Posted by *Ron Rosenfeld* on July 30, 2008, 12:40 pm

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:08:42 -0700 (PDT), bealiba@gmail.com wrote:

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

*>> workable system.*

*>Well, duh.*

Given your habit of frequently using terminology that you hope will be

misinterpreted, it is often difficult to know what you mean.

*>>*

*>> 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.*

George you repeatedly claimed that

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

represented the minimum requirements for a battery. The fact that no

particular battery was specified is irrelevant when you define minimum

requirements.

*>> What's wrong here, George?*

*>Typos.*

Ah, now it is typos as the reason. It surely couldn't be inaccurate user

input.

What about this:

*>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*

We still don't know where you got the 238 Ahr capacity rating from.

According to the manufacturer (Battery Energy) data on their web site:

Model 2AS620

Nominal volts 2

1 hr 161

2 hrs 206

3 hrs 245

4 hrs 266

5 hrs 283

8 hrs 335

10 hrs 342

12 hrs 363

24 hrs 417

48 hrs 513

120 hrs 620

168 hrs 646

240 hrs 650

Was this another typo? Or just another example of inaccurate user input?

So, to sum up George's recommendations based on the OP's request, for

running a pump rated at 2500 watts for 1/2 hr per day, in

GG: (1st try) 154 panels

GG: (2nd try) 17- 50W Panels

GG: (3rd try) (C5 / C12) = 10.3 panels rated at 41.16W

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

GG: (4th try) 10.43 panels rated at 50W (BP350)

4 - 2AS620 batteries wired in parallel

GG: (5th try) 10.43 panels rated at 50W (BP350)

6 - 2AS620 batteries wired in series

However, the manufacturer data sheet on its web site indicates the battery

that George is now specifying has only a 161 Ahr capacity at the one hour

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

So can George explain where the manufacturer has made an error and can

provide a data sheet that shows the 1 hr capacity to really be 238Ah?

Not that it matters too much, because even using the mfg published data for

panels and batteries; and also using the TMY2 data from NREL for a typical

year at the OP location, George's 5th try finally works!

Good boy, George. It only took weeks of prodding before you came up with a

reliable system recommendation using battery storage.

The simulations show that it's a bit larger than it needs to be for a

"typical year", 11 panels vs 9 panels.

(There's that pesky "user input" again, to be blamed).

So that would be about $,000 excess, depending on net costs of the panels

and installation. But at least this one will work, even though you may

have input the wrong data for the battery.

--ron

Posted by *bealiba* on July 30, 2008, 2:26 pm

*> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:08:42 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:*

