Posted by *bealiba* on July 31, 2008, 3:57 am

*> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:21:46 -0700 (PDT), beal...@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?*

Where I am going is that if we use the same spreadsheet there can be

no BS on your part.

*> By "peukert3.xls" do you meanhttp://www.smartgauge.co.uk/calcs/peukert3.xls? *

Yes

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

*> objection.*

Of course it produces the same results. It's the one you have on your

computer.

*> What are you going to use for inputs?*

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.

Generic:

adj: Applicable to an entire class or group; "is there a generic Asian

mind?"

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:

Average

adj: Lacking special distinction, rank, or status; commonly

encountered; "average people"; "the ordinary (or common) man in the

street"

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), bealiba@gmail.com wrote:

*>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:21:46 -0700 (PDT), beal...@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?*

*>Where I am going is that if we use the same spreadsheet there can be*

*>no BS on your part.*

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

hope.

OK, so in this case, as in the past, all the BS will come from you.

*>>*

*>> By "peukert3.xls" do you meanhttp://www.smartgauge.co.uk/calcs/peukert3.xls? *

*>Yes*

OK -- that's the web site that Wayne told you to check for information

about Peukert.

*>>*

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

*>> objection.*

*>Of course it produces the same results. It's the one you have on your*

*>computer.*

More BS from George. He's trying to imply that he knows what is on my

computer.

I use different formulas, although they produce the same results.

For time to depletion:

=C*(C/T)^(N-1)/I^N

N: Peukert's exponent

C: Capacity in AH

T: Hrs corresponding to C

I: Current draw to be checked

and for capacity at I

=(C*(C/T)^(N-1)/I^N)*I

*>>*

*>> What are you going to use for inputs?*

*>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?*

(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.

*>342 is the capacity at 10 hours.*

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.

*>I have used 1.2 as the Peukert's Exponent because Tweedledum claimed*

*>it is the "Generic". *

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.

--ron

Posted by *bealiba* on July 31, 2008, 2:44 pm

*> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:57:39 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:*

*> >> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:21:46 -0700 (PDT), beal...@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?*

*> >Where I am going is that if we use the same spreadsheet there can be*

*> >no BS on your part.*

*> 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*

*> hope.*

*> OK, so in this case, as in the past, all the BS will come from you.*

There is no room for BS as the proposed SS is a tool that did not

originate with either Tweedledee or myself.

*> >> By "peukert3.xls" do you meanhttp://www.smartgauge.co.uk/calcs/peukert3.xls? *

*> >Yes*

*> OK -- that's the web site that Wayne told you to check for information*

*> about Peukert.*

Well, at least the site I have known about for quite a while.

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

*> >> objection.*

*> >Of course it produces the same results. It's the one you have on your*

*> >computer.*

*> More BS from George. He's trying to imply that he knows what is on my*

*> computer.*

*> I use different formulas, although they produce the same results.*

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.

*> For time to depletion:*

*> =C*(C/T)^(N-1)/I^N*

*> N: Peukert's exponent*

*> C: Capacity in AH*

*> T: Hrs corresponding to C*

*> I: Current draw to be checked*

*> and for capacity at I*

*> =(C*(C/T)^(N-1)/I^N)*I*

*> >> What are you going to use for inputs?*

*> >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?*

*> (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.*

Are you saying that this SS is incorrect?

*> >342 is the capacity at 10 hours.*

*> 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.*

No, you are lying about numbers. Your lies started with 20% for losses

and have continued to today.

*> >I have used 1.2 as the Peukert's Exponent because Tweedledum claimed*

*> >it is the "Generic".*

*> 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.*

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:

http://www.smartgauge.co.uk/peukert_depth.html

This is another tool that did not originate with either Tweedledee or

myself.

*> Perhaps in his next post he will enlighten us as to why he is using the*

*> *10hr* capacity rating as an input.*

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), bealiba@gmail.com wrote:

*>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:57:39 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:*

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

*>There is no room for BS as the proposed SS is a tool *

Unfortunately for you, by making incorrect entries and posting the

results, you've proven that even a good tool can be used to BS.

