Cruisers Forum
 


Reply
  This discussion is proudly sponsored by:
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about their products on Cruisers Forums. Advertise Here
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 07-06-2019, 11:18   #31
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: BC
Boat: O'Day 40
Posts: 1,082
Re: Switch from AGM to Lith-ion

+1 on Firefly. Plug and play and 1 less thing to think about.
__________________
Trying to make new mistakes.
bcboomer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2019, 13:03   #32
֍֎֍֎֍֎֍֎֍֎

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 15,136
Re: Switch from AGM to Lith-ion

"Weight on a displacement boat is not a huge issue. "
Ergh. Unless you're in a hydrofoil for the America's Cup, weight IS a big factor in all displacement boats. As is interior volume. The lithium bank might trim 100-300 lbs off the boat and open up 2/3 of what was the battery space, allowing the batteries to be relocated as well.
That's not a make-or-break consideration for most of us, but it IS a significant factor. I'd rather carry 35 gallons more fuel or fresh water than tie it up in batteries. And double the useful battery power at the same time. (How many sailors ever say they've got "enough" battery power on board? A small minority.)
hellosailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2019, 00:48   #33
Registered User
 
Buzzman's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: New South Wales, Australia
Boat: Still building
Posts: 1,557
Re: Switch from AGM to Lith-ion

Might as well say it - on weight and space factors alone, ALL multihulls should have LiFePo4 batts.

On multis, weight is critical to maximise the performance levels a multi can provide.

Load it up with LAs and tons of cruising gear and the only advantage left is a stable platform.

But I'm probably exaggerating. A bit.
Buzzman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2019, 04:51   #34
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark (Winter), Helsinki (Summer); Cruising the Baltic Sea this year!
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 33,764
Re: Switch from AGM to Lith-ion

Quote:
Originally Posted by hellosailor View Post
"Weight on a displacement boat is not a huge issue. "
Ergh. Unless you're in a hydrofoil for the America's Cup, weight IS a big factor in all displacement boats. As is interior volume. The lithium bank might trim 100-300 lbs off the boat and open up 2/3 of what was the battery space, allowing the batteries to be relocated as well.
That's not a make-or-break consideration for most of us, but it IS a significant factor. I'd rather carry 35 gallons more fuel or fresh water than tie it up in batteries. And double the useful battery power at the same time. (How many sailors ever say they've got "enough" battery power on board? A small minority.)

Absolutely right.


I'd like to have about 600 amp/hours * 24v of usable power on my present boat and according to how she is equipped and how I use her. A future boat, with electric cooking etc., will need more. 600 amp/hours of usable power would require about 24 T105's, which weigh a whopping 672kg or more than 2/3 of a metric tonne. Weight is not a big issue? Nonsense. That kind of weight will slow down even a large boat, and will have a negative effect on stability if you can't get the batts low enough (and get them low enough, and you have a risk of flooding them if you have a leak).


The same amount of usable power can be stored in about 180kg of LiFePo cells for a saving of nearly half a tonne. That is a hell of a difference. That's 2.5% of the entire displacement of my boat -- just the savings. And the difference in volume gives you totally different options about where to install them.



And as someone else wrote -- I can't imagine why ANY catamaran, uses lead batteries.
__________________
"You sea! I resign myself to you also . . . . I guess what you mean,
I behold from the beach your crooked inviting fingers,
I believe you refuse to go back without feeling of me;
We must have a turn together . . . . I undress . . . . hurry me out of sight of the land,
Cushion me soft . . . . rock me in billowy drowse,
Dash me with amorous wet . . . . I can repay you."
Walt Whitman
Dockhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2019, 05:06   #35
Moderator
 
Pete7's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Solent, England
Boat: Moody 31
Posts: 18,429
Images: 22
Re: Switch from AGM to Lith-ion

Quote:
Originally Posted by cuffy View Post
My LFP installation is as Dockhead describes, 2 small LA for starting to which all the charge sources go and then b2b to LFP. As a full time liveaboard the new install is proving very good with no worries re fully charging LA bank. I harvest much more from my solar each day (400w), due to no tail current, and make hot water on demand via the inverter. We have added a freezer and watermaker this year all running of the solar, she loves it!!
Does this introduce a single point of failure if the B2B dies? How easy would it be to switch the chart plotter and say autopilot to the engine start batteries whilst at sea? At present, although I haven't actually tried it, disconnecting a duff engine battery or the house bank and throwing a switch gets me back all electrical consumer services plus alternator or solar charging.

