Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

How many panels ? ( to run 230 volt sprinkler pump 30 minutes a day?) - Page 26

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by bealiba on July 25, 2008, 6:58 am
On Jul 25, 10:36 am, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:

Ok Tweedledum How does it ignore Peukert. Saying it doesn't make it
so. But of course you cnt prove it so you will ignore it.

forhttp://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm .

Misquotes, quoting out of context and outright lies when you have
nothing else.

Look up "Structural Editing", then study Joseph Campbell and
Aristotle, also Story Arcs, Theshold Guardians, Heros, Mentors,
Heralds, Shapeshifters, Shadows and Tricksters.

I do not do copy editing, simply because I am no good at it.

Ah. I am very good at designing systems that work. Your fantasies are
you own problem.

Not one post from you or Tweedledee has contained any supporting maths
to prove anything is wrong with the formula. And you won't, for the
same reason that I don't do copy editing. You are no good at it.

My, my, doesn't poor Nick get a good flogging. How many solar garages
has he sold to date. It's between -1 and 1.

Posted by wmbjkREMOVE on July 25, 2008, 4:49 pm
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:58:28 -0700 (PDT), bealiba@gmail.com wrote:

The first clue is that you didn't use the opportunity to show any
computation. Which is hardly surprising considering that you wouldn't
know an exponent from an Xbox. Nevertheless, in a surely futile
attempt to embarrass you into learning, let's start with a sample of a
typically bungled deeezine created by your newly titled "the formula".


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

You've repeatedly refused to specify any particular battery that could
be used in this deezine, but that shouldn't have prevented at least
calculating for a generic Peukert exponent of 1.2, which would have
adjusted *your* 122.55Ah per day spec to 321... if you had a clue. But
hey, maybe you'll do better in the battery section of "the formula",
so here it is.

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 c
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%

Nope, the secret must be invisible. Please cut the suspense and tell
us exactly where you believe that your mishmash accounts for Peukert.
Let me guess, you will claim that "the formula" doesn't ignore
Peukert, because even though it doesn't include any actual
computation, that task falls under your latest weasel umbrella-excuse
of "user input". The trouble is, if we follow that logic, then it's
the user that's defective as well. And who was that again?

forhttp://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm .

Feel free to post any particular examples of "misguotes" etc. for me
to debate. I'm sure *that* will help you.  <snorf>

LOL   You're no better at logic than you are at spelling etc.

Then who edits your edoteeng, and how do you prevent his escape?
Regardless, you're no good at lots of things, yet you do them anyway.
So why make an exception for copy editing? And who do you believe
would be foolish enough to hire a blowhard muddled-thinking editor?
Have you considered marketing your true expertise to those who want to
learn how to advertise and promote their weaknesses? Think niche

Then why haven't you managed a working design in this thread? Why
waste your time claiming to be "very good", when it's obvious that
even with multiple attempts you can't come close to answering a simple
question correctly?

And why do you believe that anyone should accept yet more of your
idiotic declarations despite your refusal to explain previous lies?
BTW, you've had lots of time to think up an excuse for deceiving
readers about the age of your setup, so let's hear it. Does it have
anything to do with dog years?


Posted by bealiba on July 26, 2008, 12:02 am
 On Jul 26, 2:49 am, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:

B7 specifies a battery. I did not specify a battery.

B7 specifies a battery. I did not specify a battery.

forhttp://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm .

So you didn't learn a thing, that's to be expected.

B7 specifies a battery. I did not specify a battery.

You can misrepresent what I say all you like. The bottom line is that
after posting 2 to 1 to my posts you still have not provided any
mathematical proof to refute the formula or my use of it. In fact in
all the years of your posting to these groups you have failed to
provide mathematical proof of any of your claims.

You copied your system from a magazine, found it would not fulfill
your needs (this is what happens when you make guesses) kept throwing
panels at the system until it worked, at least during daylight hours.
You can't define something as simple as your claimed two days
autonomy. And are on record as saying that increasing the load is
required due to wire losses.

Posted by wmbjkREMOVE on July 26, 2008, 3:14 pm
 On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:02:26 -0700 (PDT), bealiba@gmail.com wrote:

Baloney.  B8 through B14 specify battery capacity etc, and all are
wrong because "the formula" is defective. Leaving a single empty cell
where the battery make and model is redundantly entered in no way
absolves you of authoring defective calculations.

Don't you claim to be a professional writer? Why do you expect anyone
to believe that claim when your idea of writing is to endlessly repeat

Whatdya' know, despite a clear invitation, ghinius george doesn't want
to use the opportunity to post any examples of where he believes he's
been "misquoted". I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked! Why not defend
your honor <snorf> by showing everyone exactly how your abilities
<chuckle> have been misrepresented? If nothing else perhaps it would
encourage Chris Crocker to shoot a video defending you.

Au contraire. I learned that your hope of a future career was based on
finding someone dumb enough to hire an "editor" who doesn't know that
both words in his own two-word "company" name should be capitalized
http://www.alibaba.com/member/renegadewriting/aboutus.html , doesn't
think that his own bungled advertisement for editing services deserves
editing, and admits that if he ever gets an editing job, then his
editing will need editing. Well, OK, I could have guessed as much.

As well as being wrong and pigheadedly repetitive, that's entirely
non-responsive, especially since your calculations here look almost
exactly like every other blizzard of spreadsheet results that you've
ever posted previously, all of which you normally refer to as

How often does repeating a lie actually work for you?

There he goes again! No matter, I'm confident that you're living your
reward for trying to overcome reality with BS.

Hey, that reminds me, I wonder if Morris emailed you to ask for proof
of that claim as I suggested? No matter, why wait for someone to ask
you in private when you can post the proof right here. Which magazine?
Which article? C'mon, what are you waiting for?



Posted by Ron Rosenfeld on July 25, 2008, 2:07 am
 On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:22:21 -0700 (PDT), bealiba@gmail.com wrote:

Your spreadsheet, using your input, did not produce a system that would
work using information the OP provided.  Therefore it is a failure.  

The extent of that failure, as well as the reasons for that failure, have
been documented previously in this thread, using equipment that matches or
exceeds the specifications YOU input.

You claim that using equipment that matches or exceeds the specifications
YOU input is not valid, because YOU would not use that equipment.  But you
are unable to specify any alternatives.

If you want more precise values as to exactly when and where it fails, and
you won't accept equipment that meets or exceeds YOUR specifications, you
will need to supply data for acceptable equipment that DOES meet your

Also your grammar, and your knowledge of how batteries work and how panels
are rated and work.

There was a time I might have accepted your mistakes as "silly" had you not
tried to cover them up with piffle, lies and personal attacks as well as
superfluous postings that had nothing to do with the original system

People who prefer a working system should not deal with you who cannot
design one on paper.

People who prefer a working system should not deal with you who cannot
produce proper specifications on paper.


This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread