LiFePo4 vs Lead Acid...Some points of interest.

3 tons wrote:
I believe that this thread has been productive in ‘multiple ways’ - many thanks to those individual’s :) who’ve aided in the constructive dialogue,

Respectfully,

3 tons, in the High NV Desert

I'll second that...lol..Sometimes the best info is derived from back and forth debates..I'm all ears..(Laffin)

I believe that this thread has been productive in ‘multiple ways’ - many thanks to those individual’s :) who’ve aided in the constructive dialogue,

Respectfully,

3 tons, in the High NV Desert

So now your a victim?? Based on your willful history Sir, I see other forum members as the only victims - but with all due respect, thats just me...

3 tons

A Forum Rule is:

"Flaming" of other participants is strictly forbidden. Professional conduct and respectful behavior towards other members and moderators is a primary requirement for participation on the Open Roads Forum."

“I thought showing some calculations would help others do theirs is all” ...

Reeks of faux virtue signaling.....

In the previous charging efficiency example it was more like dispensing deliberate ‘misinformation’ with the intent to mislead (e.g. making a case using deceit ), ....Then recall there was the dueling solar charge controllers issue, another ‘misinterpretation’ eh?? ....NOT!...Dispensing serial BS is no virtue...

It’s no wonder that you block me -

3 tons

Hellcat is 4x faster than a Camry. I don't care how it is counted, the situation or conditions, give me the Hellcat.

I can't help mis-interpretations of my posts. Suggest blocking me per Forum rules to save any more agony. I unblocked 3 tons after some thinking about it, but we have choices. :)

I’m noting here your sudden maidenly virtue (NOT!)....Why then did you in a different thread ‘purposely contort’ a manufacturer’s technical note on ‘charge efficiency’ with charging recovery times in an attempt to discredit LFP’s faster charging times??....That was truly an incredulous stretch...The manufacturers tech note makes absolutely no mention of time...I can site other examples as well........

See technical note in below thread:

https://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/30210186/gotomsg/30215155.cfm#30215155

3 tons

Always suspecting the sales hype, so want to verify the claims and see if possible where they got their numbers. In this case it is true that 1C with LFP is 4 x faster than with FLA doing depleted to full.

However, you would never do that with an FLA, and not many RVers have 1C worth of chargers and a gen big enough to run them. So it is up to the individual to do the work on that.

Perhaps my post will show some folks how to do the time calculations. Nobody is forcing them to get into the weeds if they do not want to.

Anybody can do the calculations to see how much gen time they would save and decide if going to LFP would be worth the cost and bother is one example.

Solar is hard to evaluate since the charging rates are low and the sky is so variable each day. Do you need faster charging if you already get to full at 2PM most days

One other example was where they were running down a battery and swapping it out for a full one. Faster charging meant they could get the one being recharged back on line sooner.

A WW2 submarine would love that so it could dive back down sooner.

Seems to me an LFP buyer would want to do some math. I do not have a message or an agenda. I thought showing some calculations would help others do theirs is all.

I know I am still not clear as to what your overall message is here, and for their comments, others don't really follow either. Can you give us a summary of the argument you are trying to make?

BFL13 wrote:
Battery University seems to be having problems--I get "overloaded" error.

It was BU-409 if you Google for that and if you can get it.

Wait till you see the article whenever if gets back on before insisting on the 97% idea. You also have the second quote about 60%. No reason to think that person is a liar.

Even with the 60% end of Bulk at 1C, the times came out as shown, so there's that. The long absorption time after the 60% is still fairly short so you can see where the time-savings occur if you look.

If you compare charging efficiencies then use 99% for LFP as the BU article says and use 94% for the FLA like Bogart does for the Trimetric monitor (Bogart explains how they got that number in their user's manual.

That means a 5% time saving average for the LFP along 0-100 from charging efficiency.

What is missing from the BU I think, is the wiring and BMS on the LFP cells, which add R and could increase "LFP" times. No idea how much that would be. That BB tester guy mentioned that and said some have better wiring than others. Something for a roll-your-own guy to consider perhaps.