Engine run time to keep battery charged

[Terry Schwartz]

This actually pretty easy. If you feel you really need to know, measure the quiescent current in the vehicle several minutes after the ignition has been shut off. It should be in the milliamp range. Now you can figure out the rate of discharge for the battery based on the AH rating. (NOT CCA). In hot or cold climates, derate the battery 20% for every year of life. (20% of the previous capacity, not the original capacity). BUT.... it really doesn't matter.

Vehicles with early electronics didn't manage the quiescent loads as well as modern vehicles. And added accessories can obviously add to that if they tap unswitched power.

You want to keep that battery charged to 80% or better of capacity. Because charging systems vary in algorithm and efficiency, and vehicles vary in dynamic loading, it's impossible to say "run the vehicle for X minutes every two weeks. But it is possible to pick a battery tender. Anything of decent quality today will taper the charge and many apply desulfating algorithms to the battery once it's charged. You can fearlessly leave a Schumacher or Battery Minder or Battery Tender on your dormant vehicle battery indefinitely.

The amp rating only makes a difference in the time it takes to charge the battery from a discharged state. Any tender can keep it topped off. I personally use tenders rated from 800ma to 4A and they all work fine on my many pieces of power sports equipment, as well as my winter-stored street vehicles, boats, and yard equipment.

Unless the battery is bad -- unusually high self discharge due to sulfation -- any tender has the capability to keep it topped off.

Note that final voltages are different for various types of batteries -- so if you are using an AGM or GEL battery, get the appropriate tender.

I *do* have some experience in this from both a personal and professional standpoint.

 

On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 16:36:28 UTC, John-Del wrote:

On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 11:09:24 AM UTC-5, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 15:13:14 UTC, pf...@aol.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 8:11:58 AM UTC-5, tabby wrote:
pf:

15 minutes at 1,000 rpm sitting still (using only the radiator fan if needed) is substantially different from moving down the road. Not to suggest that you are wrong. Every engine is different, and the goal is to drive all the moisture products-of-combustion out of the engine oil and exhaust system.

is it? Why would the OP need to do that every 2 weeks?

A 1987 car will have fairly low parasitic loads. It should be fine sat there for a month.


Not sure where the OP and that Buick might be, but we just had a week of below-10F weather, not good for batteries, engine oil or other things.

Every two weeks is good practice.

If it's below freezing the air is bone dry & any water from combustion frozen solid.

Why does every little thing need to be challenged to absolutes in this NG?

The topic is how often the car should be started & for how long. It's a discussion.

> I've never seen so much mental dick-wagging on a "professional" group.

Differing opinions are not dick wagging

> Is the car going to explode if started and run every two weeks? It might be overkill, but old cars in particular should be exercised often. Even the seals in the engine, transmission, rear end, and hydraulic systems are happier when kept lubricated by routine. Solenoids and vacuum actuators can stick from sitting long periods.

Yes. 2 years yes, not 2 weeks

> And here's another reason: cars stored out of doors around where I live become fodder for squirrels and chipmunks when sitting in the same spot. I friend stored a low mileage Acura at my house (interior fire) while he located another from Copart to use as a donor. 6 months later, he went to drive the car out of my property and found the transmission harness eaten right down to the casting.

how would running the engine every 2 weeks solve that?

> So... OP: start the Buick every two or three weeks, let it idle for a good half hour or so to get it good and hot if you can't drive it. If you can, take that old Buick for a good half hour drive - fedora and cigar optional...

Groupthink has struck.


NT

 

On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 16:44:51 UTC, pf...@aol.com wrote:

On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 11:09:24 AM UTC-5, tabby wrote:

If it's below freezing the air is bone dry & any water from combustion frozen solid. Regardless of temperature cars do not need running every 2 weeks unless electrically faulty.


Water in the air is not the issue, and never was. Water from products-of-combustion are the issue.

I've not heard any reason they wold be, nor how running every 2 weeks would cause less of that than every 4.

Ideally, the battery would be float-charged with an actual "smart" charger. Most of the Chinese Junque chargers these days run a continuous charge into the battery - AKA a "trickle" charger. Not hardly the same thing. A trickle charge will either:

a) Destroy the battery by charging faster than the self-discharge rate.
b) Allow the battery to run flat by charging slower than the self-discharge rate.
c) Miraculously match the self-discharge rate... odds of this?

