Trojan battery choice: Plans changed

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Trojan battery choice: Plans changed

Steve Kobb
In a recent thread on Alternators and A/C, I mentioned that I would be using thirteen Trojan J185P 12v batteries in my 2002 Chevy S-10.

Peter VanDerWal suggested that I think twice about this particular product. In fact, he predicted that I would be buying new batteries in less than a year. I responded that I didn't think that would be the case, but that I would report my results to the list, no matter what happened.

Well, several days later, I decided to go back to an info source that I highly value: His name is Craig Quentin, and he's the engineer at Trojan who answers technical questions from the general public.

I told him about the advice that I'd gotten from other EVDL members, and made special reference to Peter's observation -- that the J185P batts would not last long because EVs pull a lot more current than floor scrubbers use. (The J185 line is made for the scrubber market.)

Craig said that Peter was right about the short lifespan, but not for the reason cited.

Apparently, these tall batteries are meant to take a lot of abuse from building maintenance workers, who are notoriously hard on their gear. On the other hand, this battery uses a relatively new design that has not been totally proven out in the marketplace.

The one data point that Craig had was an observation from someone whose opinion he respects. Craig is in touch with a guy who's in charge of a huge fleet of scrubbing machines. Approximately 180 of them use the J185 model, and this supervisor said the new battery does not seem to take abuse as well as the tried-and-true 6v models.

So I put it to Craig this way: Bottom line -- If you were building your own EV, would you use the J185 12v battery? He said no, he would use one of the 6v products - like the T-145.

Well, that was enough for me. When a tech support guy tells me what he would and would not use in his own project, who am I to argue?

In retrospect, I realize there's one part of the phone conversation that I didn't fully understand. Craig didn't agree with Peter's assertion that high currents would cause this floor scrubber battery to fail sooner rather than later. Nevertheless, Craig reported some disappointing news from the field, so I'm not sure what he believes to be the problem; i.e., what is limiting the lifespan of this product (which uses plates similar to those in the T-105).

Unfortunately, I didn't follow up and clarify, so I don't have the full story.

But anyway, I thank Peter for waving the red flag of caution... and I thank the Trojan engineer for his candor.

Cheers,

Steve Kobb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trojan battery choice: Plans changed

Roland Wiench
Hello Steve,

I have now been running the Trojan T-145's for six years now.  I had to do a
slight modification to the battery terminal which was the Low Profile Stud
Type Post - ELPT.  Otherwise these batteries are running perfect for me.  No
BMS for it yet.

The torque recommendations for these studs at the time was at 95 to 105 inch
pounds.  At 75 in.lbs. these started to pull out.  The head of these bolts
that was embedded was only 1/16 of inch below the surface and they started
to rotated.

Instead of sending these batteries back to have a different post put on, I
was able to use all positive narrow plated brass battery clamps around the
low profile pad.

I would prefer to use the large flat buss bar type battery terminal.  Not
the small UT type. The large one that US Battery uses on there T-145's or
any other deep cycle battery is about .75 inch thick by 1.25 wide and 2
inches high  I found out that this is a special option by Trojan and the
local dealer at the time, told me I can get them only with the ELPT, EHPT or
AP post.

If I cannot get the large buss battery terminals from Trojan, I would go to
US Battery T-145 battery that you can get the large buss bar battery
terminal.

Roland


----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Kobb" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 11:55 PM
Subject: [EVDL] Trojan battery choice: Plans changed


>
> In a recent thread on Alternators and A/C, I mentioned that I would be
> using
> thirteen Trojan J185P 12v batteries in my 2002 Chevy S-10.
>
> Peter VanDerWal suggested that I think twice about this particular
> product.
> In fact, he predicted that I would be buying new batteries in less than a
> year. I responded that I didn't think that would be the case, but that I
> would report my results to the list, no matter what happened.
>
> Well, several days later, I decided to go back to an info source that I
> highly value: His name is Craig Quentin, and he's the engineer at Trojan
> who
> answers technical questions from the general public.
>
> I told him about the advice that I'd gotten from other EVDL members, and
> made special reference to Peter's observation -- that the J185P batts
> would
> not last long because EVs pull a lot more current than floor scrubbers
> use.
> (The J185 line is made for the scrubber market.)
>
> Craig said that Peter was right about the short lifespan, but not for the
> reason cited.
>
> Apparently, these tall batteries are meant to take a lot of abuse from
> building maintenance workers, who are notoriously hard on their gear. On
> the
> other hand, this battery uses a relatively new design that has not been
> totally proven out in the marketplace.
>
> The one data point that Craig had was an observation from someone whose
> opinion he respects. Craig is in touch with a guy who's in charge of a
> huge
> fleet of scrubbing machines. Approximately 180 of them use the J185 model,
> and this supervisor said the new battery does not seem to take abuse as
> well
> as the tried-and-true 6v models.
>
> So I put it to Craig this way: Bottom line -- If you were building your
> own
> EV, would you use the J185 12v battery? He said no, he would use one of
> the
> 6v products - like the T-145.
>
> Well, that was enough for me. When a tech support guy tells me what he
> would
> and would not use in his own project, who am I to argue?
>
> In retrospect, I realize there's one part of the phone conversation that I
> didn't fully understand. Craig didn't agree with Peter's assertion that
> high
> currents would cause this floor scrubber battery to fail sooner rather
> than
> later. Nevertheless, Craig reported some disappointing news from the
> field,
> so I'm not sure what he believes to be the problem; i.e., what is limiting
> the lifespan of this product (which uses plates similar to those in the
> T-105).
>
> Unfortunately, I didn't follow up and clarify, so I don't have the full
> story.
>
> But anyway, I thank Peter for waving the red flag of caution... and I
> thank
> the Trojan engineer for his candor.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Steve Kobb
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Trojan-battery-choice%3A-Plans-changed-tp14611602s25542p14611602.html
> Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at
> Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> For subscription options, see
> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trojan battery choice: Plans changed

