This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revision Both sides next revision | ||
opinion:frater_secessus:charging_faster [2020/04/18 13:22] frater_secessus [exceptions] |
opinion:frater_secessus:charging_faster [2020/05/13 12:10] frater_secessus [charging faster isn't always better] |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
- | There is a common misperception that charging one's battery banks //faster// is //better// or worth throwing | + | There is a common misperception that charging one's battery banks //faster// is //better// or that having |
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ===== lead-acid ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | **Lead batteries** have a **maximum amount of current** they will accept, typically [[electrical: | ||
+ | |||
+ | ** Deep-cycled lead batteries have a lengthy [[electrical: | ||
+ | |||
+ | However: | ||
+ | |||
+ | > charge current affects the SOC transition point from bulk to absorption charging - MaineSail((https:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | MaineSail found that | ||
+ | |||
+ | * charging AGM at C/2.5 (max rate) resulted in the battery being 63.3% " | ||
+ | * charging AGM at C/5 (min rate) resulted in the battery being 77.4% " | ||
+ | |||
+ | Note that the **using 2x the charging current only sped up the whole process by 12 minutes (3.6%)** due to Vabs starting earlier but taking longer. Getting to Vabs faster could be [[electrical: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Also note that for simple, timer-based Absorption configurations((like 180 minutes)) the slower charging regiment would actually complete more Absorption.((180/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ===== lithium ===== | ||
- | **Lead batteries** have a maximum amount of current they will accept, typically [[electrical: | ||
**Lithium batteries** can slurp up current wildly, but shouldn' | **Lithium batteries** can slurp up current wildly, but shouldn' |