Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[mymagiccarpet]

Dust is also a concern, too. You often see heat detectors used in unconditioned spaces like garages and attics. My last house had 13 interconnected heat/smoke detectors - smokes in the basement (2), first floor (2), bedrooms and second floor hall (5), and heat detectors in the attic (1) and garage (3).

Thanks sorka, VT_EE, and tga. I was thinking to ensure it is smoke detector only, and not CO detector as that would surely be set off by ICE, but maybe smoke detector would too. Additionally, dust is a very good point, and where I live, we have enough for worldwide export.
Thanks for the info. I'll look for heat detector instead.

 

[JRP3]

You can start with the one I replied to:

"Don't buy into the nonsense that some people are trying to promote."

But your entire body of work is self-expository. You post NOTHING constructive to this problem that concerns the owners on this thread who are experiencing it.

You dislike certain theories attempting to explain the circumstance, but do not refute them. That would require you to disprove any of their underlying suppositions, but you do not. That would at least be useful as they could be reconsidered and revised to fit your new evidence, which could lead to progress. You instead label them nonsense.

The "nonsense" to which I was referring was the conspiracy theories that I'm somehow working against affected owners.

Neither do you propose any alternative theory to fit the available facts. You claim to seek the truth but do nothing to pursue it from Tesla who is suppressing it. You do nothing to motivate Tesla to remedy the problem they created but instead attack the victims while purporting to seek their satisfaction.

Your participation here appears to be completely contrary to your stated purposes.

I'm not attacking any victims, I'm simply questioning the certainty of one theory. I've acknowledge that the theory may explain it, I simply am not willing to close my brain off to other possibilities. You seem to be working overtime to take everything I say in the wrong way.

One problem with the dendrite theory is that a way to reverse dendrite growth is to increase charging current to allow internal heating of the cells between the range or 40-60 C. This heating has been shown to cause the tree like dendrite formation to collapse into flatter more stable plating. Tesla reducing charge current and running the cooling system more would seem to be the opposite of what would be done to reduce dendrite growth.

 

[IngTH]

Tne problem with the dendrite theory is that a way to reverse dendrite growth is to increase charging current to allow internal heating of the cells between the range or 40-60 C.

Heating the cells by high initial charging current using high internal resistance (below 30% SoC) was the way Tesla went before and was part of the problem in case the battery was really cold when arriving at supercharger location.

Now they preheat by the thermal management before reaching supercharging location. This is the way to go and in fact can reverse Li-plating up to a certain point (not generally).

Ideal temperature for supercharging is 45°C. 60°C would increase cathode degradation too much.

 

[JRP3]

Ideal temperature for supercharging is 45°C. 60°C would increase cathode degradation too much.

"To evaluate the temperature rise in the dendrites, we carried out detailed heat transfer simulations (Fig. 2A and supplementary text). We found that the predicted temperature rise (Fig. 2B) in the dendrites at current densities of ~15 mA cm−2 are on the order of 40 to 60°C. The electrolyte and membrane separator (18) used in our experiments did not degrade at these temperatures."
Self-heating–induced healing of lithium dendrites

 

[Droschke]

Heating the cells by high initial charging current using high internal resistance (below 30% SoC) was the way Tesla went before and was part of the problem in case the battery was really cold when arriving at supercharger location.

Now they preheat by the thermal management before reaching supercharging location. This is the way to go and in fact can reverse Li-plating up to a certain point (not generally).

Ideal temperature for supercharging is 45°C. 60°C would increase cathode degradation too much.

Thanks for the comment.

Question: Do Li-Plated cells heat up unsafely by charging (beyond 80% SoC as has been observed) and hence the reason behind running the coolant pumps for hours?

 

[IngTH]

The electrolyte and membrane separator (18) used in our experiments did not degrade at these temperatures.

Yes but NCA cathode may. You should always avoid high cell temperature when not needed (supercharging, insane/ludicrous mode) to maximize battery life.

 

[IngTH]

Do Li-Plated cells heat up unsafely by charging (beyond 80% SoC as has been observed) and hence the reason behind running the coolant pumps for hours?

Yes they may. If Tesla uses topping off for thermal reasons should be worth to observe?

