diy solar

diy solar

Is this the Biggest LiFePO4 Battery Bank you've seen?

HighTechLab

AKA Dexter - CTO of Current Connected, LLC
Joined
Sep 23, 2019
Messages
1,637
So, Not to sound super arrogant, but I have searched for a good minute and can't find anyone that tops this. My new battery bank is up and running, featuring 64 CALB Ca180 cells. This thing performs AMAZING and is being utilized in a fully off-grid application. Have you personally heard of a bigger battery bank using LiFePO4 and what do you think of the sheer amount of power stored in such a small area?

Photos:
20200808_142123.jpg20200808_192553.jpg20200808_222356.jpg20200810_133107.jpg
 
Sorry, but I have you all beat. As outlined in this thread, I made a tactical power cube:


And then made the power wall to end all power walls! Muhahahahahaha!!!

powerwall.png
 
Hi all, was a few days off line. Still balancing...once i start mounting, i will post pictures
 
We are running about 65kWh mobile off grid. But my cells are much smaller than yours, so your battery might still be "bigger". :) I am aware of two other mobile installs that are in the 40-50kWh range.
 
So, Not to sound super arrogant, but I have searched for a good minute and can't find anyone that tops this. My new battery bank is up and running, featuring 64 CALB Ca180 cells. This thing performs AMAZING and is being utilized in a fully off-grid application. Have you personally heard of a bigger battery bank using LiFePO4 and what do you think of the sheer amount of power stored in such a small area?

Photos:
View attachment 19547View attachment 19548View attachment 19549View attachment 19550

Very nice build but I’m surprised to see you elected to ‘snake’ the central bus bars rather than go with a ‘comb’ design (straight central run up one set off cells with parallel fingers jumping over to the cells in the adjoining column).

The ‘snaked’ design has twice the length and twice the end-to-end resistance of the ‘comb’ design.

Perhaps the difference in resistance is immaterial, but was there some advantage to the snaked design that led you to prefer it?

Only two busbars stacked max compared to a max of 3 stacked with the ‘comb’ design?
 
I recognized that background before reading your username. Been following your youtube channel for quite some time. Nice setup you have there
 
Very nice build but I’m surprised to see you elected to ‘snake’ the central bus bars rather than go with a ‘comb’ design (straight central run up one set off cells with parallel fingers jumping over to the cells in the adjoining column).

The ‘snaked’ design has twice the length and twice the end-to-end resistance of the ‘comb’ design.

Perhaps the difference in resistance is immaterial, but was there some advantage to the snaked design that led you to prefer it?

Only two busbars stacked max compared to a max of 3 stacked with the ‘comb’ design?

What's the comb design? I can't picture it.
 
What's the comb design? I can't picture it.

Oh, he has a pair of straight-as-an-arrow busbars on the rightmost-terminals, 3 segments each.

Then the next row over uses a ‘snake’ design where a total of 7 busbars are snaked between two columns of cells (twice, each for 1/2 of the rows).

Instead of that, he could have again used 3 busbars to ‘straight as an arrow’ tie the first column of terminals together with 4x1 busbars used to jump between column 1 and column 2 terminals (forming a ‘comb’).

I’s still 7 busbars total but the worst-case resistance to the farthest cell is only 25% worse (5 busbars in series versus 4 busbars in series) instead of 75% worse (7 busbars in series versus 4 busbars in series).

If the maximum number of busbars that can be stacked on a single terminal is limited to 2, the snaked design is the only option. But if a stack of three busbars on a single terminal is easy, the comb design provides less variation in cell-to-cell resistance...
 
Back
Top