Trojan short T105 terminals

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Sailmonkey

Do you accept the premise of there being more than one way to skin a cat?

Of course.

Almost always.

In most cases, there is preference: 1, 2, 3, n (as ranked in favour from most to least preferential).

My preference 1, is to use the nuts supplied or specified by the manufacturer, for all of the reasons stated.

The premise of following the manufactures instructions is supported throughout ABYC standards.

When ABYC standards recommend discarding the manufacturer supplied or specified nuts in place of Nyloc nuts, I most certainly will, as then I will rest assured that someone who knows what they are talking about, has actually considered the pros and cons and determined this the better solution.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Rod,

You realize that one does not torque nylocs to the same torque as regular nuts.

To get to the same holding power of a regular nut but without relying on the nylon insert.

They have to be slightly higher torque for same applied pressure.

Agreed. How much? I don't know. Part of the problem. Battery manufacturer does not specify the amount of torque if using Nylocs.

Will the additional torque break the battery?

I would hope not.

But I don't know.

The battery manufacturer may know.

And this maybe reason why do not specifically recommend the use of, or supply, Nylocs.

Do you actually have any engineering training?

Yes.

How did you learn that nylocs create any problem?

I didn't.

My many ears of education, skills, and experience dictate that they could introduce a problem, and there is no real benefit to using them, so I choose not.

Is there even one well analyzed/documented case where the nylon made any difference?[/QUOTE]

I have never researched this. I have never seen a well analyzed / documented case that it is not good to stab ones self in the eye with a fork.

For the same reasons as above, I believe it would be a bas idea. ;-)

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by daletournier

Btw im assuming none of us use a torque wrench on our battery nuts? Im an ex mechanic, changed a few batteries over the years , never used a torque wrench.

This is exactly my point.

Standard practice is to torque the nut to point that "feels right" and then apply some force to the cable to see if it will move.

With a regular nut, one knows the torque "felt", was that of the SS nut on SS post threads.

In the case of the Nyloc, the torque felt is that of the above, plus the turning resistance of the nylon insert.

If the Nylon insert melts, is there enough torque remaining to keep the nut from loosening?

Don't know.

Again, the whole point is, Nylocs may introduce issues we have not even yet dreamt up.

So lets go back to first principles,


"Why deviate from the manufacturers supplied or recommended nut, when there is no empirical evidence that another nut is "better" for this application?"

The only reason I can come up with, is one may surmise that it is "better".

Based on what?

If it is only that, "I have done it for years without issue..."

All I can say is, "Well, there is always tomorrow."

Because one has done something, even repeatedly, and not had a problem, does not make that "best practice" nor even safe.

Probably billions of batteries have been sold without Nylocs.

If the nuts supplied or recommended by the manufacturer were a "problem" that needed to be "fixed", I assure you, this would have been addressed long, long, ago, and likely by several different authorities on electrical safety.

And in fact, it has already happened, a long time ago, when battery manufacturers supplied wing nuts (most likely for customer convenience) and after all of the problems of loose connections occurred, ABYC told them to stop, and installers not to use them for applications above 6 AWG (aka high current).

Why has ABYC not done the same about Nylocs?

I don't know.

Perhaps because no manufacturer supplies them, (and perhaps for good reason).

[daletournier]

Or perhaps because theres no issue with them

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by daletournier

Or perhaps because theres no issue with them

Correct!

We don't know.

If Nylocs were a superior solution, I believe that battery manufactures would supply or recommend them.

They don't.

So my assumption is that they are not.

This is why it would take a substantial body of evidence from a trusted source for me to deviate.

[transmitterdan]

Rod,

So now you have gone from yelling "incorrect" with absolute certainty to "don't know" to an "assumption".

Battery manufacturers supply the cheapest hardware they can find. Trojan is no exception. For years manufacturers sold batteries with wing nuts. That was stupid beyond belief. But cheap.

The most probable reasons battery manufacturers don't supply Nyloc nuts are cost and the fact they are unnecessary. Plus the fact that Nyloc nuts are a one-use item. They should not be reused which makes them really expensive for a manufacturer to supply a bunch of them.

But there is nothing inherently unsafe about nylocs on a battery terminal. If you think that statement is wrong find an example where the nylon caused any problems.

[Sailmonkey]

I’m still waiting for someone to tell me why stainless is an acceptable material to use in this application when we all know it’s a rotten conductor.

[redsky49]

Stainless steel is not, or shouldn't be, conducting any appreciable current. The cable end terminals (copper) are held by the fasteners to the battery terminal (lead alloy) base.
This is why cable terminations should be properly stacked on the battery post, starting with the largest terminal end placed first.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Rod,

So now you have gone from yelling "incorrect" with absolute certainty to "don't know" to an "assumption".

Incorrect!

I have not yelled "incorrect".

Nor have I changed my position on an issue as implied.

The issue I declared as incorrect was the statement that there is no current flow through the nut.

That statement was incorrect, is incorrect, and will always be incorrect, for as long as it is a SS nut in the standard configuration on the market today.

Battery manufacturers supply the cheapest hardware they can find.

