Nickel Iron Battery - NREL Test Results

Excuse me Bill..You need to get some facts straight

Mr Blake,

1. I am not John D'Angelo. Please do not address me as such in any future posts. If you need to address this person then you can do so at his place of business.

2. I have been around the nickel iron cell for years. As I mentioned I have a 37.5 , 12 V Ah set that is 70 years old. I plan to buy some of the new ones and do controlled testing on then I will report the results to this group.

3. I am here to present facts, not BS, form my own personal experience using industry testing standards.

4. "This is the Absolute Cornerstone of the Iron Edison Batteries Sales Strategy not only in the Ads
but in the emails and on the phone. People have sent me some email plus he laid all that BS on me."

I have no idea why Iron Edison can make such claims. Of course people can say anything. I feel sorry for the people why buy Iron Edison cells and become very disappointed down the road after they believe his 85% DOD daily discharge rate will be A Ok? Even the manufacturers literature tells you that DOD will get you a 2.7 year life. The facts are the facts Bill. Even Thomas Edison would not make such claims and said the discharge rate should be at a C/5 rate on a daily basis. Of course almost all home power system never do that daily rate DOD on a daily basis unless there system is not designed correctly. I plan to buy my test cells from BeUtilityFree because of their track record and their unbeatable warranty which only comes with experience that no other company has. Iron Edison warranty does not match his rhetoric, and people need to catch that but most will not know what hit them if they follow his advice.

One thing that is true is that you can change out the electrolyte and bring life back into your cells. But to get 100% battery capacity after doing a daily 85% DOD remains to be documented. Iron Edison does not even go by the manufacturers cycle graft. I wonder why not? I believe the manufacturer before I would believe anything Iron Edison said because his cells are manufactured by them.

"I'm afraid that some people may be getting hurt and beat $ real bad by all this and I wonder
why it hasn't slowed down."

Because he is spending $$ on full page advertising which gets peoples attention. I am afraid you are right Bill. Sad but true. Are you going to stop him? I doubt it. There is no turning back now. NiFe batteries for good or bad are not going away, in fact I predict they will only accelerate in sales volume. In fact who knows how many other companies will jump on the "band wagon". Stay tuned as the saying goes.

[Sundetective]

John D'Angelo - Owner of Beutilityfree, Nickel-Iron Batteries

John D'Angelo,

Thanks for chiming in on Ni-Fe Charging Efficiency. The huge question is at approximately
what DOD can a person take those Ni-Fe cells down to Every Day and expect such good results
at 7 years old.

When we get that answer I have a few thoughts and questions to see if it would be possible to
raise the Ni-Fe Efficiency. Right now all this advertising cuteness going on is Way more important.

I'm surprised that it took you 17 years (or whatever) to finally peel off a few dollars to do a few
elementary Ni-Fe Tests John.

As you are well aware your former employee Brandon Williams has rapidly built his new
Nickel Iron Battery Cells
business by advertising and telling anyone that will listen that it's good to run your

Ni-Fe Batteries down to 85% DOD (85% Dead). The Ni-Fe kind of Likes it!

Running the Ni-Fe Batteries into the ground like this shrinks the size of the battery bank needed
in the customers mind which is a huge part of their comparison with other battery technology.

This is the Absolute Cornerstone of the Iron Edison Batteries Sales Strategy not only in the Ads
but in the emails and on the phone. People have sent me some email plus he laid all that BS on me.

I'm afraid that some people may be getting hurt and beat $ real bad by all this and I wonder
why it hasn't slowed down.

What do you expect the Brandon Ni-Fe Batteries Efficiency to be like at 2.7 years old into the Brandon
sales pitch charging recommendations? When he may have to look that elderly couple in the eye?

What about at 7 to 10 years when he says you just change the electrolyte and run them into the
ground again! Then at 14 to 20 years? And so on.

It's Like Free Candy !! Why should anyone bother with your old sorry game when he can promise
me the world? This sounds particularly good for Anyone that may be barely making it - someday.
Doesn't it??

