Tesla is fast

Yes, but the battery has to be warmed up. Your definition of "not a lot" is not apparent.

Actually, it does. If the energy in a cold battery is measured as it is used. It will be less that was put into the battery when warm. By definition the battery has less energy when cold. This energy does not recover when warmed if the battery is empty, so it's not a matter of the energy simply not being available.

Which is a fact of no consequence. That is literally no different from saying if you discharge a battery, it will have the same energy content when you recharge it again. The energy used in driving while the battery warms up is a significant fraction of the total energy available and is used at a lower efficiency. Reality doesn't lie. This has been measured many times in BEVs.

The 'protection' for a four-volt cell is just an off switch (buckling mode of disk). For a few hundred volts of car battery, that's not good protection. It's also not resettable without disassembling the battery pack, and not temperature-range rated, and generally not good automobile engineering.

Hey Dude, that is EXACTLY what I have been talking about - can't you read?

But much of what YOU posted is not relevant. I've already pointed out that the 80% charge limit is bogus.

No, that is right out of Tesla's operating manual.

Heating your car prior to a trip is not part of the drain of the battery, because you can do that while connected to shore power without using the battery at all.

Not if you are in a parking lot, dude.

None.

No it won't because they use energy from the battery to warm itself.

The energy loss by the battery to warm itself doesn't. And this continues as you are driving.

Gibbs free energy ONLY applies to a closed system - an EV is not closed, it must exist in its surrounding environment which imposes additional heat transfers.

Some Tesla models have simple wire fuses at the cell level.

At the battery level there are additional protections including a pyrotechnic fuse to get fast response.

kw

That's not true at all. The energy content of a battery is the chemical energy of its constituents, and isn't a function of temperature. The effective output of the battery is lessened if its impedance goes up when cold, but that means little if the battery warms up in use (as an electric vehicle battery will).

Please quote it. Or, if you prefer, misquote it.

Yes, if you start a trip in the middle of nowhere, you might be f***ed. But virtually no one does that. If you drive where there are no chargers and leave your cable at home, you are also f***ed. What other "extreme" cases do you wish to address?

Other than the ones I've caught you in.

The biggest one is the BS about chargers being over 200 miles apart, which you seem to have gotten from a log of a trip where someone drove that far, skipping multiple chargers, before stopping to charge. Yeah, that's some serious range degradation.

Why can't you admit your errors?

I must be using the wrong references then. Here is one that shows the Ah of an 18650 Li-ion cell over temperature. The Ah rating has nothing to do with the internal resistance, but very much does impact the energy content.

... The internal resistance does affect the effective capacity because the discharge current causes the lower limit voltage (2.5V on those charts) to be reached while there is still energy within the cell.

If you could do the discharge at a low enough rate that the voltage drop across the internal resistance was insignificant then it would be seen that the capacity is not affected by temperature.

Li-Ion cells are notable in that they have an extremely high coulomb efficiency, somewhere in the region of 99%. Especially compared to lead-acid or NiMH that are more like 70%-80%.

kw

I change nothing, I use the original word. You disguise hell because it offends your antiquated religion.

The economic results of cheap labour are China. The world leader in everything.

What prevents you from having useful exchanges with many people is you're so vague. You never make your point directly, you just hand wave at it then claim people have ignored you.

Even when they aren't worth it? Let's make this simple for your little brain. A small country has 10 jobs available, and 10 people to do them. Job 1 requires great intelligence, and pays a lot. Job 2 requires strong muscles and pays a lot. They pay a lot so they're guaranteed the best 2 workers. The other 8 jobs are just little tasks like bin collection. They pay f*ck all because they know they'll get somebody to work for them because anyone can do it. If those 8 people want to be rich, they have to get as good as the 2 that are.

I have never said I want to work for lower wages, you're putting words into my mouth. I've said if I can't get a job that pays more, that means I'm not worthy of earning more.

If you have everyone in society earning a reasonable wage, there's no incentive for people to do well. That's why everyone who works for the government sector is s**te at their job. They can't get fired, they can't get into trouble, they can twiddle their thumbs.

No, they're electronic and resettable. They prevent you charging them or discharging them too fast.

But there's a hundred of those protectors then.

Yes, it sense temperature.

