with a knife.... joking

Your first paragraph is restating what I stated already in the video. You either did not watch it or you did not comprehend the video. And the capacity vs temperature claim is a straw man. Internal resistance changes with temperature as I mentioned in the video so, yes, CCA changes. Usable capacity also changes with temperature due to the change in internal resistance which I also stated in the video.

I watched it and listened to it again and you said wrong stuff. You said that 4 100Ah batteries paralleled together is not 400Ah. Of course it is! The Ah capacities are directly additive. You didn't say the usable power at some fixed load. Also, temperature DOES change the usable capacity of a battery. At very high temps, the self discharge rate is MUCH higher then at cold temps, therefore more power is lost at high temps. You can test this easily and it will likely be correct. Also, if you discharge a battery VERY fast (relative to its Ah capacity), that is LESS efficient (due to heating) than it is to slowly drain that same battery (at only maybe 10% of its Ah rating). So many things you say (as you say them) are wrong, but perhaps you go on later to explain them more in detail (which I think is a bad way to make statements). That would be like someone saying "electricity takes the path of least resistance", but then later go on to say that it takes all paths of resistance. Even though the first statement is true to some degree, it is very misleading as someone may wrongly interpret as "electricity ONLY takes the path of least resistance". Obviously that is a false interpretation. You seem like a smart and knowledgeable guy, you just don't state your ideas correctly. I can give you exact times where your errors are in this video but I think you are smart enough to find them yourself. Even in the first few minutes there are some "speakos". 1:20 elapsed "that's not really the way it works"... YES IT IS! The actual Ah capacity is directly additive for 4 paralleled batteries. The usable capacity at some fixed load may change but you didn't say it that way! Even your title is wrong. Peukert's Law is NOT wrong. You should have titled this video "Peukert's Law is frequently misinterpreted".

+Lagm an I am no expert on the subject, but just like if you drop some thing from an aircraft, it will accelerate until it reaches its terminal velocity and then it will go no faster, I think that each terminal material and acid has a limit. In other words lets say you used stainless steel and nitric acid to make a battery then its _chemical speed limit_ will be, lets just guess and say 0.8 V per cell.

Any product that uses a Peukert coefficient in their marketing/manual is either a scam product or the designers of it didn't know what they were doing and it doesn't work properly. your pick. :) Peukert's coefficients are indeed useful but aside from yourself I've rarely seen them used properly. I would argue, in fact, that they have very little utility in most real-world situations.

@@knurlgnar24 Agree 100% and I think it might be mostly the latter. Almost every 'reputable' / popular AH meter on market implements Peukert coeff and almost-as-misconstrued charge efficiency parameters in order to calculate an almost-always-drifting and bending SOC indication. It's been virtually unchanged for over 20 years now and, imho, it's one of the main reasons the deep cycle lead acid battery industry suffers from such rampant chronic undercharging - and leaving itself wide open to lithium predators :) Rarely do people 'get it'.

Because batteries have a higher internal resistance and electron mobility at cold temperatures than at warm ones. If you don't expect to encounter cold environments then you can use the CA rating, otherwise use the CCA rating. They aren't really both necessary since lead acid batteries are all chemically similar, but it makes comparisons and purchase decisions easier for those people who don't want to learn how to approximate the conversion factors.

Yes, I agree. Two electrons as stated in the video. I didn't specify this by putting a -2 on the charge when writing it out and I was wondering when someone would comment on it. ;)

*dramatic flare sound* Batteries are disproved by a KZfaq commenter

My statements are rational, my evidence is empirical as demonstrated in the video, and I give solid theoretical explanations to support my statements. I very clearly stated that the law is 'wrong' as commonly applied, but correct when applied as originally intended. Did you even watch the video?

It's a magicians trick. If you notice the two battery parallel had the extra 40 amps each. That allows the heater to run the extra .7 time. The heater cuts off at 60 ah on a single battery. Leaving 40 ah left after recovery. But with two batteries you now have 80 ah. 40 ah each. That 80 ah let the heater run the extra time but the batteries recovery voltage wasn't as high. He left that part out.

It’s because the heat comes from the current (I) not the voltage.