1. Members: Tim Blake, Travis McMillen, David Bankhead

2.  Jim Klein – NAVY sponsor/contact  Dr. Herb Hess – Faculty Advisor

3.  Why is this project important to the NAVY?  Goal of Bayview: Create quieter NAVY vehicles  Done by using batteries to run their vehicle  One ship uses hundreds of batteries  Example: LSV-2 Cutthroat  Batteries need to be replaced every 4 years  NAVY wants to improve battery performance

4.  NAVY  Compare pulse charging and CCCV (Constant Current Constant Voltage)  Determine if indicators exist that a battery can/can’t be rejuvenated  University of Idaho  Essentially – Design the Design project!  End Goal of the NAVY  Extend the life of their batteries  Find the most viable charging solution

5.  Two step charging system  Battery is initially charged with a constant current until the terminal voltage reaches a threshold (between 13.5 & 14.7 V)  Constant voltage is then applied until current tails off to a trickle limit  Indicates charge is finished  Advantages:  Easily understood  Widely implemented  Problems  Inefficient  Slow  Battery degrades with many cycles

6.  Applies relatively large currents at periodic intervals with defined pulse width  Advantages:  Avoids gassing the battery  Increases charge acceptance and efficiency  Can be used to provide a float charge  Provides significant reductions in charging time and an increase of cycle life.  Recovers the capacity of exhausted or cycled cells  Disadvantages  Results not proven (just claims)  We hope to prove the claims of pulse charging

7. Figure 1: Relative Charging Rates

8.  Batteries – Given  Rejuvenators – Given

9.  Preliminary setup  Developed test setup for discharging  Developed recharging method using CCCV or pulse charging  Find a way to measure impedance of the battery (To be done in the future)

10.  1 st discharge test (USED & Previously rejuvenated) Voltage (V) Current (A) 0 min11.811.7 15 min11.7111.7 30 min11.5111.9 45 min11.4311.9 60 min11.2211.8 75 min11.0911 90 min11 105 min10.8711.1 120 min10.5910.7 135 min9.849.9 140 min9.159.1 145 min7.857.9

11.  2 nd discharge test (UNUSED SPARE) Time (min) Voltage (V)Current (A) 011.4411.5 1511.3711.4 3011.2511.2 4511.1311.1 6010.9711.1 7510.8210.8 9010.610.7 10010.510.6

12.  1 st Rejuvenation test (UNUSED SPARE) VoltageTemperature 11.773.311:57 11.8373.612:15 PM 11.8773.812:30 PM 11.973.812:45 PM 11.92741:00 PM 11.9373.91:15 PM 11.9674.11:45 PM 11.9874.22:15 PM 12.0174.22:45 PM 12.0374.43:15 PM 12.0674.23:45 PM 12.0874.24:15 PM

13.  Need to measure  Starting voltage  Ending voltage after discharge  Will have a normal and a deep discharge  Voltage of Battery after sitting  Battery temperature  Current  Internal Resistance Voltage 2V~ 1.6 V > 1.4 V 12 V~ 10.5 V >= 9.0 V

14. Figure 2: Battery discharge setup (for 12 V and 2 V)

15.  Measure:  Starting voltage  Ending voltage  Immediately after & 24 hours later  Temperature during process  Current behavior  Internal Resistance Start VEnd V Max Temp. I (A) 2 VVary w/ battery ?Pulse or CCCV 12 VVary w/ battery 12.84 or > 113°FPulse or CCCV

16. Figure 3: Battery Charging setup (for 12 V) Figure 4: Battery Charging Setup (for 2 V)

17.  Decreases time it takes to charge  Increases battery life  Decreases internal resistance  Increases battery capacity

18. Figure 4: Diagram to measure internal resistance +VT-+VT-

19.  Data obtained from tests will allow us to observe behavior of batteries and how the rejuvenators interact with them.  Using this, we identify rejuvenator characteristics that lead to desired specs identifying a good rejuvenator.  Procedure would allow NAVY to continue their research to characterize pulse rejuvenator and would allow them to find the best rejuvenator for whatever task is at hand for them.

20.  Data would then be used to form a null hypothesis  Ex: Charger B is better than Charger A for Task X  Procedure would be based off of verification or falsification of the null hypothesis

21.  Detailed process or algorithm the NAVY can follow to charge/rejuvenate their batteries

22.  Procedure for testing battery rejuvenators  Software algorithm that will output characteristics of battery rejuvenator

23.  Would be able to identify rejuvenator compatibility with batteries  How to accomplish this:  Develop a specific test setup  People utilize a procedure determined by our analysis of batteries/rejuvenators  Procedure would result from statistical analysis of our data  Results in determination of compatibility of rejuvenator with batteries

24.  Pros  NAVY can continue research  Can determine best type of rejuvenator  Cons  Could be labor intensive  May not have enough chargers to get conclusive results  Not a “set it and forget it” procedure

25.  Would involve creating a program monitoring the interaction of rejuvenators and batteries  Also would automate rejuvenator testing process  Outputs data necessary to make decision with little manpower involved  Based on the procedure for testing the rejuvenators  Plan to accomplish this through LABVIEW

26.  Pros  Completely automated since run by microprocessor  Could be faster than other options in obtaining results  Cons  Compatibility issues  With certain kinds of batteries  May be more expensive  Could be time intensive

27.  Charging 2 V with 12 V battery rejuvenator  Possibly test both ways to see if it makes a difference  Will 3 rejuvenators of different types give concrete results?  Testing time  Inconclusive results  Have many resources at our disposal to help interpret

28. Budget Total # of PeopleRate Sub Total Lunch4$10.00$40.00 Dinner 4$20.00 $80.00 # of Miles (round trip)Rate Driving 2300.445$102.35 Total:$222.35 Total x 2:$444.70 Parts$500 Miscellaneous $55.30 Total:$555.30 Grand Total:$1,000.00

29. 2010 Testing Formulate data from testing into procedure May April Feb Jan DecNov March 7 Months Finalize project TIMELINE Verify procedure works Order/acquire Parts