New batteries with good batteries

[Tony Brooks]

I also just realised that I thought the DETA were a higher Ah but I just checked and that is what it says on the side - each one is VERY heavy - I mean VERY - but the 220Ah Elecsols I could carry half way up the tow path without breaking my back - despite being rated as 220Ah they are about a 1/3 of the weight of the 180Ah DETA's at a guess (more lead = better charge capacity eh! or the reverse as the case may be with Elecsols?)

 

Need to get the problems in charging and useage balance on the boat sorted. Humping batterries on and off the boat to charge them is no way to have to spend your time.

 

When I bought a pair of Elecsols to test they had 110 (but no Ah) on the side. It turned out that they were something like 85 to 95 Ah capacity but as Elecsol said they performed like 110 Ah batteries they put the 110 on the side.

 

I would not believe anything written on an Elecsol.

[Gibbo]

So Gibbo is saying when a 99% sulphated 100Ah battery has it's remaining 1Ah charged fully charged, it will read the same voltage as it did when new and fully charged?

 

Correct. Up to a point. The substance is right. In practice it wouldn't be possible to sulfate a battery up (down) to 1% without it actually breaking.

 

But a battery sulfated up so it has lost (say) 25% of its original capacity, when fully charged (to its new lower capacity) will read the same voltage as it did when fully charged and brand new with its full available capacity.

 

How this happens (in view of the below comments) is a mystery to me. But it does. I have a few suspicions but no hard data. It actually seems obvious to me that the voltage should remain the same under all states of charge.

 

However we all know that the off load voltage falls as a battery gets discharged. This seems obvious to many people. It is obvious under load. But it isn't at all obvious why the off load voltage falls as a battery is discharged.

 

I'm still (after almost 20 years) trying to find a valid reason for why the off load voltage falls as a battery is discharged. I find arm waving, I find silly explanations. But I cannot find a single valid explanation that actually stands up to scrutiny. I suspect the two points are related.

 

From the experiments I did charging 2 batteries of dissimilar states (one had been charged for a day the other was dead flat) from a mains charger it was evident that more Amps flowed into each of the bateries when connected individually than when they were joined together in a bank (~5-6Amps individually against ~7A when joined) my conclusion was that the better battery was kind of partly flowing into the worse one (not really but 'compensating kind of thing') which once pondered upon for 30 seconds made obvious sense from what I had heard about putting a 'bad' battery into a bank - all the others 'help it out' and in the process get dragged down!

 

There are two possible explanations for this:-

 

1) You reached the current limit of the charger so obviously the current into each battery was less when they were both connected to the charger.

 

2) You mismeasured it.

 

If the charger was capable of providing all the required current then the charge current into each battery would have been identical in both cases. You can argue this point until you go blue. I am right

 

Many a great scientist was ridiculed before his peers for outrageous ideas "the Earth is round not flat" PAH! ridiculous! it has been their conviction, determination and I believe ability to think out of the box/not follow the herd/listen to others/not to be confrontational/arrogant or blinkered in their approach that their theories have won through and helped change the very understanding we have of this world and how it works!

 

The very same set of blinkers allows people to still try making perpetual motion machines.

 

There is a big difference between "thinking out of the box" and "not thinking very well"

 

but still I have not seen you or anyone else properly prove/explain why my theory will not work other than the fact that it will 'do nothing'?

 

I did so. In great detail. If you don't understand it please state which bit you don't understand.

 

Unless, of course, you're just having a giraffe (which I'm beginning to suspect).

[RLWP]

That is what I believe he is saying, but also that it may take bloody ages to be able to fully charge this miserable 1Ah battery due to sulfation.

 

Richard

 

I hope I got that right, else when Gibbo turns up I'll look a right idiot...

 

Looks like I did get my posts right - ish.

 

Richard

[Keeping Up]

Keeping Up - I think you said it was an "Octopussian disaster waiting to happen" - which was definately funny if nothing else! but still I have not seen you or anyone else properly prove/explain why my theory will not work other than the fact that it will 'do nothing'?

 

You haven't read Gibbo's posts then?

 

BTW - where'd you get that emoticon? not one of the standards - I feel privileged you feel the need to have used it on me! haha

 

Yes it's one of the standards. Look harder and you'll find loads of them there.

