Looking for a UPS Design That Doesn't Overheat Batteries

In article , Roy L. Fuchs wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 07:06:29 GMT, no one that you know nooneshome@shaw.ca> Gave us:
Wait a sec you do this lol I wish you were my neighbour........I would have all my friends over for a laugh.
He claims to be an engineer too.
Your only claim to fame is that you are a top posting Usenet retard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting

Does Wiki say anything about the word "retard"?
Who uses the word "retard"?
That word is obviously a synonym for "mentally retarded person" and well enough known to be used mainly by name-callers of junior-highschool age to a bit younger.
Given an accusation that Roy L. Fuchs is someone who previously offended under a different name quite a few years ago (and looking good mainly when his opponent was the infratroll Rod Speed), I wonder about the chronological age of this "Roy L. Fuchs" while his emotional age may be better determined to be in or near the early-stage-puberty range.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

In article , Roy L. Fuchs wrote:

On 4 Jun 2006 06:04:49 -0400, nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu Gave us:
budgie wrote:
I happen also to be an electrical engineer, and I diagree with YOU.
Oh yeah? Well, I have *TWO* EE degrees, and I disagree with YOU.
Nick
I don't even believe that you have one at this point.

Why? Because he would debate someone at your low level - with you giving some appearance to be someone who in the past did so better when the opponent was the uberinfratroll who got his own FAQ?
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

In article , Roy L. Fuchs wrote:

On 4 Jun 2006 06:07:44 -0400, nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu Gave us:
no one that you know wrote:
why would you waste that current as heat in a set of pliers when all you have to do is crank it for a few sec and warm your frozen starter up as well
Because the pliers put more heat into the battery, and the starter works better when cold.
You're an idiot. Batteries, when delivering energy, do not exhibit the same heat as that which they deliver the energy to (the load).

Nick was advocating a couple seconds of high current discharge with the battery's load being the resistance in the battery - 100% efficient at heating the battery unless you argue endothermic discharge chemical processes.

And no, a starter motor on a car does NOT work better cold.

Yes it does - winding resistance is less. The difference is small when the battery internal resistance is large compared to the starter winding resistance, but it is not zero nor negative!

We are not at absolute zero here, and anything up in the temperature range we ARE at will NOT make one IOTA of difference to a DC fed high torque motor. In fact, the cold starter is likely to be more reluctant to turn, not less.

Can you supply data of bearing lubricants making the task more difficult to an extent outweighing the winding resistance decreasing as temperature decreases? I suspect NOT! Not only because of shortage of measurements, but also from winding resistance likely allowing 10's of watts more power input when 10 degrees colder while any lubricant viscosity loss increase is probabably about or over an order of magnitude less!

Do you always make shit up?

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

In article , Roy L. Fuchs wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 18:43:59 -0400, Jerry Avins Gave us:
Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 10:07:56 -0400, Jerry Avins Gave us:
...
I've never seen or heard of a wet cell that spontaneously developed a low-resistance internal short while significantly charged. Instead, they develop high-resistance shorts
Good for you. I HAVE seen batteries that have exploded.
So have I. Did you miss "spontaneous"? A sustained /external/ short will often explode one.
Yet your retarded ass wants to have us believe that placing a short on a battery in the cold is going to have a benefit, and is safe?
You are beyond left field, dude.

How about if the short is removed before it detonates the battery, it warms it enough to lower its internal resistance enough to make the difference of the car starting? Oh, especially with temperatures so low and battery so discharged that previous arguments against doing this were on the basis of ineffectiveness?
I would take a chance at even so much as risking blowing up my car battery rather than being late for work for lack of doing so. (Although I think better still the smart stuntman rides a bicycle to work, especially if so tolerant to cold as to complain about heat on an average August day in San Francisco and sweat while cycling through a snowstorm in a short sleeve T-shirt and nothing else worn above the waist except for a helmet!)
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

"JoeSP" wrote: "Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message Jerry Avins wrote: Along with a nice big spark, you not only warm the battery but you risk setting off an explosion which will douse your body with sulfuric acid. With any luck you'll die, because you probably don't want to live the rest of your life with the effects of taking the acid bath...
I took an acid bath when I was about 9 years old. I was walking past a bank of glass-jar batteries being charged and one blew up, showering me with glass and sulfuric acid. It took about a minute for them to strip me down, wash me off, and soak my clothes in water and baking soda. I didn't get any in my eyes, so I didn't suffer any ill effects. The acid didn't burn my skin or damage my clothes. I think the above paragraph might be a little exaggerated.
If you had been showered with full strength battery acid that was not washed off for 1 minute, I assure you that it *would* have burned your skin and damaged your cloths, to put it mildly. (The clothes, incidentally, might not show a great deal of damage immediately... but the next time they are run through the washing machine they come out with more holes than not!)

