Posted by *wmbjkREMOVE* on July 31, 2008, 7:05 pm

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:18:47 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld

*>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*

In a catching-a-glimpse-at-a-wreck sort of way, it's fascinating to

watch George's progress in this thread. Hindered by little more than

extreme pigheadedness and an insistence that he already knows that

which he's attempting to comprehend, in mere weeks he's managed to

come within miles of learning things that mortals take hours or even

days to master. There can be no doubt that perhaps as soon as years

from now he will reach a level that most thought unattainable, and

that songs will be written about the feat. Not to diminish an existing

song, which proved remarkably <chuckle> prescient considering the

revelations in this thread... so far!

"I am the very model of a Solar Power Consultant.

I've information secret, and I lead an ozzie cargo cult.

I know the PV panel specs and quote their output powerful

In amps and volts and watts but rarely energy watt-hourful

[chorus...]

When I know more of power than a politician's concubine,

When I know more of energy than people like old Nicky Pine,

When I've a taste for laws like Ohm's and battery environments,

You'll say a Solar Power Consultant has never made more sense...

[chorus] "

- Nick Pine, 2000,

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/msg/288fa3b507636b8b

Wayne

Posted by *Ron Rosenfeld* on July 31, 2008, 7:15 pm

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:05:05 -0700, wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net wrote:

*>In a catching-a-glimpse-at-a-wreck sort of way, it's fascinating to*

*>watch George's progress in this thread. Hindered by little more than*

*>extreme pigheadedness and an insistence that he already knows that*

*>which he's attempting to comprehend, in mere weeks he's managed to*

*>come within miles of learning things that mortals take hours or even*

*>days to master. There can be no doubt that perhaps as soon as years*

*>from now he will reach a level that most thought unattainable, and*

*>that songs will be written about the feat. Not to diminish an existing*

*>song, which proved remarkably <chuckle> prescient considering the*

*>revelations in this thread... so far!*

*>"I am the very model of a Solar Power Consultant.*

*> I've information secret, and I lead an ozzie cargo cult.*

*> I know the PV panel specs and quote their output powerful*

*> In amps and volts and watts but rarely energy watt-hourful*

*>[chorus...]*

*> *

*>When I know more of power than a politician's concubine,*

*> When I know more of energy than people like old Nicky Pine,*

*> When I've a taste for laws like Ohm's and battery environments,*

*> You'll say a Solar Power Consultant has never made more sense...*

*> [chorus] "*

*> - Nick Pine, 2000,*

*>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/msg/288fa3b507636b8b *

*>Wayne*

ROFLMAO!!!

You owe me a new keyboard!!

--ron

Posted by *bealiba* on July 31, 2008, 11:47 pm

*> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 07:44:08 -0700 (PDT), beal...@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.*

Lie

*> >> >> 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.*

Really. The idea behind Peukert's equation is that you first need to

establish the capacity of the battery at the 1 Amp rate.

*> >> >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.*

Wan't?

*> >> >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.*

Ah. And I say that you are lying about numbers. Taking both our claims

into account the solution seems to be to use an impartial SS to keep

things above board. Question is why does that suggestion have you back

peddling over the use of Peukerts.

*> >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.*

So you say.

*> >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.*

So you should welcome the chance to prove this statement using

impartial tools. But you are running away. Why

*> 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.*

Lie

*> 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.*

So you are saying that the Peukert SS is incorrect. Despite the fact

that your brother Tweedledum has stated that the exponent of 1.2 is

the "Generic".Do we sense friction between siblings.

*> 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.*

Ah, Isn't Peukert's formula used to work out battery life for a given

Amp draw?

*> 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.*

The Peukert's exponent come from your brother. The idea behind

Peukert's equation is that you first need to establish the capacity of

the battery at the 1 Amp rate.

*> 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*

Well, I guess that proves that Tweedledee is not prepared to work in

an impartial environment that is open to inspection.

