Posted by *Ron Rosenfeld* on August 1, 2008, 6:26 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:*

*>> >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.*

Well, George. I forgot that calculating the Amps being drawn would be such

a difficult calculation for you. I thought it would have been obvious. My

mistake.

The figures for hours and capacity are as the manufacturer published them.

The amps being drawn was calculated by me and I accidentally copied that

column when I pasted the data into my message.

Of course, it changes nothing about the amps being drawn at each level.

The formula to calculate Amps being drawn, at each level, is very, very

complex. I believe you have to have at least a 4th grade education to be

able to understand it.

Here is that formula: A = Ah / h

I guess it was beyond you.

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

*>Amp draw.*

*>What Peukert's says:*

What follows is George's misinterpretation of what would constitute proper

input.

Repeating false premises, no matter how many times, does not magically make

them correct.

*> Peukert Equation Calculator*

*> Peukert's Exponent 1.2*

The 1.2 is a made up number, which has no relevance to the problem at hand.

*> Peukert Capacity 693.1565433*

*> Batt Capacity 342*

*> At hour rating 10*

The 342 and 10 values are absurd to use when trying to determine how the

battery will behave when subjected to a high current draw. For George's

benefit, the current draw under this condition is 342Ah / 10 hr or 34.2A

The current being considered is 245A.

*> 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.*

And how did you deduce this astounding bit of knowledge?

Clearly NOT from examining the published discharge curves.

The one's that are published show an almost vertical line at that point in

the discharge curve -- not much energy there. Granted, some mfg use 1.75

but there's very little difference.

Again, another reason for you to contact Battery Energy and teach them what

you know!

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

You are a remarkable combination of insults and ignorance.

You even reported that the 1 hr capacity was 238 Ah when the Time involved

was 1.15 hr!

I guess the mfg was wrong when they published 161Ah at 1 hr to 1.8VPC. They

should be publishing 238.35Ah as their 1 hr capacity.

As I wrote, since you are so convinced of the validity of your work, you

should approach Battery Energy and get them to change their published data.

They should be excited that they can rate this battery higher than what

they have done so far, and you might make a few bucks as the consultant.

Let us know when they change their published data to reflect the 1.15 hr

238.35Ah capacity.

Until then, it's obvious that you are just blathering again. And another

example of ignoratio elenchi.

It seems Nick Pine seriously overestimated your intelligence when he wrote,

years ago, "who would hire this PV nitwit".

--ron

Posted by *bealiba* on August 2, 2008, 10:38 am

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

*> >> 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.*

*> Well, George. I forgot that calculating the Amps being drawn would be such*

*> a difficult calculation for you. I thought it would have been obvious. My*

*> mistake.*

*> The figures for hours and capacity are as the manufacturer published them.*

*> The amps being drawn was calculated by me and I accidentally copied that*

*> column when I pasted the data into my message.*

*> Of course, it changes nothing about the amps being drawn at each level.*

*> The formula to calculate Amps being drawn, at each level, is very, very*

*> complex. I believe you have to have at least a 4th grade education to be*

*> able to understand it.*

*> Here is that formula: A = Ah / h*

*> I guess it was beyond you.*

The same old lie. The chart you refer to is tha capacity to 1.8V/cell.

Peukert's law does not work to that limit.

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

*> >Amp draw.*

*> >What Peukert's says:*

*> What follows is George's misinterpretation of what would constitute proper*

*> input.*

*> Repeating false premises, no matter how many times, does not magically make*

*> them correct.*

So why do you insist on telling the lie over and over?

*> > Peukert Equation Calculator*

*> > Peukert's Exponent 1.2*

*> The 1.2 is a made up number, which has no relevance to the problem at hand.*

The exponent of 1.2 does not come from me. It comes from Tweedledum

who assures us that it is the "Generic" exponent for Puekert's law

Generic - adj: Applicable to an entire class or group.

If you feel that this is incorrect please take it up with your

brother.

