Replacing a 55 amp converter with a 45?

smkettner wrote:

jrnymn7 wrote:
Yes, I agree, smk is not necessarily 'one of those', but what IS his point? You offered a suggestion to the OP... the exact same suggestion smk offered you.

I don't think the question was even close to the same. IIRC BFL's primary concern was to increase the charging amps with 4 to 5 batteries. I suggested a second portable charger would work fine. Eventually there became FOUR such chargers and I have been since suggesting a slower charge might be OK also as it relates to reported drops in hydrometer testing. Been bantering a few years now. I don't thing we take each other too seriously ;)

If the OP decides the 45 is too slow we can go from there.

jrnymn7 wrote:
I have seen this shift in when amps begin to taper when using a lower charge rate as well; like 45a on a 215 bank. I have seen my 45 take my bank well past 80% at full current.

Great set up and very similar to the OP. Are you inclined to go 80 amps?

If it is true, 'speed charging' leads to lower sg readings, I would definitely like to see the evidence. This is something that should be published for all to see and consider; logically, not emotionally.

As for years of banter, yes I get that. But new comers, like myself, may not see it for what it is. And in the end, my only concern is the OP getting some solid advice, pertinent to his particular situation; not a bunch of emotionally based knee-jerk reactions from folks who can't seem to accept the fact they have either been mis-lead by mis/dis-information, or simply haven't put their 'beliefs' to the test before presenting them as hard fact for all to accept, without question. Batteries don't have ego's; they simply either 'respond' well to certain treatment, or they don't; whereas the ego 'reacts'.

...Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest.

As for my set-up, I recently split my bank in two, but I will have to go back to the 430Ah bank, for various reasons. But yes, I had planned on running a 60-75 amp charger on the 215Ah banks; having not seen any evidence that this could ultimately decrease battery longevity to any great degree. Likewise, I would hit the 430Ah bank with 120-150 amps, if my 2000i permitted it. And yes, I would rather replace my $150 batteries a little more often, than my $1200 generator.

The electrochemical characteristics of a particular BCI group size or construction technique makes batteries "behave" so independently different from one another that you'd think the fool things have personalities.

A reverse Peukert-like effect takes place with varying degrees of charge rate. This is why bubbling the electrolyte is so important. The process presents fresh electrolyte to microporous plate surfaces. The electrolyte absorbs plate sulfation and puts it back into solution. Saturated solution cannot hold much if any additional plate sulfation.

Electron flow is the delivery system that migrates sulfation from plates to solution and back again. With good circulation batteries with a high reserve of electrolyte to plate ratio charge faster, especially that all-important 90-100%, 1.275 - 1.280 final charge amount.

Many problematic BCI group sizes demand unsaturated acid to gain the final degree of charge. The only way to do this "quickly" is by applying higher voltage and allow gassing and thermal currents to flow not-yet saturated acid to the areas still containing appreciable amount of PbSO4 on the plates. This is an (overly) simple explanation of acid-starvation and how it affects charging rates, time and impedance characteristics. Battery design is an avalanche of compromises with initial cost being not the least insignificant.

Sustained high voltage is not good for battery life. Excessive positive plate shedding and antimony migration to negative plates are only two of many negatives. A battery that starts out being difficult to fully re-charge is going to have a short, expensive (wasted energy) life.

Manufacturers who build consistently better than average 29-31, 34, and 65 batteries almost always have superior 24,'s, 27's, and golf car batteries.

I can only hope this serves to clarify and not confuse...

jrnymn7 wrote:

I have seen this shift in when amps begin to taper when using a lower charge rate as well; like 45a on a 215 bank. I have seen my 45 take my bank well past 80% at full current.

I charge mine at a pretty low rate (~C/7), maybe too low, but I've observed this behavior also. I estimate mine gets somewhere into the 90% SOC range before tapering.

I've never approached a 50% discharge while boondocking. I might have seen the low 70's once. Whether it ends up as portable or permanent, I plan on solar for the new trailer. Yet another reason a 45 amp converter should work.

jrnymn7 wrote:
Yes, I agree, smk is not necessarily 'one of those', but what IS his point? You offered a suggestion to the OP... the exact same suggestion smk offered you.

