[C320-list] New House Batteries

[Irving Grunes]

And you shud equalize charge once in a while to bring both up to full equal
as possible charge.
Irv Grunes
Formalle #851

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Jeff Hare <Catalina at thehares.com> wrote:

> Hi Warren,
>
> Sorry, not *quite* buying that explanation.  :) :)  I totally get the
> theory behind it. But the reality is that it doesn't matter IN THIS
> APPLICATION.
>
> Drawing from a parallel bank "diagonally"  (ie: 2 parallel batteries with
> Positive coming off of battery 1 and Negative coming off of battery 2)
> might have some utility for constant high current situations with
> undersized cables and a lot of individual batteries, but we are only
> paralleling 2 batteries with suitably large cables on really short runs, so
> this really isn't a factor.
>
> In a large Solar array with 10 or 20 batteries, this is a reasonable
> wiring choice because of the additive resistance effect of the connectors
> and the high currents driving inverters.  Think about a dozen batteries in
> parallel, lined up side by side (all + to + and - to -).  Here it totally
> makes sense in order to even out that resistance because connecting + and -
> to the first battery means you could have 10 feet of cable and dozens of
> connectors to pass through before you get to the last battery.  But even
> then you'll still have some batteries pulling more than their share just
> because of slight differences in battery chemistry.
>
> 2 Batteries in Parallel with properly sized wires and decent connections
> will draw from each battery proportionally to their capacity and internal
> resistance.  With the load drawing from the terminals of the first battery
> will not degrade the first battery more than the second over time. If one
> of your batteries died in 4 or 5 years it didn't die because of where you
> connected the load.
>
> My batteries will be 10 this spring.  They have been hard wired in
> parallel since they were installed.  The load point was entirely from the
> aft most battery plates (until last spring when I did some rewiring after
> the lightning strike).  This is anecdotal but if the theory we're
> discussing is true, I should have one weak or dead battery and one good
> one.  Just not the case.
>
> If you have crappy connections, you'll place a larger load on the battery
> with the best quality electrical connection regardless of where you tap
> into the bank.  It's just Ohms law.  That will lead to one battery playing
> the front person on a bicycle built for 2.
>
> For typical house loads, there should be a pretty insignificant difference
> in loading between the batteries because of connector resistance.  There
> are other chemistry factors that will probably combine to play a bigger
> role (always assuming you have decent connections).
>
> Even if both batteries were installed new at the same time from the same
> source, they will not be identical.  They'll charge slightly differently
> and have slightly different internal resistances and overall capacities and
> they'll contribute differently.
>
> My suggestion is keep your connections clean and don't sweat a few
> milliamps.  The Theory is one of precision but unless you consider *all*
> the factors, you're only fooling yourself.
>
> That said, you should always go with whatever logic makes you most
> comfortable.  :)  It's what sailors do!  :)
>
> Cheers!
> -Jeff Hare
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: C320-list [mailto:c320-list-bounces at lists.catalina320.com] On
> Behalf Of Warren Updike
> Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2016 4:10 PM
> To: C320-List at Catalina320.com
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] New House Batteries
>
> I can't find the source of the information; but, here is my understanding.
> Think of it like flows of water. In a parallel connection, if you have the
> load pos and neg on the same battery #1, then the flow of least resistance
> is in and out of the same battery #1. As the charge degrades on that
> battery, makeup current flows from the connections with the other battery
> #2, to balance the charge across both batteries. This is different than
> connecting the pos load to battery #1, and the neg load to battery #2,
> which causes the load to flow smoothly through all 12 cells.
>
> The difference between the two banks seems trivial; but, according to what
> I read, from a reliable source I can't remember, the first example results
> in a greater load on the cells in battery #1, causing that battery to
> degrade sooner. We certainly don't want that.
>
> I welcome any challenges or support for this theory.
>
> Warren and Pattie Updike
> 1994 C320 "Warr de Mar" #62
> Middle River, Chesapeake Bay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Thompson [mailto:surprise at thompson87.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 6:47 AM
> To: C320-List at Catalina320.com
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] New House Batteries
>
> Warren, the logic of that escapes me. If the batteries are connected in
> parallel then the positive terminals are tied together as are the negative
> terminals. Assuming the cables and connections are all good, it shouldn't
> matter which of the tied terminals also has the connection to loads or
> charge source.
>
> Scott Thompson
>
>
> On 11/30/2016 5:07 PM, Warren Updike wrote:
> > Jim, re fact that one batt goes first, here is a thought. If they are
> connected in parallel, the pos and neg cables should be attached to
> different batteries. This forces the load to pass through all 12 cells. If
> you have the original wiring with each battery separate, forget I said this.
> > Warren
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: jbrown5093 at yahoo.com [mailto:jbrown5093 at yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 8:35 AM
> > To: C320-List at Catalina320.com
> > Subject: Re: [C320-list] New House Batteries
> >
> > Just replaced my second set of flooded 4Ds after 6 years. Interestingly
> it was battery 2 after 6 years on both sets that went first. I was happy
> with the flooded cells but the local boat yard (getting to old to muscle
> this set out) said that flooded cells are no longer considered acceptable
> by ABYC standards if they are housed in the salon or berths without
> separate ventilation-probably because of potential problems like Greg's. if
> true that might be a consideration if you need a survey for insurance or
> sale purposes in the next few years.
> >
> > On their recommendation I went to AGM Lifeline batteries. I had the
> Charles charger that did not support AGMs. Called Charles and they will
> convert the charger to AGM compatable for $75.  Great people to work
> with-much like Garhauer.
> >
> > Jim Brown
> > Desafinado 973
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> >> On Nov 29, 2016, at 5:42 AM, Scott Westwood <
> scottwestwood at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>   John,
> >> Do you have any pics on where you mounted your solar equip?  That may
> be our next large purchase.
> >> Thanks,
> >> Scott Westwood scottwestwood at bellsouth.net H (919)-362-8538    C
> (919)-618-7185
> >>
> >>       From: John Morrison <sail-ability at sympatico.ca>
> >> To: "C320-List at Catalina320.com" <C320-List at Catalina320.com>
> >> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 8:45 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [C320-list] New House Batteries
> >>
> >> Conventional wisdom of this group has been recommending the deep cycle
> Interstate battery. I purchased 2 several years ago and they R performing
> well.  My boat has a 55amp alternator and rather than upgrade it I
> installed a 185W solar panel. I highly recommend this upgrade haven't
> plugged into shore pwr in 2 seasons.
> >> JohnM 1999#574
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >>> On Nov 28, 2016, at 8:32 PM, Dean Agee <dagee at iserv.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Our recently purchased 2002 - 320 came with 4 ½ year old batteries
> >>> which I discovered to be 4D PowerSource Industrial/Tractor Batteries.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> A recent overnight trip convinced me that they are heading towards
> >>> the end of their life.  Identical replacement batteries are $164
> >>> each.  The Marine equivalents run around $600-$700.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Does anyone have thoughts on battery replacement?  I don’t mind
> >>> spending the extra money – but would like to know what I’m getting for
> the money.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Also, in another post, the owner of an early series boat – in the
> >>> #160s – said that the Catalina supplied alternator was “undersized”.
> >>> Does anyone know if Catalina upgrade the alternator in later boats?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Dean Agee
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> AhSeaHola #912
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
>