*> > Peukert Capacity 693.1565433*

*> > Batt Capacity 342*

*> > At hour rating 10*

*> The 342 and 10 values are absurd to use when trying to determine how the*

*> battery will behave when subjected to a high current draw. For George's*

*> benefit, the current draw under this condition is 342Ah / 10 hr or 34.2A*

Yes the values of " Batt capacity - 342" and "10 Hr" are absurd to use

when trying to determine how the

battery will behave when subjected to a high current draw.

But of course your statement is a lie because the "puekert3.xls"

spread sheet does not use those numbers to determine high current

draw. The spreadsheet uses these numbers to determine the Puekert

Capacity for the battery. This is the capacity the battery has at a 1

Amp current draw.

*> The current being considered is 245A.*

I chose to use 208 which is the current before adjusting for the

inverters efficiency.

*> > 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.*

*> And how did you deduce this astounding bit of knowledge?*

I read the page at

<http://www.smartgauge.co.uk/peukert3.html>

You should read it.

*> Clearly NOT from examining the published discharge curves.*

*> The one's that are published show an almost vertical line at that point in*

*> the discharge curve -- not much energy there. Granted, some mfg use 1.75*

*> but there's very little difference.*

Again you are lying about numbers.

*> Again, another reason for you to contact Battery Energy and teach them what*

*> you know!*

They know what they are doing. And they made a chart that reflects the

use of their batteries in a system with a maximum discharge level of

1.8 Volts.

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

*> You are a remarkable combination of insults and ignorance.*

Truth hurts does it? Suggest that you stop lying, you will feel

better.

*> You even reported that the 1 hr capacity was 238 Ah when the Time involved*

*> was 1.15 hr!*

Do you really think that .09 of a minute is going to make that much of

a difference.

*> I guess the mfg was wrong when they published 161Ah at 1 hr to 1.8VPC. They*

*> should be publishing 238.35Ah as their 1 hr capacity.*

No that is correct. for 1.8V/Cell. It is not the same as Puekert's

calculation as Puekerts does not have the limitation of 1.8V/Cell.

*> As I wrote, since you are so convinced of the validity of your work, you*

*> should approach Battery Energy and get them to change their published data.*

*> They should be excited that they can rate this battery higher than what*

*> they have done so far, and you might make a few bucks as the consultant.*

Their data is correct for a voltage of 1.8V/Cell

*> Let us know when they change their published data to reflect the 1.15 hr*

*> 238.35Ah capacity.*

Why should they.

*> Until then, it's obvious that you are just blathering again. And another*

*> example of ignoratio elenchi.*

Tsk, tsk. You are again the pot calling the kettle black. You sure are

a sialoquent speaker though. I also have it on good authority that you

are also a slotterhodge who suffers from maschalephidrosis.

Posted by *Ron Rosenfeld* on August 2, 2008, 12:44 pm

On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 03:38:22 -0700 (PDT), bealiba@gmail.com wrote:

*>>*

*>> > Peukert Equation Calculator*

*>>*

*>> > Peukert's Exponent 1.2*

*>>*

*>> The 1.2 is a made up number, which has no relevance to the problem at hand.*

*>The exponent of 1.2 does not come from me. It comes from Tweedledum*

*>who assures us that it is the "Generic" exponent for Puekert's law*

*>Generic - adj: Applicable to an entire class or group.*

*>If you feel that this is incorrect please take it up with your*

*>brother.*

Well, since YOU entered the data into the SS, and YOU are claiming the

results are valid, I figured YOU were the one to correct.

However, since you seem to be so willing to accept Wayne's (who is not my

brother-- that's another of your documented lies) opinion, I'm sure you

must also agree with him about your lack of competence in almost everything

you've posted.

