Jeremy Harris said:
Just to jump in here with an opinion from a potential future battery customer from a long way away.
This spate of "hard selling" on here, together with the quoting of some, at best dubious, "statistics", isn't doing LifeBatt much good in my view. It's rarely good for business to resort to such tactics, at least not in the society I live in.
Just my three ha'pence worth from a consumers perspective.
Jeremy
PS: Glad to hear that the LifeBatt cells have passed the 6000 cycle mark. I assume this is full-cycle testing, not the extremely unrealistic 10% charge/discharge depth quoted earlier.
Jeremy Harris wrote:
"Personally, I would be very, very, wary of buying from any company that felt the need to slag off competitors on a public forum. This applies to any product in my view; once an advertiser sinks to the depths of discrediting the competition, then all I can think of is that they have something to hide, or their product can't stand out on it's own merits."
Jeremy, To what do you refer to as "slagging off" competitors ? We have not mentioned any specific competitors. We have posted links to research and testing of some of our competitor's products which is
hardly unethical. I think you are being a bit naive in believing all is equal in any product offering or that people don't want to have the facts in hand before they make an important buying decision ? LiFeBATT has no need to bash the competition, but we are also not shy about exposing the value differences either.
Furthermore, I don't know who quoted a 10% charge/discharge depth - I certainly don't believe it was ME but for clarification here is the latest report I have from Sandia National Laboratories, in New Mexico, USA:
LifeBatt Testing Update:
After receiving your LiFeBatt cells in November of 2007, I began a limited test procedure to evaluate performance. The testing included the following:
1) Capacity measurements at 1C (10A) rate.
Results: Capacity was within specification
2) Ohmic resistance measurement
Results: Resistance was within specification
3) Float current tests
Results: 3.5 volts was selected as float voltage, float current was measured at 0.003A.
4) Ragone Plot from cell capacity measurements at 0.1C, 0.2C, 1C, 2C, 4C, 10C
Results: The Ragone plot looked good - power roll over was at about 1000 W/l, or 600 W/kg
5) Spectral Impedance
Results: The ESR was consistent with the ohmic measurements. The results will be compared with the end of life after cycle testing.
6) Over Charge Abuse Test at 1C rate to 12V
Results: Cell vented at 111C at 11V - Open-circuit at 120C - No fire - Max Temp was 160C
7) 1C Capacity at temperature -40C, -20C, 0C, 25C, 35C
Results: Capacity at -40C is very low (0.3 Ah), -30C (4.7 Ah), -20C (6.3 Ah), 0C (7.3 Ah), 25C (9.8 Ah), and 35C (10.4 Ah) Recharge for -20C and lower is very slow.
8) Cell Utility Cycle Test - This test is at 50% SOC and the cell is charged and discharged at the 4C (40A) rate for 1.5 min.
Results: The cell will cycle nearly 1000 cycles before reaching the end voltage of 3.65V, and then capacity is measured. At present, the cell is approaching 7,000 cycles. Capacity is slowly fading. Operating temperature is about 30C. We expect the cells to exceed 10,000 cycles when the final report is ready to be published.
Summary:
Test results look good
Sandia National Labs
Power Sources Development Dept. Thomas D. Hund
Best Regards,
Don Harmon