I get 5 or 6 years out of a battery here in San Jose on my daily driver. My seldom used truck, the last one lasted about 8 years. I’ve heard reports that in hotter climates, Florida, New Orleans, Houston, 3 years is nearing battery replacement time. It sort of makes sense as a battery is based on a chemical reaction, and the rate of chemical reactions are sometimes very heat sensitive.
I live in OK which is usually (and currently is…) hotter than a firecracker. Most of my batteries easily last 5-6 years in spite of very hot temperatures.
Now and then a fluke battery surfaces that only lasts a year or what have you but those are the exceptions to the rule.
In Florida yes I get a new battery at 3-4 years. Modern cars start so quickly you don’t get any warning. Older cars, with carburators and points, no computers would give you a warning by cranking quickly then if battery going bad start cranking slowly before it would start.
As far as the advice about keeping a battery until it dies- if you choose this route be sure to have road side assistance and in their service area. I often will be in the backwoods where they will not serve.
I started watching the video out of curiosity. The guy in the video starts out with the “absolute” statement that you MUST change your battery if it’s three years old. He states unequivocally that if your battery is three years old and hasn’t failed yet it will within the next year or two. He then babbles on about needing to keep your gas tank at least 1/4 full (a practice I follow) but then babbles uncontrollably about the pump’s 'little windings" in disjointed and unconnected babblings.
It should be noted that he did not open by telling the viewer who he is or what his qualifications are.
At that point I shut the video down. I seriously question this guy’s qualifications.
If someone here watched the whole video and discovered that he’s qualified, I accept being corrected… but I still disagree with him about the battery life.
I guess anybody can make a video. Am I missing an opportunity to make some easy money?
I made it about 3/4 of the way through his transmission fluid babbling before bailing out on the video.
Based on the relics in the shop along with the shears and press brake in the background I’d say he’s mostly a sheet metal/bodyman with very little expertise in the mechanical world.
He is mistaken about battery life. His statements are a combination of old wives tales, simple misunderstanding of mechanical things and fairy tales. After listening to this guy for a couple of minutes…I wouldn’t let him work on my lawnmower.
Me neither… and my lawn mower is electric!
2 Likes
He sounds more like a quack politician than a mechanic. He reminds ma of Al Gore trying to spook the public about the oceans rising 75 feet if we don’t stop generating CO2.
I think the max is about 50 ft if all the ice on land melted. The ice in the sea already caused whatever ocean level changes it would cause. I also believe that if it occurred, it would be sometime next century. The good news is that if man can do something to revers global warming, there is time to do so before problems become severe. The bad news is that it doesn’t take anywhere near 50 feet to submerge a lot of coastal cities. It seems like President Trump would be concerned how long his NYC properties have before they are submerged. Storm surges like the last hurricane that flooded the NY subway aren’t getting rarer, and as the ocean height increases, all of Manhattan could go under in storm surge. Daytona race track will be under water long before most of Florida goes under.
1 Like
My wife just finished reading a 12 year of book where some evil Neo-Nazi genius has bored a hole through the Antarctic Ross ice sheet in order to dislodge it and not only cause a large rise in sea level but also change the polarity of the earth. His gang, of course would survive while the rest of us drown.
Last week this ice sheet broke off and we expect no ill effect.
The one possibility Europeans worry about is a massive melt on Polar Ice and Greenland glaciers since that could lower the water temperature in the North Atlantic and stop or redirect the Gulf Stream form reaching Western Europe, thereby lowering the average temperature over there.
The Antarctic ice sheet that broke off was already in the sea and will not add to ocean height. What will add to ocean height are the glaciers that this ice sheet held in check as they form a new ice sheet to replace the old one.
1 Like
ummm… I could be wrong, but aren’t the portions of the sheet that were below water the ones that will not add to height? There may have been portions that were above the water (and are now below water) before the sheet broke off that now add to ocean height.
That’s the great misconception! Ice expands from the water it was. So 10% is above water because ice is less dense than water.
Try this yourself! Take a glass or small container and nearly fill it with water Add ice cubes which will float above the water line. Then carefully add water till the container is filled to the brim. Let the ice melt and you will find that the container does not overflow!
Al Gore carefully withheld this basic fact in order to augment the scare factor of the Polar Ice Cap melting, which would not raise the ocean levels one bit.
I know and understand what you are saying. But your example is based on ice that floats in water without any other support.
I don’t know the specifics of the ice sheet, but if a part of it was supported on the continent/land of Antartica (with a part in the water) and then slid completely into the water, then your example does not hold.
Thanks mountainbike. That made me laugh.
Ice does not have enough strength to cantilever 1 trillion tons from the continental sheet. Ice is actually plastic under stress, up to a point. When that big chuck broke off last week, it did not suddenly sink deeper into the ocean. It just broke off and will gradually drift away.
However, as others point out, the glacier from which it broke off, now will move somewhat faster downhill and into the ocean.
Would you accept both of us being correct?
The diagram helps point out where an ice sheet breaks off affects the outcome. The closer to the grounding line, the more there is ice that would contribute to an increase in sea levels.
So pieces far from the grounding line (at the right of the diagram) are as you describe. A break close to the grounding line is as I described. And each point in between will have effects depending on actual location and conditions.
And as I said, I don’t know the specifics of the ice sheet that broke off. Do you?
It seems the one that broke off is not anywhere near the grounding line. Although it weighs a trillion tons, it’s just a very large ice berg.
The diagram is a schematic and clearly not drawn to scale, so unless one really knows the shape and details of what broke off, the effect on actual sea level is not known.
And yes, after breaking off, it is “a very large ice berg”.
Now, when do we get back to cars and related stuff?
I’m pretty sure if there’s water under it, broken or not, it’s floating, and will make no difference to sea level if it melts before or after it breaks off. If it’s supported by ground and melts it’ll raise sea level.