1998 Grand Caravan

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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')

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.

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.

You wouldn't recognize an honest, factual discussion if you saw one.

I wouldn't know. That's your problem - in your ignorance and dishonesty, you think anything that is said, whether factual or not is 'tactics', and that's all your ranting is without reality to back it up. You specialize in shell games - obvious to everyone, probably including yourself.

I'm sure in your mind, and no one else's, I have obliged you.

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