Engine run time to keep battery charged

[Tom Del Rosso]

If you turn over an engine periodically to keep it charged, how long do
you run it to make up for the charge lost in starting?

In this case it's my neighbor's 87 Buick Regal while he's in the
hospital.


--

[Paul in Houston TX]

5 min once every two weeks should be sufficient assuming the
battery and charging system is good. Turn everything off except
engine. It will need to be run at least 1,000 rpm for that time
period.

OTH, Harbor Freight has cheap little float chargers but 120v power
will be needed. A friend uses one of these when out of the country:
https://www.harborfreight.com/automatic-battery-float-charger-42292.html

[John-Del]

On Monday, February 4, 2019 at 5:57:03 PM UTC-5, Paul in Houston TX wrote:
> Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> > If you turn over an engine periodically to keep it charged, how long do
> > you run it to make up for the charge lost in starting?
> >
> > In this case it's my neighbor's 87 Buick Regal while he's in the
> > hospital.
>
> 5 min once every two weeks should be sufficient assuming the
> battery and charging system is good. Turn everything off except
> engine. It will need to be run at least 1,000 rpm for that time
> period.

I've always been told that short run times creates condensation and acid in the motor oil from incomplete warmup - get her good and hot to drive off moisture. I realize the OP was asking about charging times, but he'd be better served by letting that old Buick idle for a good half an hour every few weeks, or better yet, have OP take the old girl for a blast.

> OTH, Harbor Freight has cheap little float chargers but 120v power
> will be needed. A friend uses one of these when out of the country:
> https://www.harborfreight.com/automatic-battery-float-charger-42292.html

NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Don't suggest a solution (even a cheap one) that comes from a credit card lest Arlen Holder or one of his socks pitches a fit!!!

[arlen holder]

72 seconds

Having said that, here's how I arrived at 72 seconds, bearing in mind
there's a complexity to your question which, outside of the engineering
specs of both the battery & engine (and parasitics), we can only help you
guess at it mathematically, where empirical results would seem to be more
accurate than our guestimates.

Starting with the basics, a quick search for a Buick Regal Alternator nets
<https://www.partsgeek.com/catalog/1987/buick/regal/engine_electrical/alternator.html>
which says the alternator outputs 100 amps at idle (if needed) and 150 amps
output at max rpm (again, if needed as alternators adjust output based on
"B" sensing).

Running a direct search for the power needed to start an 87 Buick Regal,
it's easy to find the vehicle, but hard to find the power needed to start
the engine:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buick_Regal#Grand_National,_Turbo-T,_T-Type,_and_GNX>

We're kind of stuck with the "generic" stuff, such as this:
o How Many Amps Does It Take to Start a Car?
<https://www.reference.com/vehicles/many-amps-start-car-e35b6f3d4d8bf426>
Which says an average car needs 400 to 500 amps but doesn't say how long.

Let's assume it takes five to ten seconds to start it, at 500 amps, where
the maximum power would be 10 seconds times 500 amps, which means you
sucked out 5,000 Coulombs (i.e., 5000 amp seconds) if the math is right.

If I did the math right, that's less than 1.5 amp hours, and since we
guessed high, I'd say the amount used is roughly about 1 amp hour to 1.5
amp hours, but since we want to "be safe" and have "easy math", I'd use 2
amp hours as the amount to add back.

If you put back two amp hours (to cover for inherent losses, mostly in
heat), you're back to where you started, where we have to "assume" that the
battery sense circuit allows the alternator to output enough current to
charge the battery after just one start.

At idle, if we assume the battery sense allows you to get those 100 amps we
saw in the spec, to generate 2 amp hours would take only about 0.02 hours,
or about 72 seconds (if I did the quick math right) - which -
coincidentally - is about how long it took to run the quick math. :)

If that 72 second answer is wrong, I welcome someone who can tell us how to
arrive at the better answer.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 01:30:54 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> Let's assume it takes five to ten seconds to start it, at 500 amps, where

> the maximum _power _would be 10 seconds times 500 amps, which means you

> sucked out 5,000 Coulombs (i.e., 5000 amp seconds) if the math is right.

Ooops... Coulombs ... not power... (power would be via P=IV or I^2R but
not amp seconds)...

(I hacked that out in a minute on the run, so, please correct where I err.)

