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.

On 24/11/2016 13:59, Bertie Doe wrote:
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.



assuming it is a normal car then connecting direct to the battery will
be ok. the only good reason to make a remote connection is if you make
the remote connection last to connect and first to disconnect, this way
any possible spark as you connect/disconnect will be remote from the
battery which may have given off some flammable fumes.

Modern chargers do not usually make any sparks upon connection in any
case. It is still good practise to turn off the charger before
disconnecting.

Huge wrote:

Bertie Doe wrote:

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

I've always done the former, except where the battery is inaccessible,
then the latter. IMNHO, it makes little or no difference.

With mine the battery is in the boot under the spare tyre, so for jump
starting they provide a +ve terminal behind a flap under the bonnet,
there is also an arrow pointing at a nearby bolt in the chassis for the -ve.

Huge wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

With mine the battery is in the boot under the spare tyre, so for jump
starting they provide a +ve terminal behind a flap under the bonnet,
there is also an arrow pointing at a nearby bolt in the chassis for the -ve.

Audi? My RS3 was like that.

Yes, and the lidaldi jump pack thread, it's rated 100Ah 900CCA.

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

I actually built a charger many moons back and believe me its better on the
battery.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"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.

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.


NT

I actually built a charger many moons back and believe me its better on the
battery.
Brian

On 24/11/2016 14:26, Huge wrote:
On 2016-11-24, Bertie Doe wrote:
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've always done the former, except where the battery is inaccessible,
then the latter. IMNHO, it makes little or no difference.



Chassis or terminal .. makes no diff as long as car is -ve earth

I like to keep my boat batteries on trickle charge .. I made up a lead
to connect via 'cigarette socket' ... works fine

rick wrote:
On 24/11/2016 14:26, Huge wrote:
On 2016-11-24, Bertie Doe wrote:
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've always done the former, except where the battery is inaccessible,
then the latter. IMNHO, it makes little or no difference.



Chassis or terminal .. makes no diff as long as car is -ve earth

Don't think earthing polarity has anything to do with. If you make a spark
near a charging battery you risk igniting the hydrogen. Considerably less
risk with "sealed" batteries admittedly.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

wrote in message
...

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.



Thanks all, good news indeed, consensus is that battery dealer is correct
and is ok to connect direct to -ve terminal. Perhaps Toyota are covering
their asses.

"rick" wrote in message news
On 24/11/2016 14:26, Huge wrote:

I've always done the former, except where the battery is inaccessible,
then the latter. IMNHO, it makes little or no difference.


Chassis or terminal .. makes no diff as long as car is -ve earth

I like to keep my boat batteries on trickle charge .. I made up a lead to
connect via 'cigarette socket' ... works fine

I use one of those Aldi/Lidl chargers mentioned by this group last year. It
goes into 'maintenance cycle' after initial boost.

It's also used on my 85ah battery, which powers one of those Bison electric
outboard motors and lasts about 45 mins. I was surprised to find that the
Yaris battery is a mere 45ah.

"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.

The car users manual is wrong. Bet its french.

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
Huge wrote:

Bertie Doe wrote:

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

I've always done the former, except where the battery is inaccessible,
then the latter. IMNHO, it makes little or no difference.

With mine the battery is in the boot under the spare tyre, so for jump
starting they provide a +ve terminal behind a flap under the bonnet, there
is also an arrow pointing at a nearby bolt in the chassis for the -ve.

What car is that ?

wrote in message
...
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.

Doesnt explain why all car user manuals dont say that.

In article ,
Bertie Doe wrote:
I like to keep my boat batteries on trickle charge .. I made up a lead
to connect via 'cigarette socket' ... works fine

I use one of those Aldi/Lidl chargers mentioned by this group last year.
It goes into 'maintenance cycle' after initial boost.

I built one in to the old Rover. In the spare wheel well. With a
waterproof mains plug under the bumper. Only slight snag is you have to
press the button on it to set it to charge after powering up.

--
*You can't have everything, where would you put it?*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
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.