I think I agree with A64Pilot. The cost to change assuming 100AH LI equals 200AH FLA then at Sterlings UK prices I would be in for £1600. For that I could replace 200AH of Gel batteries 4 times with perhaps a similar life expectancy.

Certainly something to watch and if the prices come down substantially then it could be a game changer particularly for cats, tris and even small yachts given the space and weight savings. I think I will watch and wait a while, don't want to be the first mouse to the trap.

I thought this was a useful simple set of diagrams:

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/19...00100184416410
Pete7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2019, 14:09   #36
Marine Service Provider
 
LifePart2's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: half time on board, the rest in Canada
Boat: Leopard 42 catamaran
Posts: 281
Re: Switch from AGM to Lith-ion

Carstenb we did exactly that on our boat - switched from 600AH of lead to 300Ah of Lithium. It is truly life changing. The switch is dead easy and you don't need to read the mammoth thread on LiFePO4 - you will just get confused.

Full details of exactly how we did it and what equipment you need are in the free ebook I wrote which is on our blog at LIFE: Part 2: Lithium Batteries – best thing since sliced bread

Enjoy - you will love your new lithiums

Noel
__________________
Noel Swanson

Life is too short to live in ugly places.
LifePart2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2019, 15:12   #37
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Penobscot Bay, Maine
Boat: Tayana 47
Posts: 2,123
Re: Switch from AGM to Lith-ion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockhead View Post
Absolutely right.


I'd like to have about 600 amp/hours * 24v of usable power on my present boat and according to how she is equipped and how I use her. A future boat, with electric cooking etc., will need more. 600 amp/hours of usable power would require about 24 T105's, which weigh a whopping 672kg or more than 2/3 of a metric tonne. Weight is not a big issue? Nonsense. That kind of weight will slow down even a large boat, and will have a negative effect on stability if you can't get the batts low enough (and get them low enough, and you have a risk of flooding them if you have a leak).


The same amount of usable power can be stored in about 180kg of LiFePo cells for a saving of nearly half a tonne. That is a hell of a difference. That's 2.5% of the entire displacement of my boat -- just the savings. And the difference in volume gives you totally different options about where to install them.



And as someone else wrote -- I can't imagine why ANY catamaran, uses lead batteries.
Certainly less weight is better on any boat but on a cruising monohull a few extra hundred pounds doesn't seem like much of a big deal to me. But then, I make no claims to be a racer. My AGM's are all tucked away in a place that I don't even notice them in cabinets under the nav station desk and my starting battery under a settee behind a drawer that's also under that settee. I love the idea of having fewer batteries onboard taking up less space, and you can't argue with lithium's charging rate advantage or discharge rate advantage. They are a superior battery in every respect when they are installed and used correctly.

BUT, they also require better care and are less forgiving than are wet, gels or AGM's and the consequences of not caring for them properly, even slightly improperly isn't a gradual degradation or somewhat shorter life, but can be total failure or even a fire. Neither is a pleasant thing to contemplate at sea, especially compared with the consequences of abusing our batteries that we are all accustomed to. Then there's the possibility that an internal battery failure in just one cell could cause a thermal runaway even if you do everything right.

Someday I imagine that we'll all be using lithium ion batteries or maybe something even more advanced, but given how vulnerable we are while at sea to their shortcomings, I'm not ready to make the switch quite yet.

