crippled batteries in the
process. I will be chargingthe batteries on anon maintainer capable
chargerthen checking the OCV 24 hrs after the end of charging and will
not try to maintain batteries which don't show at least 12.9V.
Thanks again.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
P.S. Matronics doesn't like something in your email when I try to
include it in a reply.
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: parallel batteries on maintainer |
>Understand the prohibition on including crippled batteries in the
>process. I will be charging the batteries on a non maintainer
>capable charger then checking the OCV 24 hrs after the end of
>charging and will not try to maintain batteries which don't show at
>least 12.9V.
Sounds like a plan . . .
Bob . . .
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: parallel batteries on maintainer |
Hi Ray,
I also have used the HF cheapie maintainers...maybe a dozen or so.
I also found that some were either floating at too high or too low of a
voltage. I believe the ideal is about 13.1 - 13.3 volts in the
maintenance mode.
What I found, at lease in the older units, that the back plastic plate
could be carefully cut loose using an exacto knife or similar to pop the
glue joints. The simple circuit board contained a small potentiometer
that had a dab of RTV on the pots center wiper. The glue could be
picked off to the point that the wiper could be adjusted a small amount.
I found that rotating the center wiper CCW a very small amount would
increase the float voltage & CW to lower.
The final setting of the center wiper can be only determined after the
load battery has stabilized, so it is a bit of a trial and error. You
could use a load that has a fixed resistance and determine the final
setting much quicker.
Later, I decide to drill a hole in the plastic case that lined up with
the pot.
However, I suspect these Chinese designs change over time and I do not
know if the above steps will work on later versions of the HF
unit....David
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
----- Original Message -----
From: rayj
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: parallel batteries on maintainer
Greetings Bob Noffs,
I bought 6+ of the HF battery maintainers and was planning on doing
the same thing. In the process I started looking at the voltage
provided by them and was surprised to find that NONE of the units I had
provided more than about 12.75 volts. Some were as low as 12.4. As I
understand the process it is necessary to provide a voltage higher than
the OCV to the battery in order to offset the internal process. My
conclusion is that the maintainers would only keep the batteries charged
to a level which would result in an OCV lower that the maintainer
voltage and less then 100% charge. Given that the maintainer I'm now
using is at 13.5 volts in maintenance mode I don't think 12.75 or less
is acceptable for maintaining my batteries.
Just my experience, hope you find it useful.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine On
01/14/2013 06:35 AM, bob noffs wrote:
my experience in my cild barn last winter is that it works poorly or
not at all. i think it is because one marginal battery always calls for
power and the others don't get the right voltage. anyway, this year i
bought a bunch of harbor frt. maintainers and every battery gets its
own.
bob noffs
n. wi.
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:46 PM, rayj <raymondj@frontiernet.net>
wrote:
I am set up to use 1 maintainer to keep 4-5 or more batteries
charged over the winter. How can I tell if I've exceeded the capacity
of the maintainer? Will the voltage drop? How much of the total
amperage of the charger is available for maintaining the batteries? One
of my charger/maintainers is rated 6amps. I can't imagine any
reasonable number of batteries needing that much current to be kept
topped up. The batteries are at outside temp (currently below 0deg F).
Is this a factor I need to consider?
Thanks for any information/opinions/warnings.
do not archive
--
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
ist"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: | Battery spoofer for testing smart charger maintainers |
While contemplating a series of tests to investigate the
condition of a couple of Bob Noffs' chargers, I suffered one
of those epiphany moments that suggest the legacy test
protocols were exceedingly slow, clumsy and not very creative.
The smart charger maintainer has no way to KNOW what kind
of device is connected to its output terminals. All it can do
is output energy under some protocol (probably semi-constant
current), watch how the 'battery' responds to that output and
react to changes over time.
Went to the bench and clipped these parts together:
Emacs!
In my case, a 5W 100 ohm resistor was used for a load. A convenient
alternative would be a 35 or 55w halogen lamp from Walmart. You need
two meters and a bench supply capable of carrying the lamp load at
15 volts or more. The lamp load total (along with ratings on your
bench supply) needs to be some value greater than the output current
rating for the SCM under test.
First, hook up the power supply, voltmeter, and load. See power
supply for say 10 volts (depleted battery level).
Clip SCM to the load while monitoring the charger's
output on the ammeter. You should see a current reading that is in
the ball park for the SCM under test. I just did this test with a
Battery Tender. Got an initial charge current of 0.9A.
Put on your "battery spoofer's" hat and slowly increase the voltage
while watching the ammeter reading. Somewhere north of 14 volts you
should see a sharp drop in current. That voltage reading will be
the top-off termination point for your particular SCM.
Slowly decrease the power supply and watch for the amperage to
increase from zero. Adjust the voltage so that you get current
reading on the order of 10 milliamps. This voltage will be the
maintenance float voltage for your SCM under test.