Tim Humphrey
In reply to this post by Steve Kobb



On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 22:55:34 -0800 (PST), Steve Kobb <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> In a recent thread on Alternators and A/C, I mentioned that I would be
> using
> thirteen Trojan J185P 12v batteries in my 2002 Chevy S-10.
>
> Peter VanDerWal suggested that I think twice about this particular
> product.
> In fact, he predicted that I would be buying new batteries in less than a
> year. I responded that I didn't think that would be the case, but that I
> would report my results to the list, no matter what happened.

Many before you have done much the same thing. There is a LOT of experience among the people on this list. The thing that makes humans humans is our ability to relate experiences, remember, and pass-on history to the next generation. Unfortunately for some, "if it isn't first hand experience then it didn't happen". I'm glad that isn't the case with you.


>
> Well, several days later, I decided to go back to an info source that I
> highly value: His name is Craig Quentin, and he's the engineer at Trojan
> who
> answers technical questions from the general public.
>
> I told him about the advice that I'd gotten from other EVDL members, and
> made special reference to Peter's observation -- that the J185P batts
> would
> not last long because EVs pull a lot more current than floor scrubbers
> use.
> (The J185 line is made for the scrubber market.)
>
> Craig said that Peter was right about the short lifespan, but not for the
> reason cited.

I think Craig will discover that Peter's right.


>
> Apparently, these tall batteries are meant to take a lot of abuse from
> building maintenance workers, who are notoriously hard on their gear. On
> the
> other hand, this battery uses a relatively new design that has not been
> totally proven out in the marketplace.
>
> The one data point that Craig had was an observation from someone whose
> opinion he respects. Craig is in touch with a guy who's in charge of a
> huge
> fleet of scrubbing machines. Approximately 180 of them use the J185 model,
> and this supervisor said the new battery does not seem to take abuse as
> well
> as the tried-and-true 6v models.
>
> So I put it to Craig this way: Bottom line -- If you were building your
> own
> EV, would you use the J185 12v battery? He said no, he would use one of
> the
> 6v products - like the T-145.
>
> Well, that was enough for me. When a tech support guy tells me what he
> would
> and would not use in his own project, who am I to argue?
>
> In retrospect, I realize there's one part of the phone conversation that I
> didn't fully understand. Craig didn't agree with Peter's assertion that
> high
> currents would cause this floor scrubber battery to fail sooner rather
> than
> later. Nevertheless, Craig reported some disappointing news from the
> field,
> so I'm not sure what he believes to be the problem; i.e., what is limiting
> the lifespan of this product (which uses plates similar to those in the
> T-105).
>
> Unfortunately, I didn't follow up and clarify, so I don't have the full
> story.
>
> But anyway, I thank Peter for waving the red flag of caution... and I
> thank
> the Trojan engineer for his candor.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Steve Kobb
> --

Consider... One way to ensure long life from flooded lead is to not take huge currents from it. One way to reduce the current draw from a given battery type is to parallel two of them together, that way each battery sees only half of the total current.

The J185's use the same plates as the T105's right, BUT what they essentially do is exactly the opposite of paralleling. Now each plate in each cell of the J185 see's TWICE the current that the plates of a T-105 would see. Add in the higher voltage of the J and it has the ability to supply even more current than the T, across a given resistance, further increasing the burden on the plates.

The 8 volt batteries do the same thing, except not as bad as the 12's.


--
Stay Charged!
Hump
"If you don't "believe" you'll make a difference, than you probably never will!" -- Jim Husted


_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trojan battery choice: Plans changed

shred
In reply to this post by Steve Kobb
FYI - I have been using Trojan AGM31 & also had to talk to Craig Quentin several times about a problem I am having with their batteries. I find that after my battery pack is at 40 to 50% DOD it has severe voltage sag. It’s a 120v pack and a 400 amp controller. If I hit the throttle and draw over 300 amps the pack voltage will drop into the 60's even 50’s. These Trojan AGM31 series have always behaved this way. Trojan says they don’t recommend this battery for EV use anymore (thanks to me). They did a few tests that they hadn’t performed before, after I reported my problems and said they had the same results. Something about the “electrons not being able to transfer fast enough through the glass mat material after high current use etc… You’d be better off using FLA batteries for your application”. I was told by Craig. I've also heard the same think from a few EVer's about other AGM batteries.
Steve Kobb wrote
In a recent thread on Alternators and A/C, I mentioned that I would be using thirteen Trojan J185P 12v batteries in my 2002 Chevy S-10.

Peter VanDerWal suggested that I think twice about this particular product. In fact, he predicted that I would be buying new batteries in less than a year. I responded that I didn't think that would be the case, but that I would report my results to the list, no matter what happened.

Well, several days later, I decided to go back to an info source that I highly value: His name is Craig Quentin, and he's the engineer at Trojan who answers technical questions from the general public.

