Posted by *wmbjkREMOVE* on July 6, 2008, 3:01 pm

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 23:11:27 -0700 (PDT), bealiba@gmail.com wrote:

*>While we wait *

Who is "we"? Do you imagine that your cargo cult has more than a

single member?

Wayne

Posted by *Ron Rosenfeld* on July 6, 2008, 10:14 pm

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 23:11:27 -0700 (PDT), bealiba@gmail.com wrote:

*>While we wait for ron's next tirade of nonsense let's see what happens*

*>when we change the battery capacity to 225 Ahs.*

George,

YOU are the only one who has been lying. And all you have been spewing is

nonsense.

YOU have falsely claimed that I recommended some battery size to the OP.

YOU have done this by taking my recommendation for a *panel array size*,

and running it through your useless (in your hands) spreadsheet, using

inputs that you have made up. And YOUR spreadsheet provides for the same

20% factor in panel array sizing, which YOU obviously are unable to

recognize!

YOU cannot even copy the OP's panel specifications to your spreadsheet

properly!

YOU have recommended multiple systems that won't meet the requirement of

daily running of the OP's system.

YOUr last recommendation will NOT run the OP's system 24/7 at his location.

Simple simulations show a 23% shortfall using a larger battery! Of course,

you have never provided full specifications for your 180Ah battery which

was the last one you recommended, so a more precise shortfall of your last

proposed system cannot be predicted.

YOUR lowest recommendation for panels (amongst your many recommendations)

is 10% MORE than my recommendation, yet you persist in claiming that mine

is oversized!

YOU really are a piece of work.

--ron

Posted by *bealiba* on July 6, 2008, 11:23 pm

*> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 23:11:27 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:*

*> >While we wait for ron's next tirade of nonsense let's see what happens*

*> >when we change the battery capacity to 225 Ahs.*

*> George,*

*> YOU are the only one who has been lying. And all you have been spewing is*

*> nonsense.*

*> YOU have falsely claimed that I recommended some battery size to the OP.*

*> YOU have done this by taking my recommendation for a *panel array size*,*

*> and running it through your useless (in your hands) spreadsheet, using*

*> inputs that you have made up. And YOUR spreadsheet provides for the same*

*> 20% factor in panel array sizing, which YOU obviously are unable to*

*> recognize!*

*> YOU cannot even copy the OP's panel specifications to your spreadsheet*

*> properly!*

*> YOU have recommended multiple systems that won't meet the requirement of*

*> daily running of the OP's system.*

*> YOUr last recommendation will NOT run the OP's system 24/7 at his location.*

*> Simple simulations show a 23% shortfall using a larger battery! Of course,*

*> you have never provided full specifications for your 180Ah battery which*

*> was the last one you recommended, so a more precise shortfall of your last*

*> proposed system cannot be predicted.*

*> YOUR lowest recommendation for panels (amongst your many recommendations)*

*> is 10% MORE than my recommendation, yet you persist in claiming that mine*

*> is oversized!*

*> YOU really are a piece of work.*

*> --ron*

As I have already predicted, lots of claims from Tweedledee and

Tweedledum and no maths to back up their claims.

Posted by *Ron Rosenfeld* on July 7, 2008, 2:44 am

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 16:23:39 -0700 (PDT), bealiba@gmail.com wrote:

*>> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 23:11:27 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:*

