Trojan short T105 terminals

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Sorry didn't see the asterisks, apparently the space characters converted to that, and some thought obscenities were implied.

I just meant, "if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging".

Too clever by half I see now, so again, sincere apologies.

John, I know that you know that some just can't.

[ramblinrod]

Just thought of more supporting evidence why
Nylocs shouldn’t be used.

ABYC places restrictions on the use of soldered battery lugs, because if the terminal heats up to 230C, the solder could melt and cause a poor connection or total loss of connection, which could cause bad things to happen to nice people.

This is very similar to what could happen if one was relying on a nylon insert for connection security, and it melted, allowing the nut to back off, causing a poor connection or total loss of connection, which could cause bad things to happen to nice people.

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

ABYC places restrictions on the use of soldered battery lugs, because if the terminal heats up to 230C, the solder could melt and cause a poor connection or total loss of connection

I would think that actually reinforces the fact they're OK.

ABYC puts such restrictions in place when facts prove a danger exists.

They have not put such restrictions in place in this case.

And we have seen above that RC / Maine Sail, ABYC certified marine electrical systems specialist and owner of Compass Marine, explicitly states that nylocs are OK.

I have seen many instances where MS, who is intimately familiar with ABYC inner workings criticizes that their recommendations can be much **too permissive**; his standards appear to be much higher, on the side of conservatism and safety, more in line perhaps with aerospace thinking.

[Frankly]

"reckon I am the only guy on the planet that still use the original lead post clamps".


Since nobody asked I will provide my little story.


Years back I installed a new 115 Yamaha on my Whaler and used the SS studs to make the connections to the starter wiring (the Yamaha harness came with lugs). From the beginning that motor was hard to start and the previous 115 had started at the drop of a hat. Several months into cranking away I happened to pull the top off the battery box and put my finger on the battery connections. Positive and negative connections were both hot. Light bulb went off as I remembered on the the earlier motor I had used lead post clamps. Changed out the connections to lead post clamps and the first thing I noticed was how much faster the starter spun the motor and it busted right off. That was almost 15 years back and the last time I used those SS studs for serious electrical connections.


I have bank of 6 GC2's on Cbreeze and good copper clamps on all lead posts. Never any electrical issues. Use the SS studs for voltage and temperature measurements. Just rewired the Whaler (1985 model) and again used some copper clamps on the lead posts (did upgrade to AGM battery). Motor starts instantly.

No I didn't have any SS washers under the original lugs but did use the SS wing nuts that came with the battery.

SS is just not a good conductor (heat or electricity). No don't have a good explanation for why the lead/lug did not do the job origionally.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by john61ct

I would think that actually reinforces the fact they're OK.

ABYC puts such restrictions in place when facts prove a danger exists.

They have not put such restrictions in place in this case.

And we have seen above that RC / Maine Sail, ABYC certified marine electrical systems specialist and owner of Compass Marine, explicitly states that nylocs are OK.

I have seen many instances where MS, who is intimately familiar with ABYC inner workings criticizes that their recommendations can be much **too permissive**; his standards appear to be much higher, on the side of conservatism and safety, more in line perhaps with aerospace thinking.

I have a lot of respect for Mainsail; after all he has a great first name.

All sources need to be verified. I give his position more credence than most, but still apply critical thinking rather than follow mindlessly.

For me, there are enough logical reasons that Nylocs are a bad idea, I simply can’t support his position on this issue.

ABYC has addressed the issue, with the premise that one should follow the manufacturers recommendations, when there is no specific over-riding standard. Trojan does not supply nor recommend Nylocs. Therefore using Nylocs on Trojans is non-compliant.

Perhaps if someone on the Internet with no marine electrical qualifications keeps espousing the use of Nylocs, there will be enough problems they will have to develop a specific standard against there use.

Some people on the internet will tell others to do dumb things, because they have no stake in the game. I have to think about boater, and especially customer safety every moment of every day.

For all of the reasons cited, I would not put a Nyloc on any boat battery ever.

Oh, and one last thing, with all of the batteries I have serviced, I have never come across a Nyloc on one.

So in my opinion, this is a solution looking for a problem, and with the things that could go wrong woth it, I think a boater would be looking for a problem by using them.

If you disagree That’s OK, I’ll consider the source and apply critical thinking.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by john61ct

No one questioned that it would.

Just that, the fact it does is irrelevant.

> significant current can be passed between a threaded post and nut, which confirms my hypothesis and rejects any notion that current cannot follow this path as a number of you have posted.

I never noticed anyone claiming "cannot".

Simply that it does not.

