Posted by bealiba on July 31, 2008, 3:57 am
Where I am going is that if we use the same spreadsheet there can be
no BS on your part.
Of course it produces the same results. It's the one you have on your
Ok. At the top we have;
Peukert's Exponent 1.2
Batt Capacity 342
At hour rating 10
Which gives us this - Peukert Capacity 693.1565433 for the 2AS620.
Do you have any problems with this?
342 is the capacity at 10 hours.
I have used 1.2 as the Peukert's Exponent because Tweedledum claimed
it is the "Generic". And while we are on the subject of Tweedledum I
will point out that the use of the word "Generic" shows Tweedledum's
slim grasp of the English language.
adj: Applicable to an entire class or group; "is there a generic Asian
adj: (of drugs) not protected by trademark; "`Acetaminophen' is the
generic form of the proprietary drug `Tylenol'"
adj: Relating to or common to or descriptive of all members of a
genus; "the generic name"
What Tweedledum meant to say was:
adj: Lacking special distinction, rank, or status; commonly
encountered; "average people"; "the ordinary (or common) man in the
adj: Around the middle of a scale of evaluation of physical measures;
"an orange of average size"; "intermediate capacity"; "a plane with
intermediate range"; "medium bombers"
adj: Approximating the statistical norm or average or expected value;
"the average income in New England is below that of the nation"; "of
average height for his age"; "the mean annual rainfall"
adj: Relating to or constituting the middle value of an ordered set of
values (or the average of the middle two in an even-numbered set);
"the median value of 17, 20, and 36 is 20"; "the median income for the
year was $5,000"
adj: Relating to or constituting the most frequent value in a
distribution; "the modal age at which American novelists reach their
peak is 30"
adj: Of no exceptional quality or ability; "a novel of average merit";
"only a fair performance of the sonata"; "in fair health"; "the
caliber of the students has gone from mediocre to above average"; "the
performance was middling at best"
I was saddened to here that Tweedledum's library was destroyed by
fire. Both books were lost to the flames. And he hadn't even finished
coloring in the Thesaurus.
Posted by Ron Rosenfeld on July 31, 2008, 1:22 pm
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:57:39 -0700 (PDT), firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Oh George. For a fleeting moment, I thought you might want to have a
serious discussion and learn something. But your insults cured me of that
OK, so in this case, as in the past, all the BS will come from you.
OK -- that's the web site that Wayne told you to check for information
More BS from George. He's trying to imply that he knows what is on my
I use different formulas, although they produce the same results.
For time to depletion:
N: Peukert's exponent
C: Capacity in AH
T: Hrs corresponding to C
I: Current draw to be checked
and for capacity at I
(The ghinius BS meter needle is starting to move).
But yes, George. If you enter *those* numbers into *that* spreadsheet, you
will get *those* results.
I see you finally checked the mfg data, after accusing me of "probably"
lying about it. I don't suppose you would apologize for that, though.
Uh oh. The ghinius BS meter just went off the scale!
George is using 1.2 because he has no idea how to properly calculate the
Peukert exponent of that battery.
Perhaps in his next post he will enlighten us as to why he is using the
*10hr* capacity rating as an input.
Posted by bealiba on July 31, 2008, 2:44 pm
There is no room for BS as the proposed SS is a tool that did not
originate with either Tweedledee or myself.
Well, at least the site I have known about for quite a while.
The point is to use the same tools for the same job. The only reason
not to do so is because you need a way to weasel out. I have proposed
the use of impartial tools that did not originate with either
Tweedledee or myself.
Are you saying that this SS is incorrect?
No, you are lying about numbers. Your lies started with 20% for losses
and have continued to today.
Tweedledum proposed that exponent. Are you saying that Tweedledum is
as incompetent with numbers as he is with words? But then again
anybody can work out the correct exponent with another SS found at the
bottom of the page at:
This is another tool that did not originate with either Tweedledee or
The SS requires the Peukert's exponent (1.2), the battery capacity
(342) and a time rate for that capacity (10Hrs) to calculate the
Peukert capacity at 1Amp.
The reason for using this SS is so anybody can reproduce the results
using a tool that did not originate with either Tweedledee or myself.