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

*> >> workable system.*

*> >Well, duh.*

*> Given your habit of frequently using terminology that you hope will be*

*> misinterpreted, it is often difficult to know what you mean.*

*> >> 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.*

*> George you repeatedly claimed that*

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

*> represented the minimum requirements for a battery. The fact that no*

*> particular battery was specified is irrelevant when you define minimum*

*> requirements.*

*> >> What's wrong here, George?*

*> >Typos.*

*> Ah, now it is typos as the reason. It surely couldn't be inaccurate user*

*> input.*

*> What about this:*

*> >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*

*> We still don't know where you got the 238 Ahr capacity rating from.*

*> According to the manufacturer (Battery Energy) data on their web site:*

*> Model 2AS620*

*> Nominal volts 2*

*> 1 hr 161*

*> 2 hrs 206*

*> 3 hrs 245*

*> 4 hrs 266*

*> 5 hrs 283*

*> 8 hrs 335*

*> 10 hrs 342*

*> 12 hrs 363*

*> 24 hrs 417*

*> 48 hrs 513*

*> 120 hrs 620*

*> 168 hrs 646*

*> 240 hrs 650*

*> Was this another typo? Or just another example of inaccurate user input?*

*> So, to sum up George's recommendations based on the OP's request, for*

*> running a pump rated at 2500 watts for 1/2 hr per day, in*

*> GG: (1st try) 154 panels*

*> GG: (2nd try) 17- 50W Panels*

*> GG: (3rd try) (C5 / C12) = 10.3 panels rated at 41.16W*

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

*> GG: (4th try) 10.43 panels rated at 50W (BP350)*

*> 4 - 2AS620 batteries wired in parallel*

*> GG: (5th try) 10.43 panels rated at 50W (BP350)*

*> 6 - 2AS620 batteries wired in series*

*> However, the manufacturer data sheet on its web site indicates the battery*

*> that George is now specifying has only a 161 Ahr capacity at the one hour*

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

*> So can George explain where the manufacturer has made an error and can*

*> provide a data sheet that shows the 1 hr capacity to really be 238Ah?*

*> Not that it matters too much, because even using the mfg published data for*

*> panels and batteries; and also using the TMY2 data from NREL for a typical*

*> year at the OP location, George's 5th try finally works!*

So you say. But then that's probably another lie anyway.

*> Good boy, George. It only took weeks of prodding before you came up with a*

*> reliable system recommendation using battery storage.*

Your praise is so overwhelming, not. First you say the battery is

wrong then you say it is right. you're a lot like the weather man on

the news. Rain and sun somewhere today, unless it doesn't.

*> The simulations show that it's a bit larger than it needs to be for a*

*> "typical year", 11 panels vs 9 panels.*

*> (There's that pesky "user input" again, to be blamed).*

*> So that would be about $,000 excess, depending on net costs of the panels*

*> and installation. But at least this one will work, even though you may*

*> have input the wrong data for the battery.*

*> --ron*

When you can show that the formula is incorrect then you can crow. Now

try being a real man and do total system sizing. Showing all the

calculations and user input. Oh, silly me, you never will. You talk I

walk.

Posted by *Ron Rosenfeld* on July 30, 2008, 4:16 pm

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:26:33 -0700 (PDT), bealiba@gmail.com wrote:

*>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:08:42 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:*