I just tested the two SCMs that Bob Noffs sent me some weeks
ago. Both tested a zero output. So one couldn't do a comparative
looksee for voltage switching levels or maintenance protocols.
You were right Bob. These critters just laid there.
If anyone has a relatively new SCM that seems not to function,
this test will confirm/deny your suspicions. Further, the results
of the testing will offer concrete justification for warranty
claims for either gross failures like I just described . . . or
failure to demonstrate recharge rates and voltages commensurate with
expected performance.
Bob . . .
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: parallel batteries on maintainer |
At 01:21 PM 1/14/2013, you wrote:
Hi Ray,
I also have used the HF cheapie maintainers...maybe a dozen or so.
I also found that some were either floating at too high or too low of
a voltage. I believe the ideal is about 13.1 - 13.3 volts in the
maintenance mode.
What I found, at lease in the older units, that the back plastic
plate could be carefully cut loose using an exacto knife or similar
to pop the glue joints. The simple circuit board contained a small
potentiometer that had a dab of RTV on the pots center wiper. The
glue could be picked off to the point that the wiper could be
adjusted a small amount. I found that rotating the center wiper CCW
a very small amount would increase the float voltage & CW to lower.
The final setting of the center wiper can be only determined after
the load battery has stabilized, so it is a bit of a trial and
error. You could use a load that has a fixed resistance and
determine the final setting much quicker.
Later, I decide to drill a hole in the plastic case that lined up with the pot.
However, I suspect these Chinese designs change over time and I do
not know if the above steps will work on later versions of the HF unit....David
Good data. One could also hook the device to
the SCM test rig I just posted. cycle the charger
into the maintenance mode, drop the bench supply
to 13.2 volts then adjust the pot for 10 mA of
current flow into the load.
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: | Re: parallel batteries on maintainer |
Greetings David,
I opened several ofof the little black boxes and none had anything that
was adjustable inside. New design I suppose.
I don't have the electronics skills yet to do an analysis of the little
black box. I've just put them away figuring at some point I'll design a
new black box to attach the 15VAC transformer. Just one more thing on
my list of things to do.
Thanks for the note.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
On 01/14/2013 01:21 PM, David Lloyd wrote:
> Hi Ray,
> I also have used the HF cheapie maintainers...maybe a dozen or so.
> I also found that some were either floating at too high or too low of
> a voltage. I believe the ideal is about 13.1 - 13.3 volts in the
> maintenance mode.
> What I found, at lease in the older units, that the back plastic plate
> could be carefully cut loose using an exacto knife or similar to pop
> the glue joints. The simple circuit board contained a small
> potentiometer that had a dab of RTV on the pots center wiper. The
> glue could be picked off to the point that the wiper could be adjusted
> a small amount. I found that rotating the center wiper CCW a _very
> small_ amount would increase the float voltage & CW to lower.
> The final setting of the center wiper can be only determined after the
> load battery has stabilized, so it is a bit of a trial and error. You
> could use a load that has a fixed resistance and determine the final
> setting much quicker.
> Later, I decide to drill a hole in the plastic case that lined up with
> the pot.
> However, I suspect these Chinese designs change over time and I do not
> know if the above steps will work on later versions of the HF
> unit....David
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* rayj <mailto:raymondj@frontiernet.net>
> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> <mailto:aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, January 14, 2013 9:39 AM
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: parallel batteries on maintainer
>
> Greetings Bob Noffs,
>
> I bought 6+ of the HF battery maintainers and was planning on
> doing the same thing. In the process I started looking at the
> voltage provided by them andwas surprised to find that NONE of the
> units I had provided more than about 12.75 volts. Some were as
> low as 12.4. As I understand the process it is necessary to
> provide a voltage higher than the OCV to the battery inorder to
> offset the internal process. My conclusion is that the
> maintainers would only keep the batteries charged to a level which
> would result in an OCV lower that the maintainervoltage and less
> then 100% charge. Given that the maintainer I'm now using is at
> 13.5 volts in maintenance modeI don't think 12.75 or less
> isacceptable for maintaining my batteries.
>
>
> Just my experience, hope you find it useful.
>
> Raymond Julian
> Kettle River, MN.
>
> "And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
> and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
>
> On 01/14/2013 06:35 AM, bob noffs wrote:
>> my experience in my cild barn last winter is that it works poorly
>> or not at all. i think it is because one marginal battery always
>> calls for power and the others don't get the right voltage.
>> anyway, this year i bought a bunch of harbor frt. maintainers and
>> every battery gets its own.
>> bob noffs
>> n. wi.