Tweedledee wants to maintain the fiction that he has a different SS so
he can claim a different answer to the problem and that I somehow
rigged the "peukert3.xls" SS. The Peukert's exponent of 1.2 was
recommended by Tweedledum and while it's source makes it suspect, it
did not originate with either Tweedledee or myself.
It seems that Tweedledee is afraid to use a SS that is impartial. Is
anybody surprised? If you can't accept the use of impartial tools then
you have proven your inability to deal with true numbers.
So the question is, Do you wish to play the game with impartial tools,
or, just continue to lie about the numbers?
Posted by wmbjkREMOVE on July 31, 2008, 3:23 pm
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 07:44:08 -0700 (PDT), email@example.com wrote:
Unfortunately for you, by making incorrect entries and posting the
results, you've proven that even a good tool can be used to BS.
Not very likely considering that in your entire Usenet career I don't
believe you've ever typed the word "Peukert", until getting busted for
failing to account for the effect in your deezines here.
Gawd, your tactics are beyond pathetic.
He does now, because I posted a link to a calculator a little while
Too funny. 14 minutes after I posted that link, he's pretending that
he already knew about it. Yet for some strange reason <snorf> he
forgot to explain why he entered the wrong number! Well, except for
blaming the error on somebody else of course. I guess he *wants* to
telegraph his "buck stops anywhere but here" level of taking
responsibility to potential <chuckle> customers.
I doubt he'll even try, but if he does, here are a few of my guesses -
evil twin, too many Twinkies, just testing readers, and moon phase.
Well, you'd be the guy to ask. So why are you continuing to lie about
numbers? It's not like you're fooling anybody, so what's the point?
Posted by Ron Rosenfeld on July 31, 2008, 4:18 pm
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 07:44:08 -0700 (PDT), firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Yes, for about 2 weeks since Wayne posted it.
The numbers you are entering are not relevant to the issue.
I wan't holding my breath waiting.
No, I'm saying that George is incompetent with numbers, language and
Anyone except you, apparently.
George, george, george. All you have been demonstrating is your ignorance
and incompetence at using these tools and the information at that site.
I already wrote that given *YOUR* inputs, the spreadsheet you selected will
give the outputs you posted. As will the formulas I use.
What YOU don't understand is that *YOUR* inputs are garbage with no
relevance to the problem at hand.
What you have done is use a made-up Peukert exponent, along with an
arbitrarily selected, from the mfg table of measurements, Batt
Capacity/hour rating values to try to compute a Peukert capacity which is
applicable at a 1 amp draw.
Somehow you will want to extrapolate this to something that is occurring in
this battery at a 245A draw and then go on to try to justify some of your
You are using the WRONG Peukert Exponent, and the WRONG capacity/hr rate
figures. It's little surprise that you come up with an answer that is
irrelevant to the issue.
Classic example of GIGO. But with George, this acronym seems to relate to
the newer version: Garbage in; Gospel out "...the tendency to put
excessive trust in 'computerized' data, and on the propensity for
individuals to blindly accept what the computer says."
I should let you keep blathering on, making more and more mistakes, but for
the benefit of any who might still be reading this:
George should have
1. Computed the *correct* Peukert exponent using duration/capacity values
reasonably close to the draw being contemplated. But even though he
located the proper calculator, after many hints that one existed, he
clearly chose to continue his BS rather than use that tool.
Had he done so, as he would have if he understood the topic at all, he
would have used the 1 and 4 hr capacities, or maybe the 1 and 10 hr
capacities, and would have entered a Peukert exponent of 1.5 or so in
2. He would then have entered into the Peukert3.xls SS mfg values close
to the draw being contemplated. The closest values available are the 1 hr
capacity of 161AH
3. He would then enter the 245A discharge rate into the User Entry box at
B26 and discovered, in D26, that the expected time to depletion was 0.53
hrs, and, in H26, that the total Amp Hours Available was 130.
Or, if he wanted to demonstrate the 30 minute capacity, he would have
entered 255.5550377 into B26. This would have resulted in a computed value
of 0.50 in D26 (Time) and shown the Total Amp Hours Available (H26) to be
Quite a bit less than the 180Ah minimum requirement he's been claiming all
along, (and recently changed from this being at the 100 hr rate to the 30
Nick Pine (1999) "Who would hire this PV nitwit"