To trickle or Not Trickle! please help a battery noobie with a 12v Gel battery question

On Tue, 03 May 2005 16:22:20 -0500, Steve > wrote:

>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 03 May 2005 10:10:19 -0500, Steve > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>high frequency pure DC.
>>>
>>>OW! I think that statement just damaged my brain.
>>
>>
>> Pure DC only means, that the current flowing in the circuit is ALWAYS
>> moving in one direction, and one direction only. Convention says,
>> from plus to minus, electronics says from minus to plus.
>>
>
>I have not problem with the term "Pure DC" although it doesn't mean what
>you typed above. It means "DC without ripple" or DC with no AC
>component. 'DC' by itself means what you typed above.
>
>"High frequency pure DC" is an oxymoron. If there is any frequency
>component at all, then the DC is not pure.

I disagree. There is such a thing as DC with an AC component. With
the AC component missing, you're left with pure DC. Since there is no
AC component, but just a square wave or sawtooth oscillating back and
forth between a higher DC voltage and and lower DC voltage, it is pure
high-frequency DC. I haven't bothered to put a scope on it to see
which of the two it is, but I highly suspect it's a square wave.

Periodicity, frequency, has nothing to do with the definition of
*pure.* If the voltage sat at 15 vdc for 1 hour, and then dropped to
13.5 vdc for 1 hour, and then went back to 15 vdc for an hour, and
dropped back to 13.5 vdc for one hour, YOU would be calling it "pure
dc." The frequency component does nothing to change the fact that
this is what it is. Your periodicity, or frequency, would be 1
cycle/hour. The fact that mine is more rapid just changes the number,
not the nature.

Now you deserve a headache.

Lg

Lawrence Glickman wrote:

> On Tue, 03 May 2005 16:22:20 -0500, Steve > wrote:
>
>
>>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 03 May 2005 10:10:19 -0500, Steve > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>high frequency pure DC.
>>>>
>>>>OW! I think that statement just damaged my brain.
>>>
>>>
>>>Pure DC only means, that the current flowing in the circuit is ALWAYS
>>>moving in one direction, and one direction only. Convention says,
>>>from plus to minus, electronics says from minus to plus.
>>>
>>
>>I have not problem with the term "Pure DC" although it doesn't mean what
>>you typed above. It means "DC without ripple" or DC with no AC
>>component. 'DC' by itself means what you typed above.
>>
>>"High frequency pure DC" is an oxymoron. If there is any frequency
>>component at all, then the DC is not pure.
>
>
> I disagree. There is such a thing as DC with an AC component. With
> the AC component missing, you're left with pure DC. Since there is no
> AC component, but just a square wave or sawtooth oscillating back and
> forth between a higher DC voltage and and lower DC voltage, it is pure
> high-frequency DC. I haven't bothered to put a scope on it to see
> which of the two it is, but I highly suspect it's a square wave.
>
> Periodicity, frequency, has nothing to do with the definition of
> *pure.* If the voltage sat at 15 vdc for 1 hour, and then dropped to
> 13.5 vdc for 1 hour, and then went back to 15 vdc for an hour, and
> dropped back to 13.5 vdc for one hour, YOU would be calling it "pure
> dc." The frequency component does nothing to change the fact that
> this is what it is. Your periodicity, or frequency, would be 1
> cycle/hour. The fact that mine is more rapid just changes the number,
> not the nature.
>
> Now you deserve a headache.
>
> Lg
>

What's the difference between, say, 15VDC as you describe and 7.5VDC
with 7.5VAC added to it?

