NiyiOmoIyunade:


Meanwhile, working with our partners, we have managed to crash PylonTech prices vs even before the Naira devaluation. Please reach out today and let us work out a nice deal for you.

Without any malice meant, the fact that you are reselling PylonTech makes all your defense of the system basically a sales pitch. This is the conflict of interest you should have declared ab initio.

elpiro:


True, that LG Chem RESU is prone to fire outbreak especially due to high temperature and poor earthing system

you mean there is no temperature sensor?

ojeysky:


That will be @essegis the chairman with BYD, Nissan Leaf and cylindrical Lifepo4 cells

I hope the gentleman can give us an update on his Nissan Leaf adventure.

NiyiOmoIyunade:
Summary of ITP Cranberra Battery Test Center Results

I extracted results only for some popular brands - see link here [url] https://batterytestcentre.com.au/wp-content/uploads/BatteryTestingReport9Sept2020.pdf [/url]

There is one battery - Sony Fortelion which actually had better results than Pylontech but I know nothing of that battery nor have I seen it anywhere in use on the field.

Pylontech US2000.

Operational Issues

ITP has not experienced any operational issues with the Pylontech battery pack.

Capacity Fade
The full discharge capacity implied by each partial cycle is depicted in Figure 6. The data suggests a SOH of ~82% after ~1,940 cycles

Kindly throw more light, 82% capacity left after ~1940 cycles, not after 6000 cycles as claimed by d maker.

adrusa:


I hope the gentleman can give us an update on his Nissan Leaf adventure.

we dey wait I won lean 2 dat is one good tin about dis trend

Ah boss you just broke whatever is left of my heart o!

I sell various RE products but that is hardly the focus of my efforts here. Perhaps I may make one sales related remark once every 50 posts or more.

The goal is to learn and share knowledge. There is a lot of misunderstanding about why a Pylon commands a higher price tag and I wanted to provide perspective on the features that justify that price point.

The first thing I said quoting the test results is that there was even a battery with slightly better performance than Pylontech - that would not serve the purpose of a sales pitch.

adrusa:



Without any malice meant, the fact that you are reselling PylonTech makes all your defense of the system basically a sales pitch. This is the conflict of interest you should have declared ab initio.

See my first post on test methodology please.

Paraphrasing

...Each battery pack is charged over several hours (mimicking daytime charging from the PV),
followed by a short rest period, then discharged over a few hours (mimicking the late afternoon,
early evening period) to between 90% to 95% DoD as allowed by the BMS, followed by another short rest period. In total, there are three charge/discharge cycles per day.

Also temperatures were varied to mimic summer, winter e.t.c as the batteries were cycled.

The above can only be called "aggressive use"

I can't recall but the discharge window was about 3 to 4 hours so a 0.3C rate - at 1,940 cycles the battery had done 5.3 years of this treatment and was still trending 2% above the promised capacity retention.

Please recall that the manufacturer said 80% capacity left after 6,000 cycles at 80% DoD so in this testing DoD was above 90% and the battery was so abused 3 times a day and effectively did not complain in any way and had done more than 5 years equivalent of use under these harsh conditions and still kept 82% capacity.

Oshomo12:


Kindly throw more light, 82% capacity left after ~1940 cycles, not after 6000 cycles as claimed by d maker.

LegDoLand:


Nice.

I may be interested in them when you are ready.

I already sent you a PM.

Thanks

Don't worry,already in talks with @Juo,hopefully when my LiFePO4 batteries got delivered by tomorrow,will hastily put em up for sales here.
Watch out.......
Sun energy rules....

truthbetold22:
@georged1,

I think your attempt to prove that lead acid trumps lithium is bais at best. Lithium technology has come a long way and beats lead acid in every department. Everyone keeps referring to your previous LA bank but that bank has a lot of untold stories. For one, I remember you had 800ah of battery capacity. You also had over 40kw of solar panels if I am not mistaking. You have also mentioned that you rarely cycle more than 30% daily. At 30% dod, most good LA batteries will easily do what the Zeniths did. It wasn't special. What you must note is that to get away with such low dod, you need to have a really large bank which you did and a large array too. For the average enthusiast, that is an impossibility as the initial outlay would be outrageous. You only got that longevity due to your use of the battery. If you look at the cycle life graphs of lead acids, you would find that there is a significant difference between discharging to 70% vs discharging to 50%. Are you now saying we should all get 800ah banks and 40kw panel capacity to be able to enjoy longevity with our batteries?