*>>*

*>> > Peukert Capacity 693.1565433*

*>> > Batt Capacity 342*

*>> > At hour rating 10*

*>>*

*>> The 342 and 10 values are absurd to use when trying to determine how the*

*>> battery will behave when subjected to a high current draw. For George's*

*>> benefit, the current draw under this condition is 342Ah / 10 hr or 34.2A*

*>Yes the values of " Batt capacity - 342" and "10 Hr" are absurd to use*

*>when trying to determine how the*

*> battery will behave when subjected to a high current draw.*

*>But of course your statement is a lie because the "puekert3.xls"*

*>spread sheet does not use those numbers to determine high current*

*>draw. The spreadsheet uses these numbers to determine the Puekert*

*>Capacity for the battery. This is the capacity the battery has at a 1*

*>Amp current draw.*

Unbelievable! Even more evidence that not only do you not know understand

Peukert, but you don't even understand how the SS you are using works!

As if anyone would believe that the numbers YOU select have no bearing on

the results YOU claim are valid!

Using the same formula as that SS, but different inputs (all in accord with

the mfg ratings), you get wildly different "Peukert capacities"

But George "chose" to use 1.2/342/10 to get 693.1565433

What if he used "different", but still valid numbers?

Using the same formula on the "simplified" page he keeps referrring to:

R(C/R)^n = the "Peukert Capacity".

and continuing to use his erroneous Peukert Exponent of 1.2 in the formula,

but plugging in the different mfg values, we get different Peukert

Capacities. How can that be?

Peukert Exponent 1.2

Hrs AH Peukert Capacity

1 161 445

2 206 521

3 245 591

4 266 616

5 283 634

8 335 707

10 342 693

12 363 718

24 417 738

48 513 824

120 620 861

168 646 846

240 650 793

But George continues to claim that both the Peukert Exponent HE chose, and

the hr rating that HE chose, are the valid ones to use to obtain the

capacity at a draw of 245A.

*>>*

*>> The current being considered is 245A.*

*>I chose to use 208 which is the current before adjusting for the*

*>inverters efficiency.*

What a moron.

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

*>> >Volts.*

*>>*

*>> And how did you deduce this astounding bit of knowledge?*

*>I read the page at*

*><http://www.smartgauge.co.uk/peukert3.html> *

You may have read the words, but clearly you did not comprehend it at all.

*>>*

*>> Clearly NOT from examining the published discharge curves.*

*>>*

*>> The one's that are published show an almost vertical line at that point in*

*>> the discharge curve -- not much energy there. Granted, some mfg use 1.75*

*>> but there's very little difference.*

*>Again you are lying about numbers.*

George, your use of the word "lying" is another example of trying to make

something true solely by repetition. Do you really need a web citation to

prove that "some mfg use 1.75"? If so, go to the Surrette web site and

find it yourself, you idiot.

*>>*

*>> Again, another reason for you to contact Battery Energy and teach them what*

*>> you know!*

*>They know what they are doing. And they made a chart that reflects the*

*>use of their batteries in a system with a maximum discharge level of*

*>1.8 Volts.*

*>>*

*>>*

*>>*

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

*>>*

*>> You are a remarkable combination of insults and ignorance.*

*>Truth hurts does it? Suggest that you stop lying, you will feel*

*>better.*

*>>*

*>> You even reported that the 1 hr capacity was 238 Ah when the Time involved*

*>> was 1.15 hr!*

*>Do you really think that .09 of a minute is going to make that much of*

*>a difference.*

Another example of George's mathematical illiteracy. He's only off by a

factor of 100 in converting a fractional hour to minutes. No wonder he

doesn't understand any of this stuff, and is so ineffectual.

This may also explain why he is unable to understand the principles behind

any of the spreadsheets he uses, and can only apply them blindly.

For George's information: To convert 1.15 hrs to minutes, you multiply by

60. You would discovert that, instead of 0.09 minutes, you find that you

are off by nine(9) minutes.

And yes, George, I do think a 15% error is significant, when dealing with

high current draw systems being spec'd on the margins of usefullness.