I told him about the advice that I'd gotten from other EVDL members, and made special reference to Peter's observation -- that the J185P batts would not last long because EVs pull a lot more current than floor scrubbers use. (The J185 line is made for the scrubber market.)

Craig said that Peter was right about the short lifespan, but not for the reason cited.

Apparently, these tall batteries are meant to take a lot of abuse from building maintenance workers, who are notoriously hard on their gear. On the other hand, this battery uses a relatively new design that has not been totally proven out in the marketplace.

The one data point that Craig had was an observation from someone whose opinion he respects. Craig is in touch with a guy who's in charge of a huge fleet of scrubbing machines. Approximately 180 of them use the J185 model, and this supervisor said the new battery does not seem to take abuse as well as the tried-and-true 6v models.

So I put it to Craig this way: Bottom line -- If you were building your own EV, would you use the J185 12v battery? He said no, he would use one of the 6v products - like the T-145.

Well, that was enough for me. When a tech support guy tells me what he would and would not use in his own project, who am I to argue?

In retrospect, I realize there's one part of the phone conversation that I didn't fully understand. Craig didn't agree with Peter's assertion that high currents would cause this floor scrubber battery to fail sooner rather than later. Nevertheless, Craig reported some disappointing news from the field, so I'm not sure what he believes to be the problem; i.e., what is limiting the lifespan of this product (which uses plates similar to those in the T-105).

Unfortunately, I didn't follow up and clarify, so I don't have the full story.

But anyway, I thank Peter for waving the red flag of caution... and I thank the Trojan engineer for his candor.

Cheers,

Steve Kobb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trojan battery choice: Plans changed

Nawaz Qureshi
In reply to this post by Steve Kobb


It is a misconception that higher current (Amperes) draws shorten the
battery life.
Perhaps it is because some people confuse Ampere-Hours (a unit of capacity)
with Amperes or Amps (a unit of current).
If you use more Ampere-Hours per cycle (a deeper discharge) then you are
working the battery more and will give fewer cycles vs. shallower discharge
cycles. However, if you draw higher current (amperes) the depth of discharge
is shallower because the DOD is an inverse function of the rate of
discharge. Therefore, it should result in more cycles. For instance, if you
consider car starting batteries, they deliver thousands of cycle during
their life because the current draw is hundreds of Amperes for short periods
of time (i.e. very shallow DOD). Obviously, the higher current draw does not
reduce their life.
On the other hand, 800 cycles in a golf car are considered very good because
they are discharged more deeply per cycle.
Bottom line: Higher current draws do not reduce deep cycle battery life,
higher depth of discharge (Ah) does.

Nawaz Qureshi
US Battery

Message: 12
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 8:45:18 -0700
From: Tim Humphrey <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Trojan battery choice: Plans changed
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <[hidden email]>
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"


On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 22:55:34 -0800 (PST), Steve Kobb <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> In a recent thread on Alternators and A/C, I mentioned that I would be
> using
> thirteen Trojan J185P 12v batteries in my 2002 Chevy S-10.
>
> Peter VanDerWal suggested that I think twice about this particular
> product.
> In fact, he predicted that I would be buying new batteries in less than a
> year. I responded that I didn't think that would be the case, but that I
> would report my results to the list, no matter what happened.

Many before you have done much the same thing. There is a LOT of experience
among the people on this list. The thing that makes humans humans is our
ability to relate experiences, remember, and pass-on history to the next
generation. Unfortunately for some, "if it isn't first hand experience then
it didn't happen". I'm glad that isn't the case with you.


>
> Well, several days later, I decided to go back to an info source that I
> highly value: His name is Craig Quentin, and he's the engineer at Trojan
> who
> answers technical questions from the general public.
>
> I told him about the advice that I'd gotten from other EVDL members, and
> made special reference to Peter's observation -- that the J185P batts
> would
> not last long because EVs pull a lot more current than floor scrubbers
> use.
> (The J185 line is made for the scrubber market.)
>
> Craig said that Peter was right about the short lifespan, but not for the
> reason cited.

I think Craig will discover that Peter's right.


>
> Apparently, these tall batteries are meant to take a lot of abuse from
> building maintenance workers, who are notoriously hard on their gear. On
> the
> other hand, this battery uses a relatively new design that has not been
> totally proven out in the marketplace.
>
> The one data point that Craig had was an observation from someone whose
> opinion he respects. Craig is in touch with a guy who's in charge of a
> huge
> fleet of scrubbing machines. Approximately 180 of them use the J185 model,
> and this supervisor said the new battery does not seem to take abuse as
> well
> as the tried-and-true 6v models.
>
> So I put it to Craig this way: Bottom line -- If you were building your
> own
> EV, would you use the J185 12v battery? He said no, he would use one of
> the
> 6v products - like the T-145.
>
> Well, that was enough for me. When a tech support guy tells me what he
> would
> and would not use in his own project, who am I to argue?
>
> In retrospect, I realize there's one part of the phone conversation that I
> didn't fully understand. Craig didn't agree with Peter's assertion that
> high
> currents would cause this floor scrubber battery to fail sooner rather
> than
> later. Nevertheless, Craig reported some disappointing news from the
> field,
> so I'm not sure what he believes to be the problem; i.e., what is limiting
> the lifespan of this product (which uses plates similar to those in the
> T-105).
>
> Unfortunately, I didn't follow up and clarify, so I don't have the full
> story.
>
> But anyway, I thank Peter for waving the red flag of caution... and I
> thank
> the Trojan engineer for his candor.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Steve Kobb
> --

Consider... One way to ensure long life from flooded lead is to not take
huge currents from it. One way to reduce the current draw from a given
battery type is to parallel two of them together, that way each battery sees
only half of the total current.