I ll summarize as follows

1- Firstly, even the second class lithium batteries advertise 3000 cycles at 80% dod with a 2 year warranty. That is something only the very best lead acid batteries can dream of. That is almost 10 years of battery usage if you do a cycle a day. Regular lead acids cap out in a couple of years at 50% DOD if you are lucky. Don't tell me, I have gone through a few banks.

2- Considering how bad our weather can be in the southern part of Nigeria coupled with struggling to get 3-4 hours of sunshine daily, it is a no brainer to use lithium which can charge at 1c should need be and get your battery to full capacity as quickly as possible especially in the raining season unlike with a lead acid battery that takes forever to charge at 0.1c and then has to do all the absorption thing. This is very important for people who rarely have grid electricity and/or have a small bank.

3- Lithium chemistry is way more efficient than lead acid and looses less energy to the storage and discharge process which means you have access to more energy per ah.

4- As a result of 4 above, you can power heavy appliances off relatively small banks. Something that would only be a dream with lead acid.

That you haven't embraced lithium doesn't make your lead acid bank better. The world is evolving and if you choose to remain with old technology, you may have your reasons. However, do not try to prove on a public forum that lithium is all hype. There are more than 15 active members on this thread who have made the switch to lithium and not 1 has anything negative to say about it 1 year down the line so what is your point exactly? People got burnt with lead acid for many years until the best brands were identified. Heck, people are still getting burnt even today so why assume lithium will burn you?

There is a reason phones and laptops use lithium and 10 years after, the batteries still work. Stick with your lead acid if you want but your arguments are obsolete.
Lead acid can never be better than lithium. Initial outlay, yes. Satisfaction over time, a BIG no. It is no longer a function of whatever works for you. Even though it works for you, you should be gracious enough to accept that there is something better out there. That I drive a Toyota Corolla and it works perfectly for me doesn't make the car better than a Lamborghini.

Thank you all.

thanks for your analysis bro. you made a lot of valid points but missed out on a few.
my zeniths didn't last that long only because i had an oversized bank and solar array. it was more
a combination of factors too numerous to enumerate here. go down memory lane and we have heard
sorry tales from peeps and even companies who installed large battery banks and had them fail
woefully within the first or second year.

my reference to people getting their fingers burnt resonates both with lead acid and lithium.
i will encourage you to read up that website that earthrealm posted a few pages back and you will
understand where i'm coming from. be it lead acid, lithium or any other battery chemistry, if you jump
into it ill-informed you will certainly pay a huge price not only in terms of loss of investment but also at
risk to your own personal safety.

i repeat that no one battery chemistry can claim to be better than the other. each has its own place.
if i'm using lead acid and it is delivering exactly the performance i expect, why change a winning team?
on the other hand, if for any reason lead fails me tomorrow, why stick with something that's not working?

the goal here is energy freedom and as long as what you're using is setting you on the path to achieving
that aim, i would say go for it. it's as simple as that.

ojeysky:


I actually think it is you who continue to make people feel lithium is some scary and deceptive thing, on reasons best known to you. If it was not better Niyi will not continue to accumulate(for business reasons or otherwise) and those who use it will not share their experiences (good or bad). It's no brainer that lithium is a superior chemistry to LA any day any time but that still doesn't mean that both chemistries won't appeal to us differently. Why you see experience sharing as being trickish is what beats my imagination, isn't that what this thread is about.

In my actual professional world it's over a decade now that operators are being adviced to deploy IPv6 but up till now IPv4 dominates, the difference however is that the number of networks running IPv6 now compared to a decade ago has increased significantly and it's only a matter of time before IPv4 will eventually be obsolete and relegated.

