Re: (ET) charger problem

["David Roden" <etpost drmm net>]

On 21 May 2009 at 14:28, Tim Humphrey wrote:

> Is it that, or possibly that their chemistry is different than the
> Trojan's that most a familiar with? 

I'm no electrochemist, but AFAIK it's true that battery chemistry makes a 
difference in terminal voltages at various states of charge.  However, 
that 
may not be the only (or even the principal) reason for USBMC's different 
recommendation.   

Nawaz Quereshi, VP of engineering at USBMC, is a member of the EVDL 
(Electric Vehicle Discusison List) and responds to questions there from 
time 
to time.  I remember him discussion antimony content in their batteries' 
grids, but I don't recall him mentioning calcium (but my memory isn't that 
great any more, so that's not definitive).  

I'll see if I can find some of his posts referring to this.  If I can't 
find 
any more information on it in my archive, I'll try to contact Nawaz 
directly.  Maybe he can explain in more detail the reasons for Trojan's 
and 
USBMC's differing recommendations.


David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 
Note: mail sent to the "etpost" address will not reach me.  To send 
me a private message, please use the address shown at the bottom
of this page : http://www.evdl.org/help/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =