Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

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

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by wmbjkREMOVE on July 27, 2008, 2:22 pm
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:23:14 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld

Even more laughable, George has wasted many other opportunities to
learn about Peukert. For example, I've posted this link
www.amplepower.com/pwrnews/beer/ perhaps a dozen times. It has a clear
explanation of the effect, and boils the calculations down to the
easiest (if not the most accurate) level. Perhaps George thought that
since he wasn't brewing beer, he needn't clutter up his spreadsheet
with wanker math.  :-)


Posted by bealiba on July 27, 2008, 7:06 pm
On Jul 28, 12:22 am, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:

linkwww.amplepower.com/pwrnews/beer/perhaps a dozen times. It has a clear

13 and counting

Posted by bealiba on July 28, 2008, 10:54 am
 On Jul 28, 12:22 am, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:

linkwww.amplepower.com/pwrnews/beer/perhaps a dozen times. It has a clear

Well, we now have thirteen posts from Tweedledee and Tweedledum since
I posted this statement:

"Notice again that neither Tweedledee or Tweedledum have supplied any
maths to support their claims. This being the case there is really no
point to carry on with this thread until they can provide empirical
proof with real numbers. And we all know that that won't happen any
time soon."

And not a single calculation between them to prove any of their
claims. No surprise there.

But Tweedledum di add this gem:

"You've repeatedly refused to specify any particular battery that
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", "

Where he  used Peurket's law to adjust the daily load. One can only
assume that this is to further reduce the voltage drop in the wiring.

Posted by Ron Rosenfeld on July 28, 2008, 1:14 pm
 On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 03:54:35 -0700 (PDT), bealiba@gmail.com wrote:

I was correct.  George has finally enlightened us as to the meaning of his
cryptic numerology!  He can count!

You are correct in your assumption about the uselessness of carrying on
this thread.  As usual you are incorrect about the reason.

You clearly did not understand the mathematical proofs with which were
posted that showed conclusively that a battery that met YOUR minimum

could not possibly run a 2500 watt pump for 30 minutes.

The battery you finally specified has a capacity at the 100 hr rate almost
six (6) times what YOU claim are the *minimum requirements*.

George's recommended battery:  Battery Energy AS1100
    Capacity of AS1100 at the 100 hr rate =
        (by curve fitting, 4th order polynomial):  1047Ah
        (by Peukert calculation):           1068Ah

George's recommended battery / George's minimum requirments
    1047/180 = 5.8
    1068/180 = 5.9


George will not specify a battery that meets the minimum requirements *HE*

That is because George's posted minimum requirements are totally inadequate
to do the job, as was demonstrated with some batteries that did meet or
slightly exceeded his posted minimum requirements.

George does not understand this simple math; nor does he understand or
apply the math or calculators he found at the web site to which he was
referred by Wayne!

He's more interested in trying to cover up his mistakes with piffle, than
he is in trying to correct them.

Nick Pine:    "Who would hire this PV nitwit"

Posted by Solar Flare on July 28, 2008, 1:55 pm
 Yes, Wayne!

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