Ultimately the choice remains with each individual to either deploy the present technology with future relevance in mind or be caught unprepared.

brother, nobody is making anybody scared of anything. if you read my posts correctly what i was emphasizing on was the need to
bare all and let the facts be known and i'm happy that cue was taken on by no other eminent personality than niyi, saipro and yourself
the able ojeysky

adrusa:


Very funny. I think you have similar complex with @GeorgeD1. You think because you paid top dollar for some proprietary system, it must be better than the cheaper more open source option! You are very wrong.

Let me tell you what you may be aware of. I have a few network routers in my house; Linksys, TP-Link, Netgear, D-Link and Mikrotik. Aside the Mikrotik, the first thing I did to the other ones was to get rid of the factory firmwares that came with them and flash open source firmwares; DD-WRT, Gargoyle or OpenWRT. Yes, I got rid of the firmware developed with R& financial muscle of big network vendors like Linksys (Cisco and Belkin at various times) and put open source firmware developed by a bunch of small but very talented people working mostly for free.

Same with my expensive Samsung phones. I use open source modification I got from XDA from the likes of Dr.Ketan, an Indian ENT Surgeon. Yes, I abandoned Samsung's R& software for something developed by an hobbyist working at home in his spare time. My major grouse with iPad and iPhones is their ultra-proprietary nature. Some think that they are better, but certainly not in my book. That is why I'm a fan of android phones.

@GeoargeD1 believed that his heavy investment in LeadAcid Batteries makes them better than Lithium, while you think that your investment in PylonTech makes your battery better than ours. That may be true, but it has absolutely nothing to do with all you said above.

My personal experience is that non-proprietary systems tend to be more robust, less restrictive and better maintained than proprietary commercial systems. They also get better support from DIY community. It is the same reason why Linux is a more robust and stable production software than Windows. Of course, one of the first thing I did with my Felicity Lithium was to replace its BMS with ANT BMS. The Felicity BMS looks better and bigger, but I have absolutely no control over it. If I buy PylonTech, I will certainly change its BMS to this "DIY BMS" you disrespect so much because it didn't cost a arm and a leg. Things are not necessarily bad because they are DIY, or cheap, indeed, many times they are better, because they are more open and less restrictive.

bro, i don't know where you got that 'complex' thing from but i certainly don't have one.
yes i invested heavily on lead acid but that was because i was crazily impressed with what my previous bank
gave me - and that in spite of all the hues and cries going on here against lead. so my thought was, if i could get
this kind of good performance from a supposedly no-name battery brand, what if i get something more reputable
as a replacement? and with that consideration, the sonnenschein battery deal was a no-brainer to me. anybody
in my shoes would do exactly the same. it was a deal too good to resist.

would i have jumped at the offer the way i did if i had been having a hard time with my zeniths? i think not.
were they necessarily that expensive despite being a renowned brand? of course not. even though for a similar amount
i could have splashed out on a lesser sized lithium bank, my overriding argument goes beyond just price.

on a cost/ah basis, lead acid is clearly ahead until such a time when lithium becomes mainstream but on an energy
efficiency basis, vis charge and discharge cycles, lithium rules. still it doesn't make either one superior to the other.
each battery chemistry has its place.

all,
over the past two weeks, we have had a lot of interesting argument both for and against lead acid and
lithium. and like that flier earthrealm posted a few pages back,

https://www.nairaland.com/390522/solar-energy-complement-fta/878#95271112

the aim of an argument or discussion is not victory at all cost but to bring out facts and enrich our knowledge.
we all win when we learn from each other. and on that note i like to commend all who have taken part in this discourse so far.
it may have seemed heated at a point but that cannot be avoided. it is what happens when intellectuals rub minds together.
looking back, it's amazing how a simple, innocent question from babniyen,

https://www.nairaland.com/390522/solar-energy-complement-fta/871#94990932

could have triggered a wide ranging discourse on the superiority or otherwise of one battery chemistry over the other.
have we seen the end of the battery 'wars'? not by any stretch of the imagination. today it is lead vs lithium. tomorrow
might be lithium vs some other emerging battery chemistry and the list goes on.

let's keep the conversation healthy and together we will all achieve victory over darkness.

break the myth! dispel the belief!

NiyiOmoIyunade:
See my first post on test methodology please.