*>>*

*>> I guess the mfg was wrong when they published 161Ah at 1 hr to 1.8VPC. They*

*>> should be publishing 238.35Ah as their 1 hr capacity.*

*>No that is correct. for 1.8V/Cell. It is not the same as Puekert's*

*>calculation as Puekerts does not have the limitation of 1.8V/Cell.*

Pray tell, George, what is the limit for the Peukert Capacity?

I can't wait for your answer. I'm sure it will reveal a new and hitherto

unknown theory of lead acid battery chemistry, and enable all of us to get

along with much smaller, and less expensive batteries, than any had thought

possible!

--ron

Posted by *bealiba* on August 2, 2008, 2:26 pm

*> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 03:38:22 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:*

*> >> > Peukert Equation Calculator*

*> >> > Peukert's Exponent 1.2*

*> >> The 1.2 is a made up number, which has no relevance to the problem at hand.*

*> >The exponent of 1.2 does not come from me. It comes from Tweedledum*

*> >who assures us that it is the "Generic" exponent for Puekert's law*

*> >Generic - adj: Applicable to an entire class or group.*

*> >If you feel that this is incorrect please take it up with your*

*> >brother.*

*> Well, since YOU entered the data into the SS, and YOU are claiming the*

*> results are valid, I figured YOU were the one to correct.*

*> However, since you seem to be so willing to accept Wayne's (who is not my*

*> brother-- that's another of your documented lies) opinion, I'm sure you*

*> must also agree with him about your lack of competence in almost everything*

*> you've posted.*

*> >> > Peukert Capacity 693.1565433*

*> >> > Batt Capacity 342*

*> >> > At hour rating 10*

*> >> The 342 and 10 values are absurd to use when trying to determine how the*

*> >> battery will behave when subjected to a high current draw. For George's*

*> >> benefit, the current draw under this condition is 342Ah / 10 hr or 34.2A*

*> >Yes the values of " Batt capacity - 342" and "10 Hr" are absurd to use*

*> >when trying to determine how the*

*> > battery will behave when subjected to a high current draw.*

*> >But of course your statement is a lie because the "puekert3.xls"*

*> >spread sheet does not use those numbers to determine high current*

*> >draw. The spreadsheet uses these numbers to determine the Puekert*

*> >Capacity for the battery. This is the capacity the battery has at a 1*

*> >Amp current draw.*

*> Unbelievable! Even more evidence that not only do you not know understand*

*> Peukert, but you don't even understand how the SS you are using works!*

*> As if anyone would believe that the numbers YOU select have no bearing on*

*> the results YOU claim are valid!*

*> Using the same formula as that SS, but different inputs (all in accord with*

*> the mfg ratings), you get wildly different "Peukert capacities"*

*> But George "chose" to use 1.2/342/10 to get 693.1565433*

*> What if he used "different", but still valid numbers?*

*> Using the same formula on the "simplified" page he keeps referrring to:*

*> R(C/R)^n = the "Peukert Capacity".*

*> and continuing to use his erroneous Peukert Exponent of 1.2 in the formula,*

*> but plugging in the different mfg values, we get different Peukert*

*> Capacities. How can that be?*

*> Peukert Exponent 1.2*

*> Hrs AH Peukert Capacity*

*> 1 161 445*

*> 2 206 521*

*> 3 245 591*

*> 4 266 616*

*> 5 283 634*

*> 8 335 707*

*> 10 342 693*

*> 12 363 718*

*> 24 417 738*

*> 48 513 824*

*> 120 620 861*

*> 168 646 846*

*> 240 650 793*

*> But George continues to claim that both the Peukert Exponent HE chose, and*

*> the hr rating that HE chose, are the valid ones to use to obtain the*

*> capacity at a draw of 245A.*

*> >> The current being considered is 245A.*

*> >I chose to use 208 which is the current before adjusting for the*

*> >inverters efficiency.*

*> What a moron.*

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

*> >> >Volts.*

*> >> And how did you deduce this astounding bit of knowledge?*

*> >I read the page at*

*> ><http://www.smartgauge.co.uk/peukert3.html> *

*> You may have read the words, but clearly you did not comprehend it at all.*

*> >> Clearly NOT from examining the published discharge curves.*

*> >> The one's that are published show an almost vertical line at that point in*