Though it was in planes and not boats, there are a lot of parallels between the problems the Boeing 787's had back in 2013 and what could happen on a boat. On a plane, there were numerous electrical engineers in on designing their charging system and more from the FAA inspecting it, and the quality control for their batteries is much greater than for Joe boat owner, but in a few cases they caught on fire and could have killed a lot of people. Maybe the technology wasn't yet mature when that sort of thing was happening, but if it can happen to them with all their advanced engineering and checks and balances in place, then I have to think it can happen to me in a charging system that I hire my local boatyard or electronics shop to design and in how I and my boat guests might operate and use it. Maybe it's ok and I'm behind the times, but until I am reassured that a thermal runaway or complete failure is so rare as to not even deserve consideration, I just don't think the many advantages of this latest and greatest new technology is worth even the small risk of the possible consequences since they are so severe.
jtsailjt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2019, 02:04   #38
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Germany
Boat: Beneteau Sense 43
Posts: 176
Re: Switch from AGM to Lith-ion

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtsailjt View Post
...
BUT, they also require better care and are less forgiving than are wet, gels or AGM's and the consequences of not caring for them properly, even slightly improperly isn't a gradual degradation or somewhat shorter life, but can be total failure or even a fire. Neither is a pleasant thing to contemplate at sea, especially compared with the consequences of abusing our batteries that we are all accustomed to. Then there's the possibility that an internal battery failure in just one cell could cause a thermal runaway even if you do everything right.

This is not correct. The Boeing incident involved LiCoO2 cells which are in fact susceptible to thermal runaway.
The LiFePO4 chemistry we use on our boats does not have this problem and can be considered as safe or even safer than lead acid chemistries.
It is also not correct that LiFePO4 „requires better care“ and is „less forgiving“ than lead acid. Having 4 years if experience with a LiFePO4 bank I can say that it requires almost zero attention. The most important thing to take care of is literally not depleting them beyond 0 % SoC or below 11.9 V pack voltage.
mbartosch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2019, 02:44   #39
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark (Winter), Helsinki (Summer); Cruising the Baltic Sea this year!
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 33,764
Re: Switch from AGM to Lith-ion

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtsailjt View Post
. . . BUT, they also require better care and are less forgiving than are wet, gels or AGM's and the consequences of not caring for them properly, even slightly improperly isn't a gradual degradation or somewhat shorter life, but can be total failure or even a fire. Neither is a pleasant thing to contemplate at sea, especially compared with the consequences of abusing our batteries that we are all accustomed to.

I'm not sure that this is correct, provided you have a proper management system in place. On the contrary, I would say that lead batteries require much more care and thought and trouble, getting them topped off and with a finishing charge regularly, and avoiding leaving them at low states of charge, and keeping a trickle charge on them when you're off the boat. Lithiums are just like a fuel tank -- take it out when you need it, put it back when have it, leave them half full or whatever when you're off the boat and don't worry about it. Much much simpler.


The "care" is provided automatically with the right management system, and it's much simpler -- don't overcharge them, don't over-discharge them, balance them once in a while. Period. In case of some failure in the charging system or whatever, the BMS will protect them with low and high voltage cutouts, but that should never happen in a properly designed system.



Quote:
Originally Posted by jtsailjt View Post
Then there's the possibility that an internal battery failure in just one cell could cause a thermal runaway even if you do everything right. . . .

Is that really a risk, other than shorted battery terminals? My reading has not turned that up, nor have I ever heard of a fire caused by internal faults in a LiFePo4 system on a boat (many fires from internal faults with lead batts, and I nearly had one myself). If I've missed something, I would be grateful for links to information.
__________________
"You sea! I resign myself to you also . . . . I guess what you mean,
I behold from the beach your crooked inviting fingers,
I believe you refuse to go back without feeling of me;
We must have a turn together . . . . I undress . . . . hurry me out of sight of the land,
Cushion me soft . . . . rock me in billowy drowse,
Dash me with amorous wet . . . . I can repay you."
Walt Whitman
Dockhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2019, 06:09   #40
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Penobscot Bay, Maine
Boat: Tayana 47
Posts: 2,123
Re: Switch from AGM to Lith-ion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockhead View Post
I'm not sure that this is correct, provided you have a proper management system in place. On the contrary, I would say that lead batteries require much more care and thought and trouble, getting them topped off and with a finishing charge regularly, and avoiding leaving them at low states of charge, and keeping a trickle charge on them when you're off the boat. Lithiums are just like a fuel tank -- take it out when you need it, put it back when have it, leave them half full or whatever when you're off the boat and don't worry about it. Much much simpler.