They ought to have protection in single cell batteries aswell -

You need to read what I wrote. I didn't say the internal resistance doesn't matter. I said, "The Ah rating has nothing to do with the internal resistance". Until you understand what I wrote, there's no point in discussing this further. Let me know when the light bulb comes on for you.

If you review the graphs, you will understand... possibly. The point is that Amp-hours are not affected by the resistance. The series resistance causes a drop in voltage, and so reduces the power output. It won't change the number of coulombs coming out of the battery.

Yes, that sounds like a good theory. Now explain the graph of Ah (coulombs * 3600) at different temperatures based on that notion. You do understand that Ah and coulombs measure the same thing, right?

Not that you can tell us which one, or how - precisely - you have misunderstood what you have read (because you always do and can never be made to realise it).

Canadian parking lots already have sockets for your car's radiator warmer. The cost of the power is covered by the parking fee.

None that he has enough sense to notice. Flyguy's conviction that he is infallible is one of the more obvious bits of evidence that he far gone in senile dementia.

Getting the same battery warm again isn't using its own stored energy to warm itself. You can do it that way, but that wasn't the situation I was talking about

Not really, since the process of pulling current out the battery warms it anyway, and keeping the car warm enough to keep the driver alive is a useful way of using the stored energy.

That is a totally moronic assertion. Gibbs free energy is all about the energy you can extract from a reacting system. With a closed system you wouldn't have anywhere to put it. I don't know which bit of your undergraduate thermodynamics class you either misunderstood when you first heard, or now remembering incorrectly, but you've clearly got something very wrong - as usual - and won't ever be able to realise it.

Okay, I'm confused. Mainly, why isn't 'amp-hours' a quantity of countable electrons, and NOT a temperature-dependent variable? Did they charge the battery at low temperature instead of 'normal' conditions, and stop charging according to a rule that didn't fully convert the chemical constituents unless the temperature was +20C? That's not variable battery capacity, that's stupid-charger algorithm failure.

The constant-temperature test procedure doesn't appear to fully charge and/or fully discharge the battery unless temperatures are high-ish.

Cheap labour helps, but you need educated labour to be a world leader in anything. China sends a lot of it kids overseas to get educated. Quite a few of them never go back, but enough of them do to let the Chinese generate useful innovations, and to recognise other people's useful innovations and exploit them on a large scale.

Chinese solar cells are now cheaper and better than anybody else's. They are cheaper because they invested a lot in setting up to manufacture them in ten times the volume that anybody else was doing, but they are better because they chose mass produce devices that exploited some clever work done at the University of New South Wales in S.ydney

That the sort of thing that people who are thick as brick tend to say.

The proposition that it pays society to create jobs that even the most inept can do, because that keeps the inept off the streets and keeps them under the eye of more competent coworkers, If you don't do that you have to pay competent people to do nothing except looking after the inept, which is more expensive.

The two that are good are good in different ways. There are rather more ways of being good than just being clever or just being strong.

You mean an adequate wage. It's reasonable to pay people doing more demanding work more than people who are doing less demanding work, and that does motivate people to improve themselves to point where they can do more.

Actually, they aren't. That's just Thatcherite propaganda, and was part of her regimes desire to privatise everything. which was more about selling off public assets cheap to friends of the regime. Putin takes it further, but it is the same idea.

They can get into trouble and get fired but it takes a real effort. Jonathan Aitken was bit further up the pecking order than regular civil servants, so it got into the newspapers.

It's like what people said about Saabs: Great car, between fires.

I've always been a bit confused by this as well. Talking about Gibbs free energy doesn't explain what is happening in a battery at the atomic level. You would expect that N electrons going in produces N electrons coming out, indeed.

The idea of getting different results by charging at different temperatures is hard to reconcile as well.

Even though I passed P-Chem, it has been too many years for me to be able to unravel this mystery. Bill should be able to explain the results, but he keeps repeating the same stuff about Gibbs free energy without providing any insight.

I wills say that it is entirely possible for stored energy to leave the battery as temperature drops, just as it would in a pressure based system. Maybe a question to Quora or another web site would provide some insight. I forget the name of the one that is all about answering questions with info provided by some very knowledgeable people. I'm drawing a blank at the moment, something exchange. (maybe I'm getting old?)