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 17:05:13 -0800 (PST), John-Del wrote:

>> OTH, Harbor Freight has cheap little float chargers but 120v power
>> will be needed. A friend uses one of these when out of the country:
>> https://www.harborfreight.com/automatic-battery-float-charger-42292.html
>
> NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Don't suggest a solution (even a cheap one)
> that comes from a credit card lest Arlen Holder or one of his socks
> pitches a fit!!!

First off, neither of you appeared to have _comprehended_ the question,
which was how much time does it take to recharge the battery to compensate
for the charge lost in starting, which I roughly calculated at about 72
seconds, meaning, a couple of minutes "should" recharge the battery if the
assumptions I made were reasonable.

Even if you did _comprehend_ the question, you made no attempt to _answer_
the OP's question, which, is par for the course since all you _can_ do is
off-topic chit-chat drivel.

NOTE: I don't need to prove that statement since you prove it for me.

Moving on though, assuming the OP is satisfied with the 72 second
assumption, there _is_ a question of how often he _needs_ to charge the
battery.

I wonder if you, John-Del, have the brains to answer _that_ question?
(HINT: I don't think you do ... but maybe you'll prove me wrong.)

HINT: I already calculated it in the same minute (or so) that I calculated
the answer I provided - but I didn't post it because, unlike you, I
actually _comprehended_ the question that the OP had asked.

HINT: If you can't take a hint - you always prove to be _stupid_, John-Doe.
DOUBLEHINT: The proof will be in exactly what you write in response.

[Fox's Mercantile]

On 2/4/19 7:43 PM, arlen holder wrote:
Nothing of interest as usual.

Quack quack quack, ding, reverse direction.

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

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 20:59:38 -0600, Fox's Mercantile wrote:

> Quack quack quack, ding, reverse direction.

Two points which _adults_ will comprehend.

1. Snit here acts like a child _all_ the time, and,
2. Snit here didn't even _attempt_ to answer the OP's question.

We really shouldn't fault him as his brain _is_ that of a child.
o He proves that fact in _every_ post - as he did here.

Meanwhile, I at least attempted to faithfully answer the guy's question.
o And, yet, Snit (aka Fox's Mercantile), calls everyone but himself, a troll.

I don't even have to prove these two statements since he proves it himself.
o What Snit (aka Fox's Mercantile) wries, proves these two facts.

1. Snit (aka Fox's Mercantile) is _never_ purposefully helpful, and,
2. Snit (aka Fox's Mercantile) _always_ proves to own the brain of a child.

The funny thing is that it's not even an ad hominem attack!
o It's simply pointing out what Fox's Mercantile proves himself to be a fact.

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <072fc2e7-dc4d-48ac...@googlegroups.com>,
ohg...@gmail.com says...

>
> I've always been told that short run times creates condensation and acid in the motor oil from incomplete warmup - get her good and hot to drive off moisture. I realize the OP was asking about charging times, but he'd be better served by letting that old Buick idle for a good half an hour every few weeks, or better yet, have OP
take the old girl for a blast.
>
>
> > OTH, Harbor Freight has cheap little float chargers but 120v power
> > will be needed. A friend uses one of these when out of the country:
> > https://www.harborfreight.com/automatic-battery-float-charger-42292.html
>
>
>

I am using one of those HF float chargers to hold up a lawn mower
battery over the winter. I really use that battery to power a sprayer
instead of the lawn mower.

My mower is in a shed with out power. I have a small solar cell about
the size of a mouse pad to keep it charged over the winter months.

If starting the mower, I would run it long enough to get the motor and
exhaust system hot. Maybe a 5 ot 10 mile trip to the store and back
once every 2 weeks or so. It will probably do the other parts of the
car some good also.

[bitrex]

<https://www.jstor.org/stable/44611429?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents>

It's behind a pay-wall but I can probably get my hands on a copy

[tabb...@gmail.com]

Best answer so far.
100A would only be delivered to a flat battery, it'll charge much slower than that.
There's also the parasitic loads to make up for, the electronics that eats power when the vehicle is off and on.

You're better off testing battery voltage and not doing anything until it drops enough to warrant charging. Leads acids don't like sitting even half discharged, keep it near full.


NT

[gregz]

A real test at idle, turn on lights. If revving the engine makes them
brighter, you have little reserve power to charge battery. For a fast
charge you need 14 or more volts.

Greg

[gregz]

My HF floaters make too much bubbling on a charged battery.

Greg

[peterw...@gmail.com]

God Help Us! This was given in Drivers'Ed. I must be VERY old.

