EEngr
Does the 787 system have such parasitic loads? Stupid question actually, because the batteries own built in charge monitoring system is one instance. But then, does the 787 system have such a 'float' mode to avoid this state of charge cycling and the inevitable low points in the capacity curve?
Its possible that the only way to fly with a LiCoO2 is either to provide the float voltage (unsafe) or to accept the lower point on the available charge curve as the 'best' avalable charge for design/certification purposes and thereby have to oversize the battery to allow for it. One would need to peek inside the head of the systems engineer responsible to know how this decision was made, I'm sure.
I don't quite follow the logic. The charge monitoring system should not act as a significant continual drain the battery. All other 'parasitic loads' would surely be met by the generators that would be running if the battery is being or has been charged.
It does seem that assuming that the design assumes a NiCd charging profile rather than that required for a LiCo battery is assuming that Thales and Boeing have both made a rather basic error. Do you really think that is the case?