Do AGM's charge quicker?

Let's substitute coffee for chocolate and guess how much caffeine a Hershey bar has.

Because the Concorde battery is so different than lesser batteries I use it as a flagship comparison. I do the same with Rolls flooded batteries.

Can't use a Concorde battery and a charger strong enough to initiate saturated charging? That's like evaluating a Formula 1 ride using an 80 mph speedometer.

Superlatives then become utterly meaningless.

BULK means ultimate charger potential. Nothing more, nothing less. Meaningless unless prior data is utilized ? x time = x? time

How many minutes starting from 50% SOC to 100% state of charge.

Some of these answers can be reformulated to assume changing from a porcelain sink to a stainless steel sink will make the sink fill faster.

You have a battery that will recharge x amp hours. You use a specific size charger (too small) then expect the battery to fill faster?

An AGM unless it is junk will accept a higher amount of bulk amperes. At what point in SOC does the battery revert to absorbsion charge? Any answer is based on pure assumption. BRAND of battery. Amount of recharging amperage which is utterly based on constant voltage.

For fastest charging the Lifeline is unequaled. It can accept way more bulk charging which means to me, saturated absorbsion up to the point where absorbsion kicks in at a higher state of charge percentage wise. When the Lifeline backs off of saturated charging amperage it is fuller. Clear?

MEXICOWANDERER wrote:
I saturate absorbsion charge the Rolls single cells, and I saturate absorbsion charge the AGM's. The AGM's are way way faster. The Rolls cells take a bit over 700 amperes. The Lifeline's take almost 200 amperes.

This isn't AREA 51 Conspiracy grade theory, or Political Science
If some people refuse to believe it that's their problem -- not mine.

Tired of arguing the sky is NOT green and the grass is NOT blue.

I thought I was in agreement on Absorption stage charging that AGMs are faster doing absorption. Got some times for that comparison posted earlier.

I don't know where you stand on times for Bulk Stage charging, but I find them to be very near the same. Saturation charging means no Bulk stage AFAIK.

I saturate absorbsion charge the Rolls single cells, and I saturate absorbsion charge the AGM's. The AGM's are way way faster. The Rolls cells take a bit over 700 amperes. The Lifeline's take almost 200 amperes.

This isn't AREA 51 Conspiracy grade theory, or Political Science
If some people refuse to believe it that's their problem -- not mine.

Tired of arguing the sky is NOT green and the grass is NOT blue.

Mex, that guy is using different charging rates where the Flooded is lower than the AGMs, and then he claims that makes the AGM faster! Of course it is that way. He is claiming that the Trojan Flooded has a maximum rate which is actually Trojan's rate for longer life, not what the battery can accept.

Charging rate versus capacity

"More lead = higher acceptance = faster charging. For the two AGMs evaluated, maximum charging rate is 0.30 times 10-hour capacity. For the wet batteries, maximum charging rate is 0.14 times the 10-hour capacity (Trojan actually specifies 0.10 to 0.13 times the 20-hour capacity)."

He does say more lead per capacity allows faster charging. I will dig up some weight comparisons to add here

T-105-AGM 217AH 68lbs
T-105-Wet 225AH 62lbs

Here's one fellow's opinion and he has LOTS OF CHARTS and GRAPHS

https://stephenstuff.wordpress.com/2014/05/31/agm-and-wet-deep-cycle-batteries-compared/

The boat guy's 20% charging rate for a 50-87 on AGM was
Bulk 1 hr 16 min, Absorption 44 min

My ugly graph using 20% charging rate on Flooded
Bulk 1 hr 13 min, Absorption 60 min

Note my bulk was to 14v and his was to 14.4v so he would have more time in bulk to get from 14 to 14.4 (a few minutes) as seen above.

Time in absorption above 80% SOC is all about charge efficiency, so ASSuming the AGM is more efficient than the Flooded, that explains the longer time for Flooded. Charge efficiency during Bulk is very high for both AGM and Flooded.

If lower internal R for AGM means higher charge efficiency that goes with that, don't know.

More examples of wet vs AGM needed to confirm the above but it looks like you get about the same gen time for AGM as Flooded to do a 50-80, but would take less gen time with AGM to do a 50-90.

SFVdave wrote:
Looking to cut generator time. Have solar but sometimes have little to no sun when dry camping. Read AGM's charge up to 5X faster than flooded. How can that be, converter charger only puts out so much?

I never discharge my AGM battery more then 20% ,takes about 1 hr to charge up to 100%..
Have no experience with other bateries.

jharrell wrote:

BFL13 wrote:
Mex wants to do "saturation charging" for fastest time. That means no Bulk, all Absorption with its tapering amps. If AGMs do absorption faster (maybe they do) he would see a faster AGM time there than with Wets. Maybe.

Not sure how you would do all absorption and no bulk with my Lifelines, it might take a 500-1000 amp charger, no way you could get them to rise to 14.4v right off the bat with out enormous amps. My wimpy 125 amp goes full blast for a half hour until voltage rises enough for absorb.

According to me, :) , you just have to start the recharge at 67% SOC

BFL13 wrote:
Mex wants to do "saturation charging" for fastest time. That means no Bulk, all Absorption with its tapering amps. If AGMs do absorption faster (maybe they do) he would see a faster AGM time there than with Wets. Maybe.

Not sure how you would do all absorption and no bulk with my Lifelines, it might take a 500-1000 amp charger, no way you could get them to rise to 14.4v right off the bat with out enormous amps. My wimpy 125 amp goes full blast for a half hour until voltage rises enough for absorb.