The SS gives this

Peukert Equation Calculator

Peukert's Exponent 1.2 Peukert Capacity 693.1565433

Batt Capacity 342

At hour rating 10 Peukert Total Amp

corrected Hours

Time amps Available

Discharge Rate

0.7 1093.36 0.63 747.86

6.8 68.99 10.05 471.87

13.7 30.03 23.08 410.78

20.5 18.46 37.55 378.79

27.4 13.07 53.03 357.61

34.2 10.00 69.32 342.00

68.4 4.35 159.25 297.73

102.6 2.68 259.05 274.54

136.8 1.89 365.85 259.19

171.0 1.45 478.18 247.87

205.2 1.16 595.13 239.00

239.4 0.97 716.06 231.74

273.6 0.82 840.50 225.64

307.8 0.72 968.10 220.38

342.0 0.63 1098.58 215.79

208 1.15 604.89 238.35

Note the 238 ah figure. This was questioned by Tweedledee. Based on

the exponent proposed by Tweedledum as the "Generic"

The exponent as calculated from the peukert_2.xls is 1.3

Rating 1 (R1) 10 Hrs Capacity (C1) 342 Ahrs

Rating 2 (R2) 120 Hrs Capacity (C2) 620 Ahrs

Peukert's Exponent = n = 1.314766878

And when used in results in:

Peukert's Exponent 1.3 Peukert Capacity 986.8108999

Batt Capacity 342

At hour rating 10 Peukert Total Amp

corrected Hours

Time amps Available

Discharge Rate

0.7 1616.82 0.61 1105.90

6.8 81.03 12.18 554.26

13.7 32.91 29.99 450.20

20.5 19.43 50.80 398.64

27.4 13.37 73.83 365.68

34.2 10.00 98.68 342.00

68.4 4.06 242.98 277.79

102.6 2.40 411.62 245.97

136.8 1.65 598.29 225.64

171.0 1.23 799.64 211.03

205.2 0.97 1013.52 199.79

239.4 0.80 1238.40 190.76

273.6 0.67 1473.16 183.27

307.8 0.57 1716.92 176.91

342.0 0.50 1968.95 171.41

208 0.96 1031.53 198.98

The chosen battery is still within the capacity to work. Tweedledee

will keep saying that the numbers are incorrect. This of course is a

lie. Read the pages about Peukert, play with the Spreadsheets and

learn to walk the walk yourself. Mind you in the normal course of

designing a home power system Peukert's law rarely plays a part as the

battery manufacturers have already done the calculation for their

batteries

Both Tweedledee and Tweedledum like to talk the talk. Neither can walk

the walk. But they sure do weasel well.

On offer is the chance to work with impartial tools. The problem with

the offer is that while Tweedledee and Tweedledum want to tell you

lies about the numbers, THE NUMBERS DO NOT LIE.

Offer still valid. (But will never be taken) Until then, Have fun.

Posted by *wmbjkREMOVE* on August 1, 2008, 12:57 am

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:47:48 -0700 (PDT), bealiba@gmail.com wrote:

<snipped the latest looney tunes blizzard of blunders from Oz>

*>THE NUMBERS DO NOT LIE.*

Wrong. They can easily lie when intentionally manipulated by a nitwit.

You've proven it beyond a doubt more times than anyone can count. Why

you've persisted here with a position that your own mother probably

wouldn't support, is a mystery, and one of the most fascinating things

I've ever seen on Usenet.

George, think back to when you were perhaps 8 years old. Can you

remember the very first time somebody told you that letting your mouth

get ahead of your pea-brain will always make you your own worst enemy?

That was good advice. You should have listened then, and every time

since.

*>Offer still valid. (But will never be taken) Until then, Have fun.*

Bwaahahaha. Sounds like somebody is running away again, but not before

dropping one last example of his expirt edator schizophrenic caps...

and only until he thinks up some new quackish incompetence to post!

Will he ever learn to stop destroying himself? Stay tuned for the next

exciting episode of the Ghinius Follies, which make 'Through the

Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There' look like a documentary!

Wayne

Posted by *Ron Rosenfeld* on August 1, 2008, 2:30 am

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:57:44 -0700, wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net wrote:

*>George, think back to when you were perhaps 8 years old. Can you*

*>remember the very first time somebody told you that letting your mouth*

*>get ahead of your pea-brain will always make you your own worst enemy?*

*>That was good advice. You should have listened then, and every time*

*>since.*

It seems George also never heard the oft repeated advice, "It is better to

remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all

doubt"

George has clearly removed all doubt.

--ron

>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