Paraphrasing

...Each battery pack is charged over several hours (mimicking daytime charging from the PV),
followed by a short rest period, then discharged over a few hours (mimicking the late afternoon,
early evening period) to between 90% to 95% DoD as allowed by the BMS, followed by another short rest period. In total, there are three charge/discharge cycles per day.

Also temperatures were varied to mimic summer, winter e.t.c as the batteries were cycled.

The above can only be called "aggressive use"

I can't recall but the discharge window was about 3 to 4 hours so a 0.3C rate - at 1,940 cycles the battery had done 5.3 years of this treatment and was still trending 2% above the promised capacity retention.

Please recall that the manufacturer said 80% capacity left after 6,000 cycles at 80% DoD so in this testing DoD was above 90% and the battery was so abused 3 times a day and effectively did not complain in any way and had done more than 5 years equivalent of use under these harsh conditions and still kept 82% capacity.

You just did justice to that number of cycles published.

GeorgeD1:


brother, nobody is making anybody scared of anything. if you read my posts correctly what i was emphasizing on was the need to
bare all and let the facts be known and i'm happy that cue was taken on by no other eminent personality than niyi.

So those of us that shared our experiences on both battery chemistries were not giving facts abi. Isorite o

Monlo:

Don't worry,already in talks with @Juo,hopefully when my LiFePO4 batteries got delivered by tomorrow,will hastily put em up for sales here.
Watch out.......
Sun energy rules....

Good one!

ojeysky:


So those of us that shared our experiences on both battery chemistries were not giving facts abi. Isorite o

Oj

Calm down!

Oshomo12:


Oj

Calm down!

Mo gentle o! actually that was "pun intended", it's all good. My hope is that one way or the other readers learnt one or two things in the entire conservation just as I did.

ojeysky:


So those of us that shared our experiences on both battery chemistries were not giving facts abi. Isorite o

lolz! bro! edited to include you as one of our prominent, eminent lithium ambassadors!!

GeorgeD1:


lolz! bro! edited to include you as one of our prominent, eminent lithium ambassadors!!

Certainly not my intention, no accolades is due Sir. I just hope that you will find that the statement is incorrect. Sharing of facts is actually what all contributors to the topic have been doing. Let's enjoy our backup solutions

JUO:
you mean there is no temperature sensor?

None incorporated,one of its drawbacks

RE ITP Cranberra Battery Test Results

I inferred from the reports that the PylonTechs were discharged to ~92-95% DoD over a 3 hour period 3 times daily - so a C3 discharge rate 3X daily. This same regimen was applied to other batteries and sometimes reduced to C5 for those other batteries if the battery started to become unstable....

Pylontech US2000 - Based on the linear regression between estimated SOH and cycles completed (Figure 13), the Pylontech US2000 is
on track for 60% SOH at ~4,340 cycles. However, a linear extrapolation may not be appropriate as while a linear regression appears to provide good fit to some of the capacity test data collected thus far, extrapolating linearly into the future may not be appropriate.

Sony Fortelion - Based on a linear regression between estimated SOH and cycles completed (Figure 12), the Sony Fortelion pack is
on track for 60% SOH at ~6,400 cycles. As above, however, a linear extrapolation may not be appropriate.

The Sony Fortelion appeared to best retain capacity and ultra long cycle life but was less consistent in taking a charge and delivering the full energy stored [90% to 95%] 3X daily as compared to Pylontech. This can be inferred from studying the capacity fade charts provided.

The Tesla Powerwall 2 cycling regime is implemented by Tesla, based on requests from ITP. This requires
intermittent communication with Tesla as their implemented schedules periodically expire.
Based on the linear regression between estimated SOH and cycles completed (Figure 13), the Tesla Powerwall 2 is
on track for 60% SOH at ~3,100 cycles. As above, however, a linear extrapolation may not be appropriate.

LG Chem RESU HV - Based on the linear regression between estimated SOH and cycles completed (Figure 13), the LG Chem RESU HV is
on track for 60% SOH at ~3,100 cycles. As above, however, a linear extrapolation may not be appropriate.

