Posted by wmbjkREMOVE on August 17, 2008, 2:56 pm
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 19:23:15 -0700 (PDT), firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Huh. I guess you need to change something then, since nobody "wishes"
to read your nonsense. According to the experts, compulsives like
yourself lie out of self-interest. The mystery in your case is why you
could ever believe there's anything in it for you other than
Your ineptness at using spreadsheets is undeniable, and your attempts
at applying Peukert were laughable. Especially since you weren't even
aware of the need until it was explained by others. Regardless, would
you say that your statement above is more or less of a lie than this
one: "I bought what was required (all top quality) and assembled it
correctly and turned it <a 7 year old system> on, fifteen years ago."
Considering that you insist on posting pointless and easily
disprovable baloney like that one, then how do you expect readers to
know which, if any, of your postings might contain something true or
useful? Perhaps you could write up some tips on how to tell the
difference between your blunders, delusions, and incessant BS.
Posted by bealiba on August 17, 2008, 11:25 pm
On Aug 18, 12:56 am, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:
Men are always prepared to believe lies, so long as they reinforce
their own prejudices. All you need do is lie in the way they wish to
I would add that when you start to believe your own lies you become
Wayne, you have never had an original thought. Every thing you say and
claim to have done was only copied from someone else or someone else's
web site. You are like a parrot. No knowledge of your own.
You did not build your house. You did not design your system. In
short, you are a fake.
Your claim of using up to 30kWh a day with a 24V system is a fine
example of your design ability. None at all.
Posted by wmbjkREMOVE on July 31, 2008, 2:30 pm
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:57:39 -0700 (PDT), email@example.com wrote:
No, the real reason is that you want others to be as limited as you
are. It's clear to me that Ron is using a superior simulation that's
more effective than you can even imagine. If you had half a brain
you'd ask him politely for assistance, and retire your useless
spreadsheet once and for all. Better yet, quit pretending to be
something you're not, particularly since you're unable to hide the
fact that you don't a lick of experience running large loads of any
Yes, you're miles off track.
The manufacturer supplied a 1 hour rating, which is closest to the
problem at hand. It's idiotic to use the 10 hour rating instead.
Bzzt Disregarding your typical GIGO effort here for a moment, you've
previously repeated ad nauseam that you prefer worst-case deezine
methods. Which would mean entering a generic exponent of at least 1.5
to account for battery aging. I remember Ron explaining this to you
recently, making your error yet another example of failing to accept
good advice from your betters.
It's hilarious that you're bungling snippets of advice received from
those you seek to insult. But your deezine is based on a specific
battery, so there's no need to use generic numbers at all. In fact, If
you'd bothered to read and absorb the information on the site I sent
you to, you'd have noticed a utility for calculating an exponent based
on two given capacities.
http://www.smartgauge.co.uk/peukert_depth.html If you enter the
manufacturer's nearest ratings given at 1 and 2 hours, you'll find
that the exponent is 1.55 for the battery *you* specified.
LOL Such idiotic diversions are sure to make up for repeated failures
to grasp the topic at hand, eh, nitwit? Why is it that no matter which
subject you're bungling, you always make a pathetic attempt to display
expertise in some other?
Posted by wmbjkREMOVE on July 30, 2008, 10:08 pm
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:21:46 -0700 (PDT), firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Who is "we", and why would they want suggestions from you?
LOL You mean the calculator I pointed you to after it became clear
that you had no idea that such calculations are sometimes required?
Oh sure, *that* "usual" calculation. "In" explains a lot. Too funny. I
look forward to a future post where you explain that wankers always
forget to compensate for high-current discharges, and that you've been
doing it correctly for more years than you've been alive. Accompanied
by bungled results, as usual.
Posted by wmbjkREMOVE on July 30, 2008, 6:16 pm
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:40:32 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld
Yesterday I thought that George had finally accepted that he'd appear
least stupid by shutting up rather than posting yet another sure-to-be
faulty deezine. But nooooo! He just had to try twice more! The
4-in-parallel stuff was especially funny. Assuming that he ever stops
bungling the great 2500W-30 minute mystery, your list will save me
some time when summarizing it all for
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm . Seems like he's made
more than 6 tries though. There was a 1000Ah recommendation for sure,
plus a 300Ah one IIRC.
That wouldn't seem to bode well for a 250A, 30 minute discharge
limited to 70%. I tried this calculator
http://www.smartgauge.co.uk/calcs/peukert3.xls using an exponent of
1.5, and plugging in the 1 and 2 hour spec from your link. The results
seem to reasonably match the maker's profile at those high discharge
rates, and predict .52 hours total run time at 250A. I wonder if the
maker's ratings are for new condition, or might allow for some aging?
I can't even imagine where he got that 238 number from, and I doubt
that he'll ever supply a credible explanation. Expect more weaseling,
the Pope is catholic, bears sh&t in the woods, etc. :-)