I tried ordering the MyStat off of PCBWay assembled and it seems like the components cost almost 1k$. Is this normal? Could I leave out a component and have the component cost come down to a normal price range? Did you always solder the components on yourselves?

During the past couple of years we have been working on the design of a small flow battery kit for the study of flow batteries (you can read a previous post about it here). With the help of an NLNet grant, we have fully developed the first two versions of our small scale kit – with the second one achieving even longer scale tests – and are now working on the development of a larger surface area kit that can be used to study flow batteries or build flow battery applications at a relevant scale for practical power storage.

This new large area setup – which we have discussed in our forum – is now moving out of the design stage thanks to the acquisition of new systems for both 3D printing (Prusa Core One) and vinyl cutting (Cricut Maker4) that are allowing us to move to their in-house fabrication and testing. The new cell is designed to be compatible with the area of 3D printing beds and features an active area of 13.5×13.5cm, which is 182.5cm2. In practice this means a single cell will be able to handle a capacity of nearly 22Wh when using the Zn-I chemistry used in our small scale design.

We borrow some of the features that worked great for our small scale kit – like using a polypropylene enclosed flow frame – and add features that are needed for a scalable design (like all entry/exit points on the same side, stacking compatible design, etc).

The fabrication of these pieces is especially challenging due to their size and the complexity of the flow fields in them. The flow fields have to follow complex paths to prevent the creation of large shunt currents within the device. A really good 3D printer with a heated enclosure is required to be able to print this in polypropylene with no warping and good enough resolution. Even with such a printer, a lot of fine tuning is still required to achieve the low level of surface roughness and high level of water tightness that is needed for this particular application.

While we are thinking about the potential of using heat welding or even adhesives to be able to put the cell together, the easiest first approach will be to use the same silicon gaskets as we used for the fabrication of our initial cells. To cut our gaskets in house we are using a Cricut Maker4 vynil cutter, which is able to make this high precision cuts without any problems.

With these materials now fabricated, we are now close to putting together our first tests of a larger scale flow battery cell. The idea of these initial tests will be to test the cell for leaks and make sure we can circulate water without problems before we try to run any active materials. We will be using thick wood as endplates for this initial test, as this is the easiest to source, hard material, that can be used. Thanks to our use of fully enclosed gaskets, the end plates will also have zero contact with any water or active materials.

This flow battery kit work is being funded by the Financed by Nlnet’s NGI0 Entrust Fund. We are also collaborating with the FAIR Battery project.

After I look around, I can't find much data of performance.

I take a look also in principes and now I know. I was wrong. I ever tought it is pumped from one side to other, but istn't.
So my diagram in the other thread is nonsense...

But, I think about the efficiency to totally mix it in one unstructured container on each side. My thinking here, it will press down the efficiency?

Is there anywhere a diagram of load and unload process?
Yes, you can optimize the cell but would think, also the storage management could be a factor to make the system more efficient.
So the unleaded flowing back could be a bad thing...?
A test with a really long pipe instead of big tubes/container could be a good idea for a better sorting of loaded an unloaded salt solution. So that not the fresh used stuff flows directly back and possibly damages the efficiency ot the cells work.
Eventually a leaded flow could do the trick?

If it is so, later could be used a cheap leveled grid into a tube the leading element for a flow in row.

So on load would be the goal to use the most unloaded stuff at first and on unload using the most loaded stuff at first.
But I'm not a physics expert for electrical poteincial, I only try to go a simple way of my normal logic.

Here is a link to his presentation, thank you to Sanli for his support of our project! Useful if you are new to FBRC and trying to get a quick overview of what we are attempting to do.

Here are the PeerTube and YouTube links.

Building a rechargeable battery is not an easy task. Although many great technologies are available (like LiFePO4 or even lead acid batteries), building these batteries isn’t trivial because of the technological hurdles, manufacturing requirements, chemical substances, knowledge and safety requirements. It would be ideal if we had access to an open source rechargeable battery technology that was easy to construct in practice with readily available materials, robust and at low cost.