The rules of thumb are as follows. All times at ~1,000 rpm.

a) For a pre-catalyst car, a minimum of 15 minutes. This will bring every part of the system above the temperatures necessary to boil water out of the oil and the exhaust. This will also re-coat the cylinders with oil - which tends to be rinsed off by the very rich mixture on starting, especially when the outside temperatures are below freezing.

b) Post-Catalyst, carburetor: About the same, maybe only 10 - 12 minutes, as the catalyst will do a fine job of heating the exhaust. A V8 or other large-displacement engine will take longer.

c) Fuel-injected, 7 - 12 minutes. This directly related to engine displacement. Big = more time.

The physics of removing moisture from the oil becomes the driver (pun intended). The system must reach full operating temperature and stay there for a couple of minutes. Pretty much when moisture (steam) stops coming out of the tailpipe - and then a few minutes.

If you open the oil-fill cap and find a milky foam, you haven't been doing it long enough.

[John-Del]

On Monday, February 4, 2019 at 8:43:17 PM UTC-5, arlen holder wrote:
>a bit steaming pile of bullshit



You don't have a clue how to answer that question.

You've left out the variables that *must* be included to calculate the recharge time.

Car batteries have an internal resistance that changes from the minute it's installed until it's finally dead. As it ages, the car battery's internal resistance rises and it won't draw the same current as it did when it was new. Batteries slowly sulfate over time and the more sulfated the car battery is, the larger the battery's capacitor effect is and the longer it takes to charge. Car alternators often don't provide their rated current, particularly when they are older. You left out the temperature of the components and the quality of wiring involved. Is that old Buick even idling at it's programmed rpm?

You also left out the self discharging of the battery and the standby parasitic drag from the car's computer and accessories, so that must be added to the charge time. OP asked about replenishment charge time but he also said he wants to start the car to keep the battery from self discharging. His question was two-fold, and in the real world, the best advice is keep a float charger on it or, better yet, run the car on the road to charge the battery, boil off condensation and contaminants in the fluids, and keep moving parts moving.

If OP starts that car, runs it 72 seconds and shuts it off, that battery won't last.

[Look165]

It's just an equation. (I suppose a 12V car battery).

3s of starter, means 3*(900/12) C = 225C = 62.5mAh=0.0625Ah (900W is the
starter power).
Just add this to the loss of the battery.

Knowing that the alternator charges at 13.8V about 500W (500/(13.8-12) 
i.e. 200As=0.55Ah , it's easy.

[peterw...@gmail.com]

Arlen Holder and its various socks and clones is a genuinely dangerous individual and should be muzzled, blind-folded, have its fingers in mittens, encased in epoxy and super-glued to the opposite shoulders, feet tied, crossed and bent back at the knees, tied to its legs.

Only then will it be rendered very nearly harmless.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Rob]

Those times are probably not long enough. Even in my small car
(4-cyl 1.6L engine) I find that after a lot of 15-minute runs the oil
temperature caps at 100C when driving a bit longer, and it requires a
45 minute drive or so before it rises to 110-120C.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 00:03:14 -0500, bitrex wrote:

> <https://www.jstor.org/stable/44611429?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents>
>
> It's behind a pay-wall but I can probably get my hands on a copy

Having authored peer-reviewed papers myself (in a different field), I took
a quick peek at the abstract of that paper, titled:
o Computer Simulation of an I.C. Engine During Cranking by a Starter Motor
<https://www.jstor.org/stable/44611429?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents>

"A mathematical model is developed to study the transient behavior of a two
stroke or four stroke, single cylinder I.C. engine during cranking and
starting by a starter motor. The engine model includes forces due to
inertia of reciprocating and rotating parts of engine, gas pressure,
frictional loss while starter motor dynamics is determined by the motor's
torque versus speed behavior. The numerical results of the analysis when
compared with the experimental results showed close correlation.
Engine starting by three models of starter motor is presented for a given
battery. Effect of different parameters like engine inertia and reduction
ratio between engine and a starter motor is described. It is shown here how
this analysis can be effectively used as a first step by an engine designer
for determining a suitable starter motor characteristic and its related
transmission parameters."

Hmmm... they _might_ cover the charge payback component, but I suspect
likely it will only be an ancillary input to the mathematical model, and
certainly it won't apply _directly_ to an 87 Buick Regal.

We should note that the given "battery" is seemingly incidental in this
paper, which seems to be aimed more toward designing starter motors, and,
specifically between choosing among three different types of fundamental
starter motor designs.

