9
two years with lithium
(mouse.mousetrap.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
9 points (100.0% liked)
Living in vans, cars, RVs, etc
339 readers
1 users here now
!houseless@lemmy.sdf.org
We're not homeless, we're houseless! By choice or by circumstance we are living in our vehicles. Don't worry about us -- it can be a very good life.
Anything that affects us as vehicle-dwellers is probably on topic.
external resources
- emergency guide to suddenly living in a vehicle <-- start here if you don't have a choice in the matter
- vanlife FAQ
- introduction to power in the vehicle
- gentle introduction to solar power
- overview of charging by alternator
- guides to hygiene and toilet
fedi resources
rules of engagement
- be civil
- use descriptive thread titles. Pro tip: "Help" or "Question" are not descriptive titles.
- old-timers: assume people are different and have different needs, preferences, budgets, and use cases
- newbies: demonstrate effort and willingness to learn; you'll need it on the road anyhow. Links have been added below to help get you started. When asking question state your "use case" (what you are trying to accomplish); we are terrible guessers.
- tire-kickers: yes, we've heard that "in a van down by the river" joke. It was hi-larious in 1993.
vandwellers vandwelling vanlife urbancarliving
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
agreed
There is academic research suggesting deeper discharge is associated with accelerated capacity degradation in LiFePO4 cells.
digression
It's interesting to see how Dragonfly (owner of Battle Born) dances around the topic:
Why would light use lead to exceeding the cycle rating? TBF, they could be talking about C-rates or other factors in addition to DoD. But DoD is the focus of the paragraph.
Why would they do that if going to 100% DoD would not affect cycle life?
IMO this is a tacit admission that there is a negative effect associated with discharging to 100% DoD.
I also suspect a bit of wiggle room here in the wording. "100% of the [marketed] capacity" is not necessarily 0% SoC when the manufacturer underrates battery capacity. A 105Ah batt with 100Ah removed still has 5Ah remaining (actual 4.8% SoC).
conclusion
I suspect discharging to 0% SoC (4.8% actual) is harmful but
I have limited funds so I treat my LFP as gently as practical.
DoD does not say where it happens. 0...80 and 20...100 are both 80 % DoD, but with vastly accelerated degradation in the later case.
Low voltages are only associated with degradation when they are far below the cut off voltage, so <2.5 V here as well as for Li-ion and Li-Po. For Li-Po, which has arguably the least tolerance:
You can go down to 2 V and it will only damage the cell slightly(!) faster over the next 100 cycles of always going down to 2 V. All the batteries I ever had accidentally over-discharged recovered just fine. No increased leakage, no capacity loss.
Here an actual source, look at figure 7. Even down to 1.2 V the cells still reached 50 cycles until they were at 80 % remaining capacity.
I don't know where the misinformation comes from regarding "instand damage" below somewhere in-between 2.5 and 3 V. But I assume that, since the voltage drops very rapidly at that point, people actually ran the battery down into the ground, even reverse biasing (negative voltage) the most depleted cell(s), thus doing real damage. This should not be possible with a BMS.