Conductivity is simply not needed wrt the nut. It's role is simply as a fastener.

After some rest, prepping 9 boats for launch in 48 hours with only 4 hours sleep, here is my professional response.

Kirchoff's current law dictates that the current flow into a circuit node, must equal the current flow out.

Basic circuit analysis dictates that when parallel circuit current flow paths exist, the total current flow possible increases, and the amount of current flow through each path is dictated by the ratio of resistance between the paths.

While the current flow path through the SS stud and nut will normally represent a slightly higher resistance, than between base and lug, there most definitely is current flow through this path, in all cases.

If the contact resistance of the battery terminal lead base / lug increases (such as due to the development of corrosion, which starts at the base, especially exacerbated by a lead post/battery case leak seal) more and more current flow will pass through the stud and nut, until virtually all current flow may be through this path.

For relatively high loads (and current flow) this may cause the stud to heat more than normal.

Scenario: A vessel equipped with a LiFePo4 battery and an automatic bilge pump develops a leak below the waterline. As installed the 2000 GPH automatic bilge pump draws 12 Amps @ 13.6 Vdc, representing an impedance of 11.3 ohms. The owner is absent and nobody is monitoring the vessel.

Installation 1: Battery terminal with insulated stud (nonexistent in the real world, and for very good reason to follow).

R1: Resistance between terminal base and lug bottom = .01 ohms.

R2: Resistance between insulated terminal stud, nut, and top of lug = 2,000,000 ohms.

Installation 2: Battery terminal with conductive stud (all existing designs).

R1: Resistance between terminal base and lug bottom = .01 ohms.

R2: Resistance between terminal stud, nut, and top of lug = 0.03 ohms.

(Based on the relative conductivity of lead vs SS.)

Results:

Installation 1:

As installed virtually all current flow is through the terminal base / lug bottom connection. The bilge pump works (for now).

The DIY installer pats himself on the back and admires his brilliance when the bilge pumps starts.

The max battery short circuit current = 13.6 Vdc /0.01 ohms = 1361 A; way more than sufficient to deliver load current.

(Under short circuit conditions, everything will get extremely hot very quickly, hopefully the bank is fused.)

Now let’s assume the contact resistance increases between the lead pad and lug bottom due to corrosion (where it normally starts) and adds only 20 ohms of contact resistance. (It could be much, much higher.)

The max loaded circuit current = 13.6 Vdc /20.01 ohms = .68 A; insufficient to start the bilge pump and the vessel sinks.

Installation2:

As installed, 75% of total circuit current flows through the lug base path, and 25% through the stud nut path. Everything is fine.

The pro installer rests assured his client’s boat is as safe as he can make it.

The max short circuit current available = 13.6 Vdc / 0.007 ohms = 2040A.

Let’s assume the same corrosion induced contact resistance increase develops between the lead pad and lug bottom.

The new max circuit current = 13.6 vdc /.02 ohms = 680 A.

Yes max short circuit current is reduced. Very high loads may be affected and the terminal may get hotter than normal. The corrosion should certainly be removed, when and if it is detected. Who knows when that will be, possibly not unless the highest load connected starts to malfunction and someone finds the problem (eventually, hopefully).

But the most important issue?

There is still ample current available to operate the bilge pump, and the vessel stays afloat.

Sink or float, which is better?

This is based on a real world scenario that could happen to any boat at any time.

So here is my professional response to the opinion stated in the quoted post:

1. Please completely disregard any notion that the post may as well be insulating. It is not true.

2. Connect batteries properly, following marine electrical standards and sound practice.

3. Use the fasteners provided or recommended by the manufacturer.

4. Do not introduce any insulating material between the SS post and nut.

5. Maximum conductivity within the battery terminal circuit current paths is of utmost importance to safe and reliable operation.

[transmitterdan]

Rod,

I think your assumptions are too simplistic and possibly faulty. Any battery with 0.01 ohms at the lug battery interface is going to be a very small system indeed. And the steel nut to steel post is going to be at least 10 times the resistance of the lug battery connection in any practical battery. That’s why the lug ->nut->post connection cannot carry significant current without overheating. It’s why you never put a steel washer between the lug and the battery.

And you ignore the obvious fact that when something bad happens to the lug battery connection something bad also happens to the lug nut connection. It’s a rare thing indeed for the resistance of one to go up significantly and the other not at all.

Try to get some well deserved sleep my friend.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Rod,

I think your assumptions are too simplistic and possibly faulty. Any battery with 0.01 ohms at the lug battery interface is going to be a very small system indeed. And the steel nut to steel post is going to be at least 10 times the resistance of the lug battery connection in any practical battery. That’s why the lug ->nut->post connection cannot carry significant current without overheating. It’s why you never put a steel washer between the lug and the battery.