Go to emergency shower within a minute of being sprayed by half sulfuric half water... Probably more like 80% water 20% sulfuric should the battery require desperation heating means...

From the description you give it would appear that the cell which exploded was nearly discharged, and thus you were sprayed with a mostly water solution.

Probably expectable in the unlikely eventy it happens...
Heck, I would take a few seconds to take a slight risk of needing to emergency shower as reason for being late for work rather than not do everything to get my car to start! (Should I need to drive my car rather than pedal my bike to work!)

Damned lucky! Keep in mind that even in relatively dilute form, if you had inhaled any significant amount of it, the results would have been extremely uncomfortable.

How likely am I to inhale the output of a car battery explosion when I am bracing myself for so much as minor to maybe negligible risk of one?

-- Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson

Info relevant to here is lacking, although it does give fair chance that this could be someone other than the one of junior-highschool mentality that looked good mainly when his opponent was the infratroll sufficiently famous to get his own FAQ!
I hope you disclaim to be either of these offenders!
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

In article , Roy L. Fuchs wrote:

On 4 Jun 2006 06:58:05 -0400, nick@acadia.ece.villanova.edu (Nick Pine) Gave us:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote: no one that you know wrote:
why would you waste that current as heat in a set of pliers when all you have to do is crank it for a few sec and warm your frozen starter up as well
Because the pliers put more heat into the battery, and the starter works better when cold.
Wanna bet money on that?
No. I'm sure about the first, and cold copper wire conducts more current,
No, it does not. A SUPERCOOLED copper wire MAY be less resistive, but for ALL intents and purposes, we get the same wire in arctic conditions that we get in a desert swill. As far as it taking more current, it will heat up to the fuse point at MAYBE a slightly higher current due to a lower starting ambient, but the reason isn't because it conducts better.

Ever hear of copper's resistance being fairly close to proportional to absolute temperature?
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

In article , Roy L. Fuchs wrote:

On 4 Jun 2006 13:01:27 -0400, nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu Gave us:
Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
... the pliers put more heat into the battery, and the starter works better when cold.
Wanna bet money on that?
No. I'm sure about the first, and cold copper wire conducts more current,
No, it does not...
It does indeed, with a positive copper tempco:
RHOt = 1.8x10^-8(1+0.0039(T-20) ohm-meters at T(C).
Yet you forget that the WIRE itself, not the ambient room temp has to be maintained at said temperature, and THAT is the part that does NOT happen.
but maybe cold bearings have more friction.
The bearings do not, but any greases on them are like putty.
Cold bearings probably have less friction.
You're an idiot to believe that. A DRY cold bearing MAY have greater clearances, but slop can cause friction problems elsewhere. If it is NOT a dry bearing, the grease used in it will most assuredly be less mobile when cold.
Most cold things shrink,
So what? The bearing race would shrink as well.
so tolerances would increase.
A ball bearing is hardened steel, and it will NOT shrink significantly in this scenario... at all.
Warming engine oil helps, but that's a different story.
Grease is a petroleum distillate in most cases as well. even synthetics thicken when cold.
Try again.

Lubricant requiring a watt or two or maybe a fraction of a watt more mechanical energy to overcome thickening thereof in a motor whose windings ahave conductivity increased sufficiently to let in 10's of watts?
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

In article , Roy L. Fuchs wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 18:35:53 -0400, Jerry Avins Gave us:
Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
...
A ball bearing is hardened steel, and it will NOT shrink significantly in this scenario... at all.
...
Hardening doesn't reduce steel's coefficient of thermal expansion.
There are reasons that steel is used in the making of a ball bearing, dumbass. Low thermal expansion rates is only one reason.