--
*It sounds like English, but I can't understand a word you're saying.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Bertie Doe wrote:
I like to keep my boat batteries on trickle charge .. I made up a lead
to connect via 'cigarette socket' ... works fine

I use one of those Aldi/Lidl chargers mentioned by this group last year.
It goes into 'maintenance cycle' after initial boost.

I built one in to the old Rover. In the spare wheel well. With a
waterproof mains plug under the bumper. Only slight snag is you have to
press the button on it to set it to charge after powering up.

OT but one of the main differences beween the Lidl and Aldi models were the
displays (LCD vs LED)

I assume my Aldi XS model is LED, yes? :-
http://www.mycaravan.org.uk/Images/B.../Battery/D.jpg

Lidl Ultimate
http://auto****e.com/uploads/monthly...1421091541.jpg

On 25/11/2016 09:21, Bertie Doe wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Bertie Doe wrote:
I like to keep my boat batteries on trickle charge .. I made up a lead
to connect via 'cigarette socket' ... works fine

I use one of those Aldi/Lidl chargers mentioned by this group last year.
It goes into 'maintenance cycle' after initial boost.

I built one in to the old Rover. In the spare wheel well. With a
waterproof mains plug under the bumper. Only slight snag is you have to
press the button on it to set it to charge after powering up.

OT but one of the main differences beween the Lidl and Aldi models were
the displays (LCD vs LED)

I assume my Aldi XS model is LED, yes? :-
http://www.mycaravan.org.uk/Images/B.../Battery/D.jpg


no that is a liquid crystal display. LED shines.

"MrCheerful" wrote in message ...

On 25/11/2016 09:21, Bertie Doe wrote:


OT but one of the main differences beween the Lidl and Aldi models were
the displays (LCD vs LED)

I assume my Aldi XS model is LED, yes? :-
http://www.mycaravan.org.uk/Images/B.../Battery/D.jpg


no that is a liquid crystal display. LED shines.

Ah thanks for that MC. So the 'backlit' lidl Ultimate is LED.

On 25/11/2016 10:02, Bertie Doe wrote:


"MrCheerful" wrote in message ...
On 25/11/2016 09:21, Bertie Doe wrote:


OT but one of the main differences beween the Lidl and Aldi models were
the displays (LCD vs LED)

I assume my Aldi XS model is LED, yes? :-
http://www.mycaravan.org.uk/Images/B.../Battery/D.jpg


no that is a liquid crystal display. LED shines.

Ah thanks for that MC. So the 'backlit' lidl Ultimate is LED.


No, that is just an LCD with a backlight, the backlight is very likely
an LED.

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.


NT

On 25/11/2016 18:19, 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.


NT


my old style battery charger has an overload thermal manual reset
switch, modern ones just shut down electronically (if the leads short
together)

I dread to think what the 600 amp Crypton jump start charger could do,
but the average DIYer does not have one.

In article ,
Bertie Doe wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Bertie Doe wrote:
I like to keep my boat batteries on trickle charge .. I made up a lead
to connect via 'cigarette socket' ... works fine

I use one of those Aldi/Lidl chargers mentioned by this group last year.
It goes into 'maintenance cycle' after initial boost.

I built one in to the old Rover. In the spare wheel well. With a
waterproof mains plug under the bumper. Only slight snag is you have to
press the button on it to set it to charge after powering up.

OT but one of the main differences beween the Lidl and Aldi models were the
displays (LCD vs LED)

I assume my Aldi XS model is LED, yes? :-
http://www.mycaravan.org.uk/Images/B.../Battery/D.jpg

Lidl Ultimate
http://auto****e.com/uploads/monthly...1421091541.jpg

I dunno the current ones. My Lidl one just has LED indicators. Which for
my application is better - as you'd not be able to read LCD.

--
*Learn from your parents' mistakes - use birth control.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
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?

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


NT

--
*Why is the time of day with the slowest traffic called rush hour?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Friday, 25 November 2016 19:06:55 UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
On 25/11/2016 18:19, 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.

my old style battery charger has an overload thermal manual reset
switch, modern ones just shut down electronically (if the leads short
together)

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


NT

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?