The J185's use the same plates as the T105's right, BUT what they
essentially do is exactly the opposite of paralleling. Now each plate in
each cell of the J185 see's TWICE the current that the plates of a T-105
would see. Add in the higher voltage of the J and it has the ability to
supply even more current than the T, across a given resistance, further
increasing the burden on the plates.

The 8 volt batteries do the same thing, except not as bad as the 12's.


--
Stay Charged!
Hump
"If you don't "believe" you'll make a difference, than you probably never
will!" -- Jim Husted





Nawaz Qureshi
Vice-President of Engineering
U.S. Battery Mfg. Co.
1675 Sampson Avenue
Corona, CA 92879-1889
[hidden email]
T: 951-371-8090
Fax: 951-371-4671
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple,
awesomely simple, that's creativity - Charles Mingus


_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trojan battery choice: Plans changed

Steve Bischoff
Hi Nawaz,

This brings up the question, what is  cycle? In my case I charge at
work and then again at home. I use about 40ah each leg of my commute
with US 225s.

What would produce the longest battery life (days commuting)?
1) discharging 40ah on the way to work, charging, discharging 40ah on
the way home and charging.
2) discharging 80ah (seems pretty close to the edge given my 160amp
draw on the freeway) and then charging at home.
3) discharging 40ah on the way to work, putting say 20ah back in,
discharging 40ah (total  of 60ah) on the way home and then doing a
complete charge

Is it the last 20% of charge the determines life? I've been getting 24
months (about 1000 cycles) on a pack but this one's dying at about 20
months.

thanks,
Steve



-----Original Message-----
From: Nawaz Qureshi <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 1:42 pm
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Trojan battery choice: Plans changed




It is a misconception that higher current (Amperes) draws shorten the
battery life.
Perhaps it is because some people confuse Ampere-Hours (a unit of
capacity)
with Amperes or Amps (a unit of current).
If you use more Ampere-Hours per cycle (a deeper discharge) then you are
working the battery more and will give fewer cycles vs. shallower
discharge
cycles. However, if you draw higher current (amperes) the depth of
discharge
is shallower because the DOD is an inverse function of the rate of
discharge. Therefore, it should result in more cycles. For instance, if
you
consider car starting batteries, they deliver thousands of cycle during
their life because the current draw is hundreds of Amperes for short
periods
of time (i.e. very shallow DOD). Obviously, the higher current draw
does not
reduce their life.
On the other hand, 800 cycles in a golf car are considered very good
because
they are discharged more deeply per cycle.
Bottom line: Higher current draws do not reduce deep cycle battery life,
higher depth of discharge (Ah) does.

Nawaz Qureshi
US Battery

Message: 12
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 8:45:18 -0700
From: Tim Humphrey <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Trojan battery choice: Plans changed
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <[hidden email]>
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"


On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 22:55:34 -0800 (PST), Steve Kobb <[hidden email]>
wrote:
>
> In a recent thread on Alternators and A/C, I mentioned that I would be
> using
> thirteen Trojan J185P 12v batteries in my 2002 Chevy S-10.
>
> Peter VanDerWal suggested that I think twice about this particular
> product.
> In fact, he predicted that I would be buying new batteries in less
than a
> year. I responded that I didn't think that would be the case, but
that I
> would report my results to the list, no matter what happened.

Many before you have done much the same thing. There is a LOT of
experience
among the people on this list. The thing that makes humans humans is our
ability to relate experiences, remember, and pass-on history to the next
generation. Unfortunately for some, "if it isn't first hand experience
then
it didn't happen". I'm glad that isn't the case with you.


>
> Well, several days later, I decided to go back to an info source that
I
> highly value: His name is Craig Quentin, and he's the engineer at
Trojan
> who
> answers technical questions from the general public.
>
> I told him about the advice that I'd gotten from other EVDL members,
and
> made special reference to Peter's observation -- that the J185P batts
> would
> not last long because EVs pull a lot more current than floor scrubbers
> use.
> (The J185 line is made for the scrubber market.)
>
> Craig said that Peter was right about the short lifespan, but not for
the
> reason cited.

I think Craig will discover that Peter's right.