A Float Charger will activate at some point when the battery charge drops below the trigger level, charge to a specific set-point, and then shut off until the next cycle.

Failing the availability of a float charger, and, especially in extreme (hot or cold) weather conditions, "about every two weeks" is a good rule-of-thumb. One never quite knows the actual condition of the battery, charging system, parasitic loads and so forth, so 'designing to the specific need' may not be ideal. And more than a month or so starts getting into the risk of seals drying out - especially in 30+ year old engines.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

I presumed the OP didn't have a charger, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. If the OP does have a decent charger, use it. If a not-decent charger, don't.


NT

 

[John-Del]

On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 8:39:22 PM UTC-5, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 16:36:28 UTC, John-Del wrote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 11:09:24 AM UTC-5, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 15:13:14 UTC, pf...@aol.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 8:11:58 AM UTC-5, tabby wrote:
pf:

15 minutes at 1,000 rpm sitting still (using only the radiator fan if needed) is substantially different from moving down the road. Not to suggest that you are wrong. Every engine is different, and the goal is to drive all the moisture products-of-combustion out of the engine oil and exhaust system.

is it? Why would the OP need to do that every 2 weeks?

A 1987 car will have fairly low parasitic loads. It should be fine sat there for a month.


Not sure where the OP and that Buick might be, but we just had a week of below-10F weather, not good for batteries, engine oil or other things..

Every two weeks is good practice.

If it's below freezing the air is bone dry & any water from combustion frozen solid.

Why does every little thing need to be challenged to absolutes in this NG?

The topic is how often the car should be started & for how long. It's a discussion.

A discussion is fine, but when you start saying stuff like "If it's below freezing the air is bone dry & any water from combustion frozen solid." that's not a discussion, that's pushing a silly argument. Cars develop condensation internally from incomplete heat cycling regardless of ambient conditions. Everyone knows this, including you I'm sure.

I've never seen so much mental dick-wagging on a "professional" group.

Differing opinions are not dick wagging

It is when every bit of minutia is parsed to absurdity.

Is the car going to explode if started and run every two weeks? It might be overkill, but old cars in particular should be exercised often. Even the seals in the engine, transmission, rear end, and hydraulic systems are happier when kept lubricated by routine. Solenoids and vacuum actuators can stick from sitting long periods.

Yes. 2 years yes, not 2 weeks

I didn't say they would stick in two weeks, I said that exercising the car every two weeks would likely prevent those issues. This is an old car we're talking about. The older they are, the more they need to keep moving.

And here's another reason: cars stored out of doors around where I live become fodder for squirrels and chipmunks when sitting in the same spot. I friend stored a low mileage Acura at my house (interior fire) while he located another from Copart to use as a donor. 6 months later, he went to drive the car out of my property and found the transmission harness eaten right down to the casting.

how would running the engine every 2 weeks solve that?

Squirrels and chipmunks don't build nests inside cars that move often or smell of human interaction. Leave a car unmoved for a month and you start seeing chipmunks running under the car daily. I move my old plow Explorer every week or so and turn it around, or park it elsewhere for a few days.

 

[Fox's Mercantile]

On 2/6/19 7:39 PM, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 16:36:28 UTC, John-Del wrote:
Why does every little thing need to be challenged to absolutes
in this NG?

The topic is how often the car should be started & for how long.
It's a discussion.

I've never seen so much mental dick-wagging on a "professional"
group.

Differing opinions are not dick wagging

Yes they are when it's pointless.
You constantly feel the need to always add some contrary opinion
to anything being discussed.

You do it every time Peter says something. The grout thread for
example.

And now you're doing it with John.

I see a pattern here, you have to always be right. About every
thing. Usually you aren't. But that doesn't stop you.

Do us all a favor, instead of having to hit "Follow up" on every
post, buy yourself a roll of paper towels and a bottle of Astro
Glide.

If you don't know what to do, I'm sure you can find the answers
via Google.com, or any number of search engines.