[Ermenilda]

I'm still (after almost 20 years) trying to find a valid reason for why the off load voltage falls as a battery is discharged. I find arm waving, I find silly explanations. But I cannot find a single valid explanation that actually stands up to scrutiny. I suspect the two points are related.

 

yeh - so even the greatest minds don't have allll the answers? batteries really are little mystery boxes eh...

 

There are two possible explanations for this:-

 

1) You reached the current limit of the charger so obviously the current into each battery was less when they were both connected to the charger.

 

2) You mismeasured it.

 

If the charger was capable of providing all the required current then the charge current into each battery would have been identical in both cases. You can argue this point until you go blue. I am right

 

I just did the experiment again - a picture speaks a thousand words

 

 

the complete setup (ignore the compressor!)

 

 

the Charger

 

 

Battery 1 on charge independently

 

 

Batttery 2 on charge independently

 

 

Battery 1 & 2 together

 

looking at all the pictures I then realised I did not measure the current flowing in the wire conneting the positives - here is it ->

 

 

this is taken about 10-15 minutes after the initial reading and so the voltage (batteries were left connected in this config) was now at 13.32v and the amps running from the battery charger was about 6A

 

PLEASE realise though - I am not trying to say/prove that you are wrong Gibbo! I am only very confused why this would happen and trying to come to terms with/improve my knowledge about how things work... I don't think this is one of those 'intelligent' battery chargers which might be the reason why it is 'compensating' or something?

 

so all I want to do by posting this info is to get a response why I would be seeing this behaviour - NOTHING to do with any of my other posts/stupid ideas etc. I hope you can afford me an answer on this despite having been dismissed as an incompetent?

 

The very same set of blinkers allows people to still try making perpetual motion machines.

 

There is a big difference between "thinking out of the box" and "not thinking very well"

 

wow - talk about stuck in your ways! perpetual motion? who's talking about perpetual motion? I know where you are coming from but who's talking about perpetual motion here? Gibbo - I understand it that you invented/developed this SG thing that's supposed to be the dogs wotsits - did anyone try and put you down and dismiss you as a nut? some must have told you what you were trying to do was not possible/would not achieve anything/was impossible etc?

 

seems to me like you are willing to carry on blinkered through life now you reckon you've 'cracked it' with the SG and nobody/nothing else can even come close to improving upon the situation - I can't believe you can have such a closed view if you were open enough to think up the SG - I think really you are just dismissing me out of hand because it is in your opinion a nutty idea and you don't think too highly of my electrical skills - I think that is a shame for someone with such obvious knowledge about the subject

 

I did so. In great detail. If you don't understand it please state which bit you don't understand.

 

Unless, of course, you're just having a giraffe (which I'm beginning to suspect).

 

you did explain in great detail that it would not achieve anything other than to loose energy via heat at the diodes - you did not explain that it would not work - ie short something out/blow up a battery/unable to provide reliable output at distribution or anything like that unless I missed something?

[bottle]

Big Snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

 

you did explain in great detail that it would not achieve anything other than to loose energy via heat at the diodes - you did not explain that it would not work - ie short something out/blow up a battery/unable to provide reliable output at distribution or anything like that unless I missed something?

 

It will work but it will not achieve anything.

[Gibbo]

PLEASE realise though - I am not trying to say/prove that you are wrong Gibbo!

 

Good. Because you'll just look silly if you try.

 

I give in. Your pictures don't help at all because we can't see what the wires are connected to.

 

From what I can see you have 1 battery on charge at roughly 8 amps.

 

Then the other battery on charge at roughly 8 amps.

 

Then both of them on charge and the current into the pair of them is a total of roughly 8 amps.

 

From this you conclude that separating the batteries and charging them independantly allows them to charge at a higher rate because you get 8 amps into each. Whereas charging them together you only get 4 amps into each and thus you start your vain search for the elusive "magic connection" that has them connected together for the bits you want them connected together for but somehow, magically, disconnected at the same time for the bits you don't want them connected for.

 

That appears to be your conclusion.

 

My conslusion is that you have an 8 amp charger. Which is what I said originally.

 

 

 

Here's are the clues............

 

1. The laws of physics say so.

 

2. The battery voltage is quite low and therefore the charger must be producing its maximum current.

 

3. In all cases you measure about 8 amps.

 

4. The laws of physics are not (despite the perpetual motion brigade's hopes) negotiable.

 

wow - talk about stuck in your ways!

 

Is a mathematician who insists 4 plus 4 is 8 "stuck in his ways"?