 

[Guy V]

The "nonsense" to which I was referring was the conspiracy theories that I'm somehow working against affected owners.



I'm not attacking any victims, I'm simply questioning the certainty of one theory. I've acknowledge that the theory may explain it, I simply am not willing to close my brain off to other possibilities. You seem to be working overtime to take everything I say in the wrong way.

One problem with the dendrite theory is that a way to reverse dendrite growth is to increase charging current to allow internal heating of the cells between the range or 40-60 C. This heating has been shown to cause the tree like dendrite formation to collapse into flatter more stable plating. Tesla reducing charge current and running the cooling system more would seem to be the opposite of what would be done to reduce dendrite growth.

No, you labeled it "nonsense" with absolutely no factual refutation. That is of course because neither you, nor we get ANY facts from Tesla.

What are you doing to pursue those, to actually add some substance to your presence?

Your "work" here accomplishes nothing but diversion from a real problem that Tesla has shown zero effort to resolve and has provided zero factual explanation for.

Your constant effort here challenging the afflicted rather than Tesla who is TOTALLY responsible is an affront.

It is both unproductive and aggravating.

 

[Chaserr]

When confronted with his own opposition of the scientific method, he's admitted he accepted what I still call my hypothesis as an accepted theory, so he himself accepts the dendrite / lithium plating hypothesis even more than I do. I keep asking for his own hypothesis that suits the data, but he is unable to do so so I can only assume his promotion of my hypothesis to his theory means he has zero doubt. That has to be the case, the only other option would be that he doesn't know the meanings of the scientific words we are discussing (though, lack of scientific understanding would also explain why he had previously rejected evidence in favor of nothing)

 

[Droschke]

I guess it's easier to challenge the affected owners than than to challenge Tesla.

 

[JRP3]

No, you labeled it "nonsense" with absolutely no factual refutation.

I'm sorry but you don't get to tell me what I meant. Your interpretation of my post was simply wrong, period.

Your "work" here accomplishes nothing but diversion from a real problem that Tesla has shown zero effort to resolve and has provided zero factual explanation for.

I'm speculating just like everyone else. Just because you don't like my speculation and/or completely misinterpret my words doesn't mean my thoughts aren't valid.

Your constant effort here challenging the afflicted rather than Tesla who is TOTALLY responsible is an affront.

It is both unproductive and aggravating.

You should just put me on ignore because I'm not going to stop simply because it bothers you. This is a discussion board, not an affirmation group. Opposing ideas are allowed, even though I'm not actually opposing anything other than absolutism.

 

[JRP3]

When confronted with his own opposition of the scientific method, he's admitted he accepted what I still call my hypothesis as an accepted theory, so he himself accepts the dendrite / lithium plating hypothesis even more than I do. I keep asking for his own hypothesis that suits the data, but he is unable to do so so I can only assume his promotion of my hypothesis to his theory means he has zero doubt. That has to be the case, the only other option would be that he doesn't know the meanings of the scientific words we are discussing (though, lack of scientific understanding would also explain why he had previously rejected evidence in favor of nothing)

I have two posts outlining exactly why I think the dendrite theory may not be correct. Again, I don't know, but it's speculation based on some evidence.

 

[JRP3]

Yes but NCA cathode may. You should always avoid high cell temperature when not needed (supercharging, insane/ludicrous mode) to maximize battery life.

What structures in the cathode would be affected by those temperatures which the electrolyte can tolerate?

 

[JRP3]

I guess it's easier to challenge the affected owners than than to challenge Tesla.

I'm challenging the idea that one theory is the only possible answer. How can you not see the difference? I guess since Tesla isn't here to join the discussion I've become the surrogate for your rage.

 

[Chaserr]

How can you not see the difference?

The difference between a hypothesis and theory? I can't figure that out either, it's the basic language of the topic of hand. Denials without any knowledge of science is just more of this

Admiral Denial confirms he read this.

 

[IngTH]

What structures in the cathode would be affected by those temperatures which the electrolyte can tolerate?

The result is a higher discharge of Oxygen.

Please note that higher temperatures will degrade the electrolyte too, but in comparison to electrolyte degradation at the anode from Li-plating this is a secondary effect.