>
> Apparently, these tall batteries are meant to take a lot of abuse from
> building maintenance workers, who are notoriously hard on their gear.
On
> the
> other hand, this battery uses a relatively new design that has not
been
> totally proven out in the marketplace.
>
> The one data point that Craig had was an observation from someone
whose
> opinion he respects. Craig is in touch with a guy who's in charge of a
> huge
> fleet of scrubbing machines. Approximately 180 of them use the J185
model,
> and this supervisor said the new battery does not seem to take abuse
as
> well
> as the tried-and-true 6v models.
>
> So I put it to Craig this way: Bottom line -- If you were building
your
> own
> EV, would you use the J185 12v battery? He said no, he would use one
of
> the
> 6v products - like the T-145.
>
> Well, that was enough for me. When a tech support guy tells me what he
> would
> and would not use in his own project, who am I to argue?
>
> In retrospect, I realize there's one part of the phone conversation
that I
> didn't fully understand. Craig didn't agree with Peter's assertion
that
> high
> currents would cause this floor scrubber battery to fail sooner rather
> than
> later. Nevertheless, Craig reported some disappointing news from the
> field,
> so I'm not sure what he believes to be the problem; i.e., what is
limiting
> the lifespan of this product (which uses plates similar to those in
the
> T-105).
>
> Unfortunately, I didn't follow up and clarify, so I don't have the
full

> story.
>
> But anyway, I thank Peter for waving the red flag of caution... and I
> thank
> the Trojan engineer for his candor.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Steve Kobb
> --

Consider... One way to ensure long life from flooded lead is to not take
huge currents from it. One way to reduce the current draw from a given
battery type is to parallel two of them together, that way each battery
sees
only half of the total current.

The J185's use the same plates as the T105's right, BUT what they
essentially do is exactly the opposite of paralleling. Now each plate in
each cell of the J185 see's TWICE the current that the plates of a T-105
would see. Add in the higher voltage of the J and it has the ability to
supply even more current than the T, across a given resistance, further
increasing the burden on the plates.

The 8 volt batteries do the same thing, except not as bad as the 12's.


--
Stay Charged!
Hump
"If you don't "believe" you'll make a difference, than you probably
never
will!" -- Jim Husted





Nawaz Qureshi
Vice-President of Engineering
U.S. Battery Mfg. Co.
1675 Sampson Avenue
Corona, CA 92879-1889
[hidden email]
T: 951-371-8090
Fax: 951-371-4671
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated
simple,
awesomely simple, that's creativity - Charles Mingus


_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever.  Check out the new AOL Mail ! -
http://webmail.aol.com

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trojan battery choice: Plans changed

Zeke Yewdall
Generally, the lifetime of lead acid batteries is measured in total AH
throughput -- and this is a function of DOD -- e.g. if you do 20% DOD,
you might get 10,000AH -- which might be 1000 cycles of 10AH each
(assuming these theoretical batteries are  50AH rated capacity), but
if you do 80% DOD you might only get 4,000AH (which is only 100
cycles).  You'll have to get the actual graph of AH throughput vs DOD
for your particular batteries, but in general, the shallower the
cycles, the better, even if there are more of them.