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

On Wed, 04 May 2005 05:20:11 -0400, Nate Nagel >
wrote:

>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 03 May 2005 16:22:20 -0500, Steve > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 03 May 2005 10:10:19 -0500, Steve > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>high frequency pure DC.
>>>>>
>>>>>OW! I think that statement just damaged my brain.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Pure DC only means, that the current flowing in the circuit is ALWAYS
>>>>moving in one direction, and one direction only. Convention says,
>>>>from plus to minus, electronics says from minus to plus.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I have not problem with the term "Pure DC" although it doesn't mean what
>>>you typed above. It means "DC without ripple" or DC with no AC
>>>component. 'DC' by itself means what you typed above.
>>>
>>>"High frequency pure DC" is an oxymoron. If there is any frequency
>>>component at all, then the DC is not pure.
>>
>>
>> I disagree. There is such a thing as DC with an AC component. With
>> the AC component missing, you're left with pure DC. Since there is no
>> AC component, but just a square wave or sawtooth oscillating back and
>> forth between a higher DC voltage and and lower DC voltage, it is pure
>> high-frequency DC. I haven't bothered to put a scope on it to see
>> which of the two it is, but I highly suspect it's a square wave.
>>
>> Periodicity, frequency, has nothing to do with the definition of
>> *pure.* If the voltage sat at 15 vdc for 1 hour, and then dropped to
>> 13.5 vdc for 1 hour, and then went back to 15 vdc for an hour, and
>> dropped back to 13.5 vdc for one hour, YOU would be calling it "pure
>> dc." The frequency component does nothing to change the fact that
>> this is what it is. Your periodicity, or frequency, would be 1
>> cycle/hour. The fact that mine is more rapid just changes the number,
>> not the nature.
>>
>> Now you deserve a headache.
>>
>> Lg
>>
>
>What's the difference between, say, 15VDC as you describe and 7.5VDC
>with 7.5VAC added to it?
>
>nate

DC is pushing current in 1 direction only, therefore it can be thought
of as a vector. Magnitude and direction.

AC is pushing current in 2 directions, therefore it can be thought of
as two vectors in -serial- arrangement. The RMS root mean square of
the AC, is the DC equivalent. IOW, if you have peak to peak 100 VAC,
the rms is .707 times that, or 70 volts, which is the same as 70 volts
DC. The Peak to Peak of AC is 1.2 times ( the reciprocal of .7 ) of
the root mean square.

Now putting a 1.5 volt battery in SERIES with another 1.5 will give
you 3 volts. If you put them in opposition to eachother, aim the
vectors at eachother with regards to polarity, you end up with ZERO
volts. 1.5 pushing one way, and 1.5 pushing the other way, cancel
eachother OUT.

No different with an AC *component* on a DC network, except you have
RMS AC working against the DC in exactly the _same_ manner.

Is that clear? Probably not. You're "only" an engineer.

Lg

Lawrence Glickman wrote:

> On Wed, 04 May 2005 05:20:11 -0400, Nate Nagel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 03 May 2005 16:22:20 -0500, Steve > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 03 May 2005 10:10:19 -0500, Steve > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>high frequency pure DC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>OW! I think that statement just damaged my brain.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Pure DC only means, that the current flowing in the circuit is ALWAYS
>>>>>moving in one direction, and one direction only. Convention says,
>>>>
>>>>>from plus to minus, electronics says from minus to plus.
>>>>
>>>>I have not problem with the term "Pure DC" although it doesn't mean what
>>>>you typed above. It means "DC without ripple" or DC with no AC
>>>>component. 'DC' by itself means what you typed above.
>>>>
>>>>"High frequency pure DC" is an oxymoron. If there is any frequency
>>>>component at all, then the DC is not pure.
>>>
>>>
>>>I disagree. There is such a thing as DC with an AC component. With
>>>the AC component missing, you're left with pure DC. Since there is no
>>>AC component, but just a square wave or sawtooth oscillating back and
>>>forth between a higher DC voltage and and lower DC voltage, it is pure
>>>high-frequency DC. I haven't bothered to put a scope on it to see
>>>which of the two it is, but I highly suspect it's a square wave.
>>>
>>>Periodicity, frequency, has nothing to do with the definition of
>>>*pure.* If the voltage sat at 15 vdc for 1 hour, and then dropped to
>>>13.5 vdc for 1 hour, and then went back to 15 vdc for an hour, and
>>>dropped back to 13.5 vdc for one hour, YOU would be calling it "pure
>>>dc." The frequency component does nothing to change the fact that
>>>this is what it is. Your periodicity, or frequency, would be 1
>>>cycle/hour. The fact that mine is more rapid just changes the number,
>>>not the nature.
>>>
>>>Now you deserve a headache.
>>>
>>>Lg
>>>
>>
>>What's the difference between, say, 15VDC as you describe and 7.5VDC
>>with 7.5VAC added to it?
>>
>>nate
>
>
> DC is pushing current in 1 direction only, therefore it can be thought
> of as a vector. Magnitude and direction.
>
> AC is pushing current in 2 directions, therefore it can be thought of
> as two vectors in -serial- arrangement. The RMS root mean square of
> the AC, is the DC equivalent. IOW, if you have peak to peak 100 VAC,
> the rms is .707 times that, or 70 volts, which is the same as 70 volts
> DC. The Peak to Peak of AC is 1.2 times ( the reciprocal of .7 ) of
> the root mean square.
>
> Now putting a 1.5 volt battery in SERIES with another 1.5 will give
> you 3 volts. If you put them in opposition to eachother, aim the
> vectors at eachother with regards to polarity, you end up with ZERO
> volts. 1.5 pushing one way, and 1.5 pushing the other way, cancel
> eachother OUT.
>
> No different with an AC *component* on a DC network, except you have
> RMS AC working against the DC in exactly the _same_ manner.
>
> Is that clear? Probably not. You're "only" an engineer.
>
> Lg
>

