Author Topic: battery bank configuration  (Read 1494 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

gregda

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
battery bank configuration
« on: October 04, 2006, 08:05:46 PM »
If I have 4 L16 6 volt batteries and am configuring them in parallel and series in order to have a 12 volt output, what would be the best configuration if I have 2 which are 400 amp-hour and 2 that are 370 amp-hour? I'm thinking using the 2 200 amp-hour batteries in one bank and the 370 in the other and then wiring these banks together in parallel.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2006, 08:05:46 PM by (unknown) »

AbyssUnderground

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 461
Re: battery bank configuration
« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2006, 02:42:00 PM »
Put the two matching batteries in series in each case, then you can parallel them.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2006, 02:42:00 PM by AbyssUnderground »

craig110

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: battery bank configuration
« Reply #2 on: October 06, 2006, 07:35:03 AM »
Let me amplify a bit on AUG's answer.  When putting batteries or solar cells in series, the net result of that string is limited by the string's item with the smallest capacity.  If you put a 6v 400AH battery in series with a 6v 370AH battery, you'll essentially end up with a 12v 370AH capacity.  This is hard to mentally picture when talking about solar cells, but talking about a battery makes it easier to understand.  Imagine trying to drain that string of batteries down until it stops putting out power; how many AH will you get out of the string before it stops?  Even though the larger battery has 400AH capacity, the string will stop at 370AH simply because the smaller battery doesn't have any more electrons available to push down the wire.  The final 30AH of the larger battery is just sitting there.


So, if you put the two 400AH batteries (and likewise the two 370AH batteries) in series, you'll maximize the usefulness of each battery since none of them are limited by a smaller capacity battery in the same string.


Once you have these two individual strings (12v 400AH and 12v 370AH), you can parallel these and you'll end up with 12v 770AH.  The rule is that when putting them in parallel, you'll get the lowest voltage of any of the individual strings - so you'll get 12 volts since that is what each string has - and the current / capacity of the strings gets added up.


Therefore, the configuration that you suggested in the base note is the correct one, but perhaps now you see why your configuration was the right one!


Craig

« Last Edit: October 06, 2006, 07:35:03 AM by craig110 »

Bruce S

  • Administrator
  • Super Hero Member Plus
  • *****
  • Posts: 5375
  • Country: us
  • USA
Re: battery bank configuration
« Reply #3 on: October 06, 2006, 02:29:52 PM »
Craig;

   Very nice write up . I wanted to add that when mating up PVs these are the very same steps I take to match up panels. It does make a differnce !!


Cheers

Bruce S

« Last Edit: October 06, 2006, 02:29:52 PM by Bruce S »
A kind word often goes unsaid BUT never goes unheard

tecker

  • SuperHero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2183
Re: battery bank configuration
« Reply #4 on: October 08, 2006, 07:48:22 AM »
 I'll just throw this in as something to think about .If one were to set up bank A and a bank B with one in use and one in charge with change over at around 11.5 volt the batts wouldn't be taxed. At some point the 400s  will be taking all the load anyhow .

Of coarse This all depends on the ability to charge them and your useage . The batteries factored into the power curve with the cells seen from the inside out .IE the electrolite the plate area and the overall condition . Charging together the 400s probably won't top off. You can check for minor variations in the SG . Top off the 400's and the 375's seperate .check the SG seperate and load each and recheck SG . Parallel them and make the same checks .Not much of a diference but the 400s will get to the point where they sulfate at the top of the cells in a short period of time.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2006, 07:48:22 AM by tecker »