Posted by *Ron Rosenfeld* on August 1, 2008, 2:25 am

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

*>> 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"*

GIGO

*>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*

More GIGO

*>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*

Even more GIGO

*>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.*

You just dig your hole deeper and deeper. This is just too funny.

George, your data and arguments represent, in the language of logic,

ignoratio elenchi.

All you have proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that you have no idea

how to apply, nor do you even understand, the theory expounded on the web

site to which Wayne referred you and from which you obtained these SS's.

Even a nitwit should understand, especially after it's been pointed out to

him, that when a computed result conflicts with the actual data, there must

be something wrong with the computation, or with the data supplied to that

computation.

The *manufacturer* published a 1 hr capacity of 161 Ah.

Your inputs on that SS for Peukert's exponent, Battery capacity, and "at

Hour rating" cause the SS to compute a much higher 1 hr capacity of 233Ah

if you use your 1.2/342/10 inputs; or 201Ah if you use your 1.3/342/10

inputs.

But does George question his inputs? NO!

Does he use the method I suggested to provide proper inputs to that SS? Of

course not.

George concludes that the manufacturer's published data must be wrong!

Do you really expect anyone to believe that your idiotic results are more

accurate than the manufacturer's data?

--ron

Posted by *wmbjkREMOVE* on August 1, 2008, 3:22 pm

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:25:18 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld

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

*>You just dig your hole deeper and deeper. This is just too funny.*

*>George, your data and arguments represent, in the language of logic,*

*>ignoratio elenchi.*

*>All you have proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that you have no idea*

*>how to apply, nor do you even understand, the theory expounded on the web*

*>site to which Wayne referred you and from which you obtained these SS's.*

*>Even a nitwit should understand, especially after it's been pointed out to*

*>him, that when a computed result conflicts with the actual data, there must*

*>be something wrong with the computation, or with the data supplied to that*

*>computation.*

*>The *manufacturer* published a 1 hr capacity of 161 Ah.*

*>Your inputs on that SS for Peukert's exponent, Battery capacity, and "at*

*>Hour rating" cause the SS to compute a much higher 1 hr capacity of 233Ah*

*>if you use your 1.2/342/10 inputs; or 201Ah if you use your 1.3/342/10*

*>inputs.*

*>But does George question his inputs? NO!*

*>Does he use the method I suggested to provide proper inputs to that SS? Of*

*>course not.*

*>George concludes that the manufacturer's published data must be wrong!*

He's certainly done a good job of convincing anyone who might be naive

enough to deal with him, of what they could expect in case of

disagreement.

I wonder if Morris is reading. Do you suppose he still thinks that

there must be *something* he could learn from good ol' George? I'd

like to see Morris or anyone explain how they'd sort the useful from

the deception and delusion.

Wayne

Posted by *Ron Rosenfeld* on August 1, 2008, 10:48 am

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

*>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.*

Sounds like you're bailing out, George. You should have done that weeks

ago.

Now that you've posted real numbers for inputs, anyone can see that they

were the wrong numbers to use. As you write, numbers do not lie. Although

you can sure try to manipulate them.

Since you seem to be up for challenges, and claim to be walking the walk,

let us know when you've convinced the manufacturer to upgrade his battery

specifications on his web site http://batteryenergy.com.au/ based on your

calculations.

I'm sure a reliable, Australian battery manufacturer would love to be able

to increase the ratings on their batteries so easily. They might even pay

you a consulting fee for the information.

Here are the current numbers for the 2AS620:

2AS620

Ah A

1 hr 161 161.00

2 hrs 206 103.00

3 hrs 245 81.67

4 hrs 266 66.50

5 hrs 283 56.60

8 hrs 335 41.88

10 hrs 342 34.20

12 hrs 363 30.25

24 hrs 417 17.38

48 hrs 513 10.69

120 hrs 620 5.17

168 hrs 646 3.85

240 hrs 650 2.71

Please let us know when they change that 1 hr rating to your claimed 238Ah,

and it is published on their web site.

Until then, have a good day.

