# Re: [EVDL] 96v (16x6v) 21600wh VS 168v (12vx12v) 21060wh



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] 96v (16x6v) 21600wh VS 168v (12vx12v) 21060wh*

FWIW voltage is basically irrelevant to range and hill climbing ability.
About the only advantage to higher voltage is that, for a given motor and
gear ratio, you can extend your max torque up to a higher RPM.

Doesn't this higher rpm translate into higher speed up the hill?
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-96v-%2816x6v%29-21600wh-VS-168v-%2812vx12v%29-21060wh-tp18265434p18265520.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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] 96v (16x6v) 21600wh VS 168v (12vx12v) 21060wh*

If he is using a PWM speed controller then battery voltage does have
relevance. The controller acts as a current multiplier. Watts in =
Watts out (minus efficiency losses). So a higher voltage pack will
need to deliver fewer amps for a given motor power output. Of course
the battery voltage doesnt matter if the controller cant deliver
enough current to the motor to get the motor power desired.
There are lots of factors in an EV that dictate performance and range.
The motor, controller, and battery don't act alone but in a complex
dance where they switch leading rolls.

-Jon Glauser
http://jonglauser.blogspot.com
http://www.evalbum.com/555




> wguinon <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > FWIW voltage is basically irrelevant to range and hill climbing ability.
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] 96v (16x6v) 21600wh VS 168v (12vx12v) 21060wh*

>
>
> FWIW voltage is basically irrelevant to range and hill climbing ability.
> About the only advantage to higher voltage is that, for a given motor and
> gear ratio, you can extend your max torque up to a higher RPM.
>
> Doesn't this higher rpm translate into higher speed up the hill?
>

Maybe, maybe not.
I should have been a bit more specific.
The faster you climb a hill, the more power it takes.

Every battery has a maximum power it can produce. A high voltage pack
doesn't necessarily produce more power, than a low voltage pack.

So, my statement should have read:
For a given motor/controller/gear ratio, a higher voltage pack will allow
you to extend your max torque to a higher RPM, as long as you don't exceed
the max power output of your battery pack.

So if your 96V pack can produce 1000 amps while sagging to 48V and the
168V pack can produce 500 amps while sagging to 84V, then the 96V pack
will be able to climb faster (48kw vs 42kw)

If, however, both packs can produce more current than your controllers
maximum rating, then the higher voltage pack will climb faster.
Assuming, of course, that the maximum rated current from the controller is
high enough to produce enough torque to climb the hill. Otherwise you'll
start slowing down and won't make it up the hill unless you started with
enough momentum to reach the summit before you slow down to zero mph.
(more detail)
Generally speaking, a lead-acid battery produces it's maximum output power
when the current draw sags the battery to 50% of it's nominal voltage.

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] 96v (16x6v) 21600wh VS 168v (12vx12v) 21060wh*

> If he is using a PWM speed controller then battery voltage does have
> relevance. The controller acts as a current multiplier. Watts in =
> Watts out (minus efficiency losses). So a higher voltage pack will
> need to deliver fewer amps for a given motor power output.

Incorrect.
He is using a fixed ratio transmission and a series wound motor. The
voltage and current delivered to the motor is the SAME at a given RPM and
load regardless of the pack voltage.
With a fixed ratio, if you raise the motor voltage, then the current will
ALSO increase until the motor speeds up enough to reach equilibrium again.
There is only one motor voltage (and associated current) that is correct
for a given speed and load.

The difference is that the current needed from the pack is lower on a
higher voltage pack. This, alone, has no direct relationship with range.

> The motor, controller, and battery don't act alone but in a complex
> dance where they switch leading rolls.

Absolutely. Voltage alone has no direct relationship to range or hill
climbing ability. You have to look at everything.

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] 96v (16x6v) 21600wh VS 168v (12vx12v) 21060wh*

Never mind. I misread what you were saying.

We appear to be both saying the same thing. I'm just not getting your
point on what exactly the relevance is between pack voltage and range.
Especially considering that the high voltage pack has less AH available.