*>> >> By "peukert3.xls" do you*

*
meanhttp://www.smartgauge.co.uk/calcs/peukert3.xls? *
*>>*

*>> >Yes*

*>>*

*>> OK -- that's the web site that Wayne told you to check for information*

*>> about Peukert.*

*>Well, at least the site I have known about for quite a while.*

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.

*>> (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.*

*>Are you saying that this SS is incorrect?*

Gawd, your tactics are beyond pathetic.

*>> >I have used 1.2 as the Peukert's Exponent because Tweedledum claimed*

*>> >it is the "Generic".*

*>>*

*>> 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.*

He does now, because I posted a link to a calculator a little while

ago.

*>But then again*

*>anybody can work out the correct exponent with another SS found at the*

*>bottom of the page at:*

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

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.

*>> Perhaps in his next post he will enlighten us as to why he is using the*

*>> *10hr* capacity rating as an input.*

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.

*>So the question is, Do you wish to play the game with impartial tools,*

*>or, just continue to lie about the numbers?*

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?

Wayne

Posted by *Ron Rosenfeld* on July 31, 2008, 4:18 pm

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 07:44:08 -0700 (PDT), bealiba@gmail.com wrote:

*>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:57:39 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:*

*>> >> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:21:46 -0700 (PDT), beal...@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?*

*>>*

*>> >Where I am going is that if we use the same spreadsheet there can be*

*>> >no BS on your part.*

*>>*

*>> 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*

*>> hope.*

*>>*

*>> OK, so in this case, as in the past, all the BS will come from you.*

*>There is no room for BS as the proposed SS is a tool that did not*

*>originate with either Tweedledee or myself.*

*>>*

*>>*

*>>*

*>> >> By "peukert3.xls" do you*

*
meanhttp://www.smartgauge.co.uk/calcs/peukert3.xls? *
*>>*

*>> >Yes*

*>>*

*>> OK -- that's the web site that Wayne told you to check for information*

*>> about Peukert.*

*>Well, at least the site I have known about for quite a while.*

Yes, for about 2 weeks since Wayne posted it.

*>>*

*>>*

*>>*

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

*>> >> objection.*

*>>*

*>> >Of course it produces the same results. It's the one you have on your*

*>> >computer.*

*>>*

*>> More BS from George. He's trying to imply that he knows what is on my*

*>> computer.*

*>>*

*>> I use different formulas, although they produce the same results.*

*>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.*

*>>*

*>> For time to depletion:*

*>>*

*>> =C*(C/T)^(N-1)/I^N*

*>>*

*>> N: Peukert's exponent*

*>> C: Capacity in AH*

*>> T: Hrs corresponding to C*

*>> I: Current draw to be checked*

*>>*

*>> and for capacity at I*

*>>*

*>> =(C*(C/T)^(N-1)/I^N)*I*

*>>*

*>>*

*>>*

*>> >> What are you going to use for inputs?*

*>>*

*>> >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?*

*>>*

*>> (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.*

*>Are you saying that this SS is incorrect?*

The numbers you are entering are not relevant to the issue.

*>>*

*>>*

*>>*

*>> >342 is the capacity at 10 hours.*

*>>*

*>> 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.*

*>No, you are lying about numbers. Your lies started with 20% for losses*

*>and have continued to today.*

I wan't holding my breath waiting.

*>>*

*>> >I have used 1.2 as the Peukert's Exponent because Tweedledum claimed*

*>> >it is the "Generic".*

*>>*

*>> 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.*

*>Tweedledum proposed that exponent. Are you saying that Tweedledum is*

*>as incompetent with numbers as he is with words? *

No, I'm saying that George is incompetent with numbers, language and

comprehension.

*>But then again*

*>anybody can work out the correct exponent with another SS found at the*

*>bottom of the page at:*

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

Anyone except you, apparently.

*>This is another tool that did not originate with either Tweedledee or*

*>myself.*

*>>*

*>> Perhaps in his next post he will enlighten us as to why he is using the*

*>> *10hr* capacity rating as an input.*

*>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?*

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

earlier misstatements.

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

peukert3.xls.

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

128.

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

minute rate).

Nick Pine (1999) "Who would hire this PV nitwit"

--ron

> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:21:46 -0700 (PDT), beal...@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?