--
"I am a river to my people."
Jeff-1.0
WA6FWi
http:foxsmercantile.com

 

[+++ATH0]

On 2019-02-06 08:44, pfjw@aol.com wrote:
> A Float Charger will activate at some point when the battery charge drops below the trigger level, charge to a specific set-point, and then shut off until the next cycle.

It seems like you don't know what a float charge is. It involves
maintaining the battery terminal voltage at the correct point for the
ambient temperature with a permanently-connected charger so that the
battery neither passes an appreciable amount of charge current nor
self-discharges. The relevant type of lead-acid cells will remain
fully-charged and healthy for decades when this is done correctly, but
only if they are intended for low-discharge float service, as seen in
telco POPs and similar where they are rarely called on for service.

Starter batteries don't deserve this sort of treatment, and the chargers
you get for them don't behave in this way. There are maintenance
chargers which are intended to be permanently connected which operate in
the way you suggest, but it's not float charging.

 

On Thursday, 7 February 2019 03:04:44 UTC, John-Del wrote:

On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 8:39:22 PM UTC-5, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 16:36:28 UTC, John-Del wrote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 11:09:24 AM UTC-5, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 15:13:14 UTC, pf...@aol.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 8:11:58 AM UTC-5, tabby wrote:
pf:

15 minutes at 1,000 rpm sitting still (using only the radiator fan if needed) is substantially different from moving down the road. Not to suggest that you are wrong. Every engine is different, and the goal is to drive all the moisture products-of-combustion out of the engine oil and exhaust system.

is it? Why would the OP need to do that every 2 weeks?

A 1987 car will have fairly low parasitic loads. It should be fine sat there for a month.


Not sure where the OP and that Buick might be, but we just had a week of below-10F weather, not good for batteries, engine oil or other things.

Every two weeks is good practice.

If it's below freezing the air is bone dry & any water from combustion frozen solid.

Why does every little thing need to be challenged to absolutes in this NG?

The topic is how often the car should be started & for how long. It's a discussion.

A discussion is fine, but when you start saying stuff like "If it's below freezing the air is bone dry & any water from combustion frozen solid." that's not a discussion, that's pushing a silly argument.

it's stating a fact directly relevant to the topic

> Cars develop condensation internally from incomplete heat cycling regardless of ambient conditions. Everyone knows this, including you I'm sure.

sure.

I've never seen so much mental dick-wagging on a "professional" group..

Differing opinions are not dick wagging

It is when every bit of minutia is parsed to absurdity.

the claim that cars need to be run every 2 weeks is core to the topic, not minutia

Is the car going to explode if started and run every two weeks? It might be overkill, but old cars in particular should be exercised often. Even the seals in the engine, transmission, rear end, and hydraulic systems are happier when kept lubricated by routine. Solenoids and vacuum actuators can stick from sitting long periods.

Yes. 2 years yes, not 2 weeks


I didn't say they would stick in two weeks, I said that exercising the car every two weeks would likely prevent those issues. This is an old car we're talking about. The older they are, the more they need to keep moving.


And here's another reason: cars stored out of doors around where I live become fodder for squirrels and chipmunks when sitting in the same spot. I friend stored a low mileage Acura at my house (interior fire) while he located another from Copart to use as a donor. 6 months later, he went to drive the car out of my property and found the transmission harness eaten right down to the casting.

how would running the engine every 2 weeks solve that?


Squirrels and chipmunks don't build nests inside cars that move often or smell of human interaction. Leave a car unmoved for a month and you start seeing chipmunks running under the car daily. I move my old plow Explorer every week or so and turn it around, or park it elsewhere for a few days.

maybe a valid point at last.


NT

 

On Thursday, 7 February 2019 04:58:05 UTC, Fox's Mercantile wrote:

On 2/6/19 7:39 PM, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 16:36:28 UTC, John-Del wrote:

Why does every little thing need to be challenged to absolutes
in this NG?

The topic is how often the car should be started & for how long.
It's a discussion.

I've never seen so much mental dick-wagging on a "professional"
group.

Differing opinions are not dick wagging

Yes they are when it's pointless.

it's the topic being discussed. Whether that is pointless depends on the OP's situation

You constantly feel the need to always add some contrary opinion
to anything being discussed.

