John Frum
Tell me your problems
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2019
- Messages
- 15,234
Another iterative idea on multiple BMSs
Over the last ~year I started exploring multiple batteries in parallel each with its own BMS.
Then I thought about having multiple BMSs on one battery to increase current capacity.
The penultimate iteration is...
One BMS for charge and the other for discharge.
In the simple case the charge source{s} current goes through one BMS and the load{s} go through the other.
The benefit is a trip on one BMS doesn't effect the other.
The drawback is more complexity and expense.
The latest iteration is...
Each BMS controls an SSR which remote controls its respective load{s} or source{s}.
The benefits are the same as above but with huge scalability.
The drawback is even more complexity and expense.
I've been wanting a BMS that doesn't use FETs or contactors and is scalable and inexpensive.
I suspect nobody will actually make one because its too scalable and makes it hard to stratify a product line.
Over the last ~year I started exploring multiple batteries in parallel each with its own BMS.
Then I thought about having multiple BMSs on one battery to increase current capacity.
The penultimate iteration is...
One BMS for charge and the other for discharge.
In the simple case the charge source{s} current goes through one BMS and the load{s} go through the other.
The benefit is a trip on one BMS doesn't effect the other.
The drawback is more complexity and expense.
The latest iteration is...
Each BMS controls an SSR which remote controls its respective load{s} or source{s}.
The benefits are the same as above but with huge scalability.
The drawback is even more complexity and expense.
I've been wanting a BMS that doesn't use FETs or contactors and is scalable and inexpensive.
I suspect nobody will actually make one because its too scalable and makes it hard to stratify a product line.
Last edited: