Posted by *wmbjkREMOVE* on July 28, 2008, 2:54 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:*

*>"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*

You say there's "no point", yet here you are *again*! Why have you

written several posts (without any plans to stop apparently) since

proclaiming that there's "no point" in carrying on? Why do you write

things which obviously contradict your actions? Have you considered

getting a struckteral edatir to check your posts for logic?

*>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. *

Not a "single calculation", eh, nitwit? How stupid is it to write

things that are easily disproved in seconds? For example: "In other

words, a battery that actually MEETS *George's* minimun requirements

will run the pump for 30/245*60 = 7 minutes at the very most."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.solar.photovoltaic/msg/b6a4a9a590e18408

Now, would you like to withdraw your assertion as any normal person

would do, or will you go on repeating it, exaggerating it, and double

talking around it as usual? As if we don't know the answer.

*>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.*

*Your* useless spreadsheet uses the daily load to spec the battery

capacity. Adjust the number at that point or in the following battery

section, however you like. But if you were to use the basic method of

calculation, which is the *most* anyone could ever expect from you,

then the result will be the same. Or is it your position now that if

the calculation isn't made the way you wish you'd done it, then it's

better to just ignore the effect entirely as you and your "spreadsheet

of the formula" have been doing for your entire "career"?

*> One can only*

*>assume that this is to further reduce the voltage drop in the wiring.*

"One" being George the ghinius deeziner, who claims to be "good" at

his phony job, while getting his butt kicked in public over and over

again rather than learning what he doesn't know about the basics of

system design.

Wayne

Posted by *bealiba* on July 28, 2008, 11:00 pm

On Jul 29, 12:54 am, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:

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

*> >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*

*> You say there's "no point", yet here you are *again*! Why have you*

*> written several posts (without any plans to stop apparently) since*

*> proclaiming that there's "no point" in carrying on? Why do you write*

*> things which obviously contradict your actions? Have you considered*

*> getting a struckteral edatir to check your posts for logic?*

*> >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.*

*> Not a "single calculation", eh, nitwit? How stupid is it to write*

*> things that are easily disproved in seconds? For example: "In other*

*> words, a battery that actually MEETS *George's* minimun requirements*

*> will run the pump for 30/245*60 = 7 minutes at the very*

*
most."http://groups.google.com/group/alt.solar.photovoltaic/msg/b6a4a9a590e ...*
*> Now, would you like to withdraw your assertion as any normal person*

*> would do, or will you go on repeating it, exaggerating it, and double*

*> talking around it as usual? As if we don't know the answer.*

*> >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.*

*> *Your* useless spreadsheet uses the daily load to spec the battery*

*> capacity. Adjust the number at that point or in the following battery*

*> section, however you like. But if you were to use the basic method of*

*> calculation, which is the *most* anyone could ever expect from you,*

*> then the result will be the same. Or is it your position now that if*

*> the calculation isn't made the way you wish you'd done it, then it's*

*> better to just ignore the effect entirely as you and your "spreadsheet*

*> of the formula" have been doing for your entire "career"?*

*> > One can only*

*> >assume that this is to further reduce the voltage drop in the wiring.*

*> "One" being George the ghinius deeziner, who claims to be "good" at*

*> his phony job, while getting his butt kicked in public over and over*

*> again rather than learning what he doesn't know about the basics of*

*> system design.*

*> Wayne*

15 and counting

Posted by *bealiba* on July 30, 2008, 12:44 am

On Jul 29, 12:54 am, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:

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

*> >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*

*> You say there's "no point", yet here you are *again*! Why have you*

*> written several posts (without any plans to stop apparently) since*

*> proclaiming that there's "no point" in carrying on? Why do you write*

*> things which obviously contradict your actions? Have you considered*

*> getting a struckteral edatir to check your posts for logic?*

Because you have proposed a calculation.

*> >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.*

*> Not a "single calculation", eh, nitwit? How stupid is it to write*

*> things that are easily disproved in seconds? For example: "In other*

*> words, a battery that actually MEETS *George's* minimun requirements*

*> will run the pump for 30/245*60 = 7 minutes at the very most."http://groups.google.com/group/alt.solar.photovoltaic/msg/b6a4a9a590e ...*

*> Now, would you like to withdraw your assertion as any normal person*

*> would do, or will you go on repeating it, exaggerating it, and double*

*> talking around it as usual? As if we don't know the answer.*

This is an interesting bit of math. Simply, the calculation is

correct. The problem is that it is based on a lie.