And you ignore the obvious fact that when something bad happens to the lug battery connection something bad also happens to the

lug nut connection. It’s a rare thing indeed for the resistance of one to go up significantly and the other not at all.

Try to get some well deserved sleep my friend.

OK, I have already wasted way more time in this thread, contradicting the incorrct and unsafe notions of other than I can image. It has probably cost me $500 in lost billable hours.

So I’m gonna keep this short and sweet.

1. You are entitled to your thoughts no matter how incorrect they may be.

2. Please cite an authoritative reference for any contradiction to my post referenced, as I believe every contradiction posted is false.

No rest here; off to replace a worn out cutlass bearing, so a customer can launch his boat.

[ramblinrod]

Sorry, now that I am back in the office not trying to post from a phone, and not quite so frustrated, here is I hope a more appropriate response...

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Rod,

I think your assumptions are too simplistic and possibly faulty.

Everyone is entitle to their thoughts, not matter how incorrect they may be.

I have made no "assumptions". I have stated facts. Facts supported by science and world experience.

The prior post was simplified (e.g. contact resistance of second post and cable resistance). This was not to "ignore" anything. It was to omit superfluous detail that would have no signifcant bearing on the point(s) made.

If you believe anything about my "assumptions" are simplistic or faulty, please state your case, and then cite any authoritative reference or reasoning.

Anybody can state "your wrong", despite how baseless their position is.

Any battery with 0.01 ohms at the lug battery interface is going to be a very small system indeed.

How so? Please cite reasoning or reference.

[QUOTE]And the steel nut to steel post is going to be at least 10 times the resistance of the lug battery connection in any practical battery.

Says who? Please cite reasoning or reference.

That’s why the lug ->nut->post connection cannot carry significant current without overheating.

BS! What do you consider significant? How about the current required to operate a bilge pump to prevent a boat from sinking?

Please cite reasoning or reference.

It’s why you never put a steel washer between the lug and the battery.

A washer between lug and battery would serve no benefit, will add resistance, and should not be done in any case.

This could have some bearing on a high load, like a starter motor. Perhaps it would turn a little more slowly, and if cranked long enough, the terminal heat rise could be an issue.

For a lighter load, like a bilge pump to prevent a boat from sinking, or VHF radio to call a MayDay, how likely is it that this would be a serious problem?

If your answer is different than mine "NONE", please cite your reasoning or reference.

(This is not intended to detract from the position that putting a washer under a terminal is in contradiction to marine electrical standards and should not be done for optimum performance of high current circuits.)

And you ignore the obvious fact that when something bad happens to the lug battery connection something bad also happens to the lug nut connection.

Says who?

I have pulled lots of lugs to find corrosion under them that was not present elsewhere in the terminal connection.

Please cite your reasoning or reference that this is true.

It’s a rare thing indeed for the resistance of one to go up significantly and the other not at all.

Not rare at all in my experience.

Please cite your reasoning or reference.

[transmitterdan]

Rod,

Your chosen numbers are not measured. I know because even a group 24 battery post must have a lug->battery resistance of less than 0.001 ohms. Those decimal places get in the way of the idea that significant current flows in the bolt/washer/nut which has a resistance about 10 to 100 times more than the lug/battery connection. Not 3 times as in your example.

If you don’t believe me measure the voltage drop between the top of a battery stud and somewhere close to the crimp on the cable lug while the battery is delivering 50-100A. Say a 1000W inverter. Then you can compute the approximate resistance of the connection. If the connection is not hot it has to be less than .001 ohms (i.e. 10W). At 0.01 ohms it would dissipate 100W and get hot fast.

Imagine a typical inverter producing 1000W drawing 100A. With 2 battery terminals of 0.01 ohms. Those connections alone drop 2 volts and dissipate 200W. Then imagine how many other such connections are found in a typical boat battery system (batt switch, starter lugs, etc.). If there were 6 of them at 0.01 ohms each the motor could never start. So even a small battery system requires lug connections less than 0.001 ohms to function properly.

If you redo your example with typical lug/battery resistance of 0.0005 ohms and lug/washer/nut/stud resistance of 0.03 ohms you will see why the 0.03 isn’t significant.

[john61ct]

It seems the one proven fact here is some are not willing to change their mind once they have hundreds of billable hours invested in defending their original opinion.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Rod,

Your chosen numbers are not measured. I know because even a group 24 battery post must have a lug->battery resistance of less than 0.001 ohms. Those decimal places get in the way of the idea that significant current flows in the bolt/washer/nut which has a resistance about 10 to 100 times more than the lug/battery connection. Not 3 times as in your example.

