Engine Strain 200k city vs highway

I posted a chart from a respected source and that's mispresentation ? Learn how to separate facts from opinion.

Here's one of my opinions which I will state again ... the CR battery test is all marketing bull. CR did not publish any paper in any respected journal, did they ? Second, did CR pick one Prius at random or select one ?

 

I have no idea who DD is but I would agree its fun.

The DOE is doing interesting work at standardizing these tests.

 

I'm not buying your tricks and nobody else is. I think the term we're looking for is "lying by omission". Politicians do it a lot.

You know what you did. We all do.

 

RTFM the DOE and INL presented the report. INL did the end-of-life testing. The very same folks you quoted out of context when you posted the graph of battery capacity.

Remember that graph of battery capacity? The paragraph you conveniently forgot to post from the report, the paragraph that concluded there was no change in system performance or capacity?

RTFM

Yes, and what did that paragraph state?

"All six of the HEV batteries tested were capable of
absorbing the charge pulses without reaching the voltage
limit placed on them, including the charge pulse at 90%
SOC. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the
battery’s ability to absorb energy had not degraded as a
result of 160,000 miles of fleet testing."

The paragraph is on page 3 of the report you quoted out of context. Perhaps you should directly contact the scientists at INL and tell them they were wrong?

Really??

I am quoting the conclusions from both reports

Let's play a little game called "telling the truth"

You find any quote from INL scientists who claim as a result of the change in battery capacity at end-of-life, that either performance or fuel economy is affected

Please, take your time

And unlike YOU, I will provide the link to the original content to allow anybody who wishes to do so, to verify MY claims

Yes, you engage in pure spin and outright fabrication

Apparently good enough for the scientists at DOE and INL. Perhaps you should become a scientist like I am, engage in research, to refute the claims of INL

You posted one chart from the report found HERE

http://www.inl.gov/technicalpublications/Documents/3394941.pdf

Remember that report?

The report you did NOT provide a link to

The report you conveniently forgot to even mention

You then purposely MADE UP a conclusion completely different from the conclusion of the scientists at INL. Remember that paragraph above the chart?

"All six of the HEV batteries tested were capable of
absorbing the charge pulses without reaching the voltage
limit placed on them, including the charge pulse at 90%
SOC. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the
battery’s ability to absorb energy had not degraded as a
result of 160,000 miles of fleet testing."

Which is why I am a consulting engineer, engaged in research, earning a comfortable six figure salary, and YOU are not

You are entitled to your OPINION but keep one thing in mind:

Opinions are like sphincters, everybody has one and they always stink

There is a clear difference between a PERSONAL OPINION and a peer-reviewed scientific study.

Your opinion is the CR test was "marketing bull." Oh, compared to WHAT? CR readily points out the flaws in the Prius, since like any car the Prius has them.

Perhaps you should complain to CR about their "marketing bull."

I agree, it's fun to take an ignorant person, make a complete fool out of them, and they come running back for more. At least DD had the grace to finally stay away to avoid putting his foot in his mouth

It's very fun when somebody takes one little graph out of a synopsis, posts it without providing the original source link or credit, reaches a conclusion completely different from the authors and unsupported by any of the evidence, and then posts rhetoric along the lines of "spinmeisters"

I really hope you do keep posting. Highly entertaining

Yes, they are. Wish I had time to do more of that work. I prefer staying with the pure chemistry, there are exciting things being done with carbon nanotubes with energy storage

 

Yes, that's the one I posted. Do you have any objections to its validity ? I don't believe so.

No. I don't find any such conclusion. Can you find that for us ?

The chart I posted (I saved it in my home page here) is about (and I quote word for word)

End of Life (160K) Battery Capacity.

And what do you respond with ? Another paragraph which talks about "absorbing the charge pulses" from another section of the paper. The two tests are not the same.

One measures battery capacity , the other measures its ability to absorb charges.

You are making that claim of ""a very minor change in overall performance".

I stated "The battery capacity is severely reduced at the EOL testing."

One is opinion and the other fact.

That paper USW posted is from Toyota and has nothing to do with the DOE.

 

Go back in the thread, I asked Jayman to discuss this exact point. Unlike you, I have the sense to know what I do not know and to ask questions of people who are qualified to answer. I realize you are just hear to spread FUD, so I'll summarize for anybody else Jayman's response: Max charging rates will be affected by changes in capacity. Since the former were not found, significant capacity decreases are unlikely.

Lastly, the graphic you posted does not by itself demonstrate capacity loss because a baseline was not established, and the testing method for battery capacity of the manufacturer was not followed by the IDL group.

I really do not understand why you post scientific opinion tp, when it is crystal clear you have no science understanding.

 

Again, let's separate fact from opinion.

Fact ... the battery discharge test in the study is not a test of the "maximum discharge rate" meaning it's not a test of the maximum rate at which the battery can supply power. Thus the premise on which you base the above deduction is wrong.