Z

On Jan 4, 2008 3:09 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Nawaz,
>
> This brings up the question, what is  cycle? In my case I charge at
> work and then again at home. I use about 40ah each leg of my commute
> with US 225s.
>
> What would produce the longest battery life (days commuting)?
> 1) discharging 40ah on the way to work, charging, discharging 40ah on
> the way home and charging.
> 2) discharging 80ah (seems pretty close to the edge given my 160amp
> draw on the freeway) and then charging at home.
> 3) discharging 40ah on the way to work, putting say 20ah back in,
> discharging 40ah (total  of 60ah) on the way home and then doing a
> complete charge
>
> Is it the last 20% of charge the determines life? I've been getting 24
> months (about 1000 cycles) on a pack but this one's dying at about 20
> months.
>
> thanks,
> Steve
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nawaz Qureshi <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 1:42 pm
> Subject: Re: [EVDL] Trojan battery choice: Plans changed
>
>
>
>
> It is a misconception that higher current (Amperes) draws shorten the
> battery life.
> Perhaps it is because some people confuse Ampere-Hours (a unit of
> capacity)
> with Amperes or Amps (a unit of current).
> If you use more Ampere-Hours per cycle (a deeper discharge) then you are
> working the battery more and will give fewer cycles vs. shallower
> discharge
> cycles. However, if you draw higher current (amperes) the depth of
> discharge
> is shallower because the DOD is an inverse function of the rate of
> discharge. Therefore, it should result in more cycles. For instance, if
> you
> consider car starting batteries, they deliver thousands of cycle during
> their life because the current draw is hundreds of Amperes for short
> periods
> of time (i.e. very shallow DOD). Obviously, the higher current draw
> does not
> reduce their life.
> On the other hand, 800 cycles in a golf car are considered very good
> because
> they are discharged more deeply per cycle.
> Bottom line: Higher current draws do not reduce deep cycle battery life,
> higher depth of discharge (Ah) does.
>
> Nawaz Qureshi
> US Battery
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 8:45:18 -0700
> From: Tim Humphrey <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [EVDL] Trojan battery choice: Plans changed
> To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
>
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 22:55:34 -0800 (PST), Steve Kobb <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > In a recent thread on Alternators and A/C, I mentioned that I would be
> > using
> > thirteen Trojan J185P 12v batteries in my 2002 Chevy S-10.
> >
> > Peter VanDerWal suggested that I think twice about this particular
> > product.
> > In fact, he predicted that I would be buying new batteries in less
> than a
> > year. I responded that I didn't think that would be the case, but
> that I
> > would report my results to the list, no matter what happened.
>
> Many before you have done much the same thing. There is a LOT of
> experience
> among the people on this list. The thing that makes humans humans is our
> ability to relate experiences, remember, and pass-on history to the next
> generation. Unfortunately for some, "if it isn't first hand experience
> then
> it didn't happen". I'm glad that isn't the case with you.
>
>
> >
> > Well, several days later, I decided to go back to an info source that
> I
> > highly value: His name is Craig Quentin, and he's the engineer at
> Trojan
> > who
> > answers technical questions from the general public.
> >
> > I told him about the advice that I'd gotten from other EVDL members,
> and
> > made special reference to Peter's observation -- that the J185P batts
> > would
> > not last long because EVs pull a lot more current than floor scrubbers
> > use.
> > (The J185 line is made for the scrubber market.)
> >
> > Craig said that Peter was right about the short lifespan, but not for
> the
> > reason cited.
>
> I think Craig will discover that Peter's right.
>
>
> >
> > Apparently, these tall batteries are meant to take a lot of abuse from
> > building maintenance workers, who are notoriously hard on their gear.
> On
> > the
> > other hand, this battery uses a relatively new design that has not
> been
> > totally proven out in the marketplace.
> >
> > The one data point that Craig had was an observation from someone
> whose
> > opinion he respects. Craig is in touch with a guy who's in charge of a
> > huge
> > fleet of scrubbing machines. Approximately 180 of them use the J185
> model,
> > and this supervisor said the new battery does not seem to take abuse
> as
> > well
> > as the tried-and-true 6v models.
> >
> > So I put it to Craig this way: Bottom line -- If you were building
> your
> > own
> > EV, would you use the J185 12v battery? He said no, he would use one
> of
> > the
> > 6v products - like the T-145.
> >
> > Well, that was enough for me. When a tech support guy tells me what he
> > would
> > and would not use in his own project, who am I to argue?
> >
> > In retrospect, I realize there's one part of the phone conversation
> that I
> > didn't fully understand. Craig didn't agree with Peter's assertion
> that
> > high
> > currents would cause this floor scrubber battery to fail sooner rather
> > than
> > later. Nevertheless, Craig reported some disappointing news from the
> > field,
> > so I'm not sure what he believes to be the problem; i.e., what is
> limiting
> > the lifespan of this product (which uses plates similar to those in
> the
> > T-105).
> >
> > Unfortunately, I didn't follow up and clarify, so I don't have the
> full
> > story.
> >
> > But anyway, I thank Peter for waving the red flag of caution... and I
> > thank
> > the Trojan engineer for his candor.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Steve Kobb
> > --
>
> Consider... One way to ensure long life from flooded lead is to not take
> huge currents from it. One way to reduce the current draw from a given
> battery type is to parallel two of them together, that way each battery
> sees
> only half of the total current.
>
> The J185's use the same plates as the T105's right, BUT what they
> essentially do is exactly the opposite of paralleling. Now each plate in
> each cell of the J185 see's TWICE the current that the plates of a T-105
> would see. Add in the higher voltage of the J and it has the ability to
> supply even more current than the T, across a given resistance, further
> increasing the burden on the plates.
>
> The 8 volt batteries do the same thing, except not as bad as the 12's.
>
>
> --
> Stay Charged!
> Hump
> "If you don't "believe" you'll make a difference, than you probably
> never
> will!" -- Jim Husted
>
>
>
>
>
> Nawaz Qureshi
> Vice-President of Engineering
> U.S. Battery Mfg. Co.
> 1675 Sampson Avenue
> Corona, CA 92879-1889
> [hidden email]
> T: 951-371-8090
> Fax: 951-371-4671
> Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated
> simple,
> awesomely simple, that's creativity - Charles Mingus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> For subscription options, see
> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> More new features than ever.  Check out the new AOL Mail ! -
> http://webmail.aol.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> For subscription options, see
> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trojan battery choice: Plans changed

Chip Gribben
In reply to this post by Steve Kobb
Great advice Nawaz,

I actually can confirm what you said.

My first battery pack (US battery 2300) when my car was 96 volts (15  
years ago) lasted 5 years and I got 16,000 miles out of it which  
isn't bad for a newbie on a first battery pack.

I recall the pack pulling 400 amps going up hills and starting from a  
standing stop but that didn't seem to have any effect on the  
lifespan. I had a K&W charger for that pack.

My gas powered Astro Conversion Van loaded with a bunch of electrical  
gizmos is still using the same OEM battery when I bought the van in  
February 2000. Obviously, pulling alot of amps to start the van  
hasn't affected the lifespan.

I'm not having as good of luck with my 8-volt HC batteries though at  
144 volts. They don't draw as many amps as my 6-volters did but they  
aren't lasting as long. I think the most I've pulled from them going  
up a hill is 300 amps max. But 3 years is my best lifespan with them.  
That could be a reflection of the charger settings which you gave me  
advice on before but I haven't been able to figure out how to adjust  
the charger, an old Zivan K2. It has 3 pots buried deep inside the  
case which requires a long thin screwdriver to adjust. I think it's  
the finish charge adjustment I'm not able to calibrate correctly. I  
have it set to 168 volts but must be getting something else set wrong.

But your advice does seem to go with what I've seen before, on  
properly charged batteries.