Still, it may be an interesting read, where, I'd be curious how the three
types of starter motors affected the model - but - I hazard a guess that we
won't find a direct answer for our charge component in that paper.

[bitrex]

Here's a modern review of a 1989 Buick Century:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKYMgfjCd7E>

"Boomers were in their early 40s and at the height of their power - they
understood the world, and the world turned according to their whims.
They understood computers because floppy disks were goddamn floppy, and
they knew the HIV virus was out there doing the good Lord's work."

[bitrex]

The '87 Buick Regal is quite a different car from the Century, though.

I kinda picture a black '87 Buick Regal being the kind of car in the
late 80s or early 90s driven by a teenager in a jean jacket/vest with
AC/DC patches on it, hockey hair/"business in front party in back",
earring in the _left_ ear, smoking his Dad's Parliaments in the high
school parking lot with his 13 y/o girlfriend keeping an eye out for
some little _faggot_ to beat down for his lunch money. "Hey you. yeah,
you, you little queer. Give me your fuckin' lunch money you little bitch
boy!"

[Fox's Mercantile]

I have a '96 Chevy Astro van.
It's about a 1/4 mile from the house to shop.
If all I do is go back and forth, by the end of the week,
I have to put the battery on a charger to "refill it"
properly.
If I drive to Walmart, 10 miles each way, its more than
happy.
I also have a '02 Dodge Dakota.
Which ever vehicle I'm not driving has a Harbor Freight
"top off" charger on it to maintain things while they
are parked.
It's that simple.

[John-Del]

I have a C5 Corvette which I store for the winter. If that car is not run in 5 weeks, the battery is DEAD (won't even click the starter solenoid). That is normal behavior for this particular car. When I had an early 2000s Mustang, that car could sit 5 months and start in the spring like it was run the day before. Depends on the car, but between self discharge of the battery and the particular car's parasitic loss, cars need much more than "72" seconds to keep charged.

[Fox's Mercantile]

On 2/5/19 10:05 AM, John-Del wrote:
> Depends on the car, but between self discharge of the
> battery and the particular car's parasitic loss, cars
> need much more than "72" seconds to keep charged.

You will never be able to convince anyone who insists on
talking just to hear them selves talk.

Or those that insist on posting every really obscure
exception to what normally happens.

[bitrex]

On 02/05/2019 10:44 AM, Fox's Mercantile wrote:
> I have a '96 Chevy Astro van.

It's juuuuunk throw it in the garbage

[bitrex]

Throw that junk away man it's an antique

[Fox's Mercantile]

I bought it used in 2000. It's been a daily driver for
past 19 years. Still going strong.

[gghe...@gmail.com]

On Monday, February 4, 2019 at 4:45:38 PM UTC-5, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> If you turn over an engine periodically to keep it charged, how long do
> you run it to make up for the charge lost in starting?
>
> In this case it's my neighbor's 87 Buick Regal while he's in the
> hospital.
>
>

> --

Drive it around the block. It's good to have the wheels spin and the
brakes engage too.

George H.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 04:42:57 -0800 (PST), John-Del wrote:

> You don't have a clue how to answer that question.

Hi John-Del,

You prove with every post, you are an idiot (you prove it yourself).

You say I don't have a clue, & yet, at least I _comprehended_ the question!
o Not only did you (and your child buddies) not _comprehend_ the question
o All you _can_ do, is worthless chitchat (ala' the child you prove to be)

*I used to think people like you were _only_ incredibly stupid*
o But now I realize it's worse - because your brain can't comprehend facts.

*I used to think people like you were simply incessantly pulling our leg*
o But now I think it's far worse - since you appear to _believe_ what you write

Since you _are_ clearly stupid, & you prove to _remain_ ignorant...
o The only viable conclusion is you own the left-side brain of Dunning Kruger
<https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DlG0kwCXoAYC-75.jpg>

Since your brain is wired as that of the lemon-juice bank robber, John-Del,
o There is no possibly way for an adult to communicate with you.

You will _still_ believe, even in the complete absence of evidence, that
lemon juice works to hide your face from the bank surveillance cameras.

While all people are on the DK scale when it comes to cognitive skills
assessment, you, John-Del, appear to be far to the left of Mount Stupid:
<https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DrQGXxKXcAAFaVt.jpg>

I don't even need to prove this fact; you prove it yourself - in every post.
o Just watch.

