Yes I appoligize for that, I was thinking 148v which would indicate the batteries still retained a charge. Further reading indicates that after 15 to 20 minutes the batteries came back up to 144.8V.
You know something occured to me. For this kind of test a DC-DC would have been sufficient to power the 12V load so why the 13th battery? Perhaps they do have a DC-DC running the other direction (12V->144V) to make it appear that the batteries where charging...only they drained them down so far that it didn't work very well. At any rate the fact that the batteries measured 139V a few minutes after the load was removed clearly indicates that they drained these batteries far below the point that is normally considered empty. Jon \"Sheer\" Pullen wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 3:22 PM >Subject: Re: amazing! Tilley Electric Vehicle TEV) tests > > >>Typical BS and lies. Their reports don't match independant reports. >> >>They claim 144.8V at the end of testing while others report 139V. >> 144.8V would indicate that the batteries still retain most of their >>charge. 139V indicate that the batteries were seriously OVER >>discharged, Note this is 139V WITH NO LOAD and presumably taken at least >>a minute or two after the load was removed, I'd bet they reversed a >>couple cells. >> > >I think you're reading too much into 5V difference. Either way, 144 is well >below charge hysteresis for lead acid batteries, so the batteries weren't >'being charged'. In any case, 144V on a 144V nominal pack is 12V a battery, >which unladen means those batteries were basically bone dry, every watt-hour >possible had been wrung. > > >