> If he is using a PWM speed controller then battery voltage does have
> relevance. The controller acts as a current multiplier. Watts in =
> Watts out (minus efficiency losses). So a higher voltage pack will
> need to deliver fewer amps for a given motor power output. Of course
> the battery voltage doesnt matter if the controller cant deliver
> enough current to the motor to get the motor power desired.
> There are lots of factors in an EV that dictate performance and range.
> The motor, controller, and battery don't act alone but in a complex
> dance where they switch leading rolls.
>
> -Jon Glauser
> http://jonglauser.blogspot.com
> http://www.evalbum.com/555
>
>
>


> wguinon <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> FWIW voltage is basically irrelevant to range and hill climbing ability.
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] 96v (16x6v) 21600wh VS 168v (12vx12v) 21060wh*

Other than the Peukert effect there is no relationship between voltage
and range. Lower current draw from a lead acid battery results in a
greater apparent capacity.

It's hard to describe an illustrative case because the batteries
apparent capacity changes depending on its load. The numbers given by
the manufacturer loosely apply to EVs.

if I build a 9.6kWh 96V 100Ah (at the 75A rate) pack that requires
160A to cruise and a 9.6kWh 144V 67Ah (at the 75A rate) pack that
requires 100A to cruise, which one will actually deliver more range?
They both contain the same amount of energy (9.6kWh).

The 144V pack feeds it out slower than the 96V pack, which will put
its apparent capacity closer to the manufactures spec of 67Ah. The 96V
pack is feeding it's energy out twice as fast as the manufactures
specification of 75A and so will not have a capacity of 100Ah.

By the manufacturers data the packs are the same capacity, but I'm
claiming that the higher voltage pack will seem to have a farther
range. Of course real world battery capacities dont often fit into an
example as perfectly as chosen numbers do.

-Jon Glauser
http://jonglauser.blogspot.com
http://www.evalbum.com/555




> Peter VanDerWal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > We appear to be both saying the same thing. I'm just not getting your
> > point on what exactly the relevance is between pack voltage and range.
> > Especially considering that the high voltage pack has less AH available.
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] 96v (16x6v) 21600wh VS 168v (12vx12v) 21060wh*

>
> If he is using a PWM speed controller then battery voltage does have
> relevance. The controller acts as a current multiplier. Watts in =
> Watts out (minus efficiency losses). So a higher voltage pack will
> need to deliver fewer amps for a given motor power output. Of course
> the battery voltage doesnt matter if the controller cant deliver
> enough current to the motor to get the motor power desired.
> There are lots of factors in an EV that dictate performance and range.
> The motor, controller, and battery don't act alone but in a complex
> dance where they switch leading rolls.
This is why I said the voltage determines how high an rpm you can keep the max current up.

At each end of the spectrum is the voltage so low with batteries that self regulate the amps cause they have such rotten internal resistance that the controller is a waste of time to.. the voltage so high that you can keep the controller at max motor amps until it overheats or you get a speeding ticket.


Consider the motor as a big, very big, variable resistor. 
It's resistance is very low at zero rpm and increases with rpm.(reactance is all the resistance, the inductive and capacitive included)

In my conversion the 9" motor has a 170V limit to prevent brush flashover.
My pack is 288Vnominal and on a fresh charge sits over 300V. 
I can push 1000A into the motor from a stop and the battery amps is under a hundred with the voltage sagging to 295.
lets say 10:1 multiplication ratio because motor voltage is low. This is controller current limit.

By the time I get accross the intersection the motor rpm has come up,
The multiplication ratio has changed and it takes about 400A to keep the 100A flowing and pack voltage sags to 270.

As I accelerate upwards the motors reactance increases to the point where the difference between the applied voltage and the motor voltage is less. 
I am out of controller current limit (at least the motor side, it is possible with the zilla to now be in battery current limit)
As a direct result of ohms law, less and less current flow and eventually an equilibrium would be reached. This is when the difference in the voltage applied to the reactance of the motor at that rpm, produces the exact torque that it takes to keep the car moving at the speed it is at.(this is top speed and has not been determined because it is illegal and dangerous)




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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] 96v (16x6v) 21600wh VS 168v (12vx12v) 21060wh*
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----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] 96v (16x6v) 21600wh VS 168v (12vx12v) 21060wh*

>Every battery has a maximum power it can produce. A high voltage pack
>doesn't necessarily produce more power, than a low voltage pack.

