New German car battery.

On Sunday, July 21, 2013 1:35:57 AM UTC-10, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, 21 July 2013 04:55:15 UTC+8, dsi1 wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> My understanding is that the batteries in the early days lasted longer.
>
> >>
>
> >> When you got rid of a car, you'd take the battery out to use in another
>
> >>
>
> >> car. What's the low down on this? Can it be true?
>
> >
>
> >The lead-acid battery hasn't changed that much. I can only speculate that
>
> >some new batteries have more thinner plates to get more CCA in a small
>
> >package. Or maybe old yank tanks (18-foot long cars with soft springs) did
>
> >not jolt the batteries so much.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> --scott
>

My guess is that this was in the 1940s?

>
>
> --
>
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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.

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

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

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.

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.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 7/22/2013 11:46 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> Right, but I've owned generator cars with no battery whatsoever; bump
> start.
>

A car with no batteries sounds interesting. Bump starting seems
impractical. How about starting a small engine with a .22 blank
cartridge. That would be cool.

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.


--
fact check required

On Monday, July 22, 2013 9:30:30 PM UTC-5, jim beam wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> fact check required

James Stewart, Flight of the Phoenix movie.'bump starting' with Cartridges.

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