View Single Post
Old 02-11-2013, 11:50 AM   #351
_cy_ OP
Beastly Adventurer
Joined: Sep 2011
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Oddometer: 6,183
Originally Posted by Global Rider View Post
Not really. Magazine and web-based sites that do evaluations are shallow at best. Understandably since your average consumer couldn't argue any of the results.

Check out Battery University and the East Penn Technical Manual (AGM & Gel battery paper)

For the money, its OK and no better or worse than anything else in that price range.

I brought both of my 3300 Multi US models in to our lab and had a Graphtec monitor voltage and current during charging. I never did see the float mode that is advertized. It goes to 14.3V (in normal battery mode), then shuts off and restarts at 12.5V which is my prefered method of charging. When I used a manual charger, I would monitor the voltage and when fully charged, disconnect it. When it self discharged over a few months to 12.6V, I would connect the charger again. That was for a battery out-of-vehicle. I use a HP DC supply at the moment (I'm the microprocessor and charging algorithm ).
thanks very much for sharing!

flooded PB amazingly still has it's place. when taken care of will provide excellent service life. it's not that long ago when AGM was considered new technology. price points for AGM has come down enough for AGM to become mainstream. hopefully the same will happen with LiFePO4 batteries.

lithium iron phosphate batteries has one of the lowest raw materials costs of any battery. there is no shortage of iron on this planet. hopefully public's acceptance for LiFePO4 batteries will translate into higher volumes/lower costs.

Battery University has always been one of the best sources for technical information on the WWW. unfortunately it's weakness is a lack of depth for the most promising of all battery chemistries. LiFePO4 or lithium iron phosphate ... called Li-phosphate in chart below.

in the fast changing world of batteries ... there's always been a trade off between maximum energy density and safety.

lithium cobalt hands down wins the energy density prize. but scores low on the safety side and needs elaborate safeguards to prevent lithium cobalt batteries from going into thermal runaway like on Boeing 787.

LiFePO4 currently wins the compromise between energy density and safety. unfortunately corporate's rather large investments in lithium cobalt chemistries prevents/hinders it from moving forward. unfortunately costs/time for meeting Federal guidelines prevents/hinders change to much SAFER LiFePO4 batteries in critical applications like main ship batteries on Boeing 787.

_cy_ screwed with this post 02-11-2013 at 11:59 AM
_cy_ is online now   Reply With Quote