GNB Lithium
Based on a linear regression between estimated SOH and cycles completed (Figure 13), the GNB Lithium is on track
for 60% SOH at ~1,300 cycles. As above, however, the data suggests some non-linearity which may invalidate this
extrapolation.

When I look at all these results - 80% DoD is still the best place to be for stable and reliable long term operation of a Lithium battery pack except perhaps the LTO Tech of which I have no experience.

My own effect of DoD results - at 88% all 20 Pylontech bricks are in perfect sync as regards their capacity - below 40%, you begin to see deviations - BMSes all talk to each other and aggregate total pack capacity, setting the weakest brick as an average for all such that no cell/brick is over-discharged - it may mean that you install a 1000Ah bank but can only use 950Ah because one brick has lower capacity than the others

You basically want to look at the column called 'Coulomb' which is the SoC %

At 88% SoC

Pack 1
pylon_debug>
pwr
pwr

@

Power Volt Curr Tempr Tlow Thigh Vlow Vhigh Base.St Volt.St Curr.St Temp.St Coulomb Time B.V.St B.T.St

1 49892 -1082 30000 27000 27000 3325 3327 Dischg Normal Normal Normal 88% 2020-10-26 01:01:34 Normal Normal

2 49898 -1074 29000 26000 27000 3326 3327 Dischg Normal Normal Normal 88% 2020-10-26 01:01:34 Normal Normal

3 49889 -1054 30000 27000 27000 3324 3328 Dischg Normal Normal Normal 88% 2020-10-26 01:01:34 Normal Normal

4 49884 -1093 30000 27000 28000 3323 3327 Dischg Normal Normal Normal 88% 2020-10-26 01:01:34 Normal Normal

5 49875 -1107 30000 27000 28000 3323 3326 Dischg Normal Normal Normal 88% 2020-10-26 01:01:34 Normal Normal

6 49896 -1082 30000 27000 28000 3324 3328 Dischg Normal Normal Normal 88% 2020-10-26 01:01:34 Normal Normal

7 49883 -1030 30000 27000 28000 3324 3328 Dischg Normal Normal Normal 88% 2020-10-26 01:01:34 Normal Normal

8 49892 -1034 30000 27000 28000 3325 3327 Dischg Normal Normal Normal 88% 2020-10-26 01:01:34 Normal Normal

Command completed successfully

$$

Pack 2

pylon_debug>
pwr
pwr

@

Power Volt Curr Tempr Tlow Thigh Vlow Vhigh Base.St Volt.St Curr.St Temp.St Coulomb Time B.V.St B.T.St

1 49889 -1050 29000 26000 26000 3324 3327 Dischg Normal Normal Normal 88% 2020-10-26 01:02:49 Normal Normal

2 49905 -1100 29000 26000 26000 3326 3329 Dischg Normal Normal Normal 88% 2020-10-26 01:02:48 Normal Normal

3 49891 -1090 29000 26000 26000 3324 3328 Dischg Normal Normal Normal 88% 2020-10-26 01:02:49 Normal Normal

4 49920 -1083 29000 26000 27000 3327 3329 Dischg Normal Normal Normal 88% 2020-10-26 01:02:48 Normal Normal

5 49902 -1235 29000 27000 27000 3325 3329 Dischg Normal Normal Normal 88% 2020-10-26 01:02:49 Normal Normal

6 49918 -1168 29000 27000 27000 3326 3329 Dischg Normal Normal Normal 88% 2020-10-26 01:02:49 Normal Normal

7 49891 -1092 30000 27000 27000 3325 3328 Dischg Normal Normal Normal 88% 2020-10-26 01:02:49 Normal Normal

8 49902 -1086 29000 27000 27000 3325 3328 Dischg Normal Normal Normal 88% 2020-10-26 01:02:48 Normal Normal

Command completed successfully

Pack 3
pylon_debug>

pwr
pwr

@

Power Volt Curr Tempr Tlow Thigh Vlow Vhigh Base.St Volt.St Curr.St Temp.St Coulomb Time B.V.St B.T.St

1 49936 -1591 31000 29000 29000 3327 3331 Dischg Normal Normal Normal 88% 2020-10-26 01:01:40 Normal Normal

