Posted by bealiba on July 26, 2008, 11:29 pm
On Jul 27, 8:43 am, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:
Tweedledum and Tweedledee. No numbers, no hope, no credibility.
Posted by wmbjkREMOVE on July 26, 2008, 3:15 pm
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 10:00:18 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld
There can be no doubt - he doesn't understand the effect of high
current discharges, and specified something grossly oversized in order
to hide his incompetence.
Well, he did say that his specification was "the minimum". Apparently
if the pump runs at all, that meets his minimum requirements. :-)
I'm looking forward to adding a broad sampling of George's wisdumb
from this thread to http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm .
He's really outdone himself this time, and I won't be surprised if
there's lots more to come since his best blunders are always born of
his compulsive weaseling.
Posted by wmbjkREMOVE on July 26, 2008, 3:04 pm
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 22:41:17 -0700 (PDT), email@example.com wrote:
What's the point of specifying a minimum if it's not large enough? If
a specified minimum that's insufficient is OK according to "the
formula", then why not specify a minimum of a single coin battery?
"Many" being everyone except ghinius george of course! Why does anyone
need a "power consultant" to advise them that 180Ah is the "minimum',
but that 1000Ah (at the same 100hr rate) "would surely do the job"?
IOW, solve the problem outside of "the formula", and then enter the
correct number to make it appear that the defective "formula" was
Ah, so the formula is only deeezined to show the *clues* to solving
Then why did you specify entirely the wrong rate?
Why does any user need to override a "designer's" choice? Other than
the fact that most users in this newsgroup know more than the
"designer" in question.
You keep prevaricating about what you didn't do in the past, but your
previous bungling needn't prevent you from specifying things properly
*now*. What's the hold up?
More clues! Why haven't you followed them?
Peukert's equation has been around for over 100 years. Are you trying
to imply that "the formula" is too old to account for it?
Here's a web page http://www.smartgauge.co.uk/peukert2.html describing
several different calculations that "the formula" could incorporate if
you wanted to make it function properly. Since you keep repeating a
canard about missing maths, why don't you show us how to make the
battery calculations for the case at hand? Or write another 100+ posts
pretending that you know how to do these things, yet coincidentally
never actually do them.
Posted by wmbjkREMOVE on July 26, 2008, 3:11 pm
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:57:08 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld
His need is to compulsively write *anything* that he hopes might help
weasel out of admitting his limitations. I've never seen anyone work
so hard at self-destruction.
Yup. I'm thinking that his history was selling wisdumb to those who
knew even less. Can't be many of those, so it's little wonder he was
out of the biz before he started his failed "sizing" career on Usenet,
and that he now needs to bungle away at being a phony "editor".
Posted by wmbjkREMOVE on July 25, 2008, 12:44 am
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:59:05 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld
Here's my take on his refusal to fill in his own blanks - he's already
come up with at least 3 different wrong answers to the same question,
so now he's afraid to even try for #4 because he knows that a correct
answer is as unlikely as further ridicule is certain. Therefore, he'll
do what he always does, the only thing he can do in fact - keep
weaseling indefinitely, hoping that he can outlast his detractors.
Once they tire he'll accuse them of running away, and then he'll
declare victory. It would be much easier and better for him to just
admit that his experience doesn't include high-current loads,
particularly since it's obvious that his spreadsheet has never allowed
for them. Yet for some strange reason that only makes sense on Planet
Ghio, he always prefers the Monty Python Black Knight strategy
That's another of his trademarks, hundreds and hundreds of irrelevant
spreadsheet lines. What, you're not getting tired yet? Then here comes
yet another batch with new numbers!
Sure, about 17.895% of the time. :-)
I