cccerberus
New member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2019
- Messages
- 2
t-What-does-S-and-P-stand-for-What-is-Xs-Yp-or-XsYp-with-X-and-Y-being-numeric-digits
In the thread referenced above, certain naming conventions are laid out that (with all due respect) make not a lot of sense. I read through that thread, hoping to find some standardization of the naming but found it to be self contradictory, and only made things worse.
A resource i read elsewhere said that they always represent the X-Series value first because they are always connected in parallel first anyway (a la Tesla) which again makes no sense to me since i know of projects that went the other way entirely.
Now, I don't know if there is a higher order authority that decides these things, but i would propose that, given the potential complexity of battery pack configurations, that naming be done in a logical way. For instance, I know there is a group of people who are building 7 cell seriesboards, connected in parallel to whatever capacity they are looking for.
I would call this a 7S(whatever)P pack(or string or array).
Meanwhile Tesla in at least one of their vehiclesapparently does ~20 cells in parallel, connected in series to another ~20 cells in parallel and so on (lets say 10 times just for a number), inside a string of a 5 string pack for the vehicle.
I would call this 20P10S(5(?)) (unsure whether the strings are connected in parallel or in series or totally independent of each other)
To me this makes sense in that it is the most clearly descriptive way to describe the way it is designed.
Does this make sense to anyone else? or am I that guy?
specifically, this seems dead opposite of what it should be.
4S3P is 4 cells in series, each of those 4 cell series packs connected in parallel..
and 3P4S is 3 cells in parallel connected in series with 3 others to make 4 series clusters
right?
In the thread referenced above, certain naming conventions are laid out that (with all due respect) make not a lot of sense. I read through that thread, hoping to find some standardization of the naming but found it to be self contradictory, and only made things worse.
A resource i read elsewhere said that they always represent the X-Series value first because they are always connected in parallel first anyway (a la Tesla) which again makes no sense to me since i know of projects that went the other way entirely.
Now, I don't know if there is a higher order authority that decides these things, but i would propose that, given the potential complexity of battery pack configurations, that naming be done in a logical way. For instance, I know there is a group of people who are building 7 cell seriesboards, connected in parallel to whatever capacity they are looking for.
I would call this a 7S(whatever)P pack(or string or array).
Meanwhile Tesla in at least one of their vehiclesapparently does ~20 cells in parallel, connected in series to another ~20 cells in parallel and so on (lets say 10 times just for a number), inside a string of a 5 string pack for the vehicle.
I would call this 20P10S(5(?)) (unsure whether the strings are connected in parallel or in series or totally independent of each other)
To me this makes sense in that it is the most clearly descriptive way to describe the way it is designed.
Does this make sense to anyone else? or am I that guy?
specifically, this seems dead opposite of what it should be.
4S3P is 4 cells in series, each of those 4 cell series packs connected in parallel..
and 3P4S is 3 cells in parallel connected in series with 3 others to make 4 series clusters
right?