Battery monitoring

[Cloudinspector]

Just an update. I've checked the wiring to the best of my limited ability and according to the manual I have it seems correct.

The remote monitor has just 1 lead from a dedicated socket to the sterling charger.

All the wiring on the charger seems correct but I may well be missing something.

Optional cables 3 and 4 are missing. Would this provide a permanent live feed? I assume the monitor will only work when the charger is on and that it only switches on when the alternator is charging?

 

[Gibbo]

Ahaaa!

 

That's not a battery monitor. It is a remote panel for the battery charger.

[Cloudinspector]

Ahaaa!

 

That's not a battery monitor. It is a remote panel for the battery charger.

 

 

What a numpty !!!!!!!

That explains everything :-))

So smartgauge is the answer then ?

[Proper Job]

What a numpty !!!!!!!

That explains everything :-))

So smartgauge is the answer then ?

Yes

[bowten]

Ahaaa!

 

That's not a battery monitor. It is a remote panel for the battery charger.

Do you mean I have read all this thread and this is all we end up with,very sad.

[smileypete]

Absolute utter rubbish. So wrong I don't know where to start.

Well in this case you just look at a life cycle vs DoD chart for Trojan and US Batteries, and work out the equivalent full cycles at 50% DoD and 20% DoD.

 

Having done that, notice there's very little if any difference in overall life between discharging to 50% to 20%, it's basically pro-rata.

 

Still, it needs to be remembered that charging from 20% will likely take longer than charging from 50%, but not always as long as first appears as more time is spent in the bulk charging stage.

 

cheers, Pete.

~smpt~

[Proper Job]

Do you mean I have read all this thread and this is all we end up with,very sad.

It could have been 42

[Gibbo]

Well in this case you just look at a life cycle vs DoD chart for Trojan and US Batteries, and work out the equivalent full cycles at 50% DoD and 20% DoD.

 

Having done that, notice there's very little if any difference in overall life between discharging to 50% to 20%, it's basically pro-rata.

 

You need to learn to differentiate between life cycle graphs that were drawn up in the engineering department and those that were drawn up in the marketing department. I had this fun last year doing a report for a client. There is indeed a difference in total ahrs between 50% and 20%. If you find a graph/chart where the total figure remains the same, the chart came from the marketing department and bears no resemblance to reality.

 

Unfortunate, but true.

 

Do you mean I have read all this thread and this is all we end up with,very sad.

 

But it's been amusing!

[Cloudinspector]

Do you mean I have read all this thread and this is all we end up with,very sad.

 

Yes but I've learned a hell of lot in the process

[smileypete]

You need to learn to differentiate between life cycle graphs that were drawn up in the engineering department and those that were drawn up in the marketing department. I had this fun last year doing a report for a client. There is indeed a difference in total ahrs between 50% and 20%. If you find a graph/chart where the total figure remains the same, the chart came from the marketing department and bears no resemblance to reality.

I'm reasonably happy to trust the likes of US Battery, they show a difference of 8%.

 

So that means £10 saved on a £120 batt by discharging to 50% instead of 20%. So, not the same, but for me it's not worth fretting over. If you believe they make their numbers up that's fine by me.

 

cheers, Pete.

~smpt~

[Gibbo]

I'm reasonably happy to trust the likes of US Battery, they show a difference of 8%.

 

Ahhh, so previously you said there was no difference in order to prove something. Now you say there is a difference thus confirming that what you previously said can't possibly be correct.

 

I think that's called back-pedalling.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Gibbo

[smileypete]

Ahhh, so previously you said there was no difference in order to prove something. Now you say there is a difference thus confirming that what you previously said can't possibly be correct.

 

I think that's called back-pedalling.

No, again go back and read what I said, not what you hoped I said.

 

I said there's very little if any difference, and it's basically pro rata.

 

Now if you want to split hairs and argue endlessly I'll happily admit there is *a* difference in this case (for semi traction batts), but for for me personally there would be no worthwhile economic benefit.

 

I did get a good laugh once when you told someone the 50% rule 'really did work' for their traction batts.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

cheers, Pete.

~smpt~

[Gibbo]

No, again go back and read what I said, not what you hoped I said.

 

I said there's very little if any difference, and it's basically pro rata.

 

Correct, that is what you said. It isn't pro-rata. It's totally different. Are you now going back to what you originally said? Or are you admitting that you're were wrong.

 

Now if you want to split hairs and argue endlessly I'll happily admit there is *a* difference in this case (for semi traction batts), but for for me personally there would be no worthwhile economic benefit.

 

I'm actually tired of arguing with you. It's boring. But it's also unfair on other forum members to not have your posts corrected when they are wrong.

 

I did get a good laugh once when you told someone the 50% rule 'really did work' for their traction batts.

 

This is why you never learn anything and continue making the same mistakes you were making 5 years ago. You laugh at things you don't understand instead of making the effort to understand them. Thus you continue in your own world where you have your own personal laws of physics that are completely at variance with those the rest of the world uses.