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

*>> >> workable system.*

*>>*

*>> >Well, duh.*

*>>*

*>> Given your habit of frequently using terminology that you hope will be*

*>> misinterpreted, it is often difficult to know what you mean.*

*>>*

*>>*

*>>*

*>> >> 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.*

*>>*

*>> George you repeatedly claimed that*

*>>*

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

*>>*

*>> represented the minimum requirements for a battery. The fact that no*

*>> particular battery was specified is irrelevant when you define minimum*

*>> requirements.*

*>>*

*>> >> What's wrong here, George?*

*>>*

*>> >Typos.*

*>>*

*>> Ah, now it is typos as the reason. It surely couldn't be inaccurate user*

*>> input.*

*>>*

*>> What about this:*

*>>*

*>> >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*

*>>*

*>> We still don't know where you got the 238 Ahr capacity rating from.*

*>>*

*>> According to the manufacturer (Battery Energy) data on their web site:*

*>>*

*>> Model 2AS620*

*>> Nominal volts 2*

*>>*

*>> 1 hr 161*

*>> 2 hrs 206*

*>> 3 hrs 245*

*>> 4 hrs 266*

*>> 5 hrs 283*

*>> 8 hrs 335*

*>> 10 hrs 342*

*>> 12 hrs 363*

*>> 24 hrs 417*

*>> 48 hrs 513*

*>> 120 hrs 620*

*>> 168 hrs 646*

*>> 240 hrs 650*

*>>*

*>> Was this another typo? Or just another example of inaccurate user input?*

*>>*

*>> So, to sum up George's recommendations based on the OP's request, for*

*>> running a pump rated at 2500 watts for 1/2 hr per day, in*

*>>*

*>> GG: (1st try) 154 panels*

*>>*

*>> GG: (2nd try) 17- 50W Panels*

*>>*

*>> GG: (3rd try) (C5 / C12) = 10.3 panels rated at 41.16W*

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

*>>*

*>> GG: (4th try) 10.43 panels rated at 50W (BP350)*

*>> 4 - 2AS620 batteries wired in parallel*

*>>*

*>> GG: (5th try) 10.43 panels rated at 50W (BP350)*

*>> 6 - 2AS620 batteries wired in series*

*>>*

*>> However, the manufacturer data sheet on its web site indicates the battery*

*>> that George is now specifying has only a 161 Ahr capacity at the one hour*

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

*>>*

*>> So can George explain where the manufacturer has made an error and can*

*>> provide a data sheet that shows the 1 hr capacity to really be 238Ah?*

*>>*

*>> Not that it matters too much, because even using the mfg published data for*

*>> panels and batteries; and also using the TMY2 data from NREL for a typical*

*>> year at the OP location, George's 5th try finally works!*

*>So you say. But then that's probably another lie anyway.*

One that you could easily refute, if you were able to. I even provided you

the link to the data on the mfg web site. But I guess that's too much

trouble. You'd rather just make up your data and, when corrected, instead

of admitting it, post nonsense.

*>>*

*>> Good boy, George. It only took weeks of prodding before you came up with a*

*>> reliable system recommendation using battery storage.*

*>Your praise is so overwhelming, not. First you say the battery is*

*>wrong then you say it is right. you're a lot like the weather man on*

*>the news. Rain and sun somewhere today, unless it doesn't.*

I never wrote that 2AS620 was the wrong battery.

I did write that it was wrong to use 4 of them, when YOU posted:

*>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*

I also said your minimum battery requirements were wrong, when YOU posted:

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

And I said that your 2AS1100 was oversized compared with YOUR minimum

requirements when you suggested it, because its 100 hr rating is almost six

(6) times YOUR posted minimum requirements.

After many posts, you finally realized that your 180Ah minimum requirement

should have been at the 30 minute rate, and not the 100 hr rate. But then

you were left with trying to explain:

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

Tough to BS when your writings are preserved on the newsgroup, though.

*>>*

*>> The simulations show that it's a bit larger than it needs to be for a*

*>> "typical year", 11 panels vs 9 panels.*

*>>*

*>> (There's that pesky "user input" again, to be blamed).*

*>>*

*>> So that would be about $,000 excess, depending on net costs of the panels*

*>> and installation. But at least this one will work, even though you may*

*>> have input the wrong data for the battery.*

*>> --ron*

*>When you can show that the formula is incorrect then you can crow. *

You can't recognize the obvious.

Since your spreadsheet gives so many different results, its inadequacy is a

given.

And when you posted:

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

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

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

where you divide 108 / 238 and come up with 4

and then tried to blame this on typos, you lost even more credibility.

And of course, you also posted:

*>A7 System Voltage = 12*

*>B7 Selected Battery 2AS620*

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

Where you divide 12 / 2 and come up with 1

And blame that on typos also.

*>Now*

*>try being a real man and do total system sizing. Showing all the*

*>calculations and user input. Oh, silly me, you never will. You talk I*

*>walk.*

If only you would walk.

If only you were a "real man" and could admit to making a mistake.

I've already posted my array-sizing calculations. But you claimed they

were excessive even though I recommended 10 panels and you recommended more

than that.

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

And when you try to BS with typos, you post the following "correction" to

your typos:

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

*>SELECTED BATTERY 2AS620*

*>SELECTED BATTERY DISCHARGE RATE 1.00 HOURS*

*>Ah CAPACITY OF SELECTED BATTERY 238.00 A HOURS*

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

which does NOT agree with what is on the mfg site. But you are not able to

explain the difference.

You also post:

*>SELECTED MODULE BP350*

*>SELECTED MODULE I AT 14 VOLTS NOCT 2.90 AMPS*

which also does not agree with the mfg spec sheet for that module. (Here's

a link to the spec sheet on the mfg site:

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/solar/bp_solar_usa/STAGING/local_assets/downloads_pdfs/product_data_sheet_bp_350_J_B.pdf

The rating at NOCT is not at 14 VOLTS, but rather at 17.5V. You keep

making this error, in spite of it having been pointed out to you before,

several times. At 14V, the current output is higher, but the power is

less.

Clearly, with errors in calculations and in your USER inputs, it was pure

serendipity and multiple attempts that finally brought you to the point of

a usable system. As a matter of fact, the 30 minute capacity of the

2AS620, although not posted by the mfg, can be easily calculated, using

Peukert's exponent, from the mfg data to be 125Ah -- a fraction of the

180Ah 30 minute capacity you are NOW claiming to represent the minimum

requirements.

