Posted by Ron Rosenfeld on July 30, 2008, 12:42 pm
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:23:18 -0700 (PDT), firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I see you'll never give up fabricating outright lies in a futile attempt to
demean your betters.
Posted by bealiba on July 30, 2008, 2:15 pm
You have been answering to that name for weeks now. And you're the one
Posted by Ron Rosenfeld on July 30, 2008, 3:07 pm
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:15:07 -0700 (PDT), email@example.com wrote:
That is so far off the wall as to be totally ludicrous.
As is your claim that I hired someone to do my system design.
After what you've posted, I figure you had paid someone to do yours, and
when you got a lousy result, decided to emulate him. But I'd never make
that claim without proof.
Posted by bealiba on July 30, 2008, 7:17 pm
Lying about numbers puts you and Tweedledum in the same basket.
Yes it is true that the Battery energy data:
Nominal volts 2
1 hr 161
2 hrs 206
3 hrs 245
4 hrs 266
5 hrs 283
8 hrs 335
10 hrs 342
12 hrs 363
24 hrs 417
48 hrs 513
120 hrs 620
168 hrs 646
240 hrs 650
Is correct. At 1.8V/cell. I do believe that Peukert's equation will
give you a different result.
Posted by Ron Rosenfeld on July 30, 2008, 9:30 pm
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:17:19 -0700 (PDT), firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
So, I guess you owe me an apology for your claim that I was probably lying
about these numbers.
So far as Peukert's equation giving a different result, then it is probably
being applied incorrectly, since the computation of Peukert's exponent
depends on the measured data.
I would assume that Battery Energy has measured the data they are
But see my response to your other message regarding Peukert3.xls