What does your argument have to do with the hardening point tyhat you were supposedly responding to?
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 04:19:55 GMT, no one that you know Gave us:

Trus me when it's minus forty it takes more than a few seconds to cook a starter.........but thank you for your concern

Look, you top posting Usenet RETARD!
Within a few hundred milliseconds of applying current, the wires involved in your scenario would not be caring ANYTHING at all about the outside temperature.
But thanks for trying to squirm away from reality.
It is a well established FACT that non rotating starter motors under power can catastrophically fry rather quickly.
Put THAT in your keyhole and crank it, you top posting dipshit.

On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 04:47:00 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) Gave us:

In article , Roy L. Fuchs wrote: On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 07:06:29 GMT, no one that you know nooneshome@shaw.ca> Gave us:
Wait a sec you do this lol I wish you were my neighbour........I would have all my friends over for a laugh.
He claims to be an engineer too.
Your only claim to fame is that you are a top posting Usenet retard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting
Does Wiki say anything about the word "retard"?
Who uses the word "retard"?
That word is obviously a synonym for "mentally retarded person" and well enough known to be used mainly by name-callers of junior-highschool age to a bit younger.
Given an accusation that Roy L. Fuchs is someone who previously offended under a different name quite a few years ago (and looking good mainly when his opponent was the infratroll Rod Speed), I wonder about the chronological age of this "Roy L. Fuchs" while his emotional age may be better determined to be in or near the early-stage-puberty range.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

You're an idiot, Kliptard.

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 14:54:39 +1000, Peter Dettmann Gave us:

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 06:47:43 GMT, Roy L. Fuchs roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 14:25:53 +1000, Peter Dettmann peter@aardvark.net.au> Gave us:
On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 17:26:50 -0700, "Will" <westes-usc@noemail.nospam wrote:
"Peter Dettmann" wrote in message You also have probelms keeping your posts just to appropriate news groups. SPAM is what is is.
I rarely cross post this widely, but for this thread there was not a single newsgroup that best covered UPS. Which specific newsgroups do you think this subject didn't belong in, and why?
sci.engr.electrical.sys-protection is the most obvious one as the question seems not to be a question related to power line system protection.
Peter Dettmann
What a wuss. Get over it, boy.
I can handle it, but point out the ongoing bad manners. Your comments seem not to be relevant nor assist in the matter.
Peter Dettmann

Again... GET OVER IT, you STUPID FUCKTARD!

On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 05:01:43 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) Gave us:

Nick was advocating a couple seconds of high current discharge with the battery's load being the resistance in the battery - 100% efficient at heating the battery unless you argue endothermic discharge chemical processes.

More like 100% efficient at depleting the battery, dipshit.

In article , Roy L. Fuchs wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 18:37:32 -0400, Jerry Avins Gave us:
Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
...
It NAY have a lower resistance at rest, but when used for carrying current, it will most certainly be heating up, throwing your assertions right out the window with it.
It has less rise over ambient when the weather is cold, that's all.
It also has ENOUGH rise internally such that all these claims of it being a better conductor when cold get nullified.
Get a clue.

The problem of resistance is less when the ambient temperature is colder.
The problem of wire temperature increase from heat dissipated in the wire is less when colder temperature makes its resistance lower.
Either find another point to argue on or support contentions that you are the "dungmanure" complained about in the past.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 05:01:43 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) Gave us:

Yes it does - winding resistance is less.

No, it doesn't. Winding resistance is ONLY less for the first second or so of operation. From that point on, the wires are hot, and the ambient temperature of the surroundings don't mean dick, dickhead.

The difference is small when the battery internal resistance is large compared to the starter winding resistance, but it is not zero nor negative!

It is also NOT a factor once the wires have heated, and they will virtually immediately.

On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 05:01:43 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) Gave us:

Can you supply data of bearing lubricants making the task more difficult to an extent outweighing the winding resistance decreasing as temperature decreases? I suspect NOT! Not only because of shortage of measurements, but also from winding resistance likely allowing 10's of watts more power input when 10 degrees colder while any lubricant viscosity loss increase is probabably about or over an order of magnitude less!

Are you so stupid that you are unfamiliar with multi-graded oils? Well known established fact that cold weather starts require more starter energy.
Oh, and yes, oil IS a bearing lubricant. Car engines are equipped with journal bearings, and a cold start most certainly requires more horsepower to achieve for everything from pumping the oil to getting it to be mobile in between the bearing surfaces.
Try again.