 

Or is he just right?

 

perpetual motion? who's talking about perpetual motion?

 

We both are now. And I think the hope of perpetual motion is just slightly less silly than your idea.

[Justme]

Its supposed to be a 15amp charger (forget the boost numbers it can only engine start for 3 secs & then need 30 secs rest).

I would guess either you have it set on min or the switch is duff.

[Keeping Up]

Its supposed to be a 15amp charger (forget the boost numbers it can only engine start for 3 secs & then need 30 secs rest).

I would guess either you have it set on min or the switch is duff.

That would be about right then, most 15 amp chargers will give less than 8 amps into a moderately charged battery. Chargers only ever give their rated charge current into a totally flat battery

[smileypete]

PLEASE realise though - I am not trying to say/prove that you are wrong Gibbo! I am only very confused why this would happen and trying to come to terms with/improve my knowledge about how things work... I don't think this is one of those 'intelligent' battery chargers which might be the reason why it is 'compensating' or something?

Looks like a simple transformer based charger.

 

Now say you had two such chargers:

 

One independently charging battery A at 8 amps and showing 12.65V.

One independently charging battery B at 8 amps and showing 12.65V.

 

Now you parallel the outputs of the chargers, and connect them to battery A and battery B in parallel.

 

What current do you expect to now flow into battery A?

What current do you expect to now flow into battery B?

 

cheers,

Pete.

[Ermenilda]

It will work but it will not achieve anything.

 

OK - thanks - most appreciated - puttin it plain n simple - finally

 

Good. Because you'll just look silly if you try.

 

hahaha - alllll haaaiiillll Gibbo! hahahah

 

I give in. Your pictures don't help at all because we can't see what the wires are connected to.

 

errrr... one ends stuck to my... no seriously - and you say I am having a giraffe? the bleedin batteries! what else! you can see it clear as day in the first picture. Just to clarify for those in the back though - the battery charger is connected to the battery and the multimeter is connected to the same battery and the clamp meter is on the positive cable coming from the battery charger - errm that's about it really...

 

From what I can see you have 1 battery on charge at roughly 8 amps.

 

Then the other battery on charge at roughly 8 amps.

 

Then both of them on charge and the current into the pair of them is a total of roughly 8 amps.

 

From this you conclude that separating the batteries and charging them independantly allows them to charge at a higher rate because you get 8 amps into each. Whereas charging them together you only get 4 amps into each and thus you start your vain search for the elusive "magic connection" that has them connected together for the bits you want them connected together for but somehow, magically, disconnected at the same time for the bits you don't want them connected for.

 

That appears to be your conclusion.

 

My conslusion is that you have an 8 amp charger. Which is what I said originally.

 

hahah - hahahah - sorry - but wow you are one tough customer! I am not concluding anything - it is completely baffling me! nor am I starting any vain attempts to search for a magic connection! I just put up what I am witnessing first hand. At least this time you didn't say I must be measuring it wrong...

 

in fact it is not equal charge into each battery (4A and 4A) - as you can see from the pictures the last one shows 2.34A flowing into the second battery and as I stated, but did not photograph, there was ~6A coming out of the charger (this was about 10-15 mins after initial photo's as I realised I had not taken a picture of this) therefore more flowing into one battery than the other - not 50-50

 

Here's are the clues............

 

1. The laws of physics say so.

 

2. The battery voltage is quite low and therefore the charger must be producing its maximum current.

 

3. In all cases you measure about 8 amps.

 

4. The laws of physics are not (despite the perpetual motion brigade's hopes) negotiable.

 

jeeez... look - I don't KNOW why it is doing it - but it sure as hell IS doing it... I am not trying to bend the laws of physics or pretend this has ANYTHING to do with perpetual motion (who was it started banging that gong?) the only guess I made at why it was doing it was because of something to do with the way the battery charger works - where am I bending laws!??! This is independant of all my stupid ideas although admitedly once I understand what is going on it might help out with them

 

the charger goes up to 20A - it has a min and max and a boost which is the only time it belts out 20A+ (as I think justme said and is obviously familiar with this bog standard machinemart I think it was battery charger - OH! and there is NOTHING wrong with the switch - it is working just fine) As a rough estimate whenever it is on Min the actual output is about 3A and on max it is about 6A (I am talking average/what it settles down to/what I have witnessed on either of these settings when connected to one battery at a time as I have only just decided to start trying experiments with them in a bank becuase of this post) so FYI in these photo's the setting was on Max

 

I have had them on charge all day now and the battery charger cable is reading ~5A and the voltage is ~13.6V (yes yes - these are KNACKERED batteries!) and the current between the two is ~2.1A - so it is closer but still not a 50/50 split

 

Is a mathematician who insists 4 plus 4 is 8 "stuck in his ways"?

