From @Rubikcube Monitor:
Batt 3* shows a Full capacity of 77Ah. Other 2 are 172Ah & 164Ah.
with Remaining at 59AH vs other 2 being 134Ah, 130Ah
are these ok or indicating a problem?
*Batt2 in Givenergy aka Batt3 in Rubik (perhaps Rubik might follow Primary, 1, 2 as Givenergy to avoid confusion?)
I only have one battery (a 9.5kWh) and mine shows 184Ah for both the Full and Design Capacity.
I would have thought these values would be factory set. I don't know, but I would guess one or the other is used to calculate the SOC, so an incorrect capacity could lead to incorrect SOC problems.
Question is were your batteries set wrong at the factory (and if so I doubt it's an isolated incident), or have the values been changed somehow after installation, and if so how?
As for numbering, best to check the serial number, and don't assume the same sequence.
Actually thinking maybe the Design value is factory set, and the Full value might be set as a result of the calibration process.
I took the names Full and Design from GivTCP and the same names are used in the API. There is an example in the API documentation that shows the values might be different but similar:
https://givenergy.cloud/docs/api/v1#communication-device-GETcommunication-device--communication_device_serialNum-
"batteries": [
{
"serial": "wl3175e468",
"firmware_version": "64755",
"capacity": {
"full": 180.75,
"design": 186
},
"cell_count": 16,
"has_usb": true
}
]
Rubikcube thanks for the input - and for the useful Monitor!
I will take it up with Givenergy. Its possible something is wrong in calibration as a calibration was started Thurs afternoon and 3 days later has not "completed" even though I saw it fully discharge and fully charge. Since then the batteries seem to be charging from solar and discharging dynamically as normal.
FYI the 3 batteries show up in the Monitor in the same order as Givenergy use... its just that they refer to them using numbering Primary, 1, 2 and your Monitor uses 1,2,3 - just mildly confusing but not really a problem.
Obviously not really an issue if I refer to them by their serial number and I will use that in comms with Givenergy.
Mine suffered the same after the last calibration for 3012 (beta 4073?). However it doesn't seem to have any impact on their actual capacity, I'm still putting in what's expected.
Paul did tell me they're not used in the various soc calculations and they should update themselves with time. That said my calibration was very nearly 2 months ago, and they are still the same. I'm not worried enough to do another calibration.
On 3007, they were both reading over the design capacity.
mpartington thanks for that. I have not noticed an issues but don't monitor closely the inputs/outputs.
Calibration was kicked off this week to help get SOC back into balance. Generally SOC has been better with the recent firmware update but still had up to 19% variance. With less usage now heating is off we don't fully discharge (rarely goes under 70% without forced discharge right now) and are filling every day from solar.
I suppose its possible the 2 issues are related.
I have raised the "capacity" with Givenergy Support and will let you know when I get feedback
mpartington On 3007, they were both reading over the design capacity
I recall Paul saying that the software team had reduced the upper end maximum voltage and he was telling them it was too low and suggested a value that would be acceptable. from that I surmised that the the capacity would be slightly less than before but still close to advertised.
From memory -
Design capacity is what it went out the factory doors with.
Full capacity is what it manages to shove in on a calibration run.
HOWEVER this is what used to happen on old firmware. I don't think its even used anymore given the new FW appears to favour voltage over all else rather than trying to count in & out.
I guess you could switch off the "good" packs and ask for a calibration on the "lazy" one to prove how much actually goes in it?