You do it every time Peter says something. The grout thread for
example.

And now you're doing it with John.

sometimes discussion threads just drift off into bs

I see a pattern here, you have to always be right. About every
thing.

At the risk of stating the 100% obvious, that is not even possible.

Usually you aren't. But that doesn't stop you.

Do us all a favor, instead of having to hit "Follow up" on every
post, buy yourself a roll of paper towels and a bottle of Astro
Glide.

If you don't know what to do, I'm sure you can find the answers
via Google.com, or any number of search engines.

ah, ad hominem.


NT

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

Jeff:

I think this entire discussion may be distilled to the following:

a) The first-stated purpose is to keep a battery charged on an otherwise idle vehicle.
b) A float charger/battery maintainer is not an option.
c) Actually driving the vehicle is to be avoided - could be for many good reasons from physical issues to insurance to registration and so forth.

What we know A:

a) Starting any fossil-fuel Internal Combustion engine produces a great deal of water as a product-of-combustion.
b) We do not want that water to remain in the engine. Which means:
c) We have to bring the engine up to a minimum operating temperature, and then maintain that temperature for some undefined period of time, but one that is sure to remove the water.
d) It is extremely likely that this water-removal requirement will exceed the keeping-the-battery-charged requirement in operating time.

What we know B:
a) 1987 was 32 years ago.
b) We have no direct knowledge of state of the vehicle in terms of maintenance - oil seals, gaskets, and so forth.
c) Older gaskets do like to be exercised against shrinkage and drying out.
d) The gentleman in the Hospital would probably want his very cooperative neighbor to err on the side of caution.

EVEN THOUGH 147.5 angels *can* dance on the head of a pin, running said vehicle for a minimum of 15 minutes (or until fully hot) at ~1,000 rpm at least every two weeks is probably adequate. Special circumstances may SHORTEN that time (2 weeks), but unlikely that the time would be lengthened by much - given 'What we know B'.

So, Tabby may obsess around the details - I know for sure he is highly frustrated when pepper gets into his fly-poop - but the actual reality on the ground won't change because of that obsession.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

On Thursday, 7 February 2019 19:13:57 UTC, pf...@aol.com wrote:

Jeff:

I think this entire discussion may be distilled to the following:

a) The first-stated purpose is to keep a battery charged on an otherwise idle vehicle.
b) A float charger/battery maintainer is not an option.
c) Actually driving the vehicle is to be avoided - could be for many good reasons from physical issues to insurance to registration and so forth.

What we know A:

a) Starting any fossil-fuel Internal Combustion engine produces a great deal of water as a product-of-combustion.
b) We do not want that water to remain in the engine. Which means:
c) We have to bring the engine up to a minimum operating temperature, and then maintain that temperature for some undefined period of time, but one that is sure to remove the water.
d) It is extremely likely that this water-removal requirement will exceed the keeping-the-battery-charged requirement in operating time.

What we know B:
a) 1987 was 32 years ago.
b) We have no direct knowledge of state of the vehicle in terms of maintenance - oil seals, gaskets, and so forth.
c) Older gaskets do like to be exercised against shrinkage and drying out..
d) The gentleman in the Hospital would probably want his very cooperative neighbor to err on the side of caution.

EVEN THOUGH 147.5 angels *can* dance on the head of a pin, running said vehicle for a minimum of 15 minutes (or until fully hot) at ~1,000 rpm at least every two weeks is probably adequate. Special circumstances may SHORTEN that time (2 weeks), but unlikely that the time would be lengthened by much - given 'What we know B'.

So, Tabby may obsess around the details - I know for sure he is highly frustrated when pepper gets into his fly-poop - but the actual reality on the ground won't change because of that obsession.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

I've gone & chilled. No I'm not obsessed, it's just, what's the word, I'm seeing a long thread of groupthink.

A b) & c) are debateable. Whether B c) results in the need to run it every 2 weeks is at best unlikely.


NT

 

[Fox's Mercantile]

On 2/8/19 4:27 PM, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:

I've gone & chilled. No I'm not obsessed, it's just, what's the word, I'm seeing a long thread of groupthink.