If you don’t believe me measure the voltage drop between the top of a battery stud and somewhere close to the crimp on the cable lug while the battery is delivering 50-100A. Say a 1000W inverter. Then you can compute the approximate resistance of the connection. If the connection is not hot it has to be less than .001 ohms (i.e. 10W). At 0.01 ohms it would dissipate 100W and get hot fast.

Imagine a typical inverter producing 1000W drawing 100A. With 2 battery terminals of 0.01 ohms. Those connections alone drop 2 volts and dissipate 200W. Then imagine how many other such connections are found in a typical boat battery system (batt switch, starter lugs, etc.). If there were 6 of them at 0.01 ohms each the motor could never start. So even a small battery system requires lug connections less than 0.001 ohms to function properly.

If you redo your example with typical lug/battery resistance of 0.0005 ohms and lug/washer/nut/stud resistance of 0.03 ohms you will see why the 0.03 isn’t significant.

First off, in the scenario I presented there was no mention of an inverter.

Is whether the microwave is working important when the boat is sitting on the bottom?

All of the contact resistance values I presented in the scenario were arbitrarily chosen.

They could, in fact, be just about anything, depending on the materials used, practices employed (or lack thereof), and time (corrosion) since made.

I've seen far better and far worse.

Regardless, even if we use your values, R1 = 0.0005 ohms (much lower than I often encounter) and R2 = 0.03 ohms (extremely unusual high ratio between the two current paths), the result is still the same.

Add in the 20 ohms (again a plausible amount, could be much higher) of corrosion resistance under the lug:

a) The bilge pump in installation 1 will not work.

b) The bilge pump in installation 2 will.

The question remains, which is better, sink or float?

Is it important the post be conductive?

YES!

Case closed!

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

First off, in the scenario I presented there was no mention of an inverter.

Is whether the microwave is working important when the boat is sitting on the bottom?

All of the contact resistance values I presented in the scenario were arbitrarily chosen.

They could, in fact, be just about anything, depending on the materials used, practices employed (or lack thereof), and time (corrosion) since made.

I've seen far better and far worse.

Regardless, even if we use your values, R1 = 0.0005 ohms (much lower than I often encounter) and R2 = 0.03 ohms (extremely unusual high ratio between the two current paths), the result is still the same.

Add in the 20 ohms (again a plausible amount, could be much higher) of corrosion resistance under the lug:

a) The bilge pump in installation 1 will not work.

b) The bilge pump in installation 2 will.

The question remains, which is better, sink or float?

Is it important the post be conductive?

YES!

Case closed!

Rod, could you please explain to me just how a nylock nut could possibly insulate the post or for that matter anything connected using one.
The nut in question is the same dimension as a normal ss nut with the addition of a small ring of nylon inserted into a collar formed in manufacture which is then rolled or pressed over to effectively capture the nylon insert. The number of threads is the same as a standard nut and with the addition of the nylon insert makes the nut approx 3 mm taller. The nylon insulates nothing, the post runs straight through it, it merely grips the post or bolt to assist in preventing the nut from inadvertently coming undone. The collar is part of the material of the nut therefore has the same conductivity as the nut. There is no insulating using one of these nuts. The current flow must surely be no different to a regular nut and lock washer.
Please point out to me just how I am wrong in my understanding.

No billable hours were harmed in the preparation of this post.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Uncle Bob

Rod, could you please explain to me just how a nylock nut could possibly insulate the post or for that matter anything connected using one.
The nut in question is the same dimension as a normal ss nut with the addition of a small ring of nylon inserted into a collar formed in manufacture which is then rolled or pressed over to effectively capture the nylon insert. The number of threads is the same as a standard nut and with the addition of the nylon insert makes the nut approx 3 mm taller. The nylon insulates nothing, the post runs straight through it, it merely grips the post or bolt to assist in preventing the nut from inadvertently coming undone. The collar is part of the material of the nut therefore has the same conductivity as the nut. There is no insulating using one of these nuts. The current flow must surely be no different to a regular nut and lock washer.
Please point out to me just how I am wrong in my understanding.

No billable hours were harmed in the preparation of this post.

Asked and answered earlier in the thread.

0.001 billable hours lost.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by john61ct

It seems the one proven fact here...

You claimed that the battery terminal post does not conduct current, and that it may as well be an insulator.

I am sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong.

I think you should learn to deal with it, in a polite manner, rather than attempt to disparage others.