 

[Guy V]

I'm sorry but you don't get to tell me what I meant. Your interpretation of my post was simply wrong, period.



I'm speculating just like everyone else. Just because you don't like my speculation and/or completely misinterpret my words doesn't mean my thoughts aren't valid.



You should just put me on ignore because I'm not going to stop simply because it bothers you. This is a discussion board, not an affirmation group. Opposing ideas are allowed, even though I'm not actually opposing anything other than absolutism.

Unless you remove your posts we can all read exactly what you wrote.

Calling other peoples' theories nonsense is pretty hard to misinterpret.

Unless you can get some actual data from Tesla where we have all failed you have nothing to refute them.

The person you attack seems to actually be working on getting some concrete information from defective cells. Others have initiated legal action to force Tesla to divulge, and hopefully remedy the problem. What is your basis of opposition?

 

[Guy V]

The "nonsense" to which I was referring was the conspiracy theories that I'm somehow working against affected owners.



I'm not attacking any victims, I'm simply questioning the certainty of one theory. I've acknowledge that the theory may explain it, I simply am not willing to close my brain off to other possibilities. You seem to be working overtime to take everything I say in the wrong way.

One problem with the dendrite theory is that a way to reverse dendrite growth is to increase charging current to allow internal heating of the cells between the range or 40-60 C. This heating has been shown to cause the tree like dendrite formation to collapse into flatter more stable plating. Tesla reducing charge current and running the cooling system more would seem to be the opposite of what would be done to reduce dendrite growth.

So what useful point is that supposed to make?

Those experiments were not done on Tesla batteries or even ones with similar composition. One thing we do know is that Tesla was not aware of 2018 research when they started selling their Model S in 2012. Tesla is totally unforthcoming as to what has been happening in their (our) batteries since, and how their battery management system protected and/or damaged them.

All we do know is that some really bad stuff has happened to some of them and subsequently they dramatically and negatively changed how ours performed. That with no explanation and no reassurance that we can look forward to any kind of relief from them other than selling us $20k+ replacement batteries.

 

[Droschke]

I'm challenging the idea that one theory is the only possible answer. How can you not see the difference? I guess since Tesla isn't here to join the discussion I've become the surrogate for your rage.

Rage? May be you meant outraged.

Look, here is how I would sum up your participation in this thread (I've read all of your posts):

- Creating doubts as to the root cause of the issue
- Refusing to accept evidence once presented
- Punching holes in affected owners' theories/hypothesis without offering one credible of your own
- Never openly accept the existence of the issue at hand
- Asking the impacted owners to talk to their Service Centers as the proper remedy

The Tesla "surrogate" you have mentioned is your own creation.

 

[ucmndd]

Hey y’all. Moving from another hijacked discussion into an appropriate thread.

@Chaserr has adamantly stated that there is ample evidence, along with “a long thread with names of owners affected who have 75kwh batteries” affected by Batterygate.

Asking at the source - presumably in the actual long thread that Chaserr is referencing - can any of those owners with 75kwh batteries provide evidence of actual capping? My searching has turned up none.

Are there any documented cases of artificially capped vMax on 75kwh batteries? Any evidence of other outward-facing symptoms such as the coolant pump running for extended periods at high SoC along with reductions in supercharging speed? Anything at all? Because I’ve found precisely nothing.

Furthermore, the information collected in the wiki post on this thread would seem to exclude the 75 by inference, as it repeatedly states that the 90kwh batteries are not believed to be affected.

The 75kwh battery, by definition, is the 14 module version of the cells in the 16 module 90kwh pack - just as the 70kwh battery is the 14 module version of the cells in the 16 module 85kwh pack. The cells are the same in the 90/75 packs - why would one be affected and one not?

Evidence appreciated. Hell, I’ll even take anecdotal reports as a starting point.

Thanks all.

Just wanted to bump this post in case it got lost at the bottom of the last page, as I haven’t seen any replies. @Chaserr has been speaking with such factual authority on this subject, and in so many different threads, that I was led to believe the evidence is abundant and irrefutable.

So I’m sure you can imagine my surprise when I couldn’t find any.

At any rate, I’ll keep checking in here and there, so I appreciate the responses. I’m sure @Chaserr does too.