In a previous post I talked about Cu/Mn batteries and how several different papers describe batteries using Cu sulfate and Mn sulfate along with sulfuric acid to create robust batteries with significant capacities, even above 40Ah/L. Such batteries would be close to ideal as they are easy to build, use earth abundant materials and – in theory – are very robust. However, my efforts to reproduce these batteries were plagued with failure as I was unable to reproduce both their reversibility and their capacities.

Furthermore, this Cu/Mn technology using sulfuric acid has been patented by a French company (years before the Chinese articles started sharing the chemistry in 2017). This means that this chemistry is not open source and significant battles could arise from the use of this technology at a wide scale. This also explains why the patent applications mentioned by some of the Chinese researchers in their papers cannot be found (probably the patents were denied because of the preceding French patent).

To tackle my problems reproducing this chemistry, the hurdles with intellectual property and some issues dealing with the solubility limit of copper/manganese sulfate mixes, I have modified this technology to use methansulfonic acid (CH₃SO₃H) instead of sulfuric acid. Methanesulfonic acid is easier to get than sulfuric acid – because it has no regulatory restrictions – and the solubility of both copper and manganese mesylates is higher than that of their sulfates, meaning that even higher capacities than with sulfuric acid should be possible.

The above experimental results show cycling of the cell shown in the first picture. This chemistry achieves a CE above 90% with an EE above 65%, the cycling is also very stable with very reversible MnO₂ formation in the highly acidic media. The electrolyte tested is roughly 0.8m Cu, 0.8m Mn and 1m CH₃SO₃H. I haven’t tried changing the acid concentration or preparing more highly concentrated electrolytes yet, as I am still fine tuning the cell fabrication process to enhance reproducibility. The cells right now can be charged to 20Ah/L, which is already an interesting level of capacity, although 40Ah/L should be possible.

A very important issue I’ve noticed is that dendrites tend to appear around the edges of my Cu anodes due to electric field instabilities, as the Cu prefers to grow in the free solution rather than through the polypropylene separator. This can cause the battery to short when charging to very high capacities). Cells without separators – with just the electrodes hanging parallel as in the case of some of the Chinese papers – could help alleviate the issue. I am also trying passivating the edges using nail polish, to see if this fully solves the issue.

While the Cu/Mn battery chemistry using H₂SO₄ is clearly patented, the innovation using CH₃SO₃H is not protected, neither covered by the scope of the current patent. The publication of this blog post should ensure that this technology will remain patent-free.

Hello, I am in the process of putting the benchtop flow battery together. It is a bit difficult to get the exact materials.
My knowledge of plastic and its chemistry is somewhat limited.

I'm interested in why the specific plastics were used and which ones could be used as substitutes.
What criteria need to be considered?
What has already been tested?
What else could be tested?

Thread to keep track of our zinc-iron develepment. This is quite preliminary, based roughly off of Savinell's work.

Zinc is preferentially plated on the negative side, even though the potential for doing so is more negative than iron, which is present in solution.

SOC ranges tested have been quite minimal however.

Some of @danielfp@chemisting.com's initial testing is here:

From Daniel:

This is 2M FeCl2, 3M ZnCl2, 2M Glycine. At 20mA/cm2. Felt on both sides, daramic membrane. The pH of this is 3.2, but the CE is quite high so H2 generation must be quite low.

Running to higher capacities you get dendrites quite quickly. I am trying 2M FeCl2, 3M ZnCl2, 2M Glycine with 1M NH4Cl with the nonconductive felt on the anode.

I'm also going to change to the fancy pumps with PTFE tubing after this run.

Hi everyone!

