New German car battery.

On 07/23/2013 01:39 PM, Kevin Bottorff wrote:
> jim beam > wrote in :
>
>> On 07/22/2013 02:46 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 7/22/2013 4:30 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>>> On 7/22/2013 3:15 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>>> dsi1 > wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, July 21, 2013 1:35:57 AM UTC-10, Scott Dorsey
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Batteries did last longer because the plates were big
>>>>>>> and thick, because
>>>>>>> they HAD to be big and thick because the regulation
>>>>>>> was poor or even
>>>>>>> nonexistent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. Sulfation wasn't an issue because the regulation was
>>>>>>> poor, and if it was
>>>>>>> on some batteries you could pop them apart, scrape
>>>>>>> them down, and put them
>>>>>>> back together.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. Batteries were very, very expensive. That's the real
>>>>>>> issue. You buy a new
>>>>>>> car, you move the tires and battery from the old car
>>>>>>> because tires and
>>>>>>> batteries were a substantial cost. These days, they
>>>>>>> are far cheaper.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My guess is that this was in the 1940s?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think any of the US car manufacturers went to a
>>>>> regulated alternator
>>>>> until 1960 or so. That made a huge difference.
>>>>> --scott
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So what you're saying is that the advent of alternators
>>>> allowed for cheaper, smaller, and lighter car batteries?
>>>> That's interesting. Thanks.
>>>
>>> Right, but I've owned generator cars with no battery whatsoever; bump
>>> start.
>>>
>>
>> you can often bump start cars with dead batteries and alternators too -
>> often there's sufficient residual magnetism in the alternator cores to
>> self-excite.
>>
>>
>
> except that has never happened. If the batt. is truly dead you can not
> bump start a alt car, next time you want to try, disconect the batt and
> It will NOT start. I thought you at least understood the simple stuff. KB
>

There's dead and then really dead.

Most modern cars also have an ECU and an electric fuel pump, those need
power too otherwise no bueno. Maybe bumping and residual magnetism will
get them going again, maybe not. I bumped my old Rabbit GTI several
times while I had a bad battery but was waiting for next paycheck... but
I don't know if I'd count on it with a 100% dead battery or a
significantly more modern car.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 7/23/2013 8:34 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:

> There's dead and then really dead.
>
> Most modern cars also have an ECU and an electric fuel pump, those need
> power too otherwise no bueno. Maybe bumping and residual magnetism will
> get them going again, maybe not. I bumped my old Rabbit GTI several
> times while I had a bad battery but was waiting for next paycheck... but
> I don't know if I'd count on it with a 100% dead battery or a
> significantly more modern car.
>
> nate
>

I've never tried starting a car with a really dead battery but what you
say makes sense. I once drove my old Scirocco off the street when the
fuel pump wasn't getting any power. Just put her in gear and turn and
hold that key in start. I just came up with that while my car was at a
red light and the engine died. That starter moved the car just fine.
That was my favorite car even though the engine died at random times.

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:46:59 -0400, Nate Nagel >
wrote:

>On 07/22/2013 11:01 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
>> On 22 Jul 2013 09:15:21 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>>> dsi1 > wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, July 21, 2013 1:35:57 AM UTC-10, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Batteries did last longer because the plates were big and thick, because
>>>>> they HAD to be big and thick because the regulation was poor or even
>>>>> nonexistent.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Sulfation wasn't an issue because the regulation was poor, and if it was
>>>>> on some batteries you could pop them apart, scrape them down, and put them
>>>>> back together.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Batteries were very, very expensive. That's the real issue. You buy a new
>>>>> car, you move the tires and battery from the old car because tires and
>>>>> batteries were a substantial cost. These days, they are far cheaper.
>>>>
>>>> My guess is that this was in the 1940s?
>>>
>>> I don't think any of the US car manufacturers went to a regulated alternator
>>> until 1960 or so. That made a huge difference.
>>> --scott
>>
>> My '61 Ventura still had a generator, and my '64 Bug. Think the first
>> alt I saw was on my '64 Olds. Didn't pay much attention, as it never
>> was an issue.
>> But me and 3 mates stood on the Pontiac bumper and ****ed on the
>> generator when it caught on fire.
>>
>
>I think MoPar was the first to use alternators, not sure what year. I
>want to say 1960 or 61. I know that Studebaker got them in 1963. My
>'62 still had a generator and I kept it original, didn't really have a
>problem with it, but it was a heavy beast for its low output.
>
>nate

Mopar put Alternators in the 60 Valiant along with the new Slant Six.
I think there were some years before that where you could get a large,
heavy French Alternator as special order, like for police use.

On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 8:35:53 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:46:59 -0400, Nate Nagel >
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 07/22/2013 11:01 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
>
> >> On 22 Jul 2013 09:15:21 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> dsi1 > wrote:
>
> >>>> On Sunday, July 21, 2013 1:35:57 AM UTC-10, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> 1. Batteries did last longer because the plates were big and thick, because
>
> >>>>> they HAD to be big and thick because the regulation was poor or even
>
> >>>>> nonexistent.
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> 2. Sulfation wasn't an issue because the regulation was poor, and if it was
>
> >>>>> on some batteries you could pop them apart, scrape them down, and put them
>
> >>>>> back together.
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> 3. Batteries were very, very expensive. That's the real issue. You buy a new
>
> >>>>> car, you move the tires and battery from the old car because tires and
>
> >>>>> batteries were a substantial cost. These days, they are far cheaper.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> My guess is that this was in the 1940s?
>
> >>>
>
> >>> I don't think any of the US car manufacturers went to a regulated alternator
>
> >>> until 1960 or so. That made a huge difference.
>
> >>> --scott
>
> >>
>
> >> My '61 Ventura still had a generator, and my '64 Bug. Think the first
>
> >> alt I saw was on my '64 Olds. Didn't pay much attention, as it never
>
> >> was an issue.
>
> >> But me and 3 mates stood on the Pontiac bumper and ****ed on the
>
> >> generator when it caught on fire.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I think MoPar was the first to use alternators, not sure what year. I
>
> >want to say 1960 or 61. I know that Studebaker got them in 1963. My
>
> >'62 still had a generator and I kept it original, didn't really have a
>
> >problem with it, but it was a heavy beast for its low output.
>
> >
>
> >nate
>
>
>
> Mopar put Alternators in the 60 Valiant along with the new Slant Six.
>
> I think there were some years before that where you could get a large,
>
> heavy French Alternator as special order, like for police use.

Google,,, History of Alternators (allpar website)