Michael Ross wrote: > It is like a bunch of people simply don't want to understand that things > are not uniform across the field, that there is old tech that is being > surpassed, and that some things are turning out very well. > > I would restate, " I think it is possible that people don't recognise that > some old and inferior cell designs do not represent what is possible, > demonstrable and manufacturable."
It seems you are ready to conveniently ignore the literature that you are happy to quote to others. There may or may not be something new about LiFePO4 chemistry that renders it immune to self-discharge, however, if there is, it is *not* the simple fact that lithium intercalation is involved, and this is something that you have been stating/purporting. Again, I refer you to your copy of Linden's Handbook of Batteries, which clearly states and quantifies self-discharge amounts for various lithium chemistries that *all* also rely upon lithium intercalation. If your claim is that something about LiFePO4 (in general, in theory, or some specific example?) that makes it immune to self-discharge, please make this clear in your posts, and accept that whatever this property is, it is not simply that LiFePO4 (like those other 'old and inferior [lithium] cell designs') relies upon lithium intercalation. Cheers, Roger. _______________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