Chip



On Jan 5, 2008, at 12:08 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 13:42:28 -0800
> From: "Nawaz Qureshi" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [EVDL] Trojan battery choice: Plans changed
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID: <000301c84f1a$b4362350$[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
>
>
> It is a misconception that higher current (Amperes) draws shorten the
> battery life.
> Perhaps it is because some people confuse Ampere-Hours (a unit of  
> capacity)
> with Amperes or Amps (a unit of current).
> If you use more Ampere-Hours per cycle (a deeper discharge) then  
> you are
> working the battery more and will give fewer cycles vs. shallower  
> discharge
> cycles. However, if you draw higher current (amperes) the depth of  
> discharge
> is shallower because the DOD is an inverse function of the rate of
> discharge. Therefore, it should result in more cycles. For  
> instance, if you
> consider car starting batteries, they deliver thousands of cycle  
> during
> their life because the current draw is hundreds of Amperes for  
> short periods
> of time (i.e. very shallow DOD). Obviously, the higher current draw  
> does not
> reduce their life.
> On the other hand, 800 cycles in a golf car are considered very  
> good because
> they are discharged more deeply per cycle.
> Bottom line: Higher current draws do not reduce deep cycle battery  
> life,
> higher depth of discharge (Ah) does.
>
> Nawaz Qureshi
> US Battery

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trojan battery choice: Plans changed

Zeke Yewdall
On Jan 5, 2008 10:20 AM, Chip Gribben <[hidden email]> wrote:
ack.
>
> My gas powered Astro Conversion Van loaded with a bunch of electrical
> gizmos is still using the same OEM battery when I bought the van in
> February 2000. Obviously, pulling alot of amps to start the van
> hasn't affected the lifespan.
>

I think the difference is the current density per square inch of plate
area -- a starting battery has alot of thin plates, so that current is
shared between lots of plates -- as I understand it, it is the current
density that causes problems with high current in flooded lead acid
batteries which have.  On the other hand, deep cycling causes problems
with thin plates because they fall apart -- and this is why you can't
deep cycle starting batteries.

Z

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trojan battery choice: Plans changed

David Beard
In reply to this post by Steve Kobb
Your astro also has an alternator that runs the electronic gizmos..the battery just feeds the system when the engine is off....
_____________________________________________________________
Click here to pick up your preferred shades of nail polish!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2221/fc/Ioyw6i4tJVUE0KTbpd2E8amGhmsvIWrAbre9yGUURSV50ntXHlpuOL/



_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trojan battery choice: Plans changed

Tim Humphrey
In reply to this post by Nawaz Qureshi



On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 13:42:28 -0800, "Nawaz Qureshi" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> It is a misconception that higher current (Amperes) draws shorten the
> battery life.
> Perhaps it is because some people confuse Ampere-Hours (a unit of
> capacity)
> with Amperes or Amps (a unit of current).
> If you use more Ampere-Hours per cycle (a deeper discharge) then you are
> working the battery more and will give fewer cycles vs. shallower
> discharge
> cycles. However, if you draw higher current (amperes) the depth of
> discharge
> is shallower because the DOD is an inverse function of the rate of
> discharge. Therefore, it should result in more cycles. For instance, if
> you
> consider car starting batteries, they deliver thousands of cycle during
> their life because the current draw is hundreds of Amperes for short
> periods
> of time (i.e. very shallow DOD). Obviously, the higher current draw does
> not
> reduce their life.
> On the other hand, 800 cycles in a golf car are considered very good
> because
> they are discharged more deeply per cycle.
> Bottom line: Higher current draws do not reduce deep cycle battery life,
> higher depth of discharge (Ah) does.
>
> Nawaz Qureshi
> US Battery
>

Thanks for responding Nawaz

I'll accept what you say, you are the expert here.

I have one question, If I have two identical battery packs and they are both drawn to 80% DoD; but one is regularly drawn at 2C and the other at 1C will they both deliver the same lifetime WattHours since they were taken to the same DoD??


Thanks.

--
Stay Charged!
Hump
"If you don't "believe" you'll make a difference, than you probably never will!" -- Jim Husted


_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trojan battery choice: Plans changed

storm connors
In reply to this post by Nawaz Qureshi
On Jan 4, 2008 4:42 PM, Nawaz Qureshi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>Nawaz,
First you said:

> It is a misconception that higher current (Amperes) draws shorten the
> battery life.
> Perhaps it is because some people confuse Ampere-Hours (a unit of capacity)
> with Amperes or Amps (a unit of current).
> If you use more Ampere-Hours per cycle (a deeper discharge) then you are
> working the battery more and will give fewer cycles vs. shallower discharge
> cycles. However, if you draw higher current (amperes) the depth of discharge
> is shallower because the DOD is an inverse function of the rate of
> discharge. Therefore, it should result in more cycles. For instance, if you
> consider car starting batteries, they deliver thousands of cycle during
> their life because the current draw is hundreds of Amperes for short periods
> of time (i.e. very shallow DOD). Obviously, the higher current draw does not
> reduce their life.
>
Then at the end you said:
>Consider... One way to ensure long life from flooded lead is to not take
>huge currents from it. One way to reduce the current draw from a given
>battery type is to parallel two of them together, that way each battery sees
>only half of the total current.

>The J185's use the same plates as the T105's right, BUT what they
>essentially do is exactly the opposite of paralleling. Now each plate in
>each cell of the J185 see's TWICE the current that the plates of a T-105
>would see. Add in the higher voltage of the J and it has the ability to
>supply even more current than the T, across a given resistance, further
>increasing the burden on the plates.

>The 8 volt batteries do the same thing, except not as bad as the 12's.

Aren't these opposite statements? Should I limit the battery amps to
make the batteries last longer or does the amps drawn have no effect?
A similar question could be posed about charging.