2 49942 -1843 33000 30000 31000 3328 3331 Dischg Normal Normal Normal 88% 2020-10-26 01:01:39 Normal Normal

3 49945 -1483 32000 30000 31000 3328 3332 Dischg Normal Normal Normal 88% 2020-10-26 01:01:39 Normal Normal

4 49952 -1536 32000 30000 31000 3328 3331 Dischg Normal Normal Normal 88% 2020-10-26 01:01:40 Normal Normal

5 - - - - - - - Absent - - - - - - -

6 - - - - - - - Absent - - - - - - -

7 - - - - - - - Absent - - - - - - -

8 - - - - - - - Absent - - - - - - -

Command completed successfully

$$


At around 33% SoC

Pack 1
pylon_debug>

pwr
pwr

@

Power Volt Curr Tempr Tlow Thigh Vlow Vhigh Base.St Volt.St Curr.St Temp.St Coulomb Time B.V.St B.T.St

1 49745 2172 30000 27000 27000 3315 3318 Charge Normal Normal Normal 33% 2020-10-25 15:35:29 Normal Normal

2 49739 2048 29000 26000 27000 3315 3317 Charge Normal Normal Normal 38% 2020-10-25 15:35:27 Normal Normal

3 49757 2117 30000 27000 27000 3316 3318 Charge Normal Normal Normal 34% 2020-10-25 15:35:27 Normal Normal

4 49733 2211 30000 27000 27000 3314 3317 Charge Normal Normal Normal 36% 2020-10-25 15:35:27 Normal Normal

5 49752 1978 30000 27000 27000 3315 3318 Charge Normal Normal Normal 35% 2020-10-25 15:35:27 Normal Normal

6 49736 2262 30000 27000 27000 3314 3317 Charge Normal Normal Normal 36% 2020-10-25 15:35:27 Normal Normal

7 49761 2194 29000 27000 27000 3316 3319 Charge Normal Normal Normal 36% 2020-10-25 15:35:26 Normal Normal

8 49758 2262 30000 27000 27000 3316 3320 Charge Normal Normal Normal 36% 2020-10-25 15:35:27 Normal Normal



Pack 2

pylon_debug>
pwr
pwr

@

Power Volt Curr Tempr Tlow Thigh Vlow Vhigh Base.St Volt.St Curr.St Temp.St Coulomb Time B.V.St B.T.St

1 49753 2136 28000 26000 27000 3316 3318 Charge Normal Normal Normal 34% 2020-10-25 15:38:31 Normal Normal

2 49732 2246 29000 27000 27000 3314 3317 Charge Normal Normal Normal 35% 2020-10-25 15:38:30 Normal Normal

3 49728 2136 29000 27000 27000 3313 3316 Charge Normal Normal Normal 34% 2020-10-25 15:38:30 Normal Normal

4 49759 2238 29000 27000 27000 3316 3319 Charge Normal Normal Normal 34% 2020-10-25 15:38:30 Normal Normal

5 49750 2226 29000 27000 27000 3315 3318 Charge Normal Normal Normal 34% 2020-10-25 15:38:30 Normal Normal

6 49747 2120 29000 27000 27000 3315 3318 Charge Normal Normal Normal 34% 2020-10-25 15:38:30 Normal Normal

7 49755 2193 29000 27000 27000 3316 3319 Charge Normal Normal Normal 34% 2020-10-25 15:38:30 Normal Normal

8 49746 2230 29000 27000 27000 3315 3319 Charge Normal Normal Normal 34% 2020-10-25 15:38:30 Normal Normal



Pack 3
pylon_debug>

pwr
pwr

@

Power Volt Curr Tempr Tlow Thigh Vlow Vhigh Base.St Volt.St Curr.St Temp.St Coulomb Time B.V.St B.T.St

1 49700 1365 30000 28000 28000 3311 3316 Charge Normal Normal Normal 35% 2020-10-25 15:40:18 Normal Normal

2 49720 1694 32000 29000 29000 3313 3316 Charge Normal Normal Normal 39% 2020-10-25 15:40:17 Normal Normal