I'm currently working for professor Sanli Faez in making a website, where people are guided through the construction of the rfb dev kit, as a multi-day project. The idea is to give people a general idea of how batteries work, the project goals and redirecting them to the fbrc build instruction for the actual build. The first version of the site has just been uploaded. However, I haven't done anything like this before, so I was wondering if some of you would like to take a look at it and send me some feedback. All feedback is welcome!

The site link is given below:

https://fair-battery-project.netlify.app/

Thank you in advanced!

With kind regards,

Otmar van Benthem.

It's viewable here: https://spectra.video/w/7mvdM8vGGNeHCPhRReUn3D

Hi,

I'm Otmar, a first year Experimental Physics master student based in Utrecht.
I'll be helping professor Faez in making a website with instructions so people can do a FAIR-battery day project. I'm very excited to join the project!

With kind regard,

Otmar van Benthem.

I bought two of these to use for the large-format cell and stack. I'm in the process of setting them up to pump water in a loop, just to make sure they work, and to see if I can control their speed with an AC dimmer.

I have two dimmers that are basically this:

https://robotdyn.com/ac-light-dimmer-module-1-channel-3-3v-5v-logic-ac-50-60hz-220v-110v.html

I have an Arduino UNO handy, from the development kit. Seems I could use this library or similar one (https://github.com/fabianoriccardi/dimmable-light/tree/main) to control them. For example with this code:https://github.com/fabianoriccardi/dimmable-light/blob/main/examples/2_dimmable_lights/2_dimmable_lights.ino

I would use one zero crossing detection on the UNO interrupt pin and then control the two dimmers/motors with two output pins going to the dimmer modules.

Does this seem like a reasonable approach? This is not my field of expertise. Tagging @H4K1

Our goal at the Flow Battery Research Collective (FBRC) during the past year has been to develop and manufacture a flow battery kit that can be used to study flow batteries at a small scale in a low cost yet reproducible manner. Today I want to discuss all the problems we have found when attempting long term cycling in both versions of our kit and how we have addressed them so far.

Our first kit design – which you can see above – was able to do long term cycling of an electrolyte composed of Zinc Chloride (1m) and Potassium Iodide (2m) in a potassium acetate/acetic acid buffer (pH=5.2). We were able to obtain capacities higher than 10Ah/L (on total volume of electrolyte — note previous values on this blog were based on catholyte only) without much capacity fade at the 25 cycle range. I didn’t try longer term cycling because of issues with pumps getting damaged by the tubing I was using leaking iodide (see how orange the right pump above looks, that’s not supposed to happen). At this point we were also testing several types of tubing, reason why you can see different colors of tubing in the setup.

However, this design had two big issues. The first is that the polypropylene bodies were getting over compressed at the top and under compressed at the center, so after a single long term cycling event (cell cycling for 5 days), the cell would never seal well again after being opened due to warping of the body. This made this design completely unfeasible and forced us to accelerate the development of v2.

The second cell design – showed in the second image above – has a square design with even compression and complete isolation of the cell body from the electrolyte by using a sealed polypropylene flow frame (you can read more about it in the FBRC website). However, despite using the exact same electrolyte and membrane, this design has been showing some increasing decay of the electrolyte as a function of time. The cycled capacity is a bit lower and after 28 cycles the testing had to be stopped due to obvious deterioration of the charging potential.

Flow batteries using microporous membranes can suffer from significant issues related to hydraulic pressure differences between anolyte and catholyte. As the battery is cycled, there is net water transfer between both sides and this can lead to the accumulation of polyiodide species in a Zn-I flow battery. This deteriorates the charging potential and reduces the SOC of the battery. You can ready more about this decay mechanism in this paper. When my testing was done, there was indeed an almost 50% less fluid in the anolyte vs the catholyte side, interestingly the completely opposite effect when compared to the paper. Changing the supporting electrolyte concentration or Zn salt used – to make the water changes less extreme – or adjusting electrolyte flow rates, can help eliminate these volume balance issues.