*>> >While we wait for ron's next tirade of nonsense let's see what happens*

*>> >when we change the battery capacity to 225 Ahs.*

*>>*

*>> George,*

*>>*

*>> YOU are the only one who has been lying. And all you have been spewing is*

*>> nonsense.*

*>>*

*>> YOU have falsely claimed that I recommended some battery size to the OP.*

*>>*

*>> YOU have done this by taking my recommendation for a *panel array size*,*

*>> and running it through your useless (in your hands) spreadsheet, using*

*>> inputs that you have made up. And YOUR spreadsheet provides for the same*

*>> 20% factor in panel array sizing, which YOU obviously are unable to*

*>> recognize!*

*>>*

*>> YOU cannot even copy the OP's panel specifications to your spreadsheet*

*>> properly!*

*>>*

*>> YOU have recommended multiple systems that won't meet the requirement of*

*>> daily running of the OP's system.*

*>>*

*>> YOUr last recommendation will NOT run the OP's system 24/7 at his location.*

*>> Simple simulations show a 23% shortfall using a larger battery! Of course,*

*>> you have never provided full specifications for your 180Ah battery which*

*>> was the last one you recommended, so a more precise shortfall of your last*

*>> proposed system cannot be predicted.*

*>>*

*>> YOUR lowest recommendation for panels (amongst your many recommendations)*

*>> is 10% MORE than my recommendation, yet you persist in claiming that mine*

*>> is oversized!*

*>>*

*>> YOU really are a piece of work.*

*>>*

*>> --ron*

*>As I have already predicted, lots of claims from Tweedledee and*

*>Tweedledum and no maths to back up their claims.*

The math to calculate the panel array size was provided in my first post,

but it seems that you've not been able to understand it. All you can do is

rant about a 20% overestimate for a battery about which I wrote nothing.

And you keep claiming that my 10 panel array is oversized by 20%; whereas

your 11 panel array (or maybe your 17 panel or 154 panel recommendations)

is OK.

You can't even enter the OP's data correctly into your spreadsheet.

But if you want more real data, all you need to do is provide the specs on

your 180Ah battery, and the simulation is simple to do.

Give me the specs on your 180 Ah battery, and I'll give you the numbers for

a simulation of your 11 panel, 180 Ah battery system for Kilauea, HI.

George's Battery:

Nominal Capacity: 180Ah

Nominal Voltage: ???

Round Trip Efficiency ??

Min state of charge: ??

Float life: ?? yrs

Max charge rate: ? A/Ah

Max charge current: ? A

Lifetime throughput: ? kWh

Also a Capacity curve (A vs Ah) and a Lifetime curve (DOD vs Cycles to

failure)

Because of the location, there's probably no need for you to supply a Temp

vs capacity curve or coefficient. The temperatures don't vary that much

from the annual mean of 24°C.

--ron

Posted by *bealiba* on July 7, 2008, 6:37 am

*> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 16:23:39 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:*

*> >> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 23:11:27 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:*

*> >> >While we wait for ron's next tirade of nonsense let's see what happens*

*> >> >when we change the battery capacity to 225 Ahs.*

*> >> George,*

*> >> YOU are the only one who has been lying. And all you have been spewing is*

*> >> nonsense.*

*> >> YOU have falsely claimed that I recommended some battery size to the OP.*

*> >> YOU have done this by taking my recommendation for a *panel array size*,*

*> >> and running it through your useless (in your hands) spreadsheet, using*

*> >> inputs that you have made up. And YOUR spreadsheet provides for the same*

*> >> 20% factor in panel array sizing, which YOU obviously are unable to*

*> >> recognize!*

*> >> YOU cannot even copy the OP's panel specifications to your spreadsheet*

*> >> properly!*

*> >> YOU have recommended multiple systems that won't meet the requirement of*

*> >> daily running of the OP's system.*

*> >> YOUr last recommendation will NOT run the OP's system 24/7 at his location.*

*> >> Simple simulations show a 23% shortfall using a larger battery! Of course,*

*> >> you have never provided full specifications for your 180Ah battery which*

*> >> was the last one you recommended, so a more precise shortfall of your last*

*> >> proposed system cannot be predicted.*

*> >> YOUR lowest recommendation for panels (amongst your many recommendations)*

*> >> is 10% MORE than my recommendation, yet you persist in claiming that mine*

*> >> is oversized!*

*> >> YOU really are a piece of work.*

*> >> --ron*

*> >As I have already predicted, lots of claims from Tweedledee and*

*> >Tweedledum and no maths to back up their claims.*

My, my, Tweedledee is busy today.

*> The math to calculate the panel array size was provided in my first post,*

*> but it seems that you've not been able to understand it. All you can do is*

*> rant about a 20% overestimate for a battery about which I wrote nothing.*

Trojan 225Ah T105s

*> And you keep claiming that my 10 panel array is oversized by 20%; whereas*

*> your 11 panel array (or maybe your 17 panel or 154 panel recommendations)*

*> is OK.*

It is not ten panels , it is 11. You added 20% on top of the daily

load right after you adjusted the load for inverter losses.