The available power from a pack is proportional to the number of cells so
with identical cells in the two packs the HV pack will produce higher max
power than the LV pack and so climb faster.

>So if your 96V pack can produce 1000 amps while sagging to 48V and the
>168V pack can produce 500 amps while sagging to 84V, then the 96V pack
>will be able to climb faster (48kw vs 42kw)

If 96V pack can produce 1000 amps while sagging to 48V and the two packs are
made of identical cells then the 168V pack will sag to 84V at 1000A and the
168V pack will climb faster (48kW vs 84kW).


-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-96v-%2816x6v%29-21600wh-VS-168v-%2812vx12v%29-21060wh-tp18265434p18278957.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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] 96v (16x6v) 21600wh VS 168v (12vx12v) 21060wh*

>
> So did I get this wrong or mildly close?
> An Impulse 9 with the same =C2=A8WH=C2=A8 but higher voltage will perform=
better
> with
> the right controller overall?.

Yup, you got it wrong. Voltage alone tells you nothing of importance.
A 144V system using a single string of AA batteries will not outperform a
36V golf cart in any area.

You HAVE to know the details of the battery packs in question to make a
determination of which is better.


> Im trying to find a compromise as drawing less amps and higher voltage
> gave me the idea that would suit SLA agm batteries better due to their
> chemistry

Less amps from the pack is not necessarily better if the pack has less AH
available. It's the RATIO of amps drawn to AH available (at THAT amp
rate) that is important.

> Neuton Power SLA deep cycle batteries in the following ratings
> NPD62000A 6V 200AH (260Lx180Wx251T/H) 29.8KG
> NPD62000B 6V 200AH (306Lx 169Wx226T/H) 30KG
> NPD62250 6V 225AH (244Lx 190Wx275T/H) 32.1KG
> NPD121000 12V 100AH(307Lx 169Wx215T/H) 30.2KG
> NPD121100 12V 110AH(328Lx 172Wx220T/H) 32.7KG
> NPD121200 12V 120AH(407Lx 174Wx240T/H) 38.2KG
>
> Almost the same as the universal or generic agm sla available
>
> I only have the 20c rating but can someone teach me what rating to ask
> for?
> regards, Diegoh.

Ideally you want the 1C rating. However, that is seldom available.

The next best option is the reserve capacity at 75 amps.
Reserve capacity is how long (in minutes) the battery will provide that
current.
Be careful though, if they list a reserve capacity, but not a rate, then
it's probably at the 25 amps rate. That's better than the 20hr capacity,
but still to low for making comparisons for EV purposes.



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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] 96v (16x6v) 21600wh VS 168v (12vx12v) 21060wh*

>
>>Every battery has a maximum power it can produce. A high voltage pack
>>doesn't necessarily produce more power, than a low voltage pack.
>
> The available power from a pack is proportional to the number of cells so
> with identical cells in the two packs the HV pack will produce higher max
> power than the LV pack and so climb faster.

Except we aren't talking about identical cells, the original post
specifically was talking about DIFFERENT cells.
If you have twice the voltage in identical cells you'll have twice the
weight.
Obviously if you have twice as much weight in identical batteries you'll
have twice the power and twice the energy.
In this case the two packs weighed the same, so the higher voltage pack
was using lighter cells.

The available energy and power (at EV levels) of the two packs in question
is a mystery, so you can't make any meaningful determination about which
is better.



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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] 96v (16x6v) 21600wh VS 168v (12vx12v) 21060wh*

http://www.fullriverdcbattery.com/DC240_6.pdf
http://www.fullriverdcbattery.com/DC240_6.pdf 

This battery using the calculator Neon John Provided
with the following specs from the link above

582 minutes @ 25 amps
[email protected]
[email protected] (hard to believe!)
[email protected] (hard to believe!)

anyway .99 peukerts (hard to believe!)
Not the calculators fault but maybe the false figures from the company?