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

You haven't done much PAT testing have you.


NT

On 26/11/2016 04:16, wrote:
On Friday, 25 November 2016 19:06:55 UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
On 25/11/2016 18:19, 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.

my old style battery charger has an overload thermal manual reset
switch, modern ones just shut down electronically (if the leads short
together)

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


NT



Yes, they do, if the leads short the unit stops powering those leads.

On 26/11/2016 04:19, 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?


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

You haven't done much PAT testing have you.


NT


I have had the situation where the charger leads have shorted together
putting battery voltage into a dead short through them, within moments
they became white hot and burnt through as a fuse would. No problem.
No flames, just a bit of smelly smoke. It would of course be trivial to
add a fuse adjacent to one or both of the crocodile clips to save the
lead becoming the fuse. But as this has only occurred once in the last
50 plus years (and it was caused directly by my own carelessness) I do
not consider it a real problem.

"MrCheerful" wrote in message
...
On 26/11/2016 04:16, wrote:
On Friday, 25 November 2016 19:06:55 UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
On 25/11/2016 18:19, 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.

my old style battery charger has an overload thermal manual reset
switch, modern ones just shut down electronically (if the leads short
together)

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

Yes, they do, if the leads short the unit stops powering those leads.

But that doesnt do a damned thing about the battery itself being shorted by
those leads.

On 26/11/2016 09:45, Rod Speed wrote:


"MrCheerful" wrote in message
...
On 26/11/2016 04:16, wrote:
On Friday, 25 November 2016 19:06:55 UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
On 25/11/2016 18:19, 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.

my old style battery charger has an overload thermal manual reset
switch, modern ones just shut down electronically (if the leads short
together)

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

Yes, they do, if the leads short the unit stops powering those leads.

But that doesnt do a damned thing about the battery itself being
shorted by those leads.

So add a fuse at each crocodile clip.

In article ,
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.


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, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 26/11/16 04:16, wrote:
my old style battery charger has an overload thermal manual reset
switch, modern ones just shut down electronically (if the leads short
together)
which of course offers no protection against the leads wearing through and shorting.
????

I can't believe you wrote that.

So what exactly is so different about leads chafing and shorting and
leads being clipped together?


--
€œBut what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!€�

Mary Wollstonecraft

In article ,
MrCheerful wrote:
That of course offers no protection against the leads wearing through and shorting.

my old style battery charger has an overload thermal manual reset
switch, modern ones just shut down electronically (if the leads short
together)

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


NT



Yes, they do, if the leads short the unit stops powering those leads.

Mr Purr has invented the situation where you connect a charger with a
short between the output leads to a charged battery, ignoring any sparks,
and waiting patiently until things melt and start a fire.

Being totally obsessed with fuses, he probably thinks the crock clips
should contain one. Despite the billions in use safely without.

--
*'Progress' and 'Change' are not synonyms.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 26/11/2016 11:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/11/16 04:16, wrote:
my old style battery charger has an overload thermal manual reset
switch, modern ones just shut down electronically (if the leads short
together)
which of course offers no protection against the leads wearing through
and shorting.
????

I can't believe you wrote that.

So what exactly is so different about leads chafing and shorting and
leads being clipped together?



The surmise is that 'when connected to the battery' and the leads short
together you get battery power through the leads.

However, in practice, the leads will just become a fuse and burn out.

There is a remote chance of this causing a fire, so if you think it is
likely to occur then add a fuse near either or both of the crocodile clips.

On 26/11/16 11:24, MrCheerful wrote:
On 26/11/2016 11:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/11/16 04:16, wrote:
my old style battery charger has an overload thermal manual reset
switch, modern ones just shut down electronically (if the leads short
together)
which of course offers no protection against the leads wearing through
and shorting.
????

I can't believe you wrote that.

So what exactly is so different about leads chafing and shorting and
leads being clipped together?



The surmise is that 'when connected to the battery' and the leads short
together you get battery power through the leads.

However, in practice, the leads will just become a fuse and burn out.

There is a remote chance of this causing a fire, so if you think it is
likely to occur then add a fuse near either or both of the crocodile clips.