3 49721 1191 31000 29000 29000 3313 3316 Charge Normal Normal Normal 34% 2020-10-25 15:40:17 Normal Normal

4 49711 1108 31000 29000 29000 3313 3315 Charge Normal Normal Normal 34% 2020-10-25 15:40:17 Normal Normal

5 - - - - - - - Absent - - - - - - -

6 - - - - - - - Absent - - - - - - -

7 - - - - - - - Absent - - - - - - -

8 - - - - - - - Absent - - - - - - -

adrusa:



Without any malice meant, the fact that you are reselling PylonTech makes all your defense of the system basically a sales pitch. This is the conflict of interest you should have declared ab initio.

It's what he uses and has given him satisfaction so far, based on personal experience. It's only normal that he recommends it to others even in marketing.

I'll do the same if I were in his shoes. It will ensure that chances for "stories that touch" will be slim.

Recall that those that tested Felicity gave their users' opinion based on the falsified capacity.

NiyiOmoIyunade:
RE ITP Cranberra Battery Test Results

I inferred from the reports that the PylonTechs were discharged to ~92-95% DoD over a 3 hour period 3 times daily - so a C3 discharge rate 3X daily.

They were discharging at less than 85% DoD, you can check the live data to verify. They tried to keep the test to the recommended 80% DoD. It's on track to 60% SOH at almost 4.4k cycles. I don't believe it will have 80% capacity left after 6k cycles(aggressive or not).
However I may be wrong Sir.

GeorgeD1:


i repeat that no one battery chemistry can claim to be better than the other. each has its own place.
if i'm using lead acid and it is delivering exactly the performance i expect, why change a winning team?
on the other hand, if for any reason lead fails me tomorrow, why stick with something that's not working?

I still maintain to differ in this your assertion. But of course that's my opinion as well as you having yours, but opinions do not really disprove facts, do they?

The facts are as clear as day.

GeorgeD1:


on a cost/ah basis, lead acid is clearly ahead until such a time when lithium becomes mainstream but on an energy
efficiency basis, vis charge and discharge cycles, lithium rules. still it doesn't make either one superior to the other.
each battery chemistry has its place.

Your statements points out the fact that one is clearly superior to the other. I won't point out which.

There is no way the old beats the new. There is a reason it is called new and a made a replacement. Of course if it wouldn't be widely accepted and if it isn't good enough for people, it is only a matter of time before it will be thrown into the backseat in favour of Lead Acid chemistry.

Case in point is 3d television, though a new concept but
because of the encumbrances with using it, the rave died down as quick as it came and people went back to their 2d offerings while development shifted to increasing Fidelity. Ditto blue ray discs.

But I clearly believe one thing, all R & D into storage chemistries in recent times is based mostly on polymers of Lithium with other elements to achieve various desirable characteristics. Graphene is another element that seems to come close to lithium in recent R & D efforts but none is majoring on lead acid. That is to tell you that that chemistry has peaked already and can only be replaced.

The only great thing about LA though is that it is fully recyclable in sharp contrast to lithium but that is not even enough reason for researchers to keep looking into improving it; it simply does not have extra to offer and tinkering with it beyond what has been done in the case of Lead-Carbon coating of electrodes isn't likely to offer more.

Lithium is not a new concept, it's been around for decades but R & D into it has brought this much improvement. It will also reach its own zenith where it will likely be replaced with better offerings as tech improves.

elpiro:


None incorporated,one of its drawbacks

stay away from any lithium without temperature sensor to avoid fire outbreak or you do 50-70% of the stated capacity. In fact, so many things can go wrong

JUO:
stay away from any lithium without temperature sensor to avoid fire outbreak or you do 50-70% of the stated capacity. In fact, so many things can go wrong

Li-ion capital yes, I won't be as worried with LFP. Nevertheless it's a good to have.

We seem to always misunderstand each other or get on opposite sides of the facts.

This is from the testing procedure page; I can attach a screenshot if required;


... to investigate this capacity fade, the lithium-ion batteries are being discharged to a state of
charge (SOC) between 5% and 10% (depending on the allowable limits of the BMS), while the
lead-acid batteries are being discharged to a 50% SOC (i.e. 50% of the rated capacity used). The
advanced lead battery is being be cycled between 30% and 80% SOC. These operating ranges
are in line with manufacturers’ recommendations for each technology.