There are however other problems with the current tests. The first is that the chemistry is not stable to oxygen – both due to iodide and zinc reactivity – so working under atmospheric conditions without any inert gas purging of the electrolyte has likely made my tests more unstable, due to Zinc passivation and pH instabilities caused by the reactions of iodide with oxygen. Since the new flow frames are 3d printed – therefore not 100% free of pores – they might be letting more oxygen in, which might also be why the system is more unstable than v1 in this regard. Getting flow frames manufactured through polypropylene sintering or injection molding could get rid of this issue.

Another issue – shown below – is the use of graphite foil (grafoil) as our electrode material. Although grafoil does the job fine, it does seem to be porous to iodine, which crosses it and reacts with the underlying copper, increasing series resistance and creating a protuberance on the copper plate (which is readily visible in the image after long term cycling). I scratched the grafoil to then reveal a white powder, which is copper iodide, leading to a further loss of capacity. This problem could be solved by using a proper bipolar plate material or by sealing the grafoil in some manner. Thicker grafoil could also be enough to ameliorate the problem.

I also want to note that we have achieved much higher capacities – see above – although not in long term cycling, as these higher capacities generate much more concentrated electrolytes that have significant problems (such as the precipitation of insoluble solid elemental iodine and the corrosion of the pumps and copper current collectors).

As you can see, getting long term cycling results is not easy. There are many hurdles to overcome to be able to provide a kit that is able to cycle a chemistry like Zn-I long term, without any problems, in a reproducible manner. All these hurdles can be overcome though – as there are plenty of examples of people cycling these batteries long term – so it is a matter of arriving at a proper combination of materials and chemistry. Our work continues! Thanks a lot for all your support.

This flow battery kit work is being funded by the Financed by Nlnet’s NGI0 Entrust Fund. We are also collaborating with the FAIR Battery project.

Micro-update

Here are some pics of what we're up to in the hackerspace! Currently rebuilding the kit and setting up a test system for these centrifugal pumps, which are magnetically driven and all-polypropylene (no rotating seal). Currently setting up the power electronics to try to do speed/flowrate control/ramping.

Okay, so we would have 3 main things to do in our CI:

1. Generate STEP files from FreeCAD
2. Generate PDF files from KiCad
3. Unittest (in the future) and generate binary/hex file

As from my point of view all of three sections should be separated in different repos and combined using git submodules, though there are few problems I see, mostly in CAD:

1. CI/CD must know from which input files generate output files - as for now they are kind of mixed in main CAD folder, so my proposition is to create separate folder for:
   1.1 3D_printed parts, as these need to be converted from *.FCStd into *.step
   1.2. 2D drawings parts, like Current Collector Drawing or Gasket Drawings which needs to be translated from *.FCStd into *.pdf
   1.3. Renders which would require rendering whole assemblies - those could be placed in Assembly folder

We would end up with structure of:

.
├── 2D_drawings
├── 3D_print
└── Assembly

2. Electronics is pretty simple, as there will be only KiCAD project, maybe the some kind of electronical/electrical calculations, though I think we are far from it now

3. Similar with Firmware, there would be simply two folders: src and tests, but that is also a next step

I would love to hear other opinions, my idea is to create CI/CD as simple as possible, due to fact that I understand that many ppl who would like to contribute with CAD files might be not familiar with any CI/CD, and for that I came up with that folder idea

New member here.

I'm a Scottish engineer based in London.

I'm a member of London Hackspace, and a few of us have been talking about working together assembling a dev-kit. With the tools that we have available, we would be able to work on designs with a larger form-factor...

I came across this project via Mastodon, and just finished watching the FOSDEM 2025 talk.

One of the problems you mentioned during the talk, was the materials used in the components, being reactive with the liquids.

When you mentioned the pump failure due to this, i recalled this instructable for a 3d-printed water pump:

https://www.instructables.com/3D-Printed-Powerful-Water-Pump-That-Is-Portable/

Whether this design of pump has the optimum flows for the battery system is a separate question, but as it's manufacturable from a standard electric motor, and printable components.

As they are printable, they can be made using your choice of printable materials, so that would avoid some of the problems you have already found.

Looking forward to trying these out.

Importing a previous discussion from our old forum:

kirk 1 September 23, 2024, 2:05pm

For example, for residential storage applications:
• 1 kW / 10 kWh
• 70% system roundtrip efficiency including balance-of-plant
• Chemical safety risk no greater than an equivalently-sized lead-acid battery bank
Determining this ahead of time will help us chart an efficient path to get there, and
hearing from real-world potential users will inform our R&D plans!
What applications would you use a flow battery for, and what performance metrics
would you desire?

Sanli 2 September 25, 2024, 6:56am

I think 70% is a good target, but for the mid-term. The existing commercial RFBs also
don’t provide 70% and the low hanging improvements are in the system level (tanks,
pumps, etc) before dealing with stack and electrolyte.
As for the safety, it would be good to look at the existing standards for volume of acid
beyond with a separate compartment is needed, I think it is about 250 litres, but I
might be mistaken.

kirk 3 September 25, 2024, 7:28am

Good point about the secondary containment requirements for the liquid. This
regulation probably differs around the world but would be good to look into. There
are double-walled plastic tanks that count as secondary containment, but these are
probably harder to get. For our first iteration it would make sense to pick a volume
that is more manageable. Putting a big drip tray under the whole setup would be
sensible too.

Dogpoo 4 October 7, 2024, 2:20am

Maybe want to be thinking about insulation, or even the option of a heating element
if potentially users are going to stores the system somewhere like a utility room,
cellar or garage where temperature can vary.

kirk 5 October 13, 2024, 9:02am

I’m not sure at which temperature you’d need insulation. The battery will self-heat to
some degree during operation.
Also, we will likely have an ambient temperature sensor and/or electrolyte temp
sensor in a real system. The concentrated electrolyte should lower the freezing point
of the electrolyte below that of water, but we’d have to do real tests with an
environmental chamber or similar to really understand the viable temperature
window.

Dogpoo 6 October 13, 2024, 9:26am

Good. Etc etc etc and so on and so forth. 20 characters.

julianstirling 7 November 11, 2024, 2:45pm

Secondary containment will be a “fun” thing to try to enforce for the open project as
others start to experiment. I have found in the past that seemingly unneeded things
often get ignored. Lots of caution messages explaining the need for secondary
containment probably go a long way towards this.

kirk 8 November 12, 2024, 8:36am

Yes, good point, we will need to have lots of caution messages all around the
documentation. For R&D purposes, we want people to be able to conduct tests using a minimum amount of materials, but there are always chemical risks no matter the
quantity. For our benchtop system, the volumes are so low (around 10 mL total) that
it shouldn’t be an issue, but for stack testing, we’ll have to spec an option, the more
affordable the more likely people are to use it. And add some images and warnings of
examples of chemical accidents where lack of secondary containment caused issues.

julianstirling 9 November 12, 2024, 9:14am

Yeah. I have taken a quick look through he docs I see there are quite a few.
While it wasn’t safety related, we used to find for OpenFlexure everyone ignored on
the printing page that the optics module should be printed in black. This changed
when we started both explaining why and adding it to the checks:

then when you come to assemble it:

It seems that the short bullet point sentences really helped people not miss what used
to be in longer form text. The information symbol link to more detail.
Dozuki had a really nice presentation about how to do documentation that really
helped me. I’ll see if I can dig it out. Or if not remember the key messages.

pinecone 10 January 27, 2025, 8:15pm

What applications would you use a flow battery for, and what performance metrics would you desire?