*> >But Tweedledum did 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.*

*> *Your* useless spreadsheet uses the daily load to spec the battery*

*> capacity. Adjust the number at that point or in the following battery*

*> section, however you like. But if you were to use the basic method of*

*> calculation, which is the *most* anyone could ever expect from you,*

*> then the result will be the same. Or is it your position now that if*

*> the calculation isn't made the way you wish you'd done it, then it's*

*> better to just ignore the effect entirely as you and your "spreadsheet*

*> of the formula" have been doing for your entire "career"?*

Here is the lie. Tweedledum requires that the formula be seen to be

useless. So he proposes that the information of the daily load be

changed with Peukert's equation for battery capacity. The thing is

that the daily load is a "calculated input". This being the case it

should not be changed. Changing it would be the same as saying that -

1+1=3 - just because "2" isn't the answer you want. The place to put

battery specs is at B7, B8, B9, B12

Tweedledum wants the daily load changed so the result hides the 180Ah

minimum battery capacity. The 180Ah is correct for the C0.5 rate.

Now the truth is that I have never specified a battery for this

system. Therefore, any claims by Tweedledee or Tweedledum about

battery specs are lies. You see, you have to take into account their

education. They have both had a broad education. Theyve been to the

School of "My Dad Always Said", the College of "It Stands to Reason"

and are now postgraduate students at the University of "What Some

Bloke In The Pub Told Me".*

Neither of them designed their systems.

*> > One can only*

*> >assume that this is to further reduce the voltage drop in the wiring.*

*> "One" being George the ghinius deeziner, who claims to be "good" at*

*> his phony job, while getting his butt kicked in public over and over*

*> again rather than learning what he doesn't know about the basics of*

If I was to add battery and panel specifications the formula would

look something like this;

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 = 1

B2 Maximum allowable depth of discharge = 70%

B3 Battery capacity (A8 x B1 / B2) = 175Ah

B4 Lowest 24 hour average temperature =15c

B5 Temperature correction factor =.97

B6 Adjusted battery capacity (B3 / B5) = 180

B7 Selected Battery 2AS620

B8 Selected battery discharge rate 1

B9 A-hr capacity of selected battery = 238Ah

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 1 Hr rate = 238

B13 Capacity of battery bank at 1 hr rate (B12 x B10) = 238

B14 Daily depth of discharge (100 x A8 / B13) = 51.49%

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 BP350

C8 Selected module I at 17 volts at NOCT 2.9A

C9 Selected module nominal operating voltage. = 12V

C10 Guaranteed current (C8 x 0.9) = 2.61A

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) = 10.43

This formula will correctly size a stand alone PV system given the

user input is correct. You can see every calculation. No great

secrets. No mysteries.

You do however have to provide correct data at several points. If

you, like Tweedledee and Tweedledum, are unable to do so then you

would be better off to hire someone to do it for you as Tweedledee

did, or, you can follow Tweedledum's solution and copy someone else's

system design and throw money at it until it works, at least during

daylight hours..

* Thank you Terry Pratchette

Posted by *Ron Rosenfeld* on July 30, 2008, 3:06 am

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:44:28 -0700 (PDT), bealiba@gmail.com wrote:

*>The 180Ah is correct for the C0.5 rate.*

If by C0.5 you mean the 30 minute rate, that would be a lot closer to a

workable system.

Unfortunately for your credibility, what you posted and claimed as a

minimum requirement was:

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

The 100 hr rate is NOT the same as the 30 minute rate. But now that you've

finally changed that, I see in your latest posting you've now come up with

new battery specifications, and also panels that clearly exceed your

original. Let's see if you finally got it right, and let's look at some of

these formulas, because, at first glance, I think you still need to make

some changes:

What George wrote about panels for the OP's system with his third try:

*>>*

*>> >> C8 Selected module I at 14 volts at NOCT 2.94A*

*>> >> C13 Number of parallel strings of modules (C5 / C12) = 10.3*

*>C8 shows what sort of information is required*

*>>*

*>> >> 14 volts is the test standard at 25C. 17 volts is what the produces*

*>> >> when not connected to a load.*

Let's look closely at what you've posted now:

George's 4th system:

Panels: 11 50 watt BP350

Batteries: 4 2AS620 Battery Energy

================================================

*>If I was to add battery and panel specifications the formula would*

*>look something like this;*

*>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 = 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*

*>B7 Selected Battery 2AS620*

*>B8 Selected battery discharge rate 1*

*>B9 A-hr capacity of selected battery = 238Ah*

*>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 1 Hr rate = 238*

*>B13 Capacity of battery bank at 1 hr rate (B12 x B10) = 238*

*>B14 Daily depth of discharge (100 x A8 / B13) = 51.49%*

*>C1 Design tilt*

*>C2 Design month*

*>C3 Total energy demand per day (A8) 2.55Ah*

*>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 BP350*

*>C8 Selected module I at 17 volts at NOCT 2.9A*

*>C9 Selected module nominal operating voltage. = 12V*

*>C10 Guaranteed current (C8 x 0.9) = 2.61A*

*>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) = 10.43*

======================================================

Selected lines from above:

