On Saturday, 26 November 2016 11:23:02 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Saturday, 26 November 2016 00:59:24 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 25 November 2016 00:33:34 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 24 November 2016 16:22:57 UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:
"Bertie Doe" wrote in message
...
The boss in local battery centre says it's ok to connect neg
charger lead to neg terminal on battery.

However, car's user manual suggests connecting to somewhere
on the chassis. This can be a pain, getting a good
connection. Any thoughts TIA.



I don't see the reason for using the chassis unless testing
the earth, but you don't need a charger for that!

I persume the idea is to reduce current if anything shorts, thus
avoiding fire.

With a battery charger? Don't think even the very cheapest I've
ever seen was devoid of some form of protection against shorts.

That of course offers no protection against the leads wearing
through and shorting.

Really? Why would that be?

You really can't work out that if the leads short the car battery is
shorted? That any protection inside the charger has no effect on that?
Seriously?

I'd have thought the large spark you'd get when attempting to connect it
to a charged battery would be enough of a warning for anyone. But then I'm
rarely surprised by the idiocy of some on here.

you don't get a large spark, assuming the leads aren't shorting at connection time.

But then most with sense wouldn't use anything where 'the leads had
worn through'

You haven't done much PAT testing have you.

I've done lots. But never a car battery charger. Have you?

Yes.


NT