I’m thinking about intra-day arbitrage of market-priced electricity. The ratio of
average consumed price to lowest daily price (night) is consistently about 10x or
more here, so there is some potential to save money by time-shifting consumption.
Do you have a cost estimate for a 1 kW / 10 kWh system (like above)? This would be
more than enough to shave off the price peaks for a single household.

kirk 11 January 29, 2025, 11:44pm

Welcome to FBRC, @pinecone !
I don’t have a straight-up answer for you right now. We don’t have a cost model or
estimate yet but we would like to and will have to build one in time. I did some basic
cost modeling in the past but for different chemistries/systems. It wouldn’t be too
hard to have a simple spreadsheet for back-of-the-envelope style calculations.
Daniel posted on another forum some basic calcs for a larger system that someone
had asked about: https://diysolarforum.com/threads/my-adventures-building-a-diy-zn-i-flow-battery.69145/post-873727

My adventures building a DIY Zn/I flow battery | DIY Solar
Power Forum
Quoting him here:
DIYrich said:
What is the usable energy of 30,000 litres?
What is the cost of 30,000 litres?
I’m wondering if it can be used for shifting summer production to winter
usage.
15,000 catholye + 15,000 anolyte at 35Ah/L would give you 525kAh which at a
mean discharge voltage of 1.23V would give you 645 kWh, this is 0.645MWh, so
very massive system. At 1mL per cm2 of electrode area you would also need to
have 1500 m2 of electrode area, which at a standard 25cmx25cm per cell would
imply having at least 24,000 cells. This is a massive system. Probably a couple of
containers filled with stacks of cells to process what is literally a pool of
electrolyte. Since the energy efficiency is 70-75%, you will need to put at least
0.86MWh in to get that 0.645MWh out.
At bulk prices of:
ZnCl2 - 1700 USD/ton
4 of 6
KI - 2900 USD/ton
NH4Cl - 450 USD/ton
For 30,000L you would need 8.17 tons of ZnCl2, 3.20 tons of NH4Cl and 19.9 tons
of KI. The total cost of the salts would be 32.1K USD.
The above doesn’t include pumps, tank costs or cell costs. Note that since no ion
selective membranes are used, this is going to be significantly lower cost
compared with a Vanadium based system. Big systems have significant additional
issues - for example pumping efficiency becomes a huge concern - so I’ll have
clearer costs for you once we implement the first 25x25cm cells.
We are however FAR from anything at this scale. Right now we are focusing on
the small scale. Once everything is optimized the costs for larger scales might also
drop further. Hopefully significant improvements in the energy density are still
possible since the solubility does allow for much higher densities.
Zinc-iodide isn’t the cheapest possible chemistry, but it’s working decently as a
starting point.

Daniel estimated 32.1K USD for 645 kWh of usable energy, so scaling that to 10 kWh
is about $498 in chemical cost. The cost related to the 1 kW power component, the
stack, requires more involved calculations, but there’s nothing particularly expensive
component-wise in the stack (like platinum or gold…)—if you’re not using an
expensive membrane. It’s mostly plastic and graphite (in various forms) with two
copper plates and some tie rods, but the design and control of it is very important,
which is what we’re focusing on now.
Peak-shaving and intra-day arbitrage seem like great opportunities for RFBs though,
that is definitely something we’d like to eventually see happen!

pinecone 12 January 30, 2025, 9:08am

Thanks for the info. The chemicals are surprisingly expensive.
My very rough estimate of the break-even cost for a 10 kWh peak shaving system is
about 1000 EUR, which does not leave much for the rest of the hardware after
chemicals, even when allowing for DIY construction, 3D printed parts etc.
This is a cool project though, best of luck!

kirk 13 January 30, 2025, 10:51pm

Thank you! And yeah, we are trying to develop a functional system, but it won’t be
economically competitive as a DIY build for quantity=1—there would have to be a
group buy or a business set up to buy chemicals in bulk, flow frames injection
molded, etc. This project is for the R&D to get to a viable system, if we get to a
functional system the idea is the project output’s are licensed for commercial use,
and a real business could make it more affordable at scale.
A kit build may be possible if there was a supplier for some of the specialty
components or similar.