NOTE: To save _others_ from your drivel, John-Del, I will not respond to
your unfathomably childish posts any further in this thread.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 05:38:48 -0800 (PST), pf...@aol.com wrote:

> Only then will it be rendered very nearly harmless.

*Jesus Christ, pfjw proves in every post, his brain stem is that of a child!*

I don't even need to prove pfjw can _only_ write as that of a child.
o You prove it yourself _every_ time you post your childish off-topic drivel
(For example, "it", is, I'm sure, *hilariously* witty to you & your ilk.)

HINT: You clearly don't even have a clue what the OP's question is asking.
DOUBLEHINT: You certainly have no chance at _answering_ the OP's question.
TRIPLEHINT: You can't even _insult_ someone using >3rd-grade retorts

Jesus Christ, pfjw,
o You prove yourself, in _every_ post to own the brain of a mere child.

--
NOTE: To save others from having to deal with the worthless pfjw's drivel,
I will no longer respond to his always child-like posts any further in this
thread.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 21:53:08 -0800 (PST), tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

> Best answer so far.
> 100A would only be delivered to a flat battery, it'll charge much slower than that.
> There's also the parasitic loads to make up for, the electronics that eats power when the vehicle is off and on.
>
> You're better off testing battery voltage and not doing anything until it drops enough to warrant charging. Leads acids don't like sitting even half discharged, keep it near full.

Since you are a logical sentient adult, you speak on-topic wisdom.
o I agree to everything you said, where I basically said the same thing.

To _directly_ answer the OP's question, we only need to replace Coulombs
o However, there is _more_ to "maintaining" the battery status than just that.

We agree.
o Adults easily agree on such things simply because they are related facts.

[Fox's Mercantile]

On 2/5/19 6:01 PM, arlen holder wrote:
His usual incoherent drivel.

Like I said,
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XfQidTbUjk>

[John-Del]

On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 7:01:47 PM UTC-5, arlen holder wrote:
>>pure, unadulterated bullshit (with a metric shitload of flies..)

LOL! If you think a car can maintain it's battery with a 72 second run, you need more help than the folks here can possibly provide for you. I suggest you go away and troll another group - you know, the type of group that might fall for your crap. I suggest a moon landing hoax site. You should be a big hit there as those folks love equations that prove nothing and mean nothing. You can start with Van Allen radiation calculations. All you've done here is drop your pants to show the group your clueless ass. The secret to bullshitting is to bullshit a group that knows *less* than you do, not more than you do.

You don't have the slightest idea what's involved in battery charging and your Google searching let you down in a big way. Google was not your friend, so you're still zero for life.

None of your on-the-spectrum mathematical masturbation proves anything except that you're a complete troll and a joke.

[Fox's Mercantile]

On 2/5/19 9:04 PM, John-Del wrote:
> None of your on-the-spectrum mathematical masturbation
> proves anything except that you're a complete troll and
> a joke.

*Laughs* Where's the Like button?

[peterw...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 9:03:06 AM UTC-5, Rob wrote:

> Those times are probably not long enough. Even in my small car
> (4-cyl 1.6L engine) I find that after a lot of 15-minute runs the oil
> temperature caps at 100C when driving a bit longer, and it requires a
> 45 minute drive or so before it rises to 110-120C.

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.

[tabb...@gmail.com]

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.


NT

[peterw...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 8:11:58 AM UTC-5, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

> 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.

[tabb...@gmail.com]

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:
>
> > 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.
>
> Peter Wieck
> Melrose Park, PA

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.


NT

[John-Del]

On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 11:09:24 AM UTC-5, tabb...@gmail.com 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:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Peter Wieck
> > Melrose Park, PA
>
> 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? I've never seen so much mental dick-wagging on a "professional" group.

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. 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.

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...

[peterw...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 11:09:24 AM UTC-5, tabb...@gmail.com 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.

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.

[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.

[tabb...@gmail.com]

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

[tabb...@gmail.com]

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, tabb...@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.

[+++ATH0]

On 2019-02-06 08:44, pf...@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.

[tabb...@gmail.com]

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

[tabb...@gmail.com]

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

[peterw...@gmail.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.

[tabb...@gmail.com]

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, tabb...@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.

[tabb...@gmail.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]

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

A reputable one preferably.

[three_jeeps]

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...@googlegroups.com>,
jjh...@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.

[tabb...@gmail.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.

[peterw...@gmail.com]

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.

[tabb...@gmail.com]

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