The "care" is provided automatically with the right management system, and it's much simpler -- don't overcharge them, don't over-discharge them, balance them once in a while. Period. In case of some failure in the charging system or whatever, the BMS will protect them with low and high voltage cutouts, but that should never happen in a properly designed system.






Is that really a risk, other than shorted battery terminals? My reading has not turned that up, nor have I ever heard of a fire caused by internal faults in a LiFePo4 system on a boat (many fires from internal faults with lead batts, and I nearly had one myself). If I've missed something, I would be grateful for links to information.


“A properly designed system” is the key here. How exactly do you define that? Don’t you think that Boeing and the FAA thought they had a properly designed system in place when they designed and certified lithium batteries for the 787? You make it sound so simple.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boei...ttery_problems

Check out this article, it mentions an internal battery defect causing thermal runaway.

I think it’s interesting that the solution that was eventually settled on in order to return the 787 to service involved a better fire containment system rather than a guarantee that the batteries had been improved to the point that they would stop catching on fire. The 787 obviously isn’t a boat and their batteries aren’t exactly the same as the LifePo4 batteries, and I honestly don’t know if our commercially available boat batteries are better and safer than the ones on commercial jets, but if the LifePo4 batteries you have in your boat were safer than the lithium batteries on Boeing’s, I’d imagine they’d make the switch.

Is a fire containment system part of your “properly designed system” or are you still counting on their average time between failure to not catch up with you like Boeing did before their fires? I actually agree with what you say about all the advantages of this new technology, but their failure mode is so much more calamitous than that of conventional batteries failure modes that I’m still too nervous about them to make the switch. If your AGM fails it’s a bit of an inconvenience and is probably going to cost you several hundred dollars to replace it, but if your LifePo4 battery fails you better have a reliable liferaft ready to deploy.
jtsailjt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2019, 06:21   #41
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Germany
Boat: Beneteau Sense 43
Posts: 176
Re: Switch from AGM to Lith-ion

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtsailjt View Post
Don’t you think that Boeing and the FAA thought they had a properly designed system in place when they designed and certified lithium batteries for the 787? You make it sound so simple.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boei...ttery_problems


You should probably read the linked article more thoroughly:

„The focus of the review was on the safety of the lithium-ion batteries[1] that use lithium cobalt oxide(LiCoO2) as the positive electrode. These electrodes are known for their thermal runaway hazard and provide oxygen for a fire. The 787 battery contract was signed in 2005,[26] when LiCoO2 batteries were the only type of lithium aerospace battery available, but since then newer and safer[27] types (such as LiFePO4) and LiMn2O4 (Lithium Manganate), which provide less reaction energy during thermal runaway, have become available.“
mbartosch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2019, 06:43   #42
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark (Winter), Helsinki (Summer); Cruising the Baltic Sea this year!
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 33,764
Re: Switch from AGM to Lith-ion

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtsailjt View Post
“A properly designed system” is the key here. How exactly do you define that? Don’t you think that Boeing and the FAA thought they had a properly designed system in place when they designed and certified lithium batteries for the 787? You make it sound so simple.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boei...ttery_problems

Check out this article, it mentions an internal battery defect causing thermal runaway.