On my last post I wrote about the potential of using Fe/Mn in acidic solution to create an Fe/Mn flow battery. I cited a paper published a few years ago which shows that you can achieve reversible Mn³⁺ chemistry in a solution of sulfuric acid and hydrochloric acid, I then proceeded to confirm this reversibility using cyclic voltammetry of Mn²⁺ solutions in hydrochloric acid.

However, it quickly became clear from analysis of the paper that this was only at very low capacities. This is because Mn³⁺ becomes unstable as its concentration increases in solutions, turning into MnO₂ and Mn²⁺.

Given the very low volumetric densities that can be achieved with the acid setup, there’s no option but to revisit the use of more stable and reversible forms of manganese. The best candidate seems to be Mn-EDTA. This complex has already been shown to work in flow batteries at the 0.5M-1.0M range (see here).

I had already thought about using this complex and wrote several posts about its potential use in combination with Fe-EDTA or Fe-EDDHA (see here). However, there is a big problem with the pH compatibility of the Mn-EDTA with the Fe-EDTA or Fe-EDDHA. The issue being that Mn³⁺-EDTA is only stable under acidic pH conditions, where the solubility of both Fe-EDTA and Fe-EDDHA is limited to around 0.1M. These chelates are only highly soluble under basic pH conditions, which are fully incompatible with Mn-EDTA.

The question is whether there is any easily accessible Fe chelate that is both compatible with Mn-EDTA in solution (so that we can create a symmetric electrolyte) and that can create soluble solutions at >0.5M concentrations in a pH ~5-6 buffer. Note that I need both chelates to be dissolved at >0.5M at the same time since I want the electrolyte to be symmetric so that it can work using a microporous membrane.

The answer is Fe-DTPA. This chelate is highly soluble at acidic pH values and – best of all – it is soluble enough to actually be in >0.5M solution in the presence of Mn-EDTA at this high concentration. Above you can see a picture of the Fe-DTPA+Mn-EDTA solution. The solution also contains an acetate buffer, which should ensure pH stability on charge/discharge, which should prevent degradation of the Mn-EDTA.

The second image shows a CV of the Fe-EDTA/Mn-EDTA buffered solution, showing that both the Fe and Mn electrochemical reactions are reversible. The half wave potentials are -0.11V and 0.61V, giving us an expected potential for the flow battery of +720mV. This is close to what I had measured before for Fe-EDTA/Mn-EDTA. This proves that the DTPA does not change the electrochemical characteristics of the system very much. The above test also confirms there acetate buffer is stable to the generated Mn³⁺-EDTA.

The next step is to build a flow battery using the above solution and see what performance characteristics we can get. With the current solutions this system will be limited to around 8-9Wh/L. However I haven’t tested the solubility limits of the chelates in this buffer.

Idk if it is the best place to post, tho I did not want to do this in Codeberg, as to avoid unecessary text in development process

So I would love to contribute into FBRC, I can help you with electronics, as well as firmware development, especially if you would like to develop more standalone device, in C/C++ or Rust (preferable, it just safer :P). I can also help to define/write unittests for the firmware

Also my proposition is to create a [matrix] room to create a instant messaging possibility

The Flow Battery Research Collective is excited to present at FOSDEM this weekend! Come see us in-person or online.

Details are all here.

Track: Energy: Accelerating the Transition through Open Source
Room: H.2214
Day: Sunday
Start: 10:55 (Brussels)
End: 11:15
Video only: h2214
Chat: Join the conversation!

Daniel and Josh will be presenting on our work. Looking forward to connecting with the many cool projects in our devroom and others, as well as hopefully meeting with other @nlnet@nlnet.nl and @ngizero@mastodon.xyz projects!

@fosdem@fosstodon.org