-----
There is a pleasure in the pathless woods,
There is a rapture on the lonely shore,
There is society, where none intrudes,
By the deep Sea, and music in its roar;
I love not Man the less, but Nature more. - George Byron
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-96v-%2816x6v%29-21600wh-VS-168v-%2812vx12v%29-21060wh-tp18265434p18337619.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
For general EVDL support, see http://evdl.org/help/
For subscription options, see http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] 96v (16x6v) 21600wh VS 168v (12vx12v) 21060wh*

This is the last post I'm going to make on this subject.

A couple points: Peukert is only an approximation of the behavior of a
Lead-Acid battery. It's extremely simplified and is only 'accurate' in
the middle part of the curve.
It works best if the rates used to calculate it are close to the expected
discharge rate.

The same is true of any estimate of battery performance.

The 20 hr rate is USELESS for estimating performance in an EV. Is USELESS
for comparisons, and it's USELESS for basing estimated performance on.
If you calculate Peukert using the 20 hr rate and the reserve capacity,
the result will almost certainly be inaccurate for calculating EV
discharge rates.
I know a lot of calculators include these numbers, but it's basically
useless.

ANY EV calculation that uses the 20 hr rate for ANYTHING will return data
that is questionable at best.

I'm going a little overboard here, but I'm trying to make a point.

Don't compare batteries based on their 20 hr rate, and don't compare them
based on calculations that use the 20 hr rate.

>
> http://www.fullriverdcbattery.com/DC240_6.pdf
> http://www.fullriverdcbattery.com/DC240_6.pdf
>
> This battery using the calculator Neon John Provided
> with the following specs from the link above
>
> 582 minutes @ 25 amps
> [email protected]
> [email protected] (hard to believe!)
> [email protected] (hard to believe!)
>
> anyway .99 peukerts (hard to believe!)
> Not the calculators fault but maybe the false figures from the company?
>
>
>
> -----
> There is a pleasure in the pathless woods,
> There is a rapture on the lonely shore,
> There is society, where none intrudes,
> By the deep Sea, and music in its roar;
> I love not Man the less, but Nature more. - George Byron
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-96v-%2816x6v%29-21600wh-VS-168v-%2812vx12v%29-21060wh-tp18265434p18337619.html
> Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at
> Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> For general EVDL support, see http://evdl.org/help/
> For subscription options, see http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>
>


_______________________________________________
For general EVDL support, see http://evdl.org/help/
For subscription options, see http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] 96v (16x6v) 21600wh VS 168v (12vx12v) 21060wh*

>
> http://www.fullriverdcbattery.com/DC240_6.pdf
> http://www.fullriverdcbattery.com/DC240_6.pdf

Now that I'm done ranting....

You're right, the posted data doesn't add up. The chart displaying
"Constant Power Discharge, Watts per cell" doesn't jive with the discharge
amps listed.

I.e. 10 hrs = 22 amps
10 hrs = 21.6 watts per cell

That would only work out if the average cell voltage during constant power
discharge was less than 1V (which is WAY past dead), yet it states they
only run down to 1.75Vpc

My 'guess' is that the chart claiming watts per cell is actually amps,
which changes the 10 hr rate to 216 AH and the 5 hr rate to 190.5 AH 
which seems a bit more realistic.

FWIW I don't trust their posted data. But if I did, they list a 1 hr rate
and a 45 minute rate. These are exactly what you want for estimating
performance in an EV.

_______________________________________________
For general EVDL support, see http://evdl.org/help/
For subscription options, see http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] 96v (16x6v) 21600wh VS 168v (12vx12v) 21060wh*

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 05:08:17 -0700 (PDT), OHMyGod! <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>http://www.fullriverdcbattery.com/DC240_6.pdf
>http://www.fullriverdcbattery.com/DC240_6.pdf 
>
>This battery using the calculator Neon John Provided
>with the following specs from the link above
>
>582 minutes @ 25 amps
>[email protected]
>[email protected] (hard to believe!)
>[email protected] (hard to believe!)
>
>anyway .99 peukerts (hard to believe!)
>Not the calculators fault but maybe the false figures from the company?

Ummm, have you been paying attention at all over the last couple of weeks?
Read any of the articles? Looked at any of the links provided? 

