LifePo4 Charge Performance
Thinking seriously about replacing our two GC2's with a pair of 100ah LifePo4's. Hearing a lot of chatter about how lithiums accept a charge much quicker than lead cells. Very familiar with how ou...
Forum Discussion
Am I then to assume that any previous claims (whether implicit of explicit...) about,
1) there’s no actual proof or advantage to Li’s lower internal resistance (vs FWC) since this argument (moved goal post?) has been shelved in favor of arguing about variations in constant charging amps??
2) therefore (because of complexities of other complexities...), no one person (whether having actual experience or not), or Manufacturer is sufficiently able to produce satisfactory evidence (to who??) that Li’s have a nominally higher charge acceptance rate?
Why?? because this is a non-quantifiable ‘fools errand’ due to the inexorable variables surrounding ambient temperature and/or charge currents, which exceeds the analytical ambitions of the average ‘enquiring Joe’ to cogently quantify (huh??...”Warning, Secret LiFePo4 Decoder ring required” - lol...)...
If so, I would submit here that while you are certainly entitled your own opinion (as am I, though FWC & Li real-world experienced), your effort here seems more of a curious mental contortion to obscure an attribute of Li that is in many cases advantageous, particularly with solar harvest...
JMO regarding SiO2 vs LiFePo4 (wars - lol : )), while there is some noteworthy overlap, SiO2 (where unheated) wins the temp and initial cost advantage, charge acceptance rate, DOD (usable depth of discharge) and extremely low voltage sag favors Li...
That’s my actual hands-on FWC vs Li experience and I’m sticking with it!!
3 tons
1) there’s no actual proof or advantage to Li’s lower internal resistance (vs FWC) since this argument (moved goal post?) has been shelved in favor of arguing about variations in constant charging amps??
2) therefore (because of complexities of other complexities...), no one person (whether having actual experience or not), or Manufacturer is sufficiently able to produce satisfactory evidence (to who??) that Li’s have a nominally higher charge acceptance rate?
Why?? because this is a non-quantifiable ‘fools errand’ due to the inexorable variables surrounding ambient temperature and/or charge currents, which exceeds the analytical ambitions of the average ‘enquiring Joe’ to cogently quantify (huh??...”Warning, Secret LiFePo4 Decoder ring required” - lol...)...
If so, I would submit here that while you are certainly entitled your own opinion (as am I, though FWC & Li real-world experienced), your effort here seems more of a curious mental contortion to obscure an attribute of Li that is in many cases advantageous, particularly with solar harvest...
JMO regarding SiO2 vs LiFePo4 (wars - lol : )), while there is some noteworthy overlap, SiO2 (where unheated) wins the temp and initial cost advantage, charge acceptance rate, DOD (usable depth of discharge) and extremely low voltage sag favors Li...
That’s my actual hands-on FWC vs Li experience and I’m sticking with it!!
3 tons
