Tips on battery maintenance there are 3 ways to check the charge state of a battery

1. With the charger on bring the batteries to 1450 for full charge

2. With the charger off for one hour A battery should read about 1320

3. 24 hour's later it should read about 1280 or 1290

4. If you have a lot of batteries like we do (28) and you are down on power you may have a bad battery. For a quick test when you are charging the battery pack after 2 hours feel the battery's if you find one or more that is very hot then that battery may have one or more bad cells. Put your tester on the 1 that is hot and see if it reads the same as the other ones. If it reads less it may be toast try putting it on a small charger by it salf and see if it comes up to about 1450

TIP'S ON BATTERY SAFETY

1.Avid touching any batteries while the charger is running

2.Never use black electric tape

3.Never use black hose anywere on an electric Vehicle

4.Removing a battery cable end to work on a battery or remove a battery you can put a hose on the battery cable end to keep it from touching anything it is a good idea but make sure it is a non conductor use a tester on the hose and make sure it shows no current

IF YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT LITHIUM BATTERIES PLEASE READ THIS For what it's worth, here is a post from another group, from someone who claims to have invested quite a bit of his own time and money in getting to know LiOn issues and experiences: >On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 16:55:02 -0000, "marionrickard" > wrote: > >I've lurked on the list for some time. The conspiracy theories >are interesting albeit barely. But I have noticed a bit of an >ongoing bias about batteries that does not match my direct >experience, and I thought I might post a bit to offer some actual >information. > >I started an EV project in 1981. It rather sat there waiting for >some quite expensive Nickel Cadmium batteries that were just >about ready to ship. I had actually ordered some from a company >who accepted the order, but never shipped any batteries. > >I have monitored the battery world pretty much since. About two >years ago developed an interest in Lithium Ion batteries. A year >ago they finally became available to individuals, from China of >course. > >I have probably spent $100,000 on batteries since, converted one >car, (http://www.evalbum.com/2363) and spent a good deal of time >and effort just on equipment to test batteries in a rough way. > >I HAVE received a lot of advice, much from very knowledgeable >people, but unfortunately almost entirely based on AGM/SLA >experience, along with some logical assumptions, that far and >away have proven to be of very limited use. These Lithium ion >batteries are very different animals, and most of the news is >actually very good. > >They do make electric vehicles viable in a way that SLA, Nickel >Metal Hydride, Nickel Cadmium, et al simply do not. Of >approximately 2400 cars on the EVALBUM list, 62 use Thundersky >batteries. Many are bicycles. So there aren't actually very many >conversions out there actually using these batteries. Tesla does >have about 200 cars delivered at this point, and they seem to be >operating, although I do see some problems with this battery >format. > >I have about 5000 miles on the car at this point, and about the >same on a series of GEMs that are set up to switch between Lead >Acid and Lithium batteries. > >First, there is an eggregious amount of misinformation about >Lithium. Lithium is a metal, the lightest and least dense metal >of any element, and the most electrochemically active element wew >have. It is sufficiently light that it floats on water. It is >also one of the most reactive elements we have. It combines with >anything and everything, and in fact, if you DID float a piece of >it on water it would at least burst into flames and would most >likely explode. > >It has an outer valence band with a single electron that is very >easily detached from the atom, and it will readily accept an >electron in its place. This is the key both to its reactivity and >it's electrochemical potential. > >Early experiments with Lithium metal batteries were very >promising, and generally catastrophic with actual injuries >obtained during the expermients. > >In today's batteries, the only lithium metal in the battery is >that essentially refined from the process of overcharging, at >voltages higher than 4.25 volts, lithium metal plating begins to >occur. This is somewhat dangerous, but generally the battery >exhibits strongly diminished performance long before it becomes >at all dangerous. > >It can only be claimed loosely that today's batteries, used for >vehicles, are made from lithium at all. 99% of the battery is >actually aluminum foil, copper foil, and a separator usually of >polyethylene but sometimes mylar. > >The copper foil is generally covered with a slurry, a light >paste, of carbone, usually graphite but increasingly including >some level of carbon nano tube, fiber, or other nano particules >to increase surface area. The paste is put on both sides in >extremely thin layer. > >The very thin aluminum foil also receives a very thin layer of >paste. In laptop and cell phone batteries, this has traditionally >been of an oxide - lithium and manganese or lithium and cobalt. >No lithium metal is part of this at all. The fires and explosions >of laptops and cell phones were caused by this lithium/cobalt or >lithium/manganese mixture. > >The batteries used for EVs are almost overwhelmingly become >Lithium Iron Phosphate. Understand this is a phosphate, and of >both lithium and iron, but really contains neither in metallic >form. > >The two foils, and a very thin separator that is permeable to >cations (positive ions) but an insulator to electron current >flow, are wound together in a sandwitch around a plastic mandrel >several hundred times. This is sealed in a vented plastic case >and a gel electrolyte containing mostly lithium salts - again >nothing to do with metallic lithium - is added to the unit after >assembly. > >The lithium iron phosphate has a couple of very nice features >over earlier batteries. First, you can charge them below freezing >- down to about -13F. > >They are quite safe, they have tested them and published videos >with gunshots, nails driven through them, chopping the cells in >two, etc. Shorting any high current device is an adventure, but >no fires. No explosions. None of the problems experienced with >the manganese and cobalt versions. > >They do produce an immense amount of power from a very light >weight. The cells in my vehicle weight about 489 pounds. The same >number of batteries with actually a good bit less power in a >Trojan lead acid would come in at about 1350 pounds. As the car >is 2130 pounds total, this simply would not be viable. We get a >75 mile range with DOD of 80%. > >They are non-toxic. That is to say, lacking all toxicity. The >lithium salt electrolyte is entirely benign. The battery is >overwhelmingly copper and aluminum. Compared to lead acid and >nickel cadmium, or even nickel metal hydride, they simply do not >carry toxic products that these batteries definitely do. > >I've seen numerous musings on this list about the availability of >lithium. It's a little bit of a non-starter. The known quantities >of lithium are largely irrelevant. There hasn't been that much >demand for lithium. So there hasn't been much of a search for it. >It's true that Bolivia has it laying around on the ground. That's >somewhat rare. But lithium has been found on every continent >except antartica. I don't think anyone has looked there. The >chinese battery manufacturers do not use lithium from Bolivia at >all, they have vast and unknown levels of it in their own >country. What they use is a saline lithium carbonate. If we >needed lithium, and it actually reached a price that was >prohibitive, we could no doubt find it right here in Missouri. If >it were profitable for me to look for it, I would. > >And the amount used in a battery is quite trivial. Unfortunately, >they use a LOT of copper and aluminum, and believe it or not >this, and the heavy labor/assembly load of making these batteries >in relatively small quantitites, is where the expense comes in. > >In operation, almost everything you've heard about balancing, >battery management systems, et al is simply over reaching >supposition and manufacturer warranty coverage. > >The batteries CAN be damaged by discharging below 2.5 volts, or >charging over 4.25 volts. > >The good news is somewhat related. It has to do with cycle life. >The Thunderskys will test out absolutely at 3000 cycles - opposed >to 350 for Trojans. Best of all, this is at a 80% DOD level. If >you discharge them LESS, the limit goes up into untested areas. > >Best of all, they simply do not exhibit any of the difficulties >of lead acid (long charge times/sulfation) or nickel cadmium >(memory effect and detailed maintenance procedures) or nickel >metal hydride. You do NOT need to "condition" them although their >capacity does rise during about the first 30 cycles. They never >need to be FULLY CHARGED or FULLY DISCHARGED at any time in their >lives. And there are absolutely no ill effects from not fully >charging them or not fully discharging them. > >And so we found a very interesting thing with these batteries. >They have a remarkably FLAT and nearly identical charge and >discharge curve. When charging, battery voltage climbs very >quickly from 2.5 to 3.0 volts on almost no energy. It then >accepts a huge amount of energy from 3.0 to 3.3 volts. At about >3.6 volts the voltage takes off again not so much as in an upward >curve but an almost vertical climb to and through 4.25 volts to >the stratosphere and beyond. > >And ALL of the balance problems come into play in those two zones >2.5-3.0 volts, and 3.6-4.25 volts. The amount of "energy" you are >storing in that last 3.6 to 4.25 volts is trivial. We probably >lose 1/2 mile in range by not charging to 4.25 volts. > >By the manufacturers notes, simply reducing the charge level to >4.1 from 4.25 volts will dramatically increase life cycles above >the 3000 cycle level. > >We've basically learned to charge the batteries to 3.6-3.7 volts, >and have NO problems with voltages of individual cells taking off >on us. > >Similarly in discharging, although the voltage changes are much >smaller than lead acid people are used to monitoring, they are >actually MUCH more reliable. By simply monitoring the total pack >voltage on our system, and going home when the batteries reach >3.0 volts, the discharge problem goes away as well. And note that >this is the "resting" voltage at the stop light, NOT the voltage >under load. The voltage will sag quite beyond 2.5 volts under >load with no ill effects whatsoever. > >We like the Prismatic form factor. Yes, I did spend $10,000 on >about 512 A123 cells. We actually use 16 of them in the car as an >auxiliary 12 volt battery. They do fine. The problem with them of >course is the connections. Welded, bolted, or however you choose >to form them into