Battery balancing:

On 29.7.21 8.40, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 4:59:21 AM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 11:09:52 AM UTC-7, Tauno Voipio wrote:
>>> On 28.7.21 20.27, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 10:09:55 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 1:43:52 AM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 7:52:20 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 12:32:14 AM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 7:24:55 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 12:07:32 AM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 4:18:03 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 1:26:05 AM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 8:18:18 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 12:48:23 AM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 10:59:52 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 3:02:45 PM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 9:59:31 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 2:36:44 PM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 9:22:03 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 1:23:41 PM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 6:29:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 11:55:52 PM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 6:54:41 AM UTC-7, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 6:47:28 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 11:14:31 PM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>>>>>>> Well, i didn't realize the reader is so dumb.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This particular reader isn't all that impressed by the writer's communication skills. At the moment you've had exactly one other reader, and he was responding to a rather more specific question "Is AWG 22 good enough for 10A@10%? " which still happens to be a pretty dumb question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can comfort yourself with the idea that we should have been able to understand what you were asking, but it won't get you anywhere where you want to end up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are just avoiding the issue. The point is that you are insulting rather than answering. You are a moron.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I've yet to see a question which could be answered.
>>>>
>>>> The question was IN THE FIRST POST:
>>>>
>>>> What wire size is appropriate for wiring up batteries subject to 360V to 450V connected with 1 to 10 ohms at 10% to 50% duty cycle?
> 
> <snip>
>>
>>> Ed: Wire size has to be determined by current, not voltage. Voltage determines the insulation requirements.
>>>
>>>
>>> If we interpret that you have a 360 to 450 volt supply feeding pulsed
>>> 1 to 10 ohm load at 10% to 50% duty cycle, the spec is too vague to
>>> answer. To be on the safe side, one had to answer for the wire size
>>> for 450 A current, and that is obviously what you do not want.
>>
>> The power source/drain and batteries are both limited between 360V and 400V. So, there is only a maximum of 40V differences. As the batteries are connected with 1 ohm x 4. The max. current is 40V/4ohm = 10A at 10% duty.
> 
> Where did the 10% duty cycle come from?  And what imposes the limits on the voltages? Your assertions look as half-baked as your original question, and it does seem that we need to try to get you to think harder about about you are trying to do. Our chances of getting you to do that can't be high.


My guess is that the OP is attempting to trickle charge an electric
car battery without a proper charger. It is a quite sure-fire way to
burn the car and garage.

-- 

-TV