I'm designing an off-grid solar power system and need some advice on wiring and integrating the battery bank to the system.
This picture depicts my current plans for wiring the bank. I'm using 16 12V batteries to form a 24V bank. 'In' represents the leads to the mppt charge controller, and 'out' represents the leads to the inverter. The system has the proper fuses, but they are not depicted.
Have I balanced the load properly across the batteries? Is there a better/more efficient way to wire them? Will the energy from the controller be applied effectively to the batteries with this wiring, or will it interfere with the inverter in a detrimental way? If I need to split them up, how do I go about that without skewing the balance of the batteries or creating short circuits?
>>54573957
Aw, man. I thought this was going to be a Lisp thread.
>>54573957
I don't think you understand how electricity works
what does the in and out mean?
>>54574063
Enlighten me
>>54574095
Second paragraph
A year in mspaint
>>54573957
'in' and 'out' are meaningless in your context, use + and -
Not if you're locked in to 24 volts
as good as it'll get, and no
I don't understand the question
don't kill yourself now
>>54574485
Except that the internal resistance of the batteries and the resistance of the wire causes the battery at the top of your diagram to be overworked, and the bottom battery to be underworked relative to the rest of the bank. That means you kill the entire bank years early.
>'in' and 'out' are meaningless in your context
>posts diagram with 'in' and 'out' in the same context
>>54574485
Also, positive and negative are indicated with different colors, not the standard red and black, but unless your color blind or the significance escapes you it should be immediately obvious.
>>54574601
Bullshit
>>54574601
it's a circuit diagram, not a blueprint, and easily 'fixed' anyway.
You can call me pedantic for insisting on clarity but you'll have only yourself to blame when you wire something in backwards.
>>54574719
Oh yeah, total bullshit
http://www.smartgauge.co.uk/batt_con.html
>There really is no excuse whatsoever (apart from, perhaps, incompetence or laziness) for using the first example given at the top of this page.
>>54574779
Never did I imply it was a blue print, and all the context and relative information has been presented.
If you don't understand what is being presented to you, then you are either under-qualified to answer the question or you have exceptionally poor reading comprehension. Judging by the diagram you presented, I'd say it's the former.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I've added 'in' and 'out' in the exact context I used them (as well as other contextual examples for the extremely slow learner), corrected your inverter, and demonstrated the increasing resistance inherent in your bank diagram.
If I wanted to ask for an elaborate way to dispose of money i'd head over to /k/
>>54573957
dont know much about batteries but id be inclined to short all the inner terminals to keep their charge more balanced
>>54575147
You are correct.
I'm playing off the ideas that two batteries wired in series act pretty much exactly like one battery resistance-wise (top of picture), and that when wiring two batteries in parallel you should remove or add charge from opposite corners (bottom)
I'm pretty sure I have my battery bank properly balanced, but I'm also pretty sure it can be improved on.
My biggest concern is whether or not the pulses from the charge controller will disrupt/interfere with the formation of the sine wave, or the charge controller misinterpreting the feed back it gets from the inverter and over/under-charging the bank. Ultimately, if I don't get a well reasoned answer I'll just build it and see if there's any measurable or deleterious effect.
In some diagrams I've seen the leads from the controller hooked to different parts of the battery bank, but my thinking is that will unbalance the bank and shorten the lifespan of the batteries. In other diagrams the bank is balanced and the charge controller essentially shares leads with the inverter. And in others like >>54574485 the battery bank is not balanced and the charge controller shares it's leads with the inverter.
It could be that many diagrams simplify the wiring on the battery bank for greater legibility rather than real-world accuracy, but that implies that the leads to and from the battery bank could be simplified for the same reason.
>>54575591
hey sir I'm very bored and would like to help and am wondering two things:
Why would 1 not work for your application, and if i had to follow the same rules, would 2 work? I'm checking my grasp on this.
>>54575874
If I have a solid understanding of how this works, the total resistance each battery experiences must be the same across the entire bank. In other words, for each battery count the wires and assume the same resistance per wire. Each battery should have the same number of wires between the ultimate positive and negative lead for all inlets and outlets of energy; inlet=energy source>charge controller>battery bank, outlet=battery bank>inverter.
1 is correctly balanced provided the wires linking the batteries in parallel have the same resistance, but that design requires that the leads be equally long (longer than I'd like), or have different gauges (potentially much more expensive and kind of a silly fix).
2 is very nearly properly wired, but two batteries weren't connected in series leaving there voltage at 12v instead of 24v. Fix that one thing and choose the right wire and you have a properly built, if messy, battery bank
>>54576125
*their