 

Or is he just right?

 

BOTH! perhaps this'll make you laugh/wind you up maybe - have you heard about quantum physics? it might go some way to helping you out with your 20 year battery conundrum? whilst 4+4=8 there is more to this universe (and batteries!) than simple algebra

 

We both are now. And I think the hope of perpetual motion is just slightly less silly than your idea.

 

nope - just you and errm who was it - roger someone I think - you're the ones that started goin on about perpetual motion - nothing I have suggested is remotely connected with perpetual motion (I've had a few ideas along those lines as I'm sure you mighta guessed but most are long since forgotten and consigned to the rubbish bin - you gotta dream tho eh!)

 

That would be about right then, most 15 amp chargers will give less than 8 amps into a moderately charged battery. Chargers only ever give their rated charge current into a totally flat battery

 

yup - fine fine - I agree with this but am still a little confused why there would be different amounts of amps going into one battery than the other (rememebring that the start of this thread was about putting an 'alright' battery in with a bunch of gooduns) also I don't understand why the battery charger that has still not got a couple of bateries up to a proper 14.4v bulk charge should then start pulling back on the amps to 5A when the batteries are only 13.6v ish and it has already clearly demonstarted that it can do 8A - but hey that really is another story for another day I think and one more to do with the characteristics of the battery charger I guess - it is the thing about unequal currents flowing into the batteries that is getting me...

 

in fact! I just realised - god this is kinda doing my head in! on the boat - the currents running into each battery are not the same either! they are similar but not the same... I wish I had this clamp tester years ago! I could have tested the links between the old battery bank and what amps were flowing where and build up a picture of what is happening - NOT to start what was it - some magic connection - but to understand how this all works! there is another thread on here about someone wanting to learn electrics and being advised to buy a multi meter and prod about a bit! hahah - yeh - why not - some basics might help first tho eh! but essentially I go along with that approach - just be careful!

[Gibbo]

jeeez... look - I don't KNOW why it is doing it - but it sure as hell IS doing it...

 

Well you should know. You've been told several bl**din' times. It appears that because you don't want that to be the reason you just ignore it and carry on prattling on about your silly idea.

 

I didn't bother reading the rest of your drivel.

 

nope - just you and errm who was it - roger someone I think - you're the ones that started goin on about perpetual motion - nothing I have suggested is remotely connected with perpetual motion (I've had a few ideas along those lines as I'm sure you mighta guessed but most are long since forgotten and consigned to the rubbish bin - you gotta dream tho eh!)

 

How can you say you are not talking about perpetual motion when your above paragraph (typed by you) contains the term "perpetual motion" twice?

Edited November 6, 2009 by Gibbo

[smileypete]

But a battery sulfated up so it has lost (say) 25% of its original capacity, when fully charged (to its new lower capacity) will read the same voltage as it did when fully charged and brand new with its full available capacity.

OK, supposing you have that 25% sulphated battery fully charged to it's lower capacity.

 

You take the plates out of the battery, clean all the sulphate off, and put them back in.

 

What do you expect to happen to the voltage?

 

cheers,

Pete.

[Gibbo]

OK, supposing you have that 25% sulphated battery fully charged to it's lower capacity.

 

You take the plates out of the battery, clean all the sulphate off, and put them back in.

 

What do you expect to happen to the voltage?

 

cheers,

Pete.

 

I see you're thinking along the same lines!

 

I'd expect the voltage to fall.

[Sir Nibble]

I would love to add my 5 eggs to this debate but I cannot see pictures and don't want to comment on what I don't understand. Could someone please precis the idea using terms that an ordinary spark can understand so's I can work out which way to point and laugh?

[smileypete]

I see you're thinking along the same lines!

 

I'd expect the voltage to fall.

Me too.

 

I can't quite understand how/why the permanent sulphation raises the voltage.

 

I need to get hold of a nicely sulphated battery

 

cheers,

Pete.

[Ermenilda]

Well you should know. You've been told several bl**din' times. It appears that because you don't want that to be the reason you just ignore it and carry on prattling on about your silly idea.

