Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:37 AM - Re: Battery maintainers (bob noffs)
2. 07:51 AM - Re: AT-6C ballast resistor? (Eric M. Jones)
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: Battery maintainers |
what i have ''learned'' and practiced for years with snomo., motorcycle,
lawn tractor, anything with a sealed lead acid battery is that every 6-8
weeks put the battery on a tender for a day or 2 off season. they always
test about a full charge before i charge them. if they don't they are
probably running something in the machine with a minute elect. draw.
bob noffs
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 5:34 PM Ken Ryan <keninalaska@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Why risk hooking it to something when the owner isn't qualified to judge
> its suitability for the task?" -- Well, first off, once the knowledge of
> the distinction between a battery maintainer and a battery charger has be
en
> acquired, the owner is pretty well qualified. Next thing to consider is
> that even a single complete discharge can severely damage a battery. And
> the final ingredient is the observation that although we plan to fly
> regularly, sh@# happens, and it is easy for time to pass. All of this
> makes me wonder why anyone would prefer not to put the battery on a tende
r,
> unless of course doing so is difficult and time consuming. But if the
> airplane is set up for it, that will not be the case. (And there is nothi
ng
> like a fresh, fully topped battery for spinning that engine.) As to the
> comparison to automobiles, I really don't think that is fare. Most people
> drive their cars daily. A better comparison would be to motorcycles, wher
e
> owners quickly learn (because of the cost of battery replacement) to put
> their batteries on tenders at the end of riding season.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 14:13 Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 4:00 PM Ken Ryan <keninalaska@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I would be reluctant to trust unverified third party reports on this. I
>>> have found that "battery literacy" is quite low. For example, many peop
le
>>> think a "trickle charger" is the same thing as a battery maintainer; ma
ny
>>> people have no idea how bad it is to fully discharge a battery, etc. Th
en
>>> there is the "cause or effect" problem -- i.e. are people with already
bad
>>> batteries more likely to resort to using a battery tender, and then whe
n
>>> the already damaged battery dies, blame it on the tender? I myself have
a
>>> lot of experience using battery maintainers, all of it good. Based on t
hat,
>>> I completely agree with Bob that it is impossible to damage a battery b
y
>>> using a properly functioning battery tender.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 12:10 PM Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/25/2019 1:56 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>>>
>>>> At 12:23 PM 7/25/2019, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ron,
>>>> For reviews check Amazon as the carry them. Read the "minus" reviews
>>>> first.
>>>> For my use, the Battery Tender works well and is about 1/2 the cost.
>>>> I have 5 of them on various vehicle batteries and have=C3=82 not had
a
>>>> failure.
>>>>
>>>> However, there is a potential flaw in most of these low cost
>>>> maintainers.
>>>> If you power the unit from your normal wall power that is controlled b
y
>>>> a GFI, that is were the problem lurks.
>>>> If the GFI trips for any reason, storms, power outage, etc., etc., and
>>>> the unit looses power, it will still draw a small current from the bat
tery
>>>> that it is affixed to.
>>>>
>>>> Not a problem if you catch the problem in a few hours, maybe days.=C3
=82
>>>> However, if you are on a trip or other long away time, the maintainer
will
>>>> discharge the battery flat.
>>>> They should install a diode in the battery line to prevent back curren
t
>>>> flow, but, few do.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I just checked the back-flow into one of my
>>>> Battery Tenders. Measured just under 1 milliamp.
>>>>
>>>> It would take 20,000 hours (2.3 years)
>>>> to toss off all the energy in a 20 a.h. battery.
>>>> The voltage sense circuitry could indeed be
>>>> calibrated to wash out the voltage drop of a
>>>> diode but the risks are pretty small.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bob . . .
>>>>
>>>> Any chance that due to the seemingly endless variation in designs amon
g
>>>> brands and even within brands, everybody could be right?
>>>>
>>>> For example, Odyssey says that *their* charger-maintainer can be left
>>>> connected to their batteries indefinitely, but there are a *lot* of 1s
t
>>>> person accounts floating around describing very short lived Odyssey
>>>> batteries "even though I kept them on a maintainer" (brands unspecifie
d).
>>>> There are relatively few 1st person accounts (that I've seen) complain
ing
>>>> about short lived Odyssey batteries when no 'maintainers' were used.
>>>>
>>>> Charlie
>>>>
>>>> <#m_-7102905767685230837_m_-6971088048238445844_m_-716638392855206128_
m_4055673255306501323_m_3655902431514137369_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F
9FDF2>
>>>>
>>> Ken,
>>
>> That was my point. The percentage of pilots with both the qualifications
>> *and the equipment* to verify that their particular 'maintainer' does wh
at
>> it claims is likely not much better than the percentage of drivers who m
eet
>> both criteria. And,it's a pretty safe bet that the pilots who have short
>> lived SLA batteries have normal lived batteries in their cars. That's
>> likely because they don't think about the car battery, and just leave it
>> alone.
>>
>> "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Especially if you don't have the
>> quals & tools for the job.)
>>
>> The battery doesn't need to be 'maintained' on a half-way frequently
>> flown a/c, any more than the owner's car battery needs to be 'maintained
'.
>> So why risk hooking it to something when the owner isn't qualified to ju
dge
>> its suitability for the task?
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>
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: AT-6C ballast resistor? |
I want to add to what Bob N. said. The proper title is "carbon pile regulator."
These use a variable resistance load composed of a pile of carbon disks (usually
with an alignment hole in the center), compressed by a solenoid that pushes
them together harder as the voltage increases.
Very common WWII regulator, and pretty reliable. There is a good site for these at: https://www.industrial-electronics.com/aircraft_6.html
And you can get more data if you Google: Images "carbon pile voltage regulator."
You'll probably see yours.
As Bob alluded to, the resistor should not have failed...and I can surmise that
either something is wrong with the system, or somebody put in the wrong part.
There is lots of AT-6 information online.
BUT: It is entirely legal to put a substitute resistor. A schematic on your regulator
is a very good idea.
I can't find the resistor manufacturer online. Perhaps Thomas Index of Manufacturers
has them...but maybe the part info is hard to read.
Good luck,
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490552#490552
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! --
|