this post was submitted on 06 May 2024
370 points (93.2% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3195 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

That's...... not how battery packs work

[–] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

That’s actually how the majority of batter packs operate, they have a margin of cells to replace when they start undercurrenting. It’s not quite THAT simple, but it’s not also that difficult when every pack has electronic controllers in them now.

How do you think they were able to do this battery capacity limitation if you couldn’t do something like that…?

[–] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

No. The packs aren't like flash storage where they have spare blocks to use when one block wears out. Essentially switching in something that wasn't used at all before.

The cells are all connected physically, being charged and drained. They do not connect and disconnect cells when wear occurs. They have software limitations on how far to charge and discharge (at what voltage and c rating). Yes, a larger pack will last longer if the charge/discharge cycles aren't as "deep". But no, they don't have spare cells just to cover wear.

[–] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

You realize you can also use a microcontroller to completely shutoff cells so they don’t get used until one dies yeah? There’s multiple tech in these packs now.

Some pieces of equipment allow you to put two batteries in it, so when one is depleted it automatically switches over to other one. Same kinda concept, just done at the cell level.

Think of a battery pack like a backpack, it’s lots of cells in series, to make larger batteries, you make the backpack larger and hookup more cells. A fancy controller can control which individual cells are active. Or even think multiple backpacks, now linked together.

[–] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

No. Handwaving a microcontroller doesn't fix it unless you have two high current contactors per cell, and multiple intermediate busses and contactors, it's not going to work.

That's going to add a ton in transmission complexity, and weight, that doesn't really benefit the battery at all. Along with the fact that cells should be balanced in wear and cycles. It just doesn't make sense.

[–] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

have two high current contactors per cell, and multiple intermediate busses and contactors, it's not going to work.

Again, most battery packs already do this. It’s the nature of the natural design it of it. A pack is collection of cells, wired together in different configurations for V and A…. It’s already a massive collection of tiny cells put together and put together and put together, and put together, put together, until you have what you want……

That's going to add a ton in transmission complexity, and weight,

Huh? How so…? Wires are negligible weight and what complexity? It’s already wired and it’s just a micro controller an d programming….. so what added weight? The wires are already there and are only a fraction of a percent of the total weight….

Yes it absolutely benefits the battery…. it can double the life as previously explained, that’s a massive boon mate.

It’s okay to be wrong.

[–] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Most packs have only 2 contactors. Not 2 per cell. The only way to have spare cells that are not in active use all the time is to physically disconnect the cells from the rest of the pack. The only way to do that is to have contactors at each "end" of the cell, or cell pack, that you want to switch in and out.

Car packs are ~360-800v nominal depending on the car/pack. To get to those voltages with the normal cells (~3.2-3.7v nominal)you need between 95 and 250 cells in series (wired one to another directly, all the power goes through all the cells).

Let's do an example. The simplest pack possible. A 95s1p meaning 95 cells wired negative to positive in a single line. A contactor at each end to cut power to the car for safety.

This is the simplest pack. Also the lowest range and worst for cell wear.

So say you want to "double" the range? You "simply" build an entire separate pack, and drop it next to the first with it's own set of contactors, right?

But in that case you have doubled the amount of interconnect bus in the pack(the wires to get the high current out of the battery), as well as contactors.

You could get to the same power storage (range and longevity) by making a 95s2p pack with one set of contactors.

So instead of 2 lines of cells, you connect each cell to it's partner with a small piece of wire then connect that to the next cell in the pack.

This means you don't need the extra long wire from the back to the front of the pack for the second set. The tradeoff is you can't physically disconnect the second cells, but you don't need the weight and complexity of extra contactors, and the long wire for second cell set.

So what's the actual benefit of physically disconnecting the second set of cells?

When one battery dies in the 95s1p pack, the whole pack is useless, as all the power from the remaining 94 cells must travel through the one high resistance cell.

In a 95s2p pack each cell only has to take half the current of the entire pack (improving as you go up in parallel cell count).

You would be able to run one 95s1p dead, then switch to the other and keep driving till that is dead. But the efficiency of that is actually less than you get if you just had one 95s2p you ran from full till dead.

So again, being able to physically disconnect some cells in the pack only adds weight, complexity, and risk.

The Tesla car with "less range" that can be "unlocked" is literally just a software setting that limits the charge/discharge voltage of the entire pack, not switching in and out battery cells physically.

So... As you said

It's okay to be wrong.

[–] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

That’s a lot of words to say, what you said is absolutely how battery packs work to limit total failures.

Can you provide a link to a battery pack design that is one total massive cell like you’re saying instead of multiple individual? Other than some thing like a AA or AAA battery….

How much do you think a length of wire weighs compared to the weight of the pack? You’re making to seem like it will add 30% weight here or something, the weight is negligible, why are you even mentioning it?

[–] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Not sure where you're getting "one total massive cell" from anything I wrote.

Every pack is made of a bunch of smaller batteries. You can't get 400v without batteries in series, from batteries that only make ~3v.

Just saw your last paragraph edit. It's a car pack, every ounce matters, and doubly so when it only adds complexity, reduces efficiency, and reduces reliability.

And an estimate of weight of the extra interconnect.... let's say it's 8' from back to front of the pack, a 350v pack and a 250kw motor. This means minimum of 715 A. Busbar that is rated for 700-800A @30c rise has cross section of 1/4"x2". For the 8' length that means we have 48in^3 of copper. That is ~16lbs of copper alone. Not counting the contactors, insulation, etc.

[–] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

That is ~16lbs of copper alone.

So 1% of a 1600lb pack? Wow so detrimental….

[–] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago

It is, especially when the choice that leads to that extra weight is less reliable, less efficient, and more costly. All things you don't particularly want in a car

So let's get back to the real discussion on how the packs actually work. Can you explain how a microcontroller is supposed to put cells in and out of the circuit?

[–] Steve@startrek.website 1 points 6 months ago

It kinda sorta is, but not exactly.