A7 System Voltage = 12

B6 Adjusted battery capacity (B3 / B5) = 180

B7 Selected Battery 2AS620

B8 Selected battery discharge rate 1

B9 A-hr capacity of selected battery = 238Ah

B10 Number of batteries in parallel (B6 / B9, rounded off) = 4

B11 Number of batteries in series (A7 / battery voltage) =1

What's wrong here, George?

You are recommending a system which has a total of four (4) 2AS620

batteries wired in parallel. That doesn't even pass a common sense test,

but lets look at the math:

How do you arrive at 4 2AS620's?

Well, according to your posting, B10 (number of batteries in PARALLEL) =

B6/B9, rounded off = 4

But:

B6 = 180

B9 = 238

B6/B9 = 180/238 = 0.756303

How does your useless spreadsheet come up with a value of 4? And why?

Now look at B11 (batteries in series): A7 / battery voltage = 1

A7 = 12

Battery Voltage, according to the manufacturer, = 2 Volts.

12/2 = 6

How does your useless spreadsheet come up with a value of 1, and why?

How long have you been using this spreadsheet and attesting to its

accuracy, and challenging others to find errors?

So far as your inputs, according to the Battery Energy company's Discharge

table, published on their web site, the 2AS620 has a 1 hr capacity of 161

Ah to 1.8 vpc.

http://www.batteryenergy.com.au/02_suncycle_discharge.htm

Where did the 238Ah you have in B9 come from?

-----------------------------

If the mfg specifications are to be believed, 4 2AS620 batteries in

parallel, and 1 in series, for a total number of batteries = 4 would have a

1 hr capacity of 161*4 = 644Ah @ 2 volts. This will not work in a 12 volt

system.

Care to try again, George?

--ron

Posted by *bealiba* on July 30, 2008, 8:08 am

*> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:44:28 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:*

*> >The 180Ah is correct for the C0.5 rate.*

*> If by C0.5 you mean the 30 minute rate, that would be a lot closer to a*

*> workable system.*

Well, duh.

*> Unfortunately for your credibility, what you posted and claimed as a*

*> minimum requirement was:*

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

Still pandering the same lie. No battery was specified so no specs

were supplied.

Having read the rest of your drivel I will ask now, Show the maths

that prove your claims.

*> The 100 hr rate is NOT the same as the 30 minute rate. But now that you've*

*> finally changed that, I see in your latest posting you've now come up with*

*> new battery specifications, and also panels that clearly exceed your*

*> original. Let's see if you finally got it right, and let's look at some of*

*> these formulas, because, at first glance, I think you still need to make*

*> some changes:*

*> What George wrote about panels for the OP's system with his third try:*

*> >> >> C8 Selected module I at 14 volts at NOCT 2.94A*

*> >> >> C13 Number of parallel strings of modules (C5 / C12) = 10.3*

*> >C8 shows what sort of information is required*

*> >> >> 14 volts is the test standard at 25C. 17 volts is what the produces*

*> >> >> when not connected to a load.*

*> Let's look closely at what you've posted now:*

*> George's 4th system:*

*> Panels: 11 50 watt BP350*

*> Batteries: 4 2AS620 Battery Energy*

*> ================================================*

*> >If I was to add battery and panel specifications the formula would*

*> >look something like this;*

*> >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 = 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*

*> >B7 Selected Battery 2AS620*

*> >B8 Selected battery discharge rate 1*

*> >B9 A-hr capacity of selected battery = 238Ah*

*> >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 1 Hr rate = 238*

*> >B13 Capacity of battery bank at 1 hr rate (B12 x B10) = 238*

*> >B14 Daily depth of discharge (100 x A8 / B13) = 51.49%*

*> >C1 Design tilt*

*> >C2 Design month*

*> >C3 Total energy demand per day (A8) 2.55Ah*

*> >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 BP350*

*> >C8 Selected module I at 17 volts at NOCT 2.9A*

*> >C9 Selected module nominal operating voltage. = 12V*

*> >C10 Guaranteed current (C8 x 0.9) = 2.61A*

*> >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) = 10.43*

*> ======================================================*

*> Selected lines from above:*

*> A7 System Voltage = 12*

*> B6 Adjusted battery capacity (B3 / B5) = 180*

*> B7 Selected Battery 2AS620*

*> B8 Selected battery discharge rate 1*

*> B9 A-hr capacity of selected battery = 238Ah*

*> B10 Number of batteries in parallel (B6 / B9, rounded off) = 4*

*> B11 Number of batteries in series (A7 / battery voltage) =1*

*> What's wrong here, George?*

Typos. I have been through your lies, misinformation and am just plain

worn out trying tokeep up with your nonsense. So why don't you stand

up and put forward your best effort at system sizing. Then we can

have a real good laugh. But then you can't can you.