Thank you,
storm

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trojan battery choice: Plans changed

Roger Stockton
storm connors wrote:

> On Jan 4, 2008 4:42 PM, Nawaz Qureshi <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >Nawaz,
> First you said:
> > It is a misconception that higher current (Amperes) draws
> > shorten the battery life.

[...]

> >
> Then at the end you said:
> >Consider... One way to ensure long life from flooded lead is to not
> >take huge currents from it. One way to reduce the current
> draw from a
> >given battery type is to parallel two of them together, that
> way each
> >battery sees only half of the total current.
>
> >The J185's use the same plates as the T105's right, BUT what they
> >essentially do is exactly the opposite of paralleling. Now
> each plate
> >in each cell of the J185 see's TWICE the current that the
> plates of a
> >T-105 would see. Add in the higher voltage of the J and it has the
> >ability to supply even more current than the T, across a given
> >resistance, further increasing the burden on the plates.
>
> >The 8 volt batteries do the same thing, except not as bad as
> the 12's.
>
> Aren't these opposite statements?

Please note that they are conflicting statements and are from multiple authors even though the quoting only identifies Nawaz.

Nawaz's point is simply that the Ah removed (ie. DOD) will have a much more significant effect on the life of the battery than will the rate at which you remove those Ah (i.e. the amps).

Note that while he doesn't spell it out explicitly, some common sense must be used.  If you try to discharge your battery at currents for which it was not designed, it's life may be very short indeed: worst case is that you melt an internal connection on the first discharge for a life of 1 cycle.

With respect to the 12V J150s and 8Vers, the point (by a different author) is that if the batteries use the same plates as a T105, but fewer of them, then the current density is higher than it would be if subjecting a T105 to the same discharge rate.

That is, if the J150 has the same number of plates as a T105 (and I don't knwo that it does), but reorganised into 6 cells with half as many plates per cell, then discharging this battery at 500A is like discharging a T105 at 1000A.  Conventional wisdom is that discharging a 6V floodie at 1000A is not a recipe for long life, and if the J185 uses plates similar to those of the T105, one might expect it to yield a life at 500A similar to a T105 at 1000A.  The 8V has 4 cells vs the 6Ver's 3, so assuming the same total number of plates, one would expect a 500A discharge rate to have a similar effect on its life as a 667A discharge rate on a T105.

> Should I limit the battery
> amps to make the batteries last longer or does the amps drawn
> have no effect?

I would suggest that while the discharge rate may have little effect on the life of the battery if held within certain bounds, it is probably beneficial to limit your battery current in addition to minimising the DOD.

For instance, there may be little difference to life between a 1000A or 800A discharge rate (short either way ;^), or between a 100A or 200A rate (good either way), but it is likely that the lower your peak discharge rate is, the longer your batteries will last.

> A similar question could be posed about charging.

There are limits on the charge current, but few of us have chargers or outlets large enough for us to bump into them.  The limit we are more likely to bump into is internal temperature of the battery.  For best life you want to run your (lead-acid) batteries as cool as possible, which largely means don't let the internal/electrolyte temp exceed 120F and ideally keep it as close to 80F as you can.  (Yes, this is not very helpful info for those in climates where the ambient may be 100F+ ;^).

Cheers,

Roger.


_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trojan battery choice: Plans changed

Nawaz Qureshi
In reply to this post by Steve Kobb

Please note
My input, the first part was to clarify the second part "and then at the end
you said" which was from Tim Humphrey.

Nawaz

On Jan 4, 2008 4:42 PM, Nawaz Qureshi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>Nawaz,
First you said:
> It is a misconception that higher current (Amperes) draws shorten the
> battery life.
> Perhaps it is because some people confuse Ampere-Hours (a unit of
capacity)
> with Amperes or Amps (a unit of current).
> If you use more Ampere-Hours per cycle (a deeper discharge) then you are
> working the battery more and will give fewer cycles vs. shallower
discharge
> cycles. However, if you draw higher current (amperes) the depth of
discharge
> is shallower because the DOD is an inverse function of the rate of
> discharge. Therefore, it should result in more cycles. For instance, if
you
> consider car starting batteries, they deliver thousands of cycle during
> their life because the current draw is hundreds of Amperes for short
periods
> of time (i.e. very shallow DOD). Obviously, the higher current draw does
not
> reduce their life.
>
Then at the end you said:
>Consider... One way to ensure long life from flooded lead is to not take
>huge currents from it. One way to reduce the current draw from a given
>battery type is to parallel two of them together, that way each battery
sees
>only half of the total current.

>The J185's use the same plates as the T105's right, BUT what they
>essentially do is exactly the opposite of paralleling. Now each plate in
>each cell of the J185 see's TWICE the current that the plates of a T-105
>would see. Add in the higher voltage of the J and it has the ability to
>supply even more current than the T, across a given resistance, further
>increasing the burden on the plates.

>The 8 volt batteries do the same thing, except not as bad as the 12's.

Aren't these opposite statements? Should I limit the battery amps to
make the batteries last longer or does the amps drawn have no effect?
A similar question could be posed about charging.

Thank you,
storm


Nawaz Qureshi
Vice-President of Engineering
U.S. Battery Mfg. Co.
1675 Sampson Avenue
Corona, CA 92879-1889
[hidden email]
T: 951-371-8090
Fax: 951-371-4671
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple,
awesomely simple, that's creativity - Charles Mingus


_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev