Posted by Ron Rosenfeld on August 1, 2008, 6:26 pm
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 04:48:38 -0700 (PDT), email@example.com wrote:
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
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.
What follows is George's misinterpretation of what would constitute proper
Repeating false premises, no matter how many times, does not magically make
The 1.2 is a made up number, which has no relevance to the problem at hand.
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.
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 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
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".
Posted by bealiba on August 2, 2008, 10:38 am
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.
So why do you insist on telling the lie over and over?
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
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.
I chose to use 208 which is the current before adjusting for the
I read the page at
You should read it.
Again you are lying about numbers.
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
Truth hurts does it? Suggest that you stop lying, you will feel
Do you really think that .09 of a minute is going to make that much of
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.
Their data is correct for a voltage of 1.8V/Cell
Why should they.
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), firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
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
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.
What a moron.
You may have read the words, but clearly you did not comprehend it at all.
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.
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.
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
Posted by bealiba on August 2, 2008, 2:26 pm
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
Posted by wmbjkREMOVE on August 2, 2008, 3:19 pm
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 07:26:15 -0700 (PDT), email@example.com wrote:
Plus, it generates multiple deezines for a single application! All the
user need do is pick the one that's least wrong.
The roar of the stampede is deafening.
How long before you run around in a circle and end up right back here?