1998 Grand Caravan

I hear ya! I swore to myself that I wasn't going to reply anymore. I'm
so weak!!!!!!

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

i never changed my post or method. read again max

 

once again. go back read the posts. i never changed my test method.

 

LOL, often does my ass. While the starter may still crank the engine, it
will be much slower and would probably not allow the injectors to fire.

 

Since the meter already has a high impedence, there is no load on its wires
so no measurable voltage drop there.

LOL! How is this a valid battery load test?

W R O N G !!!

Really??? Name them.

port.

Agreed, but a battery load test is NOT required to do this.

What are you measuring continuity between? If it is between the connector
case and the battery negative, you still need those long leads and here, a
cobbled connection will give a false reading unlike a simple voltage
measurment which will not. As for the engineering, it would be great if
they had the last word but they don't.

 

In the first post you said to probe the center pin of the socket, clearly,
if you wish to do that, nothing will be in the port. In your revision, you
mention that back probing the plug would need to be done, since you've got a
"load" plugged in.

Now, either you are doing a load test which is against all the "informed"
opinion, or you are testing for continuity, not voltage, on the ground side.

Go back and read what you claimed again, or better yet, follow your sage
advice and stop posting.

--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

 

Back when I worked as an electronics tech, if someone told me to "probe
the center pin of socket # such-and-such under load," it was UNDERSTOOD
that I would gain access to the back of the socket and "probe" the
voltage at the center pin's back connection, NOT stick a probe down the
socket itself. And today when I ask a tech to do that same measurement,
they still understand the method to use, so terminology hasn't changed
either.

 

Isn't it amusing that he calls for a "continuity test" *as* *opposed*
*to* running a current thru the same path and measuring the voltage drop
across said path when in fact, when you understand how an ohmmeter
works, you know that that is exaclty what it does, just at lower levels
of current forced and voltage read (the ratio in either case being the
resistance) (i.e., measuring voltage drop with forced current =
continuity test, with the results even in the same engineering units).
Oh no! I'm in trouble now! I used the word "engineering"! Like waving
a red flag in front of a bull.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

as i said i never changed MY post!!!!!! get it straight max. someone else
said to probe the center pin. infact when i mentioned probing the center pin
i said you would have to BACK probe! here ill cut and paste directly from
the original.

now you've seen that before. THAT WAS MY FIRST POST INTO THIS THREAD! anyone
else that suggested probing down the front of the port was SOMEONE ELSE and
not me. get your stuff straight max!

now go accuse someone else of not knowing what they are doing.

 

Hi Christopher...

'twas me, and I don't mind being blamed and taking my fair share of
the heat. I apologize for somehow inadvertantly drawing you into
it.

I can only offer that I (incorrectly) assumed that some things
should be taken as a given. Like the meter being turned on,
the battery connected, and so on. Most importantly, that we'd
all recognize that the load placed on the wiring by a high
impedance and/or digital meter would be so little it would
be well into the reciprocity failure range. (effectively making
Ohm's law fail - ooh boy, am I gonna be sorry I said that

Sorry again, and take care.

Ken

 

Back when I worked as an electronics tech, if someone told me to "probe

Great, well, then explain this:

Then:

Ken suggests one type of test, then Chris suggestes another. My reply was to
Ken's description, not Chris's alteration for his use. Obviously the
operative term "under load" was missing in the first description.

Funny part is... theres that load test again. If its so unnecessary, why
does it keep coming up?

--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

 

Isn't it amusing that he calls for a "continuity test"

I didn't call for a continuity test, I merely rebutted a test which would
not work, saying that a continuity test would be the only way for the
proposed test circuit to work.

No, you took words out of context and claimed I said something I didn't.
Jeez, get it straight, I'm still saying the load test would be the best one
to use.... funny, thats a voltage reading, not a continuity test.

You're not in trouble for saying "engineering", but you might be in trouble
for lying... if I cared that much.

Fun to watch you spin.

--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

 

now go accuse someone else of not knowing what they are doing.

Since you acknowledge that what I replied to was different than what YOU
changed the description to read, perhaps YOU should go accuse someone else
of not knowing what they are doing.

--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

 

Max Dodge wrote:

Your sleight-of-hand on that is (and surely you know this - and I'll
quit calling you Shirley) that in the context of car batteries, the term
*load test* implies something other than putting a relatively low level
current and reading voltage (or, the equivalent, a continuity test with
an ohmmeter) for a negligible amount of time for an instantaneous
reading to register wiring drops.

A load test is sucking a certain amount of energy (watts x voltage x
time) out of the battery (excluiding the wiring) by applying a fairly
heavy current for a prescribed time while monitoring it's voltage to get
an idea of capacity - not just its steady state resistance.

The test that was being talked about was to test voltage drop in the
wires. Your much earlier rantings were clearly about traditional "load
testing the battery" itself - not about hi-resistance cable clamp
connections - not about what are low level instantaneous tests of the
wiring with low level currents - the effects on the battery of which are
going to be negligible. Those are low level current tests (simply
applying a light short-term load/current in a broader sense outside the
narrow context of battery load tests), a load test of the system with
negligle implications about the battery itself), but, for honest
discussion, not the proverbial *battery load test* that you started out
talking about 200 posts ago.

So stop the shell games por favor.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

So stop the shell games por favor.

If you can play them, so can I.

Sucks when your own tactics are used against you, doesn't it?

Please reply with some inane bullshit, it might be amusing.

--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

 

Actually, yea you did and more than once.

LOL, like how you keep attempting to equate a low level circuit load test
with the battery load test you keep harping on about.

If you didn't care then why are you posting? I guess the only one lying
here is you to yourself.

Once again, accusing others of doing what you are I see. Unfortunately, you
do so often that it is no longer effective.

 

And have done so far longer than any of us.

You should know the answer to this one as well.

I must agree here as yours have entertained me for quite a while now.

 

Max can never admit to error regardless of how obvious it may be and will go
on for quite a while.

 

im not upset with you no need to apologise. no harm no foul
take it easy ken

 

LOL simply amazing!
what a creative mind you have.