A b) & c) are debateable. Whether B c) results in the need to run it every 2 weeks is at best unlikely.

And yet, you just had to argue.


--
"I am a river to my people."
Jeff-1.0
WA6FWi
http:foxsmercantile.com

 

On Saturday, 9 February 2019 00:51:59 UTC, Fox's Mercantile wrote:

On 2/8/19 4:27 PM, tabbypurr wrote:

I've gone & chilled. No I'm not obsessed, it's just, what's the word, I'm seeing a long thread of groupthink.

A b) & c) are debateable. Whether B c) results in the need to run it every 2 weeks is at best unlikely.

And yet, you just had to argue.

I chose to discuss it. It's how it works here. The notion that an engine has a minimum run time that is when the oil exceeds 100C is a simple fiction. That you object to that doesn't change it.


NT

 

[Fox's Mercantile]

On 2/9/19 3:07 AM, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, 9 February 2019 00:51:59 UTC, Fox's Mercantile wrote:
On 2/8/19 4:27 PM, tabbypurr wrote:

I've gone & chilled. No I'm not obsessed, it's just, what's the word, I'm seeing a long thread of groupthink.

A b) & c) are debateable. Whether B c) results in the need to run it every 2 weeks is at best unlikely.

And yet, you just had to argue.

I chose to discuss it. It's how it works here. The notion that an engine has a minimum run time that is when the oil exceeds 100C is a simple fiction. That you object to that doesn't change it.


NT

Ok, how about a little proof of your assertion?
Got a link?

A reputable one preferably.

--
"I am a river to my people."
Jeff-1.0
WA6FWi
http:foxsmercantile.com

 

[three_jeeps]

On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 4:07:08 AM UTC-5, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, 9 February 2019 00:51:59 UTC, Fox's Mercantile wrote:
On 2/8/19 4:27 PM, tabbypurr wrote:

I've gone & chilled. No I'm not obsessed, it's just, what's the word, I'm seeing a long thread of groupthink.

A b) & c) are debateable. Whether B c) results in the need to run it every 2 weeks is at best unlikely.

And yet, you just had to argue.

I chose to discuss it. It's how it works here. The notion that an engine has a minimum run time that is when the oil exceeds 100C is a simple fiction. That you object to that doesn't change it.


NT

OMG, are you guys politicians, OCD engineers, or techno weenies wanna be's?
If the OP fretted over all the fly shit in pepper in this thread s/he probably never would accomplish the goal. The OP isn't building a Mars rover (been there, done that) and needs to know quiescent current draw down to the nano amp,or if it is 0.002 ma or 0.100 ma, or if the OP going to do an oil analysis to determine %of H2O that, if left in the engine long enough will rust away 500 lbs of cast iron and degrade aluminum.
Abstraction and pragmatism goes a long way and can save LOTS of time and energy: Run the car approximately every 10-14 days, for approximately 20-30 mins, while varying the rpm every so often but try to keep RPM a around 800-1000RPM to effectively charge the battery.
If oil condition is suspect, change it and filter when the guy gets out of the hospital. Case closed. sheesh dont sweat the small things and don't pet the furry things....

Given all the overthink that seems to have been elicited in this thread, I am surprised no one suggested reparking the car by a 10 degree clockwise rotation every time the engine is run so the UV light from the sun would degrade the interior components equally....

 

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <e1a2bffc-60a8-4e74-b4ba-8490e2950771@googlegroups.com>,
jjhudak@gmail.com says...

OMG, are you guys politicians, OCD engineers, or techno weenies wanna be's?
If the OP fretted over all the fly shit in pepper in this thread s/he probably never would accomplish the goal. The OP isn't building a Mars rover (been there, done that) and needs to know quiescent current draw down to the nano amp,or if it is 0.002 ma or 0.100 ma, or if the OP going to do an oil analysis to determine %of H2O
that, if left in the engine long enough will rust away 500 lbs of cast iron and degrade aluminum.

I don't recall anyone saying that if all the car running for is to keep
up the battery, why not just remove the battery, maybe put it on a slow
charge every week or so like the one for Harbor Freight that can be
bought for aobt $ 5 on sale ? For my lawn mower I have a solar cell I
bought for charging batteries and put it on the mower in the winter as
there is no electricity in the mower shed.

