The most accurate statement you can make is that it requires some amount of energy to store some number of amp-hours of charge ...
Just stating facts. I was trying to find a source credible enough for you. Perhaps that was too lofty a goal since you don't even believe your own sources.Appealing to NASA doesn't make it true.
A saying about forests and trees comes to mind. We use the battery as an energy storage device. Focusing on the amps and neglecting the watts is forgetting that to get the energy into the battery we have to have both amps and volts and that means watts.What you see in those half-cell reactions aren't watts. They are electrons -- those "xe-" thingies.
That means the reaction is in terms of AMPS, since an amp is a coulomb-per-second, so an amp-hour is a coulomb-per-second for 3600 seconds. You can't convert between coulombs per second and watts or watt-hours no matter how hard you might try.
The reason amp-hours work better -- and this is a "better" conversation, as well as a discussion about why kilowatt-hours are a horrible measure -- is because those electrons really do have to make their way through the circuit, even if the voltage is depressed.
How about when you charge the battery using amps without volts you get back to me.When you can get a half-cell reaction that's in watts or watt-hours, you get back to me.
How about when you charge the battery using amps without volts you get back to me.
You extol Ah capacity compared to Wh capacity of a battery, though the Wh rating is more accurate than Ah rating and more modern.
One disadvantage of Ah rating is voltage rating also need to be specified: Same Ah rating may have different Wh ratings.
Except in EV usages?
Accurate?The most accurate statement you can make is that it requires some amount of energy to store some number of amp-hours of charge which can then produce some number of watt-hours worth of energy under some discharge-cycle-specific conditions.
From what I could see, there were 19-off SAFT SLP12 Batteries ? the nominal output from the unit was 24V dc.
The system requirement is 3 hours following a boost charge, with a load of 30A at 24Vdc (although I think the maintained load is nearer to 16A now).
The batteries are housed in a panel, which has dimensions 480mm wide x 540mm deep x 650mm high.
Please let me know your thoughts on our providing them with replacement batteries and if you need any more info in the meantime.....
Ah and Wh are quite different.
You could take one Plant? cell that would have more Ah capacity that a string of two dozen Yuasa Yucel VRLA units in series.
The VRLA string may be lower Ah but have very much greater energy storage.
From your extensive knowledge of batteries, which I don't in any way dispute, I have something you might be able to help me with.
This came into my email today from one of my guys who had been on a preventive maintenance visit:
The SAFT SLP12 is obsolete.
Can you suggest an alternative product/arrangement that would fulfil the performance requirements?
But the bottom line for a battery system, it's raison d'?tre, is to store energy.Yes, they are very different.
The issue that I encounter with clients and others in the PV business has to do with the variability of available energy with respect to a given amp-hour capacity. My approach with clients is to get them to focus on amp-hours and the way in which amp-hour capacity is affected by demand, and temperature to a lesser extent.
But the bottom line for a battery system, it's raison d'?tre, is to store energy.
The number, arrangement, and type of cells will be determined by the application and the required energy to be stored.
Quite. The log tables I used at secondary school were superseded by slide rules, then electronic calculators.....now I mostly use a computer.The purpose of a table is to put things on top of. Not knowing how that's going to work out makes that a rather useless table.
People actually do that, every single day.How about when you charge the battery using amps without volts you get back to me.
Answer this one question --
Which uses more energy to recharge a battery from 50% SoC: Recharging at C/5 or recharging at C/20?
If you still don't get it, answer this one --
Which is more amp-hours in a battery: A 100% SoC battery charged at C/5, or a 100% SoC battery charged at C/20?
Quite true.So, charging a battery using amps without volts has NOT been done every day: NEVER HAPPENED.
On the other hand, you can charge a battery by applying a regulated voltage or by applying a regulated current. Alone or in various combinations, these two modes make up the charging profile of any battery charging system. What complex charge profile is "best" will depend heavily on the battery chemistry and construction and on the use case.
So, being generous with the language, one could say that you are charging the battery using "only volts" or using "only amps" if you are regulating only the one or the other. But that would be confusing.
It's not at all confusing. Constant-voltage and constant-current (or near constant-current) charging profiles exist and are widely used, particularly in PV (that's this forum ...) systems for 2 or 3 (or 4, if you count equalization) stage charge cycles.
Established, yes. Irrelevant, no.My remark about not using volts is that voltage is reasonably irrelevant once the nominal voltage of the system is established.
That same latitude is being extended to you.I'm more than willing to allow people to make as many mistakes as they want.