Sound of penny dropping.

Well yes, there isn't much you can do if you place an unfused short
across a charged battery.,



--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

In article ,
MrCheerful wrote:
On 26/11/2016 11:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/11/16 04:16, wrote:
my old style battery charger has an overload thermal manual reset
switch, modern ones just shut down electronically (if the leads short
together)
which of course offers no protection against the leads wearing through
and shorting.
????

I can't believe you wrote that.

So what exactly is so different about leads chafing and shorting and
leads being clipped together?



The surmise is that 'when connected to the battery' and the leads short
together you get battery power through the leads.

However, in practice, the leads will just become a fuse and burn out.

There is a remote chance of this causing a fire, so if you think it is
likely to occur then add a fuse near either or both of the crocodile clips.

And doing so for most would just introduce another likely source of
problems. An inline fuse carrier isn't designed to be bashed around as is
likely to happen to such leads. You'd need to design a new crock clip with
a proper built in fuse.

But why would you? These things are already fool proof. Idiot proof, even.
Making them cnut proof will be costly.

--
*The colder the X-ray table, the more of your body is required on it *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Saturday, 26 November 2016 09:09:26 UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
On 26/11/2016 04:16, tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 25 November 2016 19:06:55 UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
On 25/11/2016 18:19, tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 25 November 2016 00:33:34 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:

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.

my old style battery charger has an overload thermal manual reset
switch, modern ones just shut down electronically (if the leads short
together)

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

Yes, they do, if the leads short the unit stops powering those leads.

which obviously makes not the remotest difference to the current flowing through them from the battery. What is wrong with some people?

On Saturday, 26 November 2016 09:15:26 UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
On 26/11/2016 04:19, 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?


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 have had the situation where the charger leads have shorted together
putting battery voltage into a dead short through them, within moments
they became white hot and burnt through as a fuse would. No problem.
No flames, just a bit of smelly smoke.

That's fortunate. The other possible outcomes are far too obvious to mention.

It would of course be trivial to
add a fuse adjacent to one or both of the crocodile clips to save the
lead becoming the fuse. But as this has only occurred once in the last
50 plus years (and it was caused directly by my own carelessness) I do
not consider it a real problem.

If you consider wires reaching white hot once per 50 years not a real problem you're retarded, stoned or otherwise incapacitated.

On Saturday, 26 November 2016 11:23:02 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
MrCheerful wrote:

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

my old style battery charger has an overload thermal manual reset
switch, modern ones just shut down electronically (if the leads short
together)

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

Yes, they do, if the leads short the unit stops powering those leads.

Mr Purr has invented the situation where you connect a charger with a
short between the output leads to a charged battery, ignoring any sparks,
and waiting patiently until things melt and start a fire.

No I didn't. Damaged insulation can cause a short later. If you think chargers never have insulation damage you're in your own world. Again.

Being totally obsessed with fuses,

I see you're childish too.

he probably thinks

you've little clue what I think, even after being told.

your imagination that you confuse with fact snipped.

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

On 27/11/2016 20:00, wrote:
On Saturday, 26 November 2016 09:15:26 UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
On 26/11/2016 04:19, 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?


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 have had the situation where the charger leads have shorted together
putting battery voltage into a dead short through them, within moments
they became white hot and burnt through as a fuse would. No problem.
No flames, just a bit of smelly smoke.

That's fortunate. The other possible outcomes are far too obvious to mention.

It would of course be trivial to
add a fuse adjacent to one or both of the crocodile clips to save the
lead becoming the fuse. But as this has only occurred once in the last
50 plus years (and it was caused directly by my own carelessness) I do
not consider it a real problem.

If you consider wires reaching white hot once per 50 years not a real problem you're retarded, stoned or otherwise incapacitated.


I have done far worse things over the years, obviously I try to avoid
repeating them, but one such occurrence in 50 years and I know exactly
why it occurred (my own carelessness) is not something that I am likely
to repeat.
Completely accidentally occurring white hot wires has not happened
once while charging batteries, so I do not consider that very likely to
occur in the rest of my lifetime.