*> You can't even enter the OP's data correctly into your spreadsheet.*

2.94A adjusted to 2.65A for losses.

*> But if you want more real data, all you need to do is provide the specs on*

*> your 180Ah battery, and the simulation is simple to do.*

The 180 Ah capacity is the minimum required for the system as

calculated from OPs data. At B9 actual battery can be specified. you

are the only person so far to suggest a particular battery i.e. Trojan

T105s. As you feel that this battery is suitable for the application I

included it in the formula. The following is the result

A2 Daily load = 1250Wh

A4 Inverter Efficiency = 85%

A5 Account for inverter inefficiency - Load (A2/A4) = 1470.5

A7 System Voltage = 12

A8 Total A-hr demand per day (A5 / A7) = 122.55

B1 Number of days of autonomy = 1

B2 Maximum allowable depth of discharge = 70%

B3 Battery capacity (A8 x B1 / B2) = 175Ah

B4 Lowest 24 hour average temperature =15c

B5 Temperature correction factor =.97

B6 Adjusted battery capacity (B3 / B5) = 180.5

B7 Selected Battery

B8 Selected battery discharge rate 100

B9 A-hr capacity of selected battery = 225Ah

B10 Number of batteries in parallel (B6 / B9, rounded off) = 1

B11 Number of batteries in series (A7 / battery voltage) =1

B12 Check Capacity of selected battery at l00 Hr rate = 225

B13 Capacity of battery bank at 100 hr rate (B12 x B10) = 225

B14 Daily depth of discharge (100 x A8 / B13) = 54.47%

C1 Design tilt

C2 Design month

C3 Total energy demand per day (A8) =122.55Ah

C4 Battery efficiency = 90%

C5 Array output required per day (C3 / C4) = 136.2

C6 Peak sun hours at design tilt for design month = 5

C7 Selected module

C8 Selected module I at 14 volts at NOCT 2.94A

C9 Selected module nominal operating voltage. = 12V

C10 Guaranteed current (C8 x 0.9) = 2.65A

C11 Number of modules in series (A7 / C9) = 1

C12 Output per module (C10 x C6) = 13.2Ah

C13 Number of parallel strings of modules (C5 / C12) = 10.3

*> Give me the specs on your 180 Ah battery, and I'll give you the numbers for*

*> a simulation of your 11 panel, 180 Ah battery system for Kilauea, HI.*

The battery capacity is, as has been already stated, the minimum

required to do the job.

*> George's Battery:*

*> Nominal Capacity: 180Ah*

Correct

*> Nominal Voltage: ???*

12V

*> Round Trip Efficiency ??*

It didn't go anywhere. Perhaps you mean the battery efficiency.

Already in the formula (C4)

*> Min state of charge: ??*

0%. Actually I think that you mean Maximum allowable depth of

discharge (B2)

*> Float life: ?? yrs*

*> Max charge rate: ? A/Ah*

C10 is the correct charge rate.

*> Max charge current: ? A*

See above

*> Lifetime throughput: ? kWh*

All of them

*> Also a Capacity curve (A vs Ah) and a Lifetime curve (DOD vs Cycles to*

*> failure)*

*> Because of the location, there's probably no need for you to supply a Temp*

*> vs capacity curve or coefficient. The temperatures don't vary that much*

*> from the annual mean of 24C.*

You talk a lot of nonsense Tweedledee.

None of your questions mean anything in relation to the minimum

battery capacity as stated. At (B9) you enter the battery capacity of

the battery you choose. You chose Trojan T105s at 225 ah. I put that

in the formula. The only thing that changed was the daily DoD. It fell

from 68% to 54%.

If there are any other parameters you wish to change, you know, like

removing the 20% to the daily load you insist should happen just after

you have adjusted the daily load to account for the inverter's

inefficiency, I will be happy to change the sample sizing.

*> --ron*

>While we wait