I think it’s interesting that the solution that was eventually settled on in order to return the 787 to service involved a better fire containment system rather than a guarantee that the batteries had been improved to the point that they would stop catching on fire. The 787 obviously isn’t a boat and their batteries aren’t exactly the same as the LifePo4 batteries, and I honestly don’t know if our commercially available boat batteries are better and safer than the ones on commercial jets, but if the LifePo4 batteries you have in your boat were safer than the lithium batteries on Boeing’s, I’d imagine they’d make the switch.

Is a fire containment system part of your “properly designed system” or are you still counting on their average time between failure to not catch up with you like Boeing did before their fires? I actually agree with what you say about all the advantages of this new technology, but their failure mode is so much more calamitous than that of conventional batteries failure modes that I’m still too nervous about them to make the switch. If your AGM fails it’s a bit of an inconvenience and is probably going to cost you several hundred dollars to replace it, but if your LifePo4 battery fails you better have a reliable liferaft ready to deploy.
As others have pointed out, and it's really so -- you can't remotely compare LiCo2 chemistry with LiFePo4 -- they are as different as propane and diesel fuel, without exaggeration. Saying "Lithium batteries are dangerous; even Boeing can't get it right! So you will for sure burn down your boat with LiFePo4!" is just like saying "All those boats blew up from propane, and you think you can get away storing diesel fuel on board??!!".

LiCo2 is also used in some consumer devices and it is an inherently unstable material. On the plus side, however, it's cheap and has higher power density than LiFePo4.


LiFePo4 is not as sexy and doesn't pack as much power, but it is highly stable, and presents probably less risk of thermal runaway than a lead battery does, and possibly no risk of thermal runaway (see the graph below). See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithiu...battery#Safety


Here graphically is the difference between LiFePo4 and other lithium chemistries:


Click image for larger version

Name:	Capture.PNG
Views:	130
Size:	349.4 KB
ID:	193694


You can see from the curve the huge difference in behavior between LiFePo4 and other chemistries. The spikes in degreesC/min of the other lithium chemistries show thermal runaway -- an explosive increase in temperature. The LiFePo4 curve, on the other hand, never spikes at all, and starts at a much higher temperature, around 250C. At that point, LiFePo4 just kind of smolders. So there is slow combustion rather than thermal runaway.



This is a very safe battery technology, probably safer than lead in terms of thermal runaway risk.



The main safety issue I would worry about is shorting out the terminals, because of the very high discharge rate, far higher than lead. If you were to drop a wrench across the terminals I guess you would get an explosion. But this can be dealt with with appropriate fusing and appropriate connectors.
__________________
"You sea! I resign myself to you also . . . . I guess what you mean,
I behold from the beach your crooked inviting fingers,
I believe you refuse to go back without feeling of me;
We must have a turn together . . . . I undress . . . . hurry me out of sight of the land,
Cushion me soft . . . . rock me in billowy drowse,
Dash me with amorous wet . . . . I can repay you."
Walt Whitman
Dockhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2019, 07:12   #43
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Penobscot Bay, Maine
Boat: Tayana 47
Posts: 2,123
Re: Switch from AGM to Lith-ion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockhead View Post
As others have pointed out, and it's really so -- you can't remotely compare LiCo2 chemistry with LiFePo4 -- they are as different as propane and diesel fuel, without exaggeration. Saying "Lithium batteries are dangerous; even Boeing can't get it right! So you will for sure burn down your boat with LiFePo4!" is just like saying "All those boats blew up from propane, and you think you can get away storing diesel fuel on board??!!".

LiCo2 is also used in some consumer devices and it is an inherently unstable material. On the plus side, however, it's cheap and has higher power density than LiFePo4.


LiFePo4 is not as sexy and doesn't pack as much power, but it is highly stable, and presents probably less risk of thermal runaway than a lead battery does, and possibly no risk of thermal runaway (see the graph below). See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithiu...battery#Safety


Here graphically is the difference between LiFePo4 and other lithium chemistries:


Attachment 193694


You can see from the curve the huge difference in behavior between LiFePo4 and other chemistries. The spikes in degreesC/min of the other lithium chemistries show thermal runaway -- an explosive increase in temperature. The LiFePo4 curve, on the other hand, never spikes at all, and starts at a much higher temperature, around 250C. At that point, LiFePo4 just kind of smolders. So there is slow combustion rather than thermal runaway.