If you want, you can confirm the calculations using the calculators at the

web site Wayne referred you to; and the mfg data using the link I posted

for you.

But you'll probably just claim that these data are lies.

--ron

Posted by *bealiba* on July 30, 2008, 7:21 pm

*> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:26:33 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:*

*> >> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:08:42 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:*

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

*> >> >> workable system.*

*> >> >Well, duh.*

*> >> Given your habit of frequently using terminology that you hope will be*

*> >> misinterpreted, it is often difficult to know what you mean.*

*> >> >> 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.*

*> >> George you repeatedly claimed that*

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

*> >> represented the minimum requirements for a battery. The fact that no*

*> >> particular battery was specified is irrelevant when you define minimum*

*> >> requirements.*

*> >> >> What's wrong here, George?*

*> >> >Typos.*

*> >> Ah, now it is typos as the reason. It surely couldn't be inaccurate user*

*> >> input.*

*> >> What about this:*

*> >> >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*

*> >> We still don't know where you got the 238 Ahr capacity rating from.*

*> >> According to the manufacturer (Battery Energy) data on their web site:*

*> >> Model 2AS620*

*> >> Nominal volts 2*

*> >> 1 hr 161*

*> >> 2 hrs 206*

*> >> 3 hrs 245*

*> >> 4 hrs 266*

*> >> 5 hrs 283*

*> >> 8 hrs 335*

*> >> 10 hrs 342*

*> >> 12 hrs 363*

*> >> 24 hrs 417*

*> >> 48 hrs 513*

*> >> 120 hrs 620*

*> >> 168 hrs 646*

*> >> 240 hrs 650*

*> >> Was this another typo? Or just another example of inaccurate user input?*

*> >> So, to sum up George's recommendations based on the OP's request, for*

*> >> running a pump rated at 2500 watts for 1/2 hr per day, in*

*> >> GG: (1st try) 154 panels*

*> >> GG: (2nd try) 17- 50W Panels*

*> >> GG: (3rd try) (C5 / C12) = 10.3 panels rated at 41.16W*

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

*> >> GG: (4th try) 10.43 panels rated at 50W (BP350)*

*> >> 4 - 2AS620 batteries wired in parallel*

*> >> GG: (5th try) 10.43 panels rated at 50W (BP350)*

*> >> 6 - 2AS620 batteries wired in series*

*> >> However, the manufacturer data sheet on its web site indicates the battery*

*> >> that George is now specifying has only a 161 Ahr capacity at the one hour*

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

*> >> So can George explain where the manufacturer has made an error and can*

*> >> provide a data sheet that shows the 1 hr capacity to really be 238Ah?*

*> >> Not that it matters too much, because even using the mfg published data for*

*> >> panels and batteries; and also using the TMY2 data from NREL for a typical*

*> >> year at the OP location, George's 5th try finally works!*

*> >So you say. But then that's probably another lie anyway.*

*> One that you could easily refute, if you were able to. I even provided you*

*> the link to the data on the mfg web site. But I guess that's too much*

*> trouble. You'd rather just make up your data and, when corrected, instead*

*> of admitting it, post nonsense.*

*> >> Good boy, George. It only took weeks of prodding before you came up with a*