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:46 PM, rayj <raymondj@frontiernet.net
>> <mailto:raymondj@frontiernet.net>> wrote:
>>
>> I am setup to use 1 maintainer to keep 4-5 or more batteries
>> charged over the winter. How can I tell if I've exceeded the
>> capacity of the maintainer? Will the voltage drop? How much
>> of the total amperage of the charger is available for
>> maintaining the batteries? One of my charger/maintainers is
>> rated 6amps. I can't imagine any reasonable number of
>> batteries needing that much current to be kept topped up.
>> The batteries are at outside temp(currently below 0degF). Is
>> this a factor I need to consider?
>>
>> Thanks for any information/opinions/warnings.
>>
>> do not archive
>>
>> --
>> Raymond Julian
>> Kettle River, MN.
>>
>> "And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
>> and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
>>
>> *
>>
>> ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/c
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List**
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
Message 16
| 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: | Battery spoofer for testing smart charger maintainers |
(CORRECTION)
While contemplating a series of tests to investigate the
condition of a couple of Bob Noffs' chargers, I suffered one
of those epiphany moments that suggest the legacy test
protocols were exceedingly slow, clumsy and not very creative.
The smart charger maintainer has no way to KNOW what kind
of device is connected to its output terminals. All it can do
is output energy under some protocol (probably semi-constant
current), watch how the 'battery' responds to that output and
react to changes over time.
Went to the bench and clipped these parts together:
Emacs!
In my case, a 5 ohm resistor was used for a load (about 2.2A). A convenient
alternative would be a 35 or 55w halogen lamp from Walmart. You need
two meters and a bench supply capable of carrying the lamp load at
15 volts or more. The lamp load total (along with ratings on your
bench supply) needs to be some value greater than the output current
rating for the SCM under test.
First, hook up the power supply, voltmeter, and load. See power
supply for say 10 volts (depleted battery level).
Clip SCM to the load while monitoring the charger's
output on the ammeter. You should see a current reading that is in
the ball park for the SCM under test. I just did this test with a
Battery Tender. Got an initial charge current of 0.9A.
Put on your "battery spoofer's" hat and slowly increase the voltage
while watching the ammeter reading. Somewhere north of 14 volts you
should see a sharp drop in current. That voltage reading will be
the top-off termination point for your particular SCM.
Slowly decrease the power supply and watch for the amperage to
increase from zero. Adjust the voltage so that you get current
reading on the order of 10 milliamps. This voltage will be the
maintenance float voltage for your SCM under test.
I just tested the two SCMs that Bob Noffs sent me some weeks
ago. Both tested a zero output. So one couldn't do a comparative
looksee for voltage switching levels or maintenance protocols.
You were right Bob. These critters just laid there.
If anyone has a relatively new SCM that seems not to function,
this test will confirm/deny your suspicions. Further, the results
of the testing will offer concrete justification for warranty
claims for either gross failures like I just described . . . or
failure to demonstrate recharge rates and voltages commensurate with
expected performance.
Bob . . .
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com>www.avg.com
Bob . . .
Message 17
| 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: Battery spoofer for testing smart charger maintainers |
(CORRECTION)
Message 18
| 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: | Starting my build. |
Greetings,
BIG NEWS... for me anyway. I started building a Zenith 750at the
beginning of this month. I'll be submitting my wiring schematic for
review/ridicule when I get to that point. Until then I will be doing
more lurking and less participating.
Thanks again to everyone for their input on all the questions I've
brought to this list.
Later,
--
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
Message 19
| 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: Battery spoofer for testing smart charger maintainers |
(CORRECTION)
Bob,
Any reason the power supply couldn't be replaced with a couple of
batteries (maybe a 6V and a 12V) and a rheostat of sufficient capacity?
For those of us who don't have a large enough bench power supply.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
On 01/14/2013 06:08 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> While contemplating a series of tests to investigate the
> condition of a couple of Bob Noffs' chargers, I suffered one
> of those epiphany moments that suggest the legacy test
> protocols were exceedingly slow, clumsy and not very creative.
>
> The smart charger maintainer has no way to KNOW what kind
> of device is connected to its output terminals. All it can do
> is output energy under some protocol (probably semi-constant
> current), watch how the 'battery' responds to that output and
> react to changes over time.
Message 20
| 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: Starting my build. |
Congrats... I built a 801 back in 2002.. I love it....
And thanks to Bob and others on this list, all my wires have been able t
o keep the smoke in..... So far.<G>
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: rayj <raymondj@frontiernet.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Starting my build.
Greetings,
BIG NEWS... for me anyway. I started building a Zenith 750 at the begin
ning of this month. I'll be submitting my wiring schematic for review/r
idicule when I get to that point. Until then I will be doing more lurki
ng and less participating.
Thanks again to everyone for their input on all the questions I've broug
ht to this list.
Later,
-- Raymond JulianKettle River, MN."And you know that I could have me a m
illion more friends,and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - Joh
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
================
____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/50f4b12c11668312b7171st01vuc
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! --
|