Posted by *Ron Rosenfeld* on July 21, 2008, 7:40 pm

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 05:56:43 -0700 (PDT), bealiba@gmail.com wrote:

*>Well it has been a couple of days and Tweedledee has runaway. Now he*

*>is trying to look knowledgeable and hoping no one will notice that he*

*>has failed to tell us what the the 20% system losses are. Let alone*

*>prove that the formula for system sizing is incorrect. He has invoked*

*>Peukert's law, STC, PTC, and any other thing he can, and still has*

*>can't come up with a convincing mathematical argument to support his*

*>fanciful claims. Still what can one expect from a trugabelly.*

*>The spreadsheet of the Sizing Formula is free, correct and allows for*

*>worst case scenarios and playing "what if" with different numbers at*

*>no cost with help with any questions via email. Which is a lot more*

*>than you will ever get out of Tweedledee.*

Notice how George continues to try to cover up his lack of knowledge, and

ongoing trolling for suckers, with insults.

The only fanciful claims made in this thread have been by George!

A battery that has the same capacity at its 100 hr rate as it does

at its 30 minute rate.

A panel rated at 14 volts to be used in a nominal 12 volt system.

An inability to come up with any manufactured items that meet his

fanciful specifications -- but he says that is the responsibility of the

user (even though George claims to be an expert consultant).

Nick Pine had it correct years ago when he wrote about you: "Who would

hire this nitwit?"

--ron

Posted by *bealiba* on July 21, 2008, 11:12 pm

*> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 05:56:43 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:*

*> >Well it has been a couple of days and Tweedledee has runaway. Now he*

*> >is trying to look knowledgeable and hoping no one will notice that he*

*> >has failed to tell us what the the 20% system losses are. Let alone*

*> >prove that the formula for system sizing is incorrect. He has invoked*

*> >Peukert's law, STC, PTC, and any other thing he can, and still has*

*> >can't come up with a convincing mathematical argument to support his*

*> >fanciful claims. Still what can one expect from a trugabelly.*

*> >The spreadsheet of the Sizing Formula is free, correct and allows for*

*> >worst case scenarios and playing "what if" with different numbers at*

*> >no cost with help with any questions via email. Which is a lot more*

*> >than you will ever get out of Tweedledee.*

*> Notice how George continues to try to cover up his lack of knowledge, and*

*> ongoing trolling for suckers, with insults.*

*> The only fanciful claims made in this thread have been by George!*

*> A battery that has the same capacity at its 100 hr rate as it does*

*> at its 30 minute rate.*

*> A panel rated at 14 volts to be used in a nominal 12 volt system.*

*> An inability to come up with any manufactured items that meet his*

*> fanciful specifications -- but he says that is the responsibility of the*

*> user (even though George claims to be an expert consultant).*

*> Nick Pine had it correct years ago when he wrote about you: "Who would*

*> hire this nitwit?"*

*> --ron*

Nick Pine, like Tweedledee and Tweedledum has never designed and built

a PV system.

What are the system losses?

Inverter.

Batteries.

Panels.

These losses are all covered within the sizing formula, in the correct

order.

Line losses are not part of the equation because those losses are a

result of resistance and the only ways to reduce them is to increase

the voltage or increasing the wire size. Increasing the load only

increases the losses.

End of story.

Posted by *Ron Rosenfeld* on July 21, 2008, 11:59 pm

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:12:09 -0700 (PDT), bealiba@gmail.com wrote:

*>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 05:56:43 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:*

*>> >Well it has been a couple of days and Tweedledee has runaway. Now he*

*>> >is trying to look knowledgeable and hoping no one will notice that he*

*>> >has failed to tell us what the the 20% system losses are. Let alone*

*>> >prove that the formula for system sizing is incorrect. He has invoked*

*>> >Peukert's law, STC, PTC, and any other thing he can, and still has*

*>> >can't come up with a convincing mathematical argument to support his*

*>> >fanciful claims. Still what can one expect from a trugabelly.*

*>>*

*>> >The spreadsheet of the Sizing Formula is free, correct and allows for*

*>> >worst case scenarios and playing "what if" with different numbers at*

*>> >no cost with help with any questions via email. Which is a lot more*

*>> >than you will ever get out of Tweedledee.*

*>>*

*>> Notice how George continues to try to cover up his lack of knowledge, and*

*>> ongoing trolling for suckers, with insults.*

*>>*

*>> The only fanciful claims made in this thread have been by George!*

*>>*

*>> A battery that has the same capacity at its 100 hr rate as it does*

*>> at its 30 minute rate.*

*>>*

*>> A panel rated at 14 volts to be used in a nominal 12 volt system.*

*>>*

*>> An inability to come up with any manufactured items that meet his*

*>> fanciful specifications -- but he says that is the responsibility of the*

*>> user (even though George claims to be an expert consultant).*

*>>*

*>> Nick Pine had it correct years ago when he wrote about you: "Who would*

*>> hire this nitwit?"*

*>> --ron*

*>Nick Pine, like Tweedledee and Tweedledum has never designed and built*

*>a PV system.*

*>What are the system losses?*

*>Inverter.*

*>Batteries.*

*>Panels.*

*>These losses are all covered within the sizing formula, in the correct*

*>order.*

*>Line losses are not part of the equation because those losses are a*

*>result of resistance and the only ways to reduce them is to increase*

*>the voltage or increasing the wire size. Increasing the load only*

*>increases the losses.*

*>End of story.*

And, with George's useless spreadsheet, given the same data, you can come

up with most any kind of system:

GG: (1st try) 154 panels

GG: (2nd try) 17- 50W Panels

GG: (3rd try) (C5 / C12) = 10.3

You can also tell us who makes a battery that meets *your* specifications

of:

B2 Maximum allowable depth of discharge = 70%

B13 Capacity of battery bank at 100 hr rate (B12 x B10) = 180

C4 Battery efficiency = 90%

and will also work in the proposed application. So far you haven't even

come close.