*> >> reliable system recommendation using battery storage.*

*> >Your praise is so overwhelming, not. First you say the battery is*

*> >wrong then you say it is right. you're a lot like the weather man on*

*> >the news. Rain and sun somewhere today, unless it doesn't.*

*> I never wrote that 2AS620 was the wrong battery.*

*> I did write that it was wrong to use 4 of them, when YOU posted:*

*> >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*

*> I also said your minimum battery requirements were wrong, when YOU posted:*

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

*> And I said that your 2AS1100 was oversized compared with YOUR minimum*

*> requirements when you suggested it, because its 100 hr rating is almost six*

*> (6) times YOUR posted minimum requirements.*

*> After many posts, you finally realized that your 180Ah minimum requirement*

*> should have been at the 30 minute rate, and not the 100 hr rate. But then*

*> you were left with trying to explain:*

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

*> Tough to BS when your writings are preserved on the newsgroup, though.*

*> >> The simulations show that it's a bit larger than it needs to be for a*

*> >> "typical year", 11 panels vs 9 panels.*

*> >> (There's that pesky "user input" again, to be blamed).*

*> >> So that would be about $,000 excess, depending on net costs of the panels*

*> >> and installation. But at least this one will work, even though you may*

*> >> have input the wrong data for the battery.*

*> >> --ron*

*> >When you can show that the formula is incorrect then you can crow.*

*> You can't recognize the obvious.*

*> Since your spreadsheet gives so many different results, its inadequacy is a*

*> given.*

*> And when you posted:*

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

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

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

*> where you divide 108 / 238 and come up with 4*

*> and then tried to blame this on typos, you lost even more credibility.*

*> And of course, you also posted:*

*> >A7 System Voltage = 12*

*> >B7 Selected Battery 2AS620*

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

*> Where you divide 12 / 2 and come up with 1*

*> And blame that on typos also.*

*> >Now*

*> >try being a real man and do total system sizing. Showing all the*

*> >calculations and user input. Oh, silly me, you never will. You talk I*

*> >walk.*

*> If only you would walk.*

*> If only you were a "real man" and could admit to making a mistake.*

*> I've already posted my array-sizing calculations. But you claimed they*

*> were excessive even though I recommended 10 panels and you recommended more*

*> than that.*

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

*> And when you try to BS with typos, you post the following "correction" to*

*> your typos:*

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

*> >SELECTED BATTERY 2AS620*

*> >SELECTED BATTERY DISCHARGE RATE 1.00 HOURS*

*> >Ah CAPACITY OF SELECTED BATTERY 238.00 A HOURS*

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

*> which does NOT agree with what is on the mfg site. But you are not able to*

*> explain the difference.*

*> You also post:*

*> >SELECTED MODULE BP350*

*> >SELECTED MODULE I AT 14 VOLTS NOCT 2.90 AMPS*

*> which also does not agree with the mfg spec sheet for that module. (Here's*

*> a link to the spec sheet on the mfg site:*

*> http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/solar/bp_solar_usa/STAGING/l ...*

*> The rating at NOCT is not at 14 VOLTS, but rather at 17.5V. You keep*

*> making this error, in spite of it having been pointed out to you before,*

*> several times. At 14V, the current output is higher, but the power is*

*> less.*

*> Clearly, with errors in calculations and in your USER inputs, it was pure*

*> serendipity and multiple attempts that finally brought you to the point of*

*> a usable system. As a matter of fact, the 30 minute capacity of the*

*> 2AS620, although not posted by the mfg, can be easily calculated, using*

*> Peukert's exponent, from the mfg data to be 125Ah -- a fraction of the*

*> 180Ah 30 minute capacity you are NOW claiming to represent the minimum*

*> requirements.*

*> If you want, you can confirm the calculations using the calculators at the*

*> web site Wayne referred you to; and the mfg data using the link I posted*

*> for you.*

*> But you'll probably just claim that these data are lies.*

*> --ron*

Just so everyone can work from the same page I suggest that we use

"peukert3.xls" as it operates by adjusting the specified battery

capacity to the "Peukert Capacity" then showing run times calculated

using the usual T=C/In

Posted by *Ron Rosenfeld* on July 30, 2008, 9:44 pm

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:21:46 -0700 (PDT), bealiba@gmail.com wrote:

*>Just so everyone can work from the same page I suggest that we use*

*>"peukert3.xls" as it operates by adjusting the specified battery*

*>capacity to the "Peukert Capacity" then showing run times calculated*

*>using the usual T=C/In*

I suppose you mean T=C/I^n

Where are you going with this?

By "peukert3.xls" do you mean

http://www.smartgauge.co.uk/calcs/peukert3.xls ?

Since it produces the same results as my own Excel spreadsheet, I have no

objection.

What are you going to use for inputs?

Bad input is one of the items that has been critical in your efforts to

date.

--ron

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