Forum Discussion
FWC
Mar 25, 2021Explorer
Here is the thing - we are supposed to believe there is this supposedly amazing lead acid battery chemistry that overcomes many of the shortcomings of 'regular' lead acid batteries (cycle life, thermal performance, sulfonation) that has been around for decades, is inexpensive to manufacture and is compatible with current charging technology.
Yet for some reason no major battery manufacturer, or vehicle manufacturer, or UPS/power system manufacturer has ever adopted it. Furthermore, no academics, technical organizations, or manufacturer has published any assessment of the performance of the chemistry. My organization considered this a decade ago for use on polar weather stations, but gave up as the main seller (Green Rhino) couldn't actually provide us with any test data, and still doesn't appear to have any.
This tickled my bollocks-o-meter at the time, and the reappearance of this supposed advanced technology a decade later has my bollocks-o-meter in full swing. Either all the world's battery companies have been caught napping over the past 30 - 50 years, or this isn't the miracle it promises to be. Given the lack of any independent verification, I would guess the later.
Yet for some reason no major battery manufacturer, or vehicle manufacturer, or UPS/power system manufacturer has ever adopted it. Furthermore, no academics, technical organizations, or manufacturer has published any assessment of the performance of the chemistry. My organization considered this a decade ago for use on polar weather stations, but gave up as the main seller (Green Rhino) couldn't actually provide us with any test data, and still doesn't appear to have any.
This tickled my bollocks-o-meter at the time, and the reappearance of this supposed advanced technology a decade later has my bollocks-o-meter in full swing. Either all the world's battery companies have been caught napping over the past 30 - 50 years, or this isn't the miracle it promises to be. Given the lack of any independent verification, I would guess the later.
pianotuna wrote:FWC wrote:
My point with SiO2 is there is no actual data to back up the claims made by the SiO2 resellers, and often the claims are conflicting.
There is data going back to 1951. Finding it is an issue.
Too bad BFL13 did not post the link he found.
But then probably some one would say the "source" was unreliable.
Do share the conflicting claims I'm always interested particularly with my beer budget.
About Technical Issues
Having RV issues? Connect with others who have been in your shoes.24,344 PostsLatest Activity: Dec 26, 2025