BFL13 wrote:
The lower capacity at higher draw is for when you draw right down to 10.5v. When you only run a high draw for a short time, the battery bounces back, so you get some capacity back for lower draws. Also the low draw times compensate for the high draw times. Works out close enough. Trimetric manual has some notes on why they don't bother with Peukert.
I ran some tests on this a few years ago and it came out like the Trimetric guy says. One of the other monitors does use Peukert but that is over-refined for the job IMO (and Trimetric's)
Ok, that makes sense. However, as full_mosey posted (and I plan to try today with my setup) it took him 1.87kWh of charging to replace 1.0kWh drawn from the bank, and that's with a PFC charger running at .98 or higher. So that .87kWh went somewhere. I'm guessing heat generated by the inverter/converter going each direction. So all the losses happen as you are going from DC to AC and then AC to DC. If you put a monitor in line between the inverter/converter and the battery, the Ah out should be really close to the Ah back in? In other words, no significant losses occurring in the battery itself?