packages, there are too many connections. Most >of the problems with batteries at all revolve around connections. >A tiny bit of resistance in a connection causes a voltage drop >across the connection. This causes heat. Heat increases the >resistance. Resistance causes more heat. And you are in a death >spiral that normally results in a fire. There has in fact been a >car in Colorado, using highly engineered A123 cell packs, that >burned to the ground, including burning the tires off the car. >The problem was NOT the A123 cells, but ONE of the connections. >One of the techs had left off ONE washer. > >So I am very confortable with these cells. I am just not >comfortable with large numbers of them. They are NOT the cells >used in laptops and camcorders as one poster indicated. They ARE >precisely the cells used in DeWalt Power Tools, and largely the >reason the company exists. They are a very good chemistry. They >are in a very awkward package for electric cars, albeit a very >good package for portable drills. > >As to charging. With Lithium batteries charge times are really >not an issue per se. They can be readily charged at 1C, meaning I >can charge my pack in an hour. If I were willing to live with a >reduction in cycle life to 2000 cycles, they can be charged at >3C. And I could readily charge my entire battery pack in 20 >minutes. > >In the Porsche, I have two parallel strings of 32 cells and each >cell has a rated 1 hour capacity of 90 Ah, NOT at ALL to be >confused in any way with the 20AH rating of lead acid, gel cells, >nickel cadmium, et al. > >But stop and think what that means. To charge in one hour at 1C, >I need a charger capable of delivering 116 volts at 180 amps. To >charge in 20 minutes, which these batteries will readily do, I >would need 540 amps. > >There is no such charger on the planet. And if there were, it >would be the size of my house. And if I had one, where would I >get 600 amps of AC? > >The batterie technology of today with respect to charge times is >already an order of magnitude FASTER than our ability to deliver >electricity to the car. Or to the location where a car might ever >conceivably be. > >But myself and another guy, with plenty of EE experience but >really NO automotive experience, and in fact, kind of a klutzy >ineptitude with wrenches and bolts, have built in four months a >car that performs beautifully, accelerates beyond our wildest >hopes, has a top speed of 85 mph limited only by my battery >configuration on the car, largely as a result of my reluctance to >drive over 85 in a small convertible. It has a demonstrated range >of 75 miles with a mix of freeway and local driving, and that is >driving it like a Porsche, not like a golf cart. There's no fun >in it if you aren't rabbitting away from the stoplight. It will >easily do 100 miles per charge if you want to troll around at 25- >35, coast a lot, and just generally conserve. That's not >precisely what Porsche's are for, but it would do it. > >It is not limited to local driving. Porsches are for winding >blacktop backcountry roads and I take such a drive several times >a week with really little regard for the batteries. I can see >what the pack voltage is on the dash, with no "battery management >system" at all. We have looked at nearly ALL the BMS solutions >out there, and simply haven't found anything, at any price, worth >the labor to connect it to all the cells on the car. We've tried >them in the lab, and they rarely even do what they purport to do. > >With regards to commercial electric vehicle availability, the >vast conspiracy to withhould Nickel Metal Hydride batteries from >you is simply irrelevant. Lithium ionic batteries are absolutely >the solution and I expect them to get both better and less >expensive over time. They are the safest battery you can get NOW. >They are the least toxic and most environmentally benign battery >you can get NOW. They have the longest life of any battery NOW. >And they have the highest energy density of any battery you can >get NOW. There are no lithium supply problems if everybody in the >world went out and replaced all 450 million cars this year. > >There is a battery production capacity problem. Chicken and egg. >In fact, there are already much superior lithium designs out >there. How can they spend money developing them, and who would >care? GM isn't makeing an electric car. There is no market for >electric cars. And thus there is no market for Lithium ion >batteries for electric cars. THERE ARE 300 CARS IN THE WORLD >USING THESE BATTERIES GUYS. > >The "market forces" for lithium ionic vehicle battery development >has never come into play. Nothing. Nada. No demand. > >It remains to be seen if every car manufacturer DID offer a plug >in electric vehicle, if any substantial numbers of people would >buy them. I PERSONALLY believe that those people who actually >EXPERIENCE an electric vehicle, in person, not on TV, will >immediately abandon oil, coal, and wood fired vehicles in favor >of electric at the 100% level. > >Now to the series hybrid/plug in vehicle debate. I'm with you. I >don't want a gasoline engine in my EV. It is sort of like >saddling a cow and milking a horse. Both CAN be done, but its an >odd way to travel to breakfast, and will likely annoy both the >horse and the cow. > >That's not what the issue is. Follow me here. > >"I" can make myself an electric car. I can put batteries in it. I >can drive it. I can even do it experimentally. > >SImilarly, YOU can make yourself an electric car. YOU can put >batteries in it. And YOU