Posted by *wmbjkREMOVE* on July 27, 2008, 2:22 pm

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:23:14 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld

*>On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:38:55 -0700, wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net wrote:*

*>>>The battery you finally decided to come up with has almost 6 times the*

*>>>minimum capacity YOU specified.*

*>>>*

*>>>------------------------------------------------*

*>>>*

*>>>Then you go on to copy a page from*

*>>>http://www.smartgauge.co.uk/peukert3.html *

*>>*

*>>In a previous post I directed him to that web site, and I about fell*

*>>off my chair when I saw that he was quoting it. Talk about*

*>>transparent! At least he didn't attempt to rewrite it in his own*

*>>words. Now *that* could have been really funny.*

*>Sorry I had forgotten that the reference to that web site had come from*

*>you. That makes his attempt to appear as if he were doing something*

*>independently even more laughable!*

*>--ron*

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. :-)

Wayne

Posted by *bealiba* on July 27, 2008, 7:06 pm

On Jul 28, 12:22 am, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:

*> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:23:14 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld*

*> >On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:38:55 -0700, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:*

*> >>>The battery you finally decided to come up with has almost 6 times the*

*> >>>minimum capacity YOU specified.*

*> >>>------------------------------------------------*

*> >>>Then you go on to copy a page from*

*> >>>http://www.smartgauge.co.uk/peukert3.html *

*> >>In a previous post I directed him to that web site, and I about fell*

*> >>off my chair when I saw that he was quoting it. Talk about*

*> >>transparent! At least he didn't attempt to rewrite it in his own*

*> >>words. Now *that* could have been really funny.*

*> >Sorry I had forgotten that the reference to that web site had come from*

*> >you. That makes his attempt to appear as if he were doing something*

*> >independently even more laughable!*

*> >--ron*

*> Even more laughable, George has wasted many other opportunities to*

*> learn about Peukert. For example, I've posted this*

*
linkwww.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. :-)*

*> Wayne*

13 and counting

Posted by *bealiba* on July 28, 2008, 10:54 am

On Jul 28, 12:22 am, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:

*> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:23:14 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld*

*> >On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:38:55 -0700, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:*

*> >>>The battery you finally decided to come up with has almost 6 times the*

*> >>>minimum capacity YOU specified.*

*> >>>------------------------------------------------*

*> >>>Then you go on to copy a page from*

*> >>>http://www.smartgauge.co.uk/peukert3.html *

*> >>In a previous post I directed him to that web site, and I about fell*

*> >>off my chair when I saw that he was quoting it. Talk about*

*> >>transparent! At least he didn't attempt to rewrite it in his own*

*> >>words. Now *that* could have been really funny.*

*> >Sorry I had forgotten that the reference to that web site had come from*

*> >you. That makes his attempt to appear as if he were doing something*

*> >independently even more laughable!*

*> >--ron*

*> Even more laughable, George has wasted many other opportunities to*

*> learn about Peukert. For example, I've posted this*

*
linkwww.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. :-)*

*> Wayne*

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

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", "

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:

*>Well, we now have thirteen posts from Tweedledee and Tweedledum since*

*>I posted this statement:*

I was correct. George has finally enlightened us as to the meaning of his

cryptic numerology! He can count!

*>"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.*

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

requirements

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

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*

posted:

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

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"

--ron

Posted by *Solar Flare* on July 28, 2008, 1:55 pm

Yes, Wayne!

*> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 03:54:35 -0700 (PDT), bealiba@gmail.com wrote:*

*>>Well, we now have thirteen posts from Tweedledee and Tweedledum since*

*>>I posted this statement:*

*> I was correct. George has finally enlightened us as to the meaning of his*

*> cryptic numerology! He can count!*

*>>*

*>>"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.*

*> 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*

*> requirements*

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

*> 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**

*> posted:*

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

*> 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"*

*> --ron *

>On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:38:55 -0700, wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net wrote:>>>The battery you finally decided to come up with has almost 6 times the>>>minimum capacity YOU specified.>>>>>>------------------------------------------------>>>>>>Then you go on to copy a page from>>>http://www.smartgauge.co.uk/peukert3.html>>>>In a previous post I directed him to that web site, and I about fell>>off my chair when I saw that he was quoting it. Talk about>>transparent! At least he didn't attempt to rewrite it in his own>>words. Now *that* could have been really funny.>Sorry I had forgotten that the reference to that web site had come from>you. That makes his attempt to appear as if he were doing something>independently even more laughable!>--ron