โMar-27-2021 07:57 AM
โMar-28-2021 12:29 PM
time2roll wrote:
You are correct the exact calculation is not presented. However there is an effect and it is presented. You can acknowledge or ignore.
I have ignored it and it has not made a huge impact that I am aware of. My main cables are a bit short to make the change and I don't want to order a new 4/0 cable. If I was full time I would have updated.
โMar-28-2021 12:23 PM
time2roll wrote:larry cad wrote:
I would be interested in your calculation to support this statement. I assume you know the internal resistance of the two types of batteries, and also the resistance of the jumper wire between the two series sets of batteries. No doubt you included the resistance of the series jumpers as well.
By the way, the calculated resistance of the jumper wires, (both the series connections and the parallel connections) are .000047 ohms. If I were ever to pull full load (i.e. 400amps) through any one of those jumpers, the voltage drop calculates out to be .0188 volts DC which is .00156% of the 12vdc
http://www.smartgauge.co.uk/batt_con.html
โMar-28-2021 12:19 PM
โMar-28-2021 11:52 AM
time2roll wrote:larry cad wrote:
I would be interested in your calculation to support this statement. I assume you know the internal resistance of the two types of batteries, and also the resistance of the jumper wire between the two series sets of batteries. No doubt you included the resistance of the series jumpers as well.
By the way, the calculated resistance of the jumper wires, (both the series connections and the parallel connections) are .000047 ohms. If I were ever to pull full load (i.e. 400amps) through any one of those jumpers, the voltage drop calculates out to be .0188 volts DC which is .00156% of the 12vdc
http://www.smartgauge.co.uk/batt_con.html
โMar-28-2021 07:56 AM
larry cad wrote:
I would be interested in your calculation to support this statement. I assume you know the internal resistance of the two types of batteries, and also the resistance of the jumper wire between the two series sets of batteries. No doubt you included the resistance of the series jumpers as well.
By the way, the calculated resistance of the jumper wires, (both the series connections and the parallel connections) are .000047 ohms. If I were ever to pull full load (i.e. 400amps) through any one of those jumpers, the voltage drop calculates out to be .0188 volts DC which is .00156% of the 12vdc
โMar-28-2021 05:38 AM
BFL13 wrote:
Ok that explains the extra wires that I mentioned. Somebody who knows this better can comment, but it looks like you are "tapping into" one pair for some loads instead of the whole bank for all loads and that might have one pair working harder than the other. Your jumper is supposed to negate that, but I don't know if it would.
The water loss diff might be more to do with an antimony difference then.
โMar-28-2021 05:32 AM
โMar-28-2021 05:26 AM
โMar-28-2021 05:18 AM
time2roll wrote:larry cad wrote:The main high amp connections are best made to opposite pairs. In your case say the main negative (-) went to the Trojans and the main positive (+) went to the Interstates would actually create a better balance. Especially under heavy loads or heavy charging. Yes the parallel connectors are low resistance and so are the batteries so it can cause 10% or more getting drawn from one set compared to the other.BFL13 wrote:I thought I answered that by explaining a jumper exists between the + and the - terminals. Theoretically the resistance between them is therefore 0 ohms which should do a fair job of balancing the loads from each bank. That they are close, and the "shunt" is short only improves that situation.
Yes they are in parallel. The question was if the load/charging is balanced across both pairs or not.
โMar-28-2021 05:14 AM
pianotuna wrote:
Hi Larry,
Treat each pair of six volt batteries as if they were a single twelve volt battery. Wire them in a balanced manner. (see below)
โMar-28-2021 05:00 AM
BFL13 wrote:larry cad wrote:BFL13 wrote:
Yes they are in parallel. The question was if the load/charging is balanced across both pairs or not.
I thought I answered that by explaining a jumper exists between the + and the - terminals. Theoretically the resistance between them is therefore 0 ohms which should do a fair job of balancing the loads from each bank. That they are close, and the "shunt" is short only improves that situation.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. The OP photo is not clear to me either as there seems to be extra wires on the terminals. We may not be talking the same language wrt "balanced". I need to find a drawing of what I mean to link to at least clear that up. I will edit in here.
ok scroll down to 3.7 table 3 drawing of the four batts in series-parallel and note the position of the load/charge wires.
https://www.trojanbattery.com/pdf/TrojanBattery_UsersGuide.pdf
โMar-27-2021 08:54 PM
โMar-27-2021 04:00 PM
2oldman wrote:I have been using a watering system for about 10 years now. Makes this chore easier, faster and much safer.
My Trojans were thirsty too. Got tired of that and got AGMs.
โMar-27-2021 03:57 PM
larry cad wrote:The main high amp connections are best made to opposite pairs. In your case say the main negative (-) went to the Trojans and the main positive (+) went to the Interstates would actually create a better balance. Especially under heavy loads or heavy charging. Yes the parallel connectors are low resistance and so are the batteries so it can cause 10% or more getting drawn from one set compared to the other.BFL13 wrote:I thought I answered that by explaining a jumper exists between the + and the - terminals. Theoretically the resistance between them is therefore 0 ohms which should do a fair job of balancing the loads from each bank. That they are close, and the "shunt" is short only improves that situation.
Yes they are in parallel. The question was if the load/charging is balanced across both pairs or not.