|
Post by Graham on Oct 31, 2016 19:43:44 GMT
Just a real life circuit that operates as you described earlier before Gibbo left us. Can't remember the exact words you you used about charge etc I didn't describe any circuit, well apart from the superconducting one. no that is the point now make it a real life one as in a boat or my garage my language Good night thread
|
|
|
Post by smileypete on Oct 31, 2016 19:49:59 GMT
Nicks got a good point though...
You don't neeed voltage to move charge around, merely to overcome the voltage drop caused by passing current through a resistive material.
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Oct 31, 2016 19:56:26 GMT
Nicks got a good point though... You don't neeed voltage to move charge around, merely to overcome the voltage drop caused by passing current through a resistive material. Yes, but so what?
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Oct 31, 2016 20:22:23 GMT
Nicks got a good point though... You don't neeed voltage to move charge around, merely to overcome the voltage drop caused by passing current through a resistive material. Yes, but so what? It's back to the point that charge (AH if you like) doesn't have intrinsic energy. It only has energy in the presence of potential gradient. In a circuit, energy is lost due to the reduction in the voltage part of Power = VI, not the I part. So by reciprocity if power is dissipated whilst charging, it cannot be due to a loss of AH (or current if you like), only by loss of voltage (from internal resistance). Therefore CEF is not explained by energy loss due to heating.
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Oct 31, 2016 20:40:00 GMT
It's back to the point that charge (AH if you like) doesn't have intrinsic energy. It only has energy in the presence of potential gradient. In a circuit, energy is lost due to the reduction in the voltage part of Power = VI, not the I part. So by reciprocity if power is dissipated whilst charging, it cannot be due to a loss of AH (or current if you like), only by loss of voltage (from internal resistance). Therefore CEF is not explained by energy loss due to heating. Yes, I got that. But so what? It has virtually no bearing on boating.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Oct 31, 2016 20:51:32 GMT
It's back to the point that charge (AH if you like) doesn't have intrinsic energy. It only has energy in the presence of potential gradient. In a circuit, energy is lost due to the reduction in the voltage part of Power = VI, not the I part. So by reciprocity if power is dissipated whilst charging, it cannot be due to a loss of AH (or current if you like), only by loss of voltage (from internal resistance). Therefore CEF is not explained by energy loss due to heating. Yes, I got that. But so what? It has virtually no bearing on boating. The point is that if you are going to explain why you need to put more charge back into a battery than you take out, you might as well explain it the correct way rather than a fallacious way if both are equally simple concepts to understand.
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Oct 31, 2016 20:53:46 GMT
Yes, I got that. But so what? It has virtually no bearing on boating. The point is that if you are going to explain why you need to put more charge back into a battery than you take out, you might as well explain it the correct way rather than a fallacious way if both are equally simple concepts to understand. Simplest is to say "due to inefficiencies". That's more than enough for the average boater.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Oct 31, 2016 21:25:31 GMT
The point is that if you are going to explain why you need to put more charge back into a battery than you take out, you might as well explain it the correct way rather than a fallacious way if both are equally simple concepts to understand. Simplest is to say "due to inefficiencies". That's more than enough for the average boater. Fine by me! I'm not sure what you said about it pre-edit. I'm a bit confused because there may have been some thread crossover between yours and tonyb's with all the debating. His OP says that a symptom of charge efficiency is that the battery gets warm, not sure if yours did originally?
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Oct 31, 2016 21:45:26 GMT
Simplest is to say "due to inefficiencies". That's more than enough for the average boater. Fine by me! I'm not sure what you said about it pre-edit. I'm a bit confused because there may have been some thread crossover between yours and tonyb's with all the debating. His OP says that a symptom of charge efficiency is that the battery gets warm, not sure if yours did originally? All mine says is that due to charge inefficiencies (it originally said Peukert but that offended Pete's sensibilities) you have to put more back in than you took out by a factor of 10 to 20%. Yes, it was TonyB's that mentioned heating.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Oct 31, 2016 22:09:27 GMT
Yes, I got that. But so what? It has virtually no bearing on boating. The point is that if you are going to explain why you need to put more charge back into a battery than you take out, you might as well explain it the correct way rather than a fallacious way if both are equally simple concepts to understand. I thought it was black magic!!!!! or it is in my black batteries
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Oct 31, 2016 22:10:58 GMT
The point is that if you are going to explain why you need to put more charge back into a battery than you take out, you might as well explain it the correct way rather than a fallacious way if both are equally simple concepts to understand. I thought it was black magic!!!!! or it is in my black batteries Mine are silver ...... does that mean mine are more efficient ?
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Oct 31, 2016 22:18:53 GMT
I thought it was black magic!!!!! or it is in my black batteries Mine are silver ...... does that mean mine are more efficient ? Yes, the electric can slide over shiny finishes much more betterrer.
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Oct 31, 2016 22:35:16 GMT
(snip) You don't normally see batteries quoted as having a rating in kWH or the like. No reason why not. In fact, it would make more sense when comparing batteries of different voltages.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Oct 31, 2016 22:40:53 GMT
(snip) You don't normally see batteries quoted as having a rating in kWH or the like. No reason why not. In fact, it would make more sense when comparing batteries of different voltages. But that's the point, there is reason why not. The AH is well defined by the amount if chemicals to react. The kWh brings in voltage which is significantly dependant on things like discharge rate and temperature. I suppose it could be quoted with list of caveats about the discharge conditions but ultimately it isn't a "pure" quantification.
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Oct 31, 2016 23:13:16 GMT
Just as AmpHours have caveats about C/100, C/5, etc.
We might know how much lead and lead oxide are in the battery, but we don't know how much is available to react. Once both plates are covered in lead sulphate, I wouldn't think there's anything left to react.
|
|