Did you not read that article I wrote just a couple of days ago on why you
can't use Peukert to extrapolate far from the test values? You know, the one
where I used actual data for a Trojan T-105. Apparently not or you'd not be
asking such a silly question.

Why are you messing with Peukert when the very PDFs you point to provide
actual performance data in the form of a chart of watts per cell vs discharge
rate? The chart goes right down to 30 minutes which is exactly what an EVer
needs to evaluate the battery. Not only is there a table but also a graph
that you can use to determine the performance at any discharge rate. You have
literally all the info that you need right there on the data sheet with no
interpolation or other calculation necessary.

Pay attention, dood!!!!

John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
I'm so cool, I'm afraid to catch cold.

_______________________________________________
For general EVDL support, see http://evdl.org/help/
For subscription options, see http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] 96v (16x6v) 21600wh VS 168v (12vx12v) 21060wh*



> Neon John wrote:
> > Did you not read that article I wrote just a couple of days ago on why
> > you
> > can't use Peukert to extrapolate far from the test values? You know,
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] 96v (16x6v) 21600wh VS 168v (12vx12v) 21060wh*
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----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] 96v (16x6v) 21600wh VS 168v (12vx12v) 21060wh*

As far as published specs go, you either trust the data or you don't.
It is impossible to 'calculate' accurate data from garbage.
30 years ago when I first studied programming, they called that GIGO,
Garbage In =3D Garbage Out

As for selecting a battery. When it comes to selecting a battery with
good performance and longevity for the price, it is impossible to beat
Trojan or US Battery flooded GC batteries.
You can buy cheaper batteries, but historically speaking they don't last
as long.
You can buy batteries with higher performance (higher sustained Amps) but
they cost significantly more.
There might be one or two other brands that are equal to Trojans or USBs,
but they are not as likely to be carried by a local vendor, and if you
have to pay to ship a 1/2 ton of batteries anywhere, that usually kills
any cost savings.

>
> I apologise guys but when I read those graphs I figured they are at best
> hopeful
> since its what I was led to believe by many on this site.
> The honesty on the performance I agree is questionable and I thought there
> might be a chance to calculate their potential another way.
> However I now understand how much harder it is that I first imagined.
>
> Thank you again and again sorry for the dumb questions, Ill try and just
> keep
> guiding myself by true and tried batteries from the EValbum in similar
> situations
> as I=C2=B4m aiming for (Though info is rarely updated by users once they =
own
> their
> EV machines for a period of time)
>
> It would be nice to have an alternative SLA to flooded lead acid packs
> like
> the trojan T-105 and thought that maybe the Full River could possibly
> deliver.
> I guess I will have to spend the money on this more expensive battery and
> keep you guys posted. Its just that the Trojan/Crown 225ah 6v floodies are
> $150au dollars and the SLA comparative versions are almost double here.
> I say comparative as now its finally sunken in that its a guessing game.
> ;(
>
>
> -----
> There is a pleasure in the pathless woods,
> There is a rapture on the lonely shore,
> There is society, where none intrudes,
> By the deep Sea, and music in its roar;
> I love not Man the less, but Nature more. - George Byron
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-96v-%2816x6v%29-21600wh-VS-168v-%2812vx12v%29=
-21060wh-tp18265434p18360966.html
> Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at
> Nabble.com.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> For general EVDL support, see http://evdl.org/help/
> For subscription options, see http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>
>


_______________________________________________
For general EVDL support, see http://evdl.org/help/
For subscription options, see http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] 96v (16x6v) 21600wh VS 168v (12vx12v) 21060wh*

> good performance and longevity for the price, it is impossible to beat
> Trojan or US Battery flooded GC batteries.

Damn, there goes my ego again, I'm assuming you're in the USA.

I meant to add, if you're not in the USA and Trojans/USBs aren't as
ubiquitous as they are here...
visit several local Golf Cart stores, mechanics, courses, and ask the
folks that work there what is the best brand. Chances are that most will
respond with only one or two options.

_______________________________________________
For general EVDL support, see http://evdl.org/help/
For subscription options, see http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------

