GMCforum
For enthusiast of the Classic GMC Motorhome built from 1973 to 1978. A web-based mirror of the GMCnet mailing list.

Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » [GMCnet] Not necessary to remove/replace a bad isolator
[GMCnet] Not necessary to remove/replace a bad isolator [message #139450] Tue, 16 August 2011 11:42 Go to previous message
Mr ERFisher is currently offline  Mr ERFisher   United States
Messages: 7117
Registered: August 2005
Karma:
Senior Member
Not necessary to remove/replace a bad isolator, a combiner will cover
failures of the isolator,
and provide a terminal strip for connections. The failure mode for
isolators is the diodes fail open.

If you add a combiner (as shown here)
http://goo.gl/cmpoG

1 engine battery isolator diode failure (open), - the voltage will
try to go high on the house battery, but the combiner will sense the
high voltage and reconnect the engine battery so the alternator can
now regulate the voltage.

2 the house battery isolator diode failure (open) - the combiner will
make sure the battery gets charged.

3 both diodes fail (open) move the alternator wire to the engine
battery pose. I have never seen this happen.

4 by leaving the isolator in place, the surge current for a dead/low
battery is carried with the isolator and it's very large heat sink.

5 to remove the isolator is to risk wiring problems.

6 so the best of all worlds is to leave the isolator in place and
connect a combiner, as shown.....

gene





--
Gene Fisher -- 74-23,77PB/ore/ca
“Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today --- give him a URL and -------
http://gmcmotorhome.info/
Alternator Protection Cable
http://gmcmotorhome.info/APC.html
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist

 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: [GMCnet] Bogie Arm Straightener
Next Topic: exhaust manifold
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sun Sep 29 15:18:43 CDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.04859 seconds