Please quote or reference where you see/saw 85% DoD?

ojeysky:


They were discharging at less than 85% DoD, you can check the live data to verify. They tried to keep the test to the recommended 80% DoD. It's on track to 60% SOH at almost 4.4k cycles. I don't believe it will have 80% capacity left after 6k cycles(aggressive or not).
However I may be wrong Sir.

I have this Mikrotek 1kva inverter am giving out. it has Pib problem.
I will give it our for 15k.Just change the pib and enjoy it

serious person can pick it up

zero eight 0 6.0082795

NiyiOmoIyunade:
We seem to always misunderstand each other or get on opposite sides of the facts.

The above was not necessary but no whala, see below

This is from the testing procedure page; I can attach a screenshot if required;


... to investigate this capacity fade, the lithium-ion batteries are being discharged to a state of
charge (SOC) between 5% and 10% (depending on the allowable limits of the BMS), while the
lead-acid batteries are being discharged to a 50% SOC (i.e. 50% of the rated capacity used). The
advanced lead battery is being be cycled between 30% and 80% SOC. These operating ranges
are in line with manufacturers’ recommendations for each technology.

Please quote or reference where you see/saw 85% DoD?

https://batterytestcentre.com.au/batteries/pylontech-us2000b/

Seen boss. I had to wait to see the live animations do one full charge and discharge cycle and it does appear that the SoC is at 20% when the battery is idle.

However, the test reports document the summary results over 6 months on average and clearly mention SoC of 5% to 10% as the discharge range. From about November 2017 reporting the test range widened to 5% to 20% SoC. Perhaps it will be possible to clarify the specific usage regime each battery has faced over time.

ojeysky:


The above was not necessary but no whala, see below



https://batterytestcentre.com.au/batteries/pylontech-us2000b/

No one can know what the projected results will be until end of testing or failures begin to happen. I really do not want to be screaming Pylon this and Pylon that - the discussion started as Lead Acid vs Lithium and then moved to 'perceived premium' on some ready to use LFP vs generic or DIY assemblies.

My goal was to put out information and let readers know/see reasons why one would choose a more expensive battery - to help justify the price premium as it were.

Anyhow one swings his projections, one cannot gainsay the fact that this was in effect a relative test of several popular Lithium batteries and a few other types - the Sony Fortelion and Pylontech bricks have clearly held their own and outperformed other batteries in their class under exacting conditions.

In my own offgrid home_office, I am depending entirely on 20 units of the Pylon US2000 for all power needs so they must serve me for 10 years +.

My own conclusion which I reached based on nearly a 100 modules installed and to which I have access to monitor their performance data is to stay within 80% DoD - the decay and imbalances that would trigger failures usually show up as you discharge to 90% and beyond [somewhere up above I showed my own pack balance data at 88% and 33% SoC] - I even got a large costumer to grudgingly agree for us to restrict his site to 80% DoD - he is a very exacting man who wanted to flog the battery to death and squeeze out every last penny of benefit for his commercial application.

This is what the ITP (tester) had to say about their test methodology;

"""The accelerated cycling methodology was designed to enable analysis of battery performance over a shorter timescale than would be possible in a typical installation. However, this did result in the batteries being worked harder (although still within manufacturer specifications) than would normally be the case in solar-storage applications. This led to de-rating and failures that might not normally arise, particularly related to heat management."""

I suppose the real question is, if the top range or organized market for Lithium products are putting out batteries and making promises on their spec sheets which are not holding up to real life (ab)use, what would happen to the more generic batteries and DIY assemblies who have less standardization, quality control and engineering competence behind them if (ab)used under similar conditions

ojeysky:


They were discharging at less than 85% DoD, you can check the live data to verify. They tried to keep the test to the recommended 80% DoD. It's on track to 60% SOH at almost 4.4k cycles. I don't believe it will have 80% capacity left after 6k cycles(aggressive or not).
However I may be wrong Sir.