can do it either experimentally or to >have a car to drive. > >GM can't. Toyota can't. And Nissan can't. And there is a VERY >good reason for that. > >People have expectations of automobile companies that they simply >do not have of other things. The automakers have actualy done an >INCREDIBLE job of designing, manufacturing, and delivering >automobiles of VERY advanced technology. When I was young and >pretty, 100,000 miles was an exhorbitant life for a car. And you >had them worked on ALL THE TIME. Today, I can buy a car and if I >have to do ANYTHING but change the oil, the battery, and a couple >of light bulbs, and perhaps one set of tires, in 100,000 miles, I >would be disappointed. > >And warranty? Well if you don't have a 5 year 50,000 mile >warranty, I won't even talk to you about a new car purchase. I >don't care what it is. They offer it down the street. If you >don't, I'll go there. > >Worse, with electronic devices we KNOW about the batteries. If >you introduced 100 Americans to an electric car for the first >time, 100%, all 100 will immediately go to the batteries as the >weak point in the system. NOBODY will miss this. > >As a result, if an automotive manufacturer wants to sell an >electric car, they HAVE to warranty the batteries to remove this >OBVIOUS objection. And indeed, on the hybrids, I'm seeing 100,000 >mile guarantees on the batteries. > >To do this, YOU MUST control the charging process. Certainly with >Lithium, but also SLA, GEL cells, and certainly Nickel Metal >Hydride batteries, OVERCHARGING, or OVERDISCHARGING simply kills >battery packs. It's not that they MIGHT kill them. It will do it >demonstrably each time it occurs. > >Now, we have an American automobile consumer that runs out of >gasoline tens of thousands of times per day. They can't generally >differntiate between Premium, Regular, and Unleaded. > >If THEY have control of the charge and discharge process, and YOU >have responsibility for the battery packs, you should probably >price in about 15 complete battery packs in the price of the car. > >The "Range Extender" concept is piffle, tosh, smoke, and mirrors >feeding on the publics total absorption with the "range issue" to >gain control of the batteries. When they discharge to a certain >level, the "range extender" kicks in to charge the batteries. >When the voltage rises to a certain level, it is disconnected >from the batteries. The batteries stay safely within their charge >and discharge limits, and will indeed last for a very long time. > >THAT's why you'll see no plug-in EV from ANY automaker any time >soon. They can't sell you one without a warranty on the >batteries. T hey cannot warranty the batteries without >controlling the charge cycle. No more complicated than that. I >expect them to offer one when they get the vehicle control >systems designed to make the charging fool proof and disable the >car entirely if over discharged. That can be done. But it is >actually not as simple as it sounds. > >Finally, the range question. Because it isn't an issue with a >gasoline vehicle, it must be the issue with an EV. It is largely >because people are totally unaware of how much they actually >drive. A certain threshold has to be achieved to make the issue >go away. And lead acid batteries don't have it. Lithiums do. > >Across 203 million licensed drivers, we average 39.4 miles per >day. Some DO live in major metropolitan areas and face longer >communtes. That means that OVER HALF of the 203 million actually >drive LESS than 20 miles per day. I designed our car to drive 75 >miles per charge. In actually driving it here in a small >midwestern town, I was myself shocked at my mileage. I doubt I >drive 20 miles per day. The charging process is so trivial on >mine, using a rather advanced programmable charger, and the >batteries don't care when they are charged, how much, or how >little. As a result, my actual driving needs don't discharge the >batteries 80% DOD. They actually discharge them more like 25%. > >I go to the store. I come home. I go to a friends house. I come >home. We go out to dinner and have a few drinks. I come home. The >charge time for the 80% is a little over 4 hours. But the charge >time for 10 miles is 30 minutes. And it is about as difficult to >do as plugging in a toaster. So after the trip to the store, I >plug it in. I might only be home for 30 minutes. But why not? You >get out of the car, pick up the cord, and plug it in. I go to the >friends house, and come home. I get out of the car, and plug it >in. We go to dinner and have a couple of drinks. We come home. In >plug in the car and go to bed. > >I actually have to WORK at driving the car around town and up and >down the freeway to get test data. It gets boring after awhile. > >I actually DID hatch a plan to get a speeding ticket. I went out >and drove up and down Interstate 55 at 85-90 trying to get a >speeding ticket. I was going to laminate it and hang it in the >engine compartment. I wore out the batteries that day without >being ABLE to draw a ticket when I wanted one. I did it again a >week laer and WAS stopped clocking 92 mph. The officer came up, >started writing a ticket, and then started admiring the car. When >I told him it was electric, he had to see the engine compartment. >We chatted a few minutes, he rooted around in the engine >compartment admiring the stuff, and started to walk away. > >I ASKED him for my ticket. He said there was something going on >and he had to get moving SORRRY.... > >Jack Rickard

About Us  |  Terms Of Service  |  Privacy Policy