Incorrect!

Carbon steel nuts are much less costly than SS.

The most probable reasons battery manufacturers don't supply Nyloc nuts are cost and the fact they are unnecessary.

Possibly.

There is also the possibility that they have conclude that Nylocs are less safe or effective than plain SS hex nuts.

Plus the fact that Nyloc nuts are a one-use item. They should not be reused which makes them really expensive for a manufacturer to supply a bunch of them.

Well, they can be re-used in many applications. (Some aviation standards do not permit their re-use in some "critical" areas.)

But the point is, they may wear with each use and likely become less effective at function, and we don't really know how many times they can be safely re-used, if at all, so they really shouldn't be relied on for a critical application, as I have already stated in this thread.

But there is nothing inherently unsafe about nylocs on a battery terminal.

I'm not so sure.

I believe there may be safety related issues using Nylocs for this application as I have stated in the various threads here.

If you think that statement is wrong find an example where the nylon caused any problems.

No thanks.

The burden of proof is not on me.

If you wish to burn up some of your billable hours, and attempt to prove that a deviation from manufacturer's recommendations and established practice is not unsafe, by all means, have at it.

I will devote some time to reviewing the findings you share with us.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Sailmonkey

I’m still waiting for someone to tell me why stainless is an acceptable material to use in this application when we all know it’s a rotten conductor.

Incorrect.

Stainless steel is a fantastic conductor, compared to a lot of materials.

It certainly is not as good of a conductor as copper and gold, but it doesn't have to be.

My suspicion is that stainless steel is used, because it is has attractive qualities such as relatively low cost for relatively high corrosion resistance and strength, with acceptable conductivity.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by redsky49

Stainless steel is not, or shouldn't be, conducting any appreciable current.

Incorrect.

This was covered previously in the thread.

The stainless steel post and nut may be carrying anywhere from 0 to 100% of the circuit current, depending on the resistance of the various contact surfaces.

The cable end terminals (copper) are held by the fasteners to the battery terminal (lead alloy) base.

Correct.

This is why cable terminations should be properly stacked on the battery post, starting with the largest terminal end placed first.

Close.

According to ABYC standards, cable terminations should to be stacked with the highest current carrying conductor placed first.

While there may be a correlation between size and current, in fact, someone could put the largest lug available on the lowest current carrying conductor, and this would not be a good candidate to place first on the battery terminal.

I believe the reason for the stacking recommendation is because, everything else equal, the highest current carrying conductor, is capable of generating the most heat, and is more likely to overheat if higher in the stack, due to cumulative contact resistance.

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by redsky49

[post and nut] are not, or shouldn't be, conducting any appreciable current. The cable end terminals (copper) are held by the fasteners to the battery terminal (lead alloy) base.

Correct

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Incorrect.

This was covered previously in the thread.

The stainless steel post and nut may be carrying anywhere from 0 to 100% of the circuit current, depending on the resistance of the various contact surfaces.

Incorrect. Yes "covered" but just continuously repeating it does not make it more true.

Improper maintenance may lead to allowing high resistance to build up at the primary contact surfaces, but that is obviously a symptom of bigger problems, and irrelevant to the nyloc being an issue.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Wotname

.........

Whether or not it increases the resistance of the mated thread surfaces (without any corrosion) is a worthwhile question to ask. I haven't (yet) found any professional evidence either way but I am still planning to carry some empirical testing of my own to determine an answer. You will be the first to know the results

OK, managed to find time to a quick and dirty test of Loctite (243). Please note this is by no means a definitive test and more detailed testing is required to quantify the results.

My test shows it does increase the resistance of the mated thread interface, probably by an order of 15 to 20 percent.

In essence I made a test rig of two terminals, a steel bolt and three nuts. I passed 50 amps from a calibrated constant current source though the rig and measured the voltage drop across it (with a calibrated Fluke 179). First numbers were without any Loctite used and the second were with Loctite applied to the two nuts (at the top of the picture). This was done several times and the numbers averaged.

Without Loctite, there was an average voltage drop of 15 mV, with Loctite this increased to 16.5 mV.

What is unknown is the division of the voltage drop between the bottom terminal, top terminal and shank of the screw but I guess the terminals would be roughly equal and much more than the shank, thus my rough figure of 15 to 20 percent increase when Loctite is applied.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Incorrect.

Stainless steel is a fantastic conductor, compared to a lot of materials.

It certainly is not as good of a conductor as copper and gold, but it doesn't have to be.

My suspicion is that stainless steel is used, because it is has attractive qualities such as relatively low cost for relatively high corrosion resistance and strength, with acceptable conductivity.

I guess words are relative but this link suggests to my way of thinking than SS is a poor conductor.
Conductive Materials or Metal Conductivity - TIBTECH innovations -

I do agree with you last paragraph though.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Incorrect.



Stainless steel is a fantastic conductor, compared to a lot of materials.


Snip....


It certainly is not as good of a conductor as copper and gold, but it doesn't have to be.

Please tell us about a lot of other materials commonly used for battery fasteners that are a poorer conductor than stainless steel?