Posted by Ron Rosenfeld on July 24, 2008, 12:58 pm
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:14:00 -0700 (PDT), email@example.com wrote:
I suggested T105's as something that might meet YOUR specifications. You
state they are inadequate. OK -- come up with a battery that DOES MEET
Again, it remains obvious that George never specified particular panels or
batteries AND he CANNOT do so.
But, HE did enter specifications for batteries and panels which he expected
to use in this system.
He is UNABLE to specify any equipment that meets the imaginary
specifications HE put into his useless spreadsheet. But he just cannot
bring himself to admit that HIS specifications cannot be met in the real
In spite of many, many posts in this thread, this self-styled solar
consultant remains unable to provide anything other than piffle.
Posted by bealiba on July 24, 2008, 2:22 pm
I never specified a battery. The specifications are to be supplied by
the user. You specified T105s show the total specifications for the
T105s at the C0.5 rate. After all they are your choice.
I did not specify either batteries or panels.
I did not enter specs for batteries or panels
The formula requires user input. I did not input.
Lets look at what Tweedledeed cant manage. i.e. User Input. In the
following you will note that I have named the batteries(B7) and the
Daily Load - 4250AH
System Voltage - 48V
A2 Daily load = 4250Wh - User Input
A4 Inverter Efficiency = 90% - User Input
A5 Account for inverter inefficiency - Load (A2/A4) = 4722Wh
A7 System Voltage = 48 - User Input
A8 Total A-hr demand per day (A5 / A7) = 122.55
B1 Number of days of autonomy = 5 - User Input
B2 Maximum allowable depth of discharge = 70% - User Input
B3 Battery capacity (A8 x B1 / B2) = 702.71Ah
B4 Lowest 24 hour average temperature =10c - User Input
B5 Temperature correction factor =.96 - User Input
B6 Adjusted battery capacity (B3 / B5) = 731.99
B7 Selected Battery - AS770 - User Input
B8 Selected battery discharge rate 120 - User Input
B9 A-hr capacity of selected battery = 840Ah - User Input
B10 Number of batteries in parallel (B6 / B9, rounded off) = 1
B11 Number of batteries in series (A7 / battery voltage) =24
B12 Check Capacity of selected battery at l20 Hr rate = 840 - User
B13 Capacity of battery bank at 120 hr rate (B12 x B10) = 840
B14 Daily depth of discharge (100 x A8 / B13) = 11.71%
C1 Design tilt - 45 degrees - User Input
C2 Design month - June - User Input
C3 Total energy demand per day (A8) =98.38Ah
C4 Battery efficiency = 90% - User Input
C5 Array output required per day (C3 / C4) = 109.31
C6 Peak sun hours at design tilt for design month = 5 - User
C7 Selected module - BP 4175 - User Input
C8 Selected module I at 35.4 volts at NOCT 4.9A - User Input
C9 Selected module nominal operating voltage. = 24V - User Input
C10 Guaranteed current (C8 x 0.9) = 4.41A
C11 Number of modules in series (A7 / C9) = 2
C12 Output per module (C10 x C6) = 22.05Ah
C13 Number of parallel strings of modules (C5 / C12) = 5.51
I have marked all the points of user input. In all, there are 18
points where Tweedledee is out of his depth.
Now compare the above sizing with the one that Tweedledee keeps saying
that I specified batteries and panels for. Note that B7 does not
specify a battery, also note that C7 does not specify a panel;
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 = 5
B2 Maximum allowable depth of discharge = 70%
B3 Battery capacity (A8 x B1 / B2) = 875.35Ah
B4 Lowest 24 hour average temperature =15c
B5 Temperature correction factor =.97
B6 Adjusted battery capacity (B3 / B5) = 902.42
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) = 4
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) = 900
B14 Daily depth of discharge (100 x A8 / B13) = 13.62%
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
Looks like Tweedledee is caught telling lies.
Posted by Ron Rosenfeld on July 24, 2008, 8:59 pm
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 07:22:56 -0700 (PDT), firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
No one else entered the specifications that caused your vaunted, but
useless spreadsheet to return the data you posted or your comment about the
panels. It must have been the **bogeyman**!! since you would never tell a
What George wrote in his specifications and associated panel comment:
It's pretty simple to show that you are writing nonsense, George. Why
don't you just specify some equipment that meets your specifications and
will work in the system.
If it were possible, it could easily be done in two lines:
Battery (quantity, make and model):
Panel (Quantity, make and model):
Since it is not, George will post back more piffle and name-calling, rather
than admit that his specifications can only be met by magic.
Rather than answer this simple question, George posts back with some more
piffle on a different system. At least I think it is a different system
since the requirements are outlandish.
Does George even realize that there is a difference between AH and Wh?
Does he expect to be taken seriously by anyone who does?
Or maybe we are supposed to believe that someone other than George entered
the 4,250 Wh in A2 based on the initial system requirements of 4,250Ah @
48V. Must be that darned **bogeyman** again.
No wonder George insists that others supply the "user input". He is
clearly incapable of doing so himself.
Posted by bealiba on July 24, 2008, 11:22 pm
George did not specify a battery or panel, magic or otherwise. You
specified T105 batteries at the 100 hour rate
Prove it. Just for once show some backbone and attempt the maths to
prove the formula is incorrect.
Yes. Sorry you are so easily confused.
Well if you ecpect that people will believe that adding 20% to the
load will solve all the problems of system design, why not/
Oh dear, what a terrible mistake. Don't I look silly. But then, look
on the bright side, you have yet to prove that the formula is
incorrect in any way.
And to make the point, "Adding a spurious 20% to the daily load is the
hallmark of an amateur."
So, Tweedledee, show us where the formula fails. But then you can't.
Which is why you haven't. And I will make a prediction: You never
will, you will cry, whine, lie and complain, but you will never show
actual numbers to support your misinformation.
Yeah, I, like everyone else makes silly mistakes. My spelling is crap,
my typing is worse, BUT, all the systems I design and build work as
per spec from the day they are commissioned. I strongly suspect that
people prefer a working system to a well written post.
Posted by wmbjkREMOVE on July 25, 2008, 12:36 am
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:22:21 -0700 (PDT), email@example.com wrote:
Not exactly. You are to silly what NASA is to paper airplanes.
What's to prove? It's defective on it's face. Ignores Peukert, doesn't
account for occasionally-used loads, etc. I could go on, but the proof
is in the pudding, the author of "the formula" advertises it by
frequently posting many of the hideous errors that it generates.
Yes, but most everyone else learns from their mistakes rather than
endlessly repeating them. And I think you've been getting worse
lately. In fact, owing to your astonishing dedication at cranking out
blunders rather than answering a simple question correctly, this
thread is going to supply quite a few new pearls of wisdumb for
That's not an issue. But when one can't write, spell, or type well,
then hanging out an editing shingle boggles the mind. Combine that
with the solar wisdumb you display here daily and it's painfully
obvious that you make a habit of pretending to be something you're
Oh sure, like the system that's *undeniably* 7 years old, and which
you claim has been working perfectly for 15 years! What exactly is the
point of a pathological liar testifying on his own behalf?
Sure. But as this thread demonstrates, you only *talk* about working
systems. When given the chance to actually specify one, you instead
spend the bulk of your time trying to weasel out of the task.
According to Google, you've posted 138 times to this thread, and a
fair summary of your current position is: "I supplied 'the formula',
now it's up to someone else to make something out of it".
"Who would hire this PV nitwit?" - Nick Pine