This is a very safe battery technology, probably safer than lead in terms of thermal runaway risk.



The main safety issue I would worry about is shorting out the terminals, because of the very high discharge rate, far higher than lead. If you were to drop a wrench across the terminals I guess you would get an explosion. But this can be dealt with with appropriate fusing and appropriate connectors.


I didn’t realize the distinction between Co and Po and the safety implications that implies. So thanks for that! I feel a lot more comfortable now. I wonder why Boeing is using the much more unstable Co batteries when the difference in energy density between Co and Po is so slight?
jtsailjt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2019, 07:40   #44
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark (Winter), Helsinki (Summer); Cruising the Baltic Sea this year!
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 33,764
Re: Switch from AGM to Lith-ion

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtsailjt View Post
I didn’t realize the distinction between Co and Po and the safety implications that implies. So thanks for that! I feel a lot more comfortable now. I wonder why Boeing is using the much more unstable Co batteries when the difference in energy density between Co and Po is so slight?

There is a lot of discussion about that in the aviation engineering forums -- a lot of people asking the same question.


I have no idea what the answer is, but we have a professional from aviation on this forum (and maybe more than one), A64Pilot, maybe he will weigh in with some actual knowledge. Engineering is what Boeing DOES, so I can't imagine that it was some kind of really dumb mistake with something really obvious, but I don't have any actual knowledge.
__________________
"You sea! I resign myself to you also . . . . I guess what you mean,
I behold from the beach your crooked inviting fingers,
I believe you refuse to go back without feeling of me;
We must have a turn together . . . . I undress . . . . hurry me out of sight of the land,
Cushion me soft . . . . rock me in billowy drowse,
Dash me with amorous wet . . . . I can repay you."
Walt Whitman
Dockhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2019, 07:42   #45
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark (Winter), Helsinki (Summer); Cruising the Baltic Sea this year!
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 33,764
Re: Switch from AGM to Lith-ion

And here is how lead batteries can succumb to thermal runaway:


https://www.cpsiwa.com/wp-content/up...er-Final-1.pdf


The usual mechanism for this comes from shedding of lead from the plates, which occurs as lead acid batteries age. Eventually enough of this builds up at the bottom of the cells that one cell shorts out. When that happens, the voltage of the battery drops and the battery charge ramps up thinking charge is needed. But with one cell shorted out, what is a normal bulk charging voltage for a healthy battery is a +16.6% overcharge for the remaining cells in the battery with a shorted cell. So they quickly boil out and can catch on fire.


This actually happened to me once some years ago, and I was incredibly lucky to arrive back on the boat from overseas, just as the last of the electrolyte was boiling out.



LiFePo4 batteries don't suffer from this.
__________________
"You sea! I resign myself to you also . . . . I guess what you mean,
I behold from the beach your crooked inviting fingers,
I believe you refuse to go back without feeling of me;
We must have a turn together . . . . I undress . . . . hurry me out of sight of the land,
Cushion me soft . . . . rock me in billowy drowse,
Dash me with amorous wet . . . . I can repay you."
Walt Whitman
Dockhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
agm

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Smart Battery (lith) nnb4oc Electrical: Batteries, Generators & Solar 3 22-11-2017 09:59
2 AGM 31s to the battery switch -best way? LeeV Electrical: Batteries, Generators & Solar 5 29-04-2016 08:51
Lithium Ion Breakthrough - forgetful-scientists-accidentally-quadruple-lithium-ion-ba zboss Electrical: Batteries, Generators & Solar 8 22-08-2015 23:35
Switch from AGM to FLA batteries Utahsailor Electrical: Batteries, Generators & Solar 8 03-04-2015 08:03

Advertise Here


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:37.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.