Choice of Batteries - Which Would You Choose?
Need expert advise from those that know batteries best. I have an 05 PW Excel that has room for just one 12v house battery in the outside compartment. It's a wet cell, and just as soon get away from t...
Forum Discussion
And here I thought this was about an EQUAL number of cells.
Yes "I" is a factor. But the amount of skewing present via electrolyte density, plate paste formulation et al makes discussion a moot point. A dense paste greatly reduces CCA potential in favor of longevity. The loss factor can exceed 500%.
Quantifying a scrubber 6-cell battery versus a GC200 3-cell which have similar plate dimension is useless because of electrolyte ratios.
So trying to qualify a 3-cell versus a 6-cell erosion ratio by amperage alone has so many pitfalls it isn't funny. Millimeter by millimeter a GC plate is several hundred percent more resistant to erosion than a 6-cell RV battery.
Complex formulas are designed to show plate porosity versus active electrical value projections. They seldom work in agreement to calculations. Again, theory gets smacked around by reality. To put it bluntly, porous plates suck for cycling duty. And lifespan. But they render awesome CCA. Reminds me of Mexico adding 4+ grams of tetraethyl lead to Super Mexolina gasoline to get octane level to 90 research points.
Compare weight of the batteries versus CCA needed to fire off a high wattage microwave. What qty. lbs of 6 cell batteries do successfully, 3-cell batteries struggle and often fail to do the task. It's a trade-off. A compromise.
If eight or ten 6-cell batteries were paralleled, trying to equalize plate erosion rate (factor) to a pair of 3-cell GC batteries, success might be at hand. But total wattage from each would have to be identical. This is intelligent?
It would be a lot simpler if 3 cell and 6 cell construction were the same. But they aren't. My Rolls bank has to have the least porous plates on the market. CCA and amp hours versus per pound of weight is atrociously low. But .330" plates or not, 20+ years of lifespan does not jibe with solely plate thickness calculations. It has to be something else besides thickness. It's active surface porosity. Less porosity means less geometric adhesion points for sulfates. Harder to hard sulfate, easier to desulfate.
PRICE
PERFORMANCE
LONGEVITY
WEIGHT
Oh well, no one ever claimed a person can have it all. Oops. Forgot about Tarlek.
Yes "I" is a factor. But the amount of skewing present via electrolyte density, plate paste formulation et al makes discussion a moot point. A dense paste greatly reduces CCA potential in favor of longevity. The loss factor can exceed 500%.
Quantifying a scrubber 6-cell battery versus a GC200 3-cell which have similar plate dimension is useless because of electrolyte ratios.
So trying to qualify a 3-cell versus a 6-cell erosion ratio by amperage alone has so many pitfalls it isn't funny. Millimeter by millimeter a GC plate is several hundred percent more resistant to erosion than a 6-cell RV battery.
Complex formulas are designed to show plate porosity versus active electrical value projections. They seldom work in agreement to calculations. Again, theory gets smacked around by reality. To put it bluntly, porous plates suck for cycling duty. And lifespan. But they render awesome CCA. Reminds me of Mexico adding 4+ grams of tetraethyl lead to Super Mexolina gasoline to get octane level to 90 research points.
Compare weight of the batteries versus CCA needed to fire off a high wattage microwave. What qty. lbs of 6 cell batteries do successfully, 3-cell batteries struggle and often fail to do the task. It's a trade-off. A compromise.
If eight or ten 6-cell batteries were paralleled, trying to equalize plate erosion rate (factor) to a pair of 3-cell GC batteries, success might be at hand. But total wattage from each would have to be identical. This is intelligent?
It would be a lot simpler if 3 cell and 6 cell construction were the same. But they aren't. My Rolls bank has to have the least porous plates on the market. CCA and amp hours versus per pound of weight is atrociously low. But .330" plates or not, 20+ years of lifespan does not jibe with solely plate thickness calculations. It has to be something else besides thickness. It's active surface porosity. Less porosity means less geometric adhesion points for sulfates. Harder to hard sulfate, easier to desulfate.
PRICE
PERFORMANCE
LONGEVITY
WEIGHT
Oh well, no one ever claimed a person can have it all. Oops. Forgot about Tarlek.
