This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

BQ4050: Gauging accuracy compared to say a BQ20Z655 using impedance track

Part Number: BQ4050
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: BQ20Z655-R1, , BQ40Z50-R2, BQ40Z50

Hi:- 

A question:  what are the benefits of the bq20Z655-R1 versus Bq4050 or vice versa

  • Please use the bq40z50-r2. It has all the latest IT enhancements and is more frequently developed. We have stopped developing the bq20zxxx series of gauges.
  • HI Thanks for this, so how about the BQ4050 versus teh BQ40Z50 is it just the type of gauging algorithm? Impedance track looks a lot more complicated because you have to know the battery chemistry to get optimum performance.. What woul dbe the typical accurace of the CEDV versus IT algorithms if they are set up properly?
  • Yes, IT is slightly more involved in setting up. However, it can deal with a wider range of situations. We do have a tool to determine the battery chem ID. CEDV best case accuracy is about 5% while IT is 1%.
  • Hi Thanks for this very useful-  If the application for the battery is as a backup 99% of the time, ie it is not being used most of the time-  would the lower cost CEDV solution be more than adequate in your recommendation?

  • We would still recommend the IT gauge. This is because if it's a backup, it's going to be a rarely discharged application. In this case, your OCV readings will not be continuously updated by CEDV until a discharge is seen. So it is likely that your RSOC can have greater error due to voltage drift caused by self discharge.