 

[John-Del]

On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 2:18:56 PM UTC-5, three_jeeps wrote:

Abstraction and pragmatism goes a long way and can save LOTS of time and energy: Run the car approximately every 10-14 days, for approximately 20-30 mins, while varying the rpm every so often but try to keep RPM a around 800-1000RPM to effectively charge the battery.

Pretty much the group consensus except for the two loons in particular that like to parse things to absurdity in the name of "discussion". I'm sure we all know to whom I'm referring.

Given all the overthink that seems to have been elicited in this thread, I am surprised no one suggested reparking the car by a 10 degree clockwise rotation every time the engine is run so the UV light from the sun would degrade the interior components equally....

Heheh.. then those two loons would treat us to a long winded dissertation on the advantages of a schedule to select the proper time of day to rotate the car based on the Sunrise/Sunset calendar taking into consideration overcast days and eclipses...

But I'm totally intrigued by the Mars rover info comment!

 

[Fox's Mercantile]

On 2/9/19 2:26 PM, John-Del wrote:

Pretty much the group consensus except for the two loons
in particular that like to parse things to absurdity in
the name of "discussion". I'm sure we all know to whom
I'm referring.

And when asked to give a citation for some absurd claim,
they can't.



--
"I am a river to my people."
Jeff-1.0
WA6FWi
http:foxsmercantile.com

 

On Saturday, 9 February 2019 20:26:12 UTC, John-Del wrote:

On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 2:18:56 PM UTC-5, three_jeeps wrote:

Abstraction and pragmatism goes a long way and can save LOTS of time and energy: Run the car approximately every 10-14 days, for approximately 20-30 mins, while varying the rpm every so often but try to keep RPM a around 800-1000RPM to effectively charge the battery.


Pretty much the group consensus except for the two loons in particular that like to parse things to absurdity in the name of "discussion". I'm sure we all know to whom I'm referring.

the joys of groupthink.

junk snipped.

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 2:14:45 AM UTC-5, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, 9 February 2019 20:26:12 UTC, John-Del wrote:
On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 2:18:56 PM UTC-5, three_jeeps wrote:

Abstraction and pragmatism goes a long way and can save LOTS of time and energy: Run the car approximately every 10-14 days, for approximately 20-30 mins, while varying the rpm every so often but try to keep RPM a around 800-1000RPM to effectively charge the battery.


Pretty much the group consensus except for the two loons in particular that like to parse things to absurdity in the name of "discussion". I'm sure we all know to whom I'm referring.

the joys of groupthink.

junk snipped.

Ya know... Sometimes "Groupthink" is a result of multiple individuals having the same experience when faced with the same phenomenon and solving for the same problem. Which makes it "Good Procedure".

Madness, on the other hand, is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result. Or, when a desired result is achieved and understood, repeatedly applying flawed logic in order to change that result - you are a very clear and concise example of that process.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

On Monday, 11 February 2019 12:19:24 UTC, pf...@aol.com wrote:

On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 2:14:45 AM UTC-5, tabby wrote:
On Saturday, 9 February 2019 20:26:12 UTC, John-Del wrote:
On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 2:18:56 PM UTC-5, three_jeeps wrote:

Abstraction and pragmatism goes a long way and can save LOTS of time and energy: Run the car approximately every 10-14 days, for approximately 20-30 mins, while varying the rpm every so often but try to keep RPM a around 800-1000RPM to effectively charge the battery.


Pretty much the group consensus except for the two loons in particular that like to parse things to absurdity in the name of "discussion". I'm sure we all know to whom I'm referring.

the joys of groupthink.

junk snipped.

Ya know... Sometimes "Groupthink" is a result of multiple individuals having the same experience when faced with the same phenomenon and solving for the same problem. Which makes it "Good Procedure".

sometimes, sometimes not. The reasons offered have not added up.

> Madness, on the other hand, is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result. Or, when a desired result is achieved and understood, repeatedly applying flawed logic in order to change that result - you are a very clear and concise example of that process.

I don't know what 'different result' you imagine I'm looking for. I'm not overly worried either.


NT