This is the calculation I used. Sorry for the typos. Live with it.

SYSTEM SIZING SYSTEM V BATTERY V

PHOTOVOLTAIC 12.00 2.00

240 VOLT WATT HOURS 1250.00 W HOURS

INVERTER EFFICIENCY 85.00 %

ACCOUNT FOR INVERTER INEFFICIENCY 1470.59 W HOURS

INVERTER SIZE 882.35 WATTS

12/24/48 VOLT WATT HOURS PER DAY 0.00 W HOURS

SYSTEM VOLTAGE 12.00 VOLTS

TOTAL AMP HOUR DEMAND PER DAY 122.55 A HOURS

BATTERY SIZING

NUMBER OF DAYS AUTONOMY 1.00 DAYS

MAX. ALLOWABLE DEPTH OF DISCHARGE 70.00 %

BATTERY CAPACITY 175.07 A HOURS

LOWEST 24 HOUR AVERAGE TEMPERATURE 15.00 DEGREES C.

TEMPERATURE CORRECTION FACTOR 0.97

ADJUSTED BATTERY CAPACITY 180.48 A HOURS

SELECTED BATTERY 2AS620

SELECTED BATTERY DISCHARGE RATE 1.00 HOURS

Ah CAPACITY OF SELECTED BATTERY 238.00 A HOURS

NUMBER OF BATTERIES IN PARALLEL 1.00

NUMBER OF BATTERIES IN SERIES 6.00

CAPACITY OF BATT. BANK @ 1 HR RATE 238.00 A HOURS

DAILY DEPTH OF DISCHARGE 51.49 %

PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAY SIZING

DESIGN TILT 60.00 DEGREES

DESIGN MONTH JUNE

TOTAL ENERGY DEMAND PER DAY 122.55 A HOURS

BATTERY EFFICIENCY 90.00 %

ARRAY OUTPUT REQUIRED PER DAY 136.17 A HOURS

PEAK SUN HOURS FOR TILT/MONTH 5.00 HOURS

SELECTED MODULE BP350

SELECTED MODULE I AT 14 VOLTS NOCT 2.90 AMPS

SELECTED MODULE NOMINAL VOLTAGE 12.00 VOLTS

GARANTEED CURRENT 2.61 AMPS

NUMBER OF MODULES IN SERIES 1.00 MODULES

OUTPUT PER MODULE 13.05 A HOURS

NUMBER OF PARALLEL STRINGS 10.43 STRINGS

Care to prove it wrong. It is correct. Mind you I would never build

this system. It is a dead end.

*> You are recommending a system which has a total of four (4) 2AS620*

*> batteries wired in parallel. That doesn't even pass a common sense test,*

*> but lets look at the math:*

*> How do you arrive at 4 2AS620's?*

*> Well, according to your posting, B10 (number of batteries in PARALLEL) =*

*> B6/B9, rounded off = 4*

*> But:*

*> B6 = 180*

*> B9 = 238*

*> B6/B9 = 180/238 = 0.756303*

*> How does your useless spreadsheet come up with a value of 4? And why?*

*> Now look at B11 (batteries in series): A7 / battery voltage = 1*

*> A7 = 12*

*> Battery Voltage, according to the manufacturer, = 2 Volts.*

*> 12/2 = 6*

*> How does your useless spreadsheet come up with a value of 1, and why?*

*> How long have you been using this spreadsheet and attesting to its*

*> accuracy, and challenging others to find errors?*

*> So far as your inputs, according to the Battery Energy company's Discharge*

*> table, published on their web site, the 2AS620 has a 1 hr capacity of 161*

*> Ah to 1.8 vpc.*

*> http://www.batteryenergy.com.au/02_suncycle_discharge.htm *

*> Where did the 238Ah you have in B9 come from?*

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

*> If the mfg specifications are to be believed, 4 2AS620 batteries in*

*> parallel, and 1 in series, for a total number of batteries = 4 would have a*

*> 1 hr capacity of 161*4 = 644Ah @ 2 volts. This will not work in a 12 volt*

*> system.*

*> Care to try again, George?*

*> --ron*

The formula is there. Care to try just once. You have totally failed

in all your posts to even come close to a solution.

>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