Perfectly clear. The point is that DC with an AC component is not pure
DC. Pure DC makes a straight line across a 'scope when you look at it.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

On Wed, 04 May 2005 05:49:46 -0400, Nate Nagel >
wrote:

>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 May 2005 05:20:11 -0400, Nate Nagel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 03 May 2005 16:22:20 -0500, Steve > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 03 May 2005 10:10:19 -0500, Steve > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>high frequency pure DC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>OW! I think that statement just damaged my brain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Pure DC only means, that the current flowing in the circuit is ALWAYS
>>>>>>moving in one direction, and one direction only. Convention says,
>>>>>
>>>>>>from plus to minus, electronics says from minus to plus.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have not problem with the term "Pure DC" although it doesn't mean what
>>>>>you typed above. It means "DC without ripple" or DC with no AC
>>>>>component. 'DC' by itself means what you typed above.
>>>>>
>>>>>"High frequency pure DC" is an oxymoron. If there is any frequency
>>>>>component at all, then the DC is not pure.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I disagree. There is such a thing as DC with an AC component. With
>>>>the AC component missing, you're left with pure DC. Since there is no
>>>>AC component, but just a square wave or sawtooth oscillating back and
>>>>forth between a higher DC voltage and and lower DC voltage, it is pure
>>>>high-frequency DC. I haven't bothered to put a scope on it to see
>>>>which of the two it is, but I highly suspect it's a square wave.
>>>>
>>>>Periodicity, frequency, has nothing to do with the definition of
>>>>*pure.* If the voltage sat at 15 vdc for 1 hour, and then dropped to
>>>>13.5 vdc for 1 hour, and then went back to 15 vdc for an hour, and
>>>>dropped back to 13.5 vdc for one hour, YOU would be calling it "pure
>>>>dc." The frequency component does nothing to change the fact that
>>>>this is what it is. Your periodicity, or frequency, would be 1
>>>>cycle/hour. The fact that mine is more rapid just changes the number,
>>>>not the nature.
>>>>
>>>>Now you deserve a headache.
>>>>
>>>>Lg
>>>>
>>>
>>>What's the difference between, say, 15VDC as you describe and 7.5VDC
>>>with 7.5VAC added to it?
>>>
>>>nate
>>
>>
>> DC is pushing current in 1 direction only, therefore it can be thought
>> of as a vector. Magnitude and direction.
>>
>> AC is pushing current in 2 directions, therefore it can be thought of
>> as two vectors in -serial- arrangement. The RMS root mean square of
>> the AC, is the DC equivalent. IOW, if you have peak to peak 100 VAC,
>> the rms is .707 times that, or 70 volts, which is the same as 70 volts
>> DC. The Peak to Peak of AC is 1.2 times ( the reciprocal of .7 ) of
>> the root mean square.
>>
>> Now putting a 1.5 volt battery in SERIES with another 1.5 will give
>> you 3 volts. If you put them in opposition to eachother, aim the
>> vectors at eachother with regards to polarity, you end up with ZERO
>> volts. 1.5 pushing one way, and 1.5 pushing the other way, cancel
>> eachother OUT.
>>
>> No different with an AC *component* on a DC network, except you have
>> RMS AC working against the DC in exactly the _same_ manner.
>>
>> Is that clear? Probably not. You're "only" an engineer.
>>
>> Lg
>>
>
>Perfectly clear. The point is that DC with an AC component is not pure
>DC. Pure DC makes a straight line across a 'scope when you look at it.
>
>nate

