Jon "Sheer" Pullen wrote: > No, I was at 21 batteries (252V).
OK, so you went from 21->22 or 21->23? (just so I'm with the program here). > I also suspect that some of the change is due to a change in > my charging regimine - instead of charging the batteries to > 13.8 I'm charging them to 14.2, and the constant-voltage > phase instead of 15 minutes is now 30. That is per the advice of Elio. > > I *know* that some of the change is the result of pulling the > entire pack and balancing it with itself by paralleling it > and charging it. OK, well this sounds like more of a clue to the increased performance than the additional battery. > But I don't know.. I should do a better job of keeping track > of each individual change so that I can state with the > assurance of experiments that 'X factor resulted in Y > change'. But I don't. Yeah, well, in an ideal world... yada yada yada. If you were to get bored/curious/motivated, it would seem to be an easy experiment to restore the pack to its original voltage temporarily to determine how much of the change was due to the voltage and how much to the improved balance and charge algorithm. > I'm just reporting the data as I see it. And don't think it isn't appreciated! Cheers, Roger.