--ron

Posted by *bealiba* on July 22, 2008, 2:36 am

*> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:12:09 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:*

*> >> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 05:56:43 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:*

*> >> >Well it has been a couple of days and Tweedledee has runaway. Now he*

*> >> >is trying to look knowledgeable and hoping no one will notice that he*

*> >> >has failed to tell us what the the 20% system losses are. Let alone*

*> >> >prove that the formula for system sizing is incorrect. He has invoked*

*> >> >Peukert's law, STC, PTC, and any other thing he can, and still has*

*> >> >can't come up with a convincing mathematical argument to support his*

*> >> >fanciful claims. Still what can one expect from a trugabelly.*

*> >> >The spreadsheet of the Sizing Formula is free, correct and allows for*

*> >> >worst case scenarios and playing "what if" with different numbers at*

*> >> >no cost with help with any questions via email. Which is a lot more*

*> >> >than you will ever get out of Tweedledee.*

*> >> Notice how George continues to try to cover up his lack of knowledge, and*

*> >> ongoing trolling for suckers, with insults.*

*> >> The only fanciful claims made in this thread have been by George!*

*> >> A battery that has the same capacity at its 100 hr rate as it does*

*> >> at its 30 minute rate.*

*> >> A panel rated at 14 volts to be used in a nominal 12 volt system.*

*> >> An inability to come up with any manufactured items that meet his*

*> >> fanciful specifications -- but he says that is the responsibility of the*

*> >> user (even though George claims to be an expert consultant).*

*> >> Nick Pine had it correct years ago when he wrote about you: "Who would*

*> >> hire this nitwit?"*

*> >> --ron*

*> >Nick Pine, like Tweedledee and Tweedledum has never designed and built*

*> >a PV system.*

*> >What are the system losses?*

*> >Inverter.*

*> >Batteries.*

*> >Panels.*

*> >These losses are all covered within the sizing formula, in the correct*

*> >order.*

*> >Line losses are not part of the equation because those losses are a*

*> >result of resistance and the only ways to reduce them is to increase*

*> >the voltage or increasing the wire size. Increasing the load only*

*> >increases the losses.*

*> >End of story.*

*> And, with George's useless spreadsheet, given the same data, you can come*

*> up with most any kind of system:*

*> GG: (1st try) 154 panels*

*> GG: (2nd try) 17- 50W Panels*

*> GG: (3rd try) (C5 / C12) = 10.3*

*> You can also tell us who makes a battery that meets *your* specifications*

*> of:*

*> B2 Maximum allowable depth of discharge = 70%*

*> B13 Capacity of battery bank at 100 hr rate (B12 x B10) = 180*

*> C4 Battery efficiency = 90%*

*> and will also work in the proposed application. So far you haven't even*

*> come close.*

*> --ron*

Again. The 180Ah is the minimum battery capacity required. NOT a

battery recommendation.

The formula requires the user to input data for chosen equipment. YOU

chose T105s for the battery but were unable to supply the rest of the

required information.

I never recommended a battery.

Posted by *Ron Rosenfeld* on July 22, 2008, 10:55 am

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:36:54 -0700 (PDT), bealiba@gmail.com wrote:

*>Again. The 180Ah is the minimum battery capacity required. NOT a*

*>battery recommendation.*

*>The formula requires the user to input data for chosen equipment. YOU*

*>chose T105s for the battery but were unable to supply the rest of the*

*>required information.*

No, I asked you if the T105, which has more than a 180Ah capacity at 100

hrs, would work in your system. As usual, you waffled.

*>I never recommended a battery.*

Good thing for the OP and anyone else reading.

That's because one does not exist that meets the specifications *YOU* put

into *YOUR* sizing formula spreadsheet and would work for the OP's system

(180Ah at the 100 hr rate).

You also didn't recommend a particular panel, again for the same reason:

*YOU* could not find a panel that would meet the specifications *YOU* put

into *YOUR* sizing formula spreadsheet that could work in the OP's system

(I at 14V at NOCT 2.94A).

What you did show was your lack of knowledge about how batteries work, and

how solar panels are rated; as well as what is required for a working

system.

--ron

>Well it has been a couple of days and Tweedledee has runaway. Now he>is trying to look knowledgeable and hoping no one will notice that he>has failed to tell us what the the 20% system losses are. Let alone>prove that the formula for system sizing is incorrect. He has invoked>Peukert's law, STC, PTC, and any other thing he can, and still has>can't come up with a convincing mathematical argument to support his>fanciful claims. Still what can one expect from a trugabelly.>The spreadsheet of the Sizing Formula is free, correct and allows for>worst case scenarios and playing "what if" with different numbers at>no cost with help with any questions via email. Which is a lot more>than you will ever get out of Tweedledee.