Connect with us

Battery Tester

Discussion in 'Electronic Repair' started by Too_Many_Tools, Oct 20, 2007.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Does anyone have a favorite battery tester that they would recommend?

    Other than what Radio Shack sells I see little else available.

    Thanks

    TMT
     
  2. Look again, this time using "battery tester" as Google search keyword.

    Sure. For automobile batteries, I use one of these:
    <http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=91129>
    <http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=90636>
    I have one of the 500A variety. If it gets hot and tries to catch
    fire, the battery is good.

    For smaller batteries, I just use a DVG (digital volts guesser).
    Depending on battery chemistry, I can usually determine whether the
    battery is totally dead, shorted, or otherwise ready for recycling.
    What I can't determine with a DVG is if the capacity of the battery is
    anywhere near the specified values. For that, I have to create a
    discharge curve, and compare it to a known good battery. I built my
    own long ago consisting of a test socket (for AA, C, D cells),
    constant current load, and an ancient strip chart recorder. I can
    tell if a battery or battery pack are dying by comparing the original
    curve, with the current test curve.

    A more modern version can be found for about $100 at:
    <http://www.westmountainradio.com/CBA_ham.htm>
    <http://www.westmountainradio.com/pdf/QST CBA PG40.pdf>
    I don't own one of these, yet.
     
  3. Jamie

    Jamie Guest

    Is that anything like back in the witch hunt days?
    If they drowned when held under water, I guess that
    meant they weren't a witch ?
    what analogy :)
     
  4. Ummm... that was during the Salem witch hunts. Back then, they didn't
    have the benefit of industry and government approved inspections,
    standards, and testing procedures. Forced to invent their own, they
    produced something similar to hiring a competitor to design your QA
    procedures. Everything was guaranteed to fail.

    In this case, the basic assumption was that a witch would float while
    a non-witch would sink and drown. It would have been simple enough to
    just throw the test sample into a pool of clean water with a known and
    controlled pH. If they couldn't swim underwater, they were a witch.
    If they floundered around thrashed about, they were either a witch or
    at least a good candidate for swimming lessons.

    Since the local church was deemed to be the competition of witchcraft,
    they added an unrealistic time limit. Instead of waiting for the
    floatation test to culminate, they attempted to accelerate the test by
    holding the test sample under water. The results were predictable.
    Everyone drowned.

    This is terrible QA testing, but is very similar to battery testing.
    If you give the battery time to discharge properly, it will simply
    heat up the load and incinerate everything nearby. However, if you
    attempt to accelerate the process by shorting the battery, you're more
    likely to have an explosion.

    Were we to suffer an infestation of witches today, the methodology
    would be quite different. Various industry trade organizations would
    immediately engage in a turf war to inscribe the necessary test
    standards. One is selected by virtue of the size of the consortium
    they can collect, the conglomeration of academics, pundits, industry
    burnouts, and newly minted engineers meet to hammer out a suitable
    standard for witch testing. Each group contributes its best practices
    and patented rituals. After years of expense accounts, travel costs,
    voluminous email, and multiple votes, a miserable compromise is
    reached. The standard is then published and sold an exorbitant cost.
    Of course, by then it's too late to do anything about the witch
    infestation, so the test procedure expands to include warlocks,
    werewolves, vampires, and such. By this time, researchers have
    discovered various security holes and inconsistencies in the original
    test procedures, and amendments and annexes are inscribed.

    Sometimes, I wonder if the Salem witch hunt method wasn't all that
    bad.
     
  5. Excellent Jeff...just excellent.

    I assume you are being held captive somewhere in a lab at a
    undisclosed location monitoring a test that has no chance of
    succeeding.

    Usenet has saved my sanity more than once also.;<)


    TMT
     
  6. Thanks. At least I can get something right today.
    That would be considered a vacation. I'm currently at home,
    surrounded by tons of paperwork, various home projects, an ever
    growing pile of eWaste candidates, and innumerable delayed chores.
    Instead of doing all that, I've been slogging my way through the
    various IEEE-802.11 documents, wondering what were they thinking when
    they threw that mess together. Engineers writing like lawyers?
    Anyway, I needed some comic relief to delay turning my brain to mush.
    Think about what did you do Saturday evenings before you discovered
    usenet news. Then, ask yourself if your sanity has really been
    saved.
     
  7. PhattyMo

    PhattyMo Guest

    LOL...I was just talking about that the other night..
    You're F'ed either way..Catch-22.
     
  8. gugle is u r friend u sad pathetic loser wanker.
     
  9. Tuner Watson

    Tuner Watson Guest

    I got one at a local dollar store that works fine for AA, AAA, C, D, 9V and you
    can even test flat 'button' batteries with it. It's a very cheap looking device
    but it works. It says YUANSHIN on the front, whatever that means.
     
  10. What was the dollar store's name?

    TMT
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-