 

carry on like this and you are going to end up looking the fool as you are failing to realise that this post/observation has nothing to do with my stupid ideas - it is a totally seperate post about something I observed and was looking for an explanation - as yet I have not seen one from you other than 'it cannot be possible due to the laws of physics' - lets just leave it at that then shall we

 

I didn't bother reading the rest of your drivel.

 

hahaha - can't take what you dish out? I countered your points and you didn't bother reading them? hahah didn't you even bother to read the bit about what the batteries were connected to? you oughta be careful where you cruise - you might drop off the edge of the world where there be serpents and mermaids...

 

How can you say you are not talking about perpetual motion when your above paragraph (typed by you) contains the term "perpetual motion" twice?

 

hmmm... are we back in primary school now then? Yes you have a great wealth of experience/knowledge but your style is now becoming childish - I have used the WORDS perpetual motion in reply to your post but NOTHING I have ever proposed or talked about is in relation to perpetual motion - I have not ONCE suggested anything that is purporting to be perpetual motion - quite the OPPOSITE as you pointed out the diodes for example would LOOSE energy

 

I would love to add my 5 eggs to this debate but I cannot see pictures and don't want to comment on what I don't understand. Could someone please precis the idea using terms that an ordinary spark can understand so's I can work out which way to point and laugh?

 

follow the herd/grease up to Gibbo and just point and laugh at me

[Gibbo]

................. as yet I have not seen one from you....................

 

So not only can you not think clearly, you also have reading problems?

[tomsk]

So not only can you not think clearly, you also have reading problems?

 

 

This is all very silly, I do hope your not going to resort to your 'basic comprehension' chestnut Chris.

[Ermenilda]

This is all very silly, I do hope your not going to resort to your 'basic comprehension' chestnut Chris.

 

are you referring to me as being 'Chris'?

[tomsk]

are you referring to me as being 'Chris'?

 

 

I think there is more chance of you being the late Michael Bentine hosting a Potty-Time Special from beyond the grave, unless of course you are La Wyles post-breakdown.

[nb Innisfree]

perhaps this'll make you laugh/wind you up maybe - have you heard about quantum physics? it might go some way to helping you out with your 20 year battery conundrum? whilst 4+4=8 there is more to this universe (and batteries!) than simple algebra

 

If quantum mechanics does indeed exist, and the evidence seems to be stacking up, surely it must influence everything, including batteries?

[Sir Nibble]

follow the herd/grease up to Gibbo and just point and laugh at me

That's me told then isn't it. To hell with it.

[Ermenilda]

I think there is more chance of you being the late Michael Bentine hosting a Potty-Time Special from beyond the grave, unless of course you are La Wyles post-breakdown.

 

woof! right over my head - not a clue what you on about there (must be before my time) but sounds funny...

 

Gibbo undoubtedly has a strong following on here but I don't see why that excuses him

 

I give in. Your pictures don't help at all because we can't see what the wires are connected to.

 

errr yeh right you are then...

 

Interesting that much of what you quote was added to Wikipedia last night. Also interesting that much of what you quote has now been changed and/or deleted.

 

errr yes and I am also a Russian spy...

 

Is it not painfuly obvious to others what he is doing? but listen - I would much rather stick to the point than spend time getting further into a drawn out argument - I have and am still trying to move things on - but if Gibbo's response to anything I say is that he won't look at it becuase it is drivel/can't be prooved/I made it up then - surely there must be others on here that are willing to discuss ideas without being so judgemental and dismissive?

 

PS - FYI - I am not Chris - whoever he is

[tomsk]

woof! right over my head - not a clue what you on about there (must be before my time) but sounds funny...

 

Gibbo undoubtedly has a strong following on here but I don't see why that excuses him

 

 

 

errr yeh right you are then...

 

 

 

errr yes and I am also a Russian spy...

 

Is it not painfuly obvious to others what he is doing? but listen - I would much rather stick to the point than spend time getting further into a drawn out argument - I have and am still trying to move things on - but if Gibbo's response to anything I say is that he won't look at it becuase it is drivel/can't be prooved/I made it up then - surely there must be others on here that are willing to discuss ideas without being so judgemental and dismissive?

 

PS - FYI - I am not Chris - whoever he is

 

 

So you ARE Micheal Bentine!!

Edited November 6, 2009 by tomsk