*> >> the discharge curve -- not much energy there. Granted, some mfg use 1.75*

*> >> but there's very little difference.*

*> >Again you are lying about numbers.*

*> George, your use of the word "lying" is another example of trying to make*

*> something true solely by repetition. Do you really need a web citation to*

*> prove that "some mfg use 1.75"? If so, go to the Surrette web site and*

*> find it yourself, you idiot.*

*> >> Again, another reason for you to contact Battery Energy and teach them what*

*> >> you know!*

*> >They know what they are doing. And they made a chart that reflects the*

*> >use of their batteries in a system with a maximum discharge level of*

*> >1.8 Volts.*

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

*> >> You are a remarkable combination of insults and ignorance.*

*> >Truth hurts does it? Suggest that you stop lying, you will feel*

*> >better.*

*> >> You even reported that the 1 hr capacity was 238 Ah when the Time involved*

*> >> was 1.15 hr!*

*> >Do you really think that .09 of a minute is going to make that much of*

*> >a difference.*

*> Another example of George's mathematical illiteracy. He's only off by a*

*> factor of 100 in converting a fractional hour to minutes. No wonder he*

*> doesn't understand any of this stuff, and is so ineffectual.*

*> This may also explain why he is unable to understand the principles behind*

*> any of the spreadsheets he uses, and can only apply them blindly.*

*> For George's information: To convert 1.15 hrs to minutes, you multiply by*

*> 60. You would discovert that, instead of 0.09 minutes, you find that you*

*> are off by nine(9) minutes.*

*> And yes, George, I do think a 15% error is significant, when dealing with*

*> high current draw systems being spec'd on the margins of usefullness.*

*> >> I guess the mfg was wrong when they published 161Ah at 1 hr to 1.8VPC. They*

*> >> should be publishing 238.35Ah as their 1 hr capacity.*

*> >No that is correct. for 1.8V/Cell. It is not the same as Puekert's*

*> >calculation as Puekerts does not have the limitation of 1.8V/Cell.*

*> Pray tell, George, what is the limit for the Peukert Capacity?*

*> I can't wait for your answer. I'm sure it will reveal a new and hitherto*

*> unknown theory of lead acid battery chemistry, and enable all of us to get*

*> along with much smaller, and less expensive batteries, than any had thought*

*> possible!*

*> --ron*

Still telling lies about the numbers. Sad really. The 2AS620 is

sufficient for the job. The job itself is a joke.

And if you are going to get fancy with words you should at least make

it a challenge. But then you really don't have the vocabulary do you.

ignoratio elenchi - noun: The logical fallacy of supposing that an

argument proving an irrelevant point has proved the point at issue.

You want to play that game, come on.

You sure are a sialoquent speaker though. I also have it on good

authority that you

are also a slotterhodge who suffers from maschalephidrosis.

But your no better with words than you are with system sizing or

Peukert's law are you?

The formula for system sizing is correct. The SS is free to anyone

that wants it.

Bye Tweedledee. And remember, when you are up to your ass in bull

shit, it is probably not the best time to stick your foot in your

mouth.

Posted by *wmbjkREMOVE* on August 2, 2008, 3:19 pm

On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 07:26:15 -0700 (PDT), bealiba@gmail.com wrote:

*>The formula for system sizing is correct.*

Plus, it generates multiple deezines for a single application! All the

user need do is pick the one that's least wrong.

*> The SS is free to anyone*

*>that wants it.*

The roar of the stampede is deafening.

*>Bye Tweedledee. *

How long before you run around in a circle and end up right back here?

Wayne

>> 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.