Re: Using the correct terminology (was Re: New battery technology?)

[Seth <vze3v25q@verizon.net>]

I use 25-27Wh/Kg for lead, 50-55 for NiCad and 70-75 for NiMH. I find
that with higher current draw, you might want a slightly lower number
for lead. With packages that have more "package" (individual cells
versus modules for example) this figure can go lower. A stainless
encased NiCad might be an example.

This puts vanadium oxide at better than lead acid *if* the figure of
35Wh/kg is correct. I didn't check the website for this figure, so use
it at your own risk.

Seth

Lonnie Borntreger wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 2002-09-23 at 16:30, VanDerWal, Peter MSgt wrote:
> > David's soap box is in no danger.  You DID get the units wrong when you
> > copied it.  The website clearly states Wh/kg not kW/kg as you posted.
> >
> > "In the all-vanadium redox flow cell, the present energy density is 25
> > Wh/kg, this being based on a maximum vanadium ion concentration of 2 M or
> > less for wide temperature range operation. "
> >
> > "More recent studies at UNSW has shown that vanadium concentrations of up to
> > 3M can be achieved with addition of precipitation inhibitors that can
> > stabilise supersaturated vanadium solutions. This allows the energy density
> > to be increased to around 35 Wh/kg. "
> 
> OK.  So my eyes failed me twice.  My apologies to David.
> 
> So, back to my original question, how does this rating look compared to
> current EV batteries in use?
> 
> Lonnie

-- 
vze3v25q@verizondotnet