Well Nate, it there is not supposed to be any AC component on this
"smart charger's" output, although if I get time later today I will
put a scope on it for the heck of it. And if you change your sweep
rate to a high enough number, you -will- see a straight line across
the scope, except it should look like a higher DC value, and then drop
to a lower one above Zero somewhere, depending on what the computer
chip and algorithm *think* the battery needs based on feedback on the
hook-up wires. Except it will oscillate back and forth between the
higher DC value and the lower DC value so quickly you will think you
are looking at two lines at the same time, depending on the latency of
the monitor. Then if you change the sweep rate you will see you've
got a square wave. For some reason, the MFGR chooses to call this
"high frequency DC." You have to call the MFGR to figure out why
marketing has come up with this buzzword I haven't a clue, but if
you know anybody in marketing, you know they're not the brightest bulb
on the Christmas tree.

It will go high, I expect like a sqare wave, and then go lo, I expect,
like a square wave, but not lo to zero, lo to somewhere above zero.

I haven't done this experiment -yet-. I busy with my chainsaw
maintenance at the moment ( 36 cc 2 stroke ).

And when I'm done with the chainsaw, I've got a carb on the 4 stroke
snowthrower that needs a rebuild. busy busy.

Lg

I agree with you that pulsed DC is still DC. And that varying DC is not AC
in any respect.

Some of the better battery chargers of a few years ago
DID impress an AC component on the DC intentionally
for just the reasons you mentioned.

I have had occasions to leave batteries in vehicles or in storage for long
periods of time, but was aware that cheap trickle chargers often supply too
much current.
It is well documented that even new batteries kept on this type of trickle
charger will be damaged by this sort of thing. I insert a small 12v lamp in
series with the charger lead to limit the trickle to a 'bias' situation when
I have to leave a battery for 1-3 months. It has worked for me.
(I choose the lamp wattage to limit the charge to a few hundred milliamperes
maximum.)

Lawrence Glickman wrote:

> Periodicity, frequency, has nothing to do with the definition of
> *pure.*
<munch>

You can twist in the wind and tap dance all you want, no skin off my nose.


>
> Now you deserve a headache.

I got plenty on my way to a Master's in electrical engineering.

On Wed, 04 May 2005 15:17:42 -0500, Steve > wrote:

>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>
>> Periodicity, frequency, has nothing to do with the definition of
>> *pure.*
><munch>
>
>You can twist in the wind and tap dance all you want, no skin off my nose.
>
>
>>
>> Now you deserve a headache.
>
>I got plenty on my way to a Master's in electrical engineering.

It seems you need a refresher course in electronics 101. I know
whereof I speak, having real field experience on the order of over 40
years. If I had it wrong, I wouldn't have been gainfully employed for
all that time, solving real problems in the real world, instead of
playing with a calculator.

Good luck finding an employer.

Lg

Lawrence Glickman wrote:

>There is such a thing as DC with an AC component.

No, that would be AC with a DC component.

On 4 May 2005 18:15:58 -0700, wrote:

>
>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>
>>There is such a thing as DC with an AC component.
>
>No, that would be AC with a DC component.

some of you guys are beginning to give me a headache