It's a test of whether battery can absorb the charge pulses from one "driving" scenario.

No study is perfect so yes, there are issues with all of them.

I have only stated what the chart says ... literally. That's not opinion.

 

tp, time for you to read the article. You do not have to understand science to find the relevant text.

As for your 'benign' post, the text in the article talking about the graph, right next to the graph, says quite clearly that the capacity is reduced compared to battery manufacturer measurements and that INL measurements were according to Toyota recommended maximum SOC down to 1 volt average across the battery. This is how you report a finding you are incapable of understanding. The graph alone is out of context and becomes spin.

You stated that capacity decreases over time. The study says no such thing.

No requirement for 'perfect,' only a modicum of logic to know whether a stated conclusion is rational. Your out-of-context graph can mean it is possible that capacity is decreased, but it is not proof. The later discussion of discharge rates puts the hypothesis of significant capacity loss into doubt.

 

You are either remarkably uneducated, or simply incapable of reading what I thought was a very salient fact

Your battery graph, on page 3 of THIS report

http://www.inl.gov/technicalpublications/Documents/3394941.pdf

testing was performed under the SAE J1634 drive cycle with components at end-of-life 160,000 mile testing. The authors of the INL study reached this conclusion, which I will post again

"All six of the HEV batteries tested were capable of
absorbing the charge pulses without reaching the voltage
limit placed on them, including the charge pulse at 90%
SOC. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the
battery’s ability to absorb energy had not degraded as a
result of 160,000 miles of fleet testing"

In case you have ADHD and missed it, here is the important part

"Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the
battery’s ability to absorb energy had not degraded as a
result of 160,000 miles of fleet testing"

And if you are really slow, here it is again

"Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the
battery’s ability to absorb energy had not degraded as a
result of 160,000 miles of fleet testing"

At this point, rather than find humor in you, I find pity

Any attempt to spin the INL report for anything but what it really is, will simply be a waste of time on your part and only serve to not only discredit you, but make you look like a fool

Unless of course you have far more scientific background than the team at INL who prepared the study. In which case, please be prepared to carefully cite the study that refutes their claim

 

Jayman,

While I applaud your scientific and logical approach to the troll issue, I am afraid you will be met by the default "nee-ner nee-ner" reply he is famous for. Perhaps you should join the baby-sitting squad we have unofficially started to follow his lies around and clean up the ensuing idiocy.

 

Yes, please do. Starting with how to actually read a INL report, not take one graph and reach your own completely wrong conclusions

No, YOUR deduction is wrong. Next, you will claim that the INL report itself is wrong. Which you more or less claim ...

right here. It would be interesting if you directly contact INL, indeed DOE, to complain about the test regime they have developed. Of course, like any reasonable scientist - i actually do consider my self to be a reasonable scientist - they will ask for suggestions on how to develop a better standardized test

Yes, it is YOUR opinion. Which is clearly contradicted by the scientific analysis on page 3, directly above that chart you took out of context. The scientific analysis concluded

"All six of the HEV batteries tested were capable of
absorbing the charge pulses without reaching the voltage
limit placed on them, including the charge pulse at 90%
SOC. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the
battery’s ability to absorb energy had not degraded as a
result of 160,000 miles of fleet testing"

Unless you are prepared to cite a study, such as the one you incorrectly quoted out of context HERE

http://www.inl.gov/technicalpublicat...ts/3394941.pdf

that refutes the conclusion reached on page 3 of that report, above the graph you took out of context, you will simply not be able to stand on your opinion

Which is simply your unscientific opinion, a WAG (Wild Assed Guess) taken completely out of context and not in agreement with the scientific analysis of the authors of the report

 

This is why I dismissed him in post #143.

Taken from the movie Terminator, replaced terminator with troll.

There appears to be only one person in this thread who has tpfun's viewpoint. Nobody else needs to be convinced, and he can't be. This is why it's not worth the effort.

---

The whole argument to me is like somebody going up to a Picasso with a microscope, finding a single piece of red pigment and saying "Look, all Picasso did here was put a piece of red paint on the canvas. I'm not impressed." And everybody else "stand back and look it's much more than that" and then the guy being "But I didn't lie, did I? That's all Picasso did [here, and I'm deliberately not mentioning anything other than it in a deliberate effort to frustrate and deceive]."

 

Man, I thought some new cool information had been posted to resurrect this thread and it turned out to be more BS posted by this guy. I really hope something is done about this situation. It's a huge waste of everyone's time when they have to correct his BS so that other PC members and lurkers don't take what he posts as true and factual. IMO it's grounds for banishment..... *Looks around for Evan*

 

I share F8L's opinion. I'm quite fed up with correcting tp's FUD.
The moderators should ban him, or take upon themselves the task of refuting the FUD.