I don't think the question was even close to the same. IIRC BFL's primary concern was to increase the charging amps with 4 to 5 batteries. I suggested a second portable charger would work fine. Eventually there became FOUR such chargers and I have been since suggesting a slower charge might be OK also as it relates to reported drops in hydrometer testing. Been bantering a few years now. I don't thing we take each other too seriously ;)

If the OP decides the 45 is too slow we can go from there.

jrnymn7 wrote:
I have seen this shift in when amps begin to taper when using a lower charge rate as well; like 45a on a 215 bank. I have seen my 45 take my bank well past 80% at full current.

Great set up and very similar to the OP. Are you inclined to go 80 amps?

"I have seen this shift in when amps begin to taper when using a lower charge rate as well; like 45a on a 215 bank. I have seen my 45 take my bank well past 80% at full current."

That is with a charger that, unlike the Vector, does not have a program to "trip" and start tapering as soon as voltage reaches 14v. So it can go longer to a higher SOC and reach its Vabs of 14.x before amps taper.

The percentage SOCs at tapering start in my ugly graph are slightly lower because it was all done with Vectors. (two 35s for the 70, 35 and 20 for the 55, and one 35 for the 35)

BTW I have no problem with smk's post and can't see why anybody else would either. I know what he meant. After a while on here you get to sort of know posters.

jrnymn7 wrote:

RKW wrote:
Thanks for the responses folks.

Just to clarify, my old trailer is incandescent bulbs throughout, the new trailer is LED throughout.

The old trailer's battery bank consists of dual Trojan T-105's. The 45 amp PD did an excellent job of maintaining the battery bank. The first pair of batteries were replaced after 8 years and were still good, just requiring frequent watering. Boondocking with short, daily recharging from a generator was no problem. I have a Link 10 battery meter and I monitored the recharging. A 45 amp converter/charger is a good match for a 225 amp-hour bank.

What batteries came with the new trailer?

Two, 12 volt Interstates. I didn't even look to see what kind they were. I plan on putting them in my old trailer.

Yes, I agree, smk is not necessarily 'one of those', but what IS his point? You offered a suggestion to the OP... the exact same suggestion smk offered you. And then smk exaggerated to make a point. What point? That doing what he suggested you do is a potentially bad idea, based on his 'belief' that it may or may not decrease the effectiveness of desulfating a battery? And now YOU are expected to disclose HIS alleged downside; which may not even exist??? Sorry, I just don't get it.

Perhaps for the sake of the OP, and the rest of us, smk could have simply expressed his personal concern about his presumed downside, instead of trying to make you look like some kind of an incompetent boob. Just saying.

And yes, thank you for pointing out the earlier switch to cv/amps tapering, at such a high charge rate. I too was exaggerating, to make a point, but only slightly, and perhaps I was even being a bit idyllic with my answer. My apologies to all.

I have seen this shift in when amps begin to taper when using a lower charge rate as well; like 45a on a 215 bank. I have seen my 45 take my bank well past 80% at full current.

jrnymn7 wrote:
For the record, BFL has been 100% transparent regarding the effects of doing 50-80% cycles. And so have every other member here. The only folks trying to mis-lead are those making false accusations about others. But hey, isn't that how the human ego works it's magic?

I mean, talk about being brain washed! Every time someone mentions charging at above a c/20 rate, or above 14.4v, they encounter a barrage of insults from those who simply cannot accept what the battery manufacturers recommend, AND cannot seem to understand anything they read in its proper (usually clearly stated) context.

Smk is not one of those, though. He knows his onions. In fact he was the one who suggested I run two Vectors at the same time to add their amps, which worked, so I said, "If some is good, more is better" and it is! :)

For the record, BFL has been 100% transparent regarding the effects of doing 50-80% cycles. And so have every other member here. The only folks trying to mis-lead are those making false accusations about others. But hey, isn't that how the human ego works it's magic?

I mean, talk about being brain washed! Every time someone mentions charging at above a c/20 rate, or above 14.4v, they encounter a barrage of insults from those who simply cannot accept what the battery manufacturers recommend, AND cannot seem to understand anything they read in its proper (usually clearly stated) context.