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<Ad Snip>

Understanding the 20 Year Lead Acid Warranty ........ by Brandon Williams at Iron Edison Batteries

Cycle Life from 20-Year Lead Acid Battery
1,200 cycles @ 80% DOD - 1,200/365 = 3.2 Years of Cycle Life
2,000 cycles @ 50% DOD - 2,000/365 = 5.4 Years of Cycle Life
4,000 cycles @ 20% DOD - 4000/365 = 10.9 Years of Cycle Life

50% use gets you only 5.4 years of Cycle Life. Even if you were to use only 20% of the Lead Acid
battery capacity, you will have to replace them in about 10 years - and you are stuck buying 5x more
lead than you really need. Realistically, customers can stretch a lead acid to 7 years, but then they
are very ready to get new batteries. With Lead Acid, don

Sunking.

Let ask the manufactures of L16 lead acid batteries to publish their battery efficiency numbers after 7 years. Now that would be very embracing.

I have an 70 year old 12V set of original nickel iron cell. The manual I have is Bulletin 850X and it states to charge the cell for 7 hours,. The cell model is a B-2-H. It states to charge it at 2.25 Ah for 7 hours. When I do that I get 100% full charged battery . When i use the formula 1.25 x rated capacity I still get a 100% fully charged battery. So as far as I am concerned my nickel iron battery is 75% efficient. Using Edison's original formula your battery is 60% efficient. The original formula is 1.4 amps back in at a C/5 rate for 7 hours. I often wonder why he had you add back more amps then necessary , but my guess is that by putting extra amps back in accounted for different battery temperatures and different battery environmnets.

Now what I need to do is buy a set of new nickel iron cells and do the same thing. I would bet that my results would be almost identical if not identical.

Now a lead acid battery new is about 90% efficient. What does that mean? It means if you have a 100 Ah battery bank you need to put 110 amp hours back to achieve a full battery. That means less charging time. That means less fuel when running a back up generator. But time does not stand still. After about 5 -7 years a typical lead acid battery that was 90% form day one now is maybe 20% efficient, that means that that same 100 Ah cell has to have 180 AH put back in. In fact at that point you have to ask yourself as many do, why am I doing this? I charge it up, and shortly after I put loads on it the battery dies.

Contrast that to nickel iron at 7 years old. It is still taking a charge (1,25 Ah for every amp hour removed) and you are not cursing the battery. Another factor that is not talked a lot about is the price increase of lead acid batteries.I have taken battery prices from 2010 and 2012 on HUP battery and they have risen 10% a year. When you are ready to replace that L16 battery bank be prepared for a price shock. A nickel iron battery basically isolates you from the continued upward spiral of ever increasing lead acid battery prices even though the price of lead for the last 10 years has been about $1.00 a pound.

When one considers ALL the characteristics of a nickel iron battery they far outweigh the small downside of perhaps a less efficient battery, that only remains in the first few years, until the lead acid battery efficiency drops below the nickel iron battery. Now you have a whole different ball game.

[Sunking]

• The test was designed solely to verify battery capacity, not to test for efficiency.

I can certainly understand why you would not want to publish the efficiency results, it would be embarrassing.

[Iron Bran]

TEST RESULTS: link to docs

Here is a link to my Dropbox folder containing all the data files.

LINK TO DATA HERE


Each Excel spreadsheet is approximatly 12mb, and I am unable to upload to this forum directly.

[Iron Bran]

After months of cycling and data-logging at a National Renewable Energy Lab, the Ni-Fe battery tests are finally complete. I am now releasing the complete data set for peer review.

I invite you to download the battery test data, and discuss what you find. I will be happy to answer any questions about the tests.


Here are some important details to consider:

• The test was designed solely to verify battery capacity, not to test for efficiency.
• 4 cells were tested: 200Ah, 300Ah, 600Ah, 700Ah Each cell has a nominal voltage of 1.2Vdc
• We tested cells at 3 discharge rates (C/20, C/10, C/5) because these mirror real-life conditions more than the 100 hour rates.
• We tested the cells at 3 different ambient temperatures (20C, 0C, -20C)
• In every test, the cells were all charged at the C/5 rate for up to 7 hours.
• Each test was repeated the times (three cycles) at each temperature and discharge rate
• During the -20C temp testing, the refrigerator coils froze due to the amount of off-gassed H20 inside the chamber, resulting in a temperature rise. This gave a new twist on this data set because the temperature was not held constant.

Iron Edison at NREL_.jpg Iron Edison at NREL_2.jpg NREL Thermal Chambers.jpg NREL Battery Cyclers.jpg NREL -- Technology Assistance.jpg