--ron

Posted by *bealiba* on August 1, 2008, 11:48 am

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

*> >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.*

*> Sounds like you're bailing out, George. You should have done that weeks*

*> ago.*

*> Now that you've posted real numbers for inputs, anyone can see that they*

*> were the wrong numbers to use. As you write, numbers do not lie. Although*

*> you can sure try to manipulate them.*

*> Since you seem to be up for challenges, and claim to be walking the walk,*

*> let us know when you've convinced the manufacturer to upgrade his battery*

*> specifications on his web sitehttp://batteryenergy.com.au/ based on your*

*> calculations.*

*> I'm sure a reliable, Australian battery manufacturer would love to be able*

*> to increase the ratings on their batteries so easily. They might even pay*

*> you a consulting fee for the information.*

*> Here are the current numbers for the 2AS620:*

*> 2AS620*

*> Ah A*

*> 1 hr 161 161.00*

*> 2 hrs 206 103.00*

*> 3 hrs 245 81.67*

*> 4 hrs 266 66.50*

*> 5 hrs 283 56.60*

*> 8 hrs 335 41.88*

*> 10 hrs 342 34.20*

*> 12 hrs 363 30.25*

*> 24 hrs 417 17.38*

*> 48 hrs 513 10.69*

*> 120 hrs 620 5.17*

*> 168 hrs 646 3.85*

*> 240 hrs 650 2.71*

*> Please let us know when they change that 1 hr rating to your claimed 238Ah,*

*> and it is published on their web site.*

*> Until then, have a good day.*

*> --ron*

Tweedledee, this is just another example of you lying about numbers.

It clearly states in the table header;

Ampere hour capacity TO 1.8 volts per cell

With no mention of the Amps being drawn. Funny that you keep

forgetting to include this information.

Peukert's is used to calculate the total battery capacity at a given

Amp draw.

What Peukert's says:

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

208A 1.15HR 604.89A 238.35Ah

This is calculated for the total Ah capacity not the capacity at 1.8

Volts.

You really are a liar, but just aren't very good at it.

Posted by *wmbjkREMOVE* on August 1, 2008, 3:19 pm

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 04:48:38 -0700 (PDT), bealiba@gmail.com wrote:

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

*>> Sounds like you're bailing out, George. You should have done that weeks*

*>> ago.*

*>>*

*>> Now that you've posted real numbers for inputs, anyone can see that they*

*>> were the wrong numbers to use. As you write, numbers do not lie. Although*

*>> you can sure try to manipulate them.*

*>>*

*>> Since you seem to be up for challenges, and claim to be walking the walk,*

*>> let us know when you've convinced the manufacturer to upgrade his battery*

*>> specifications on his web sitehttp://batteryenergy.com.au/ based on your*

*>> calculations.*

*>>*

*>> I'm sure a reliable, Australian battery manufacturer would love to be able*

*>> to increase the ratings on their batteries so easily. They might even pay*

*>> you a consulting fee for the information.*

*>>*

*>> Here are the current numbers for the 2AS620:*

*>>*

*>> 2AS620*

*>> Ah A*

*>> 1 hr 161 161.00*

*>> 2 hrs 206 103.00*

*>> 3 hrs 245 81.67*

*>> 4 hrs 266 66.50*

*>> 5 hrs 283 56.60*

*>> 8 hrs 335 41.88*

*>> 10 hrs 342 34.20*

*>> 12 hrs 363 30.25*

*>> 24 hrs 417 17.38*

*>> 48 hrs 513 10.69*

*>> 120 hrs 620 5.17*

*>> 168 hrs 646 3.85*

*>> 240 hrs 650 2.71*

*>>*

*>> Please let us know when they change that 1 hr rating to your claimed 238Ah,*

*>> and it is published on their web site.*

*>>*

*>> Until then, have a good day.*

*>> --ron*

*>Tweedledee, this is just another example of you lying about numbers.*

*>It clearly states in the table header;*

*>Ampere hour capacity TO 1.8 volts per cell*

Aha! So the batteries have some hidden capacity that the manufacturer

has chosen to ignore! What a bunch of wankers! They obviously don't

have your gift for self-promotion. Why not call them and offer to

strukcheral edet their chart? Think of the biziniss opportunity!

*>With no mention of the Amps being drawn.*

Eureka! Having been given a capacity of 161Ah for a 1 hour discharge,

but needing to guess the current <snorf>, it must follow that the

capacity could be far higher if discharged in half the time! If the

company pres had an inkling of your discovery he'd demand to be

informed! It's so important, call him even if it's in the middle of

the night. He's sure to appreciate your diligence.

*>Peukert's is used to calculate the total battery capacity at a given*

*>Amp draw.*

*> 208A 1.15HR 604.89A 238.35Ah*

*>This is calculated for the total Ah capacity not the capacity at 1.8*

*>Volts.*

Is the 208A another typo, or just part of your great discovery? No

matter, considering your logic thus far, increasing the current to

245A will surely increase the capacity even more! But enquiring minds

who want to follow in your brilliant reasoning need to see the power

curve for the 882.35W inverter specified in your deezine. You should

publish that, so that the mortals can learn how well it performs with

a 2500.00W load at the deeziner recommended input of under 1.800V per

cell.

*>You really are a liar, but just aren't very good at it.*

You're sharing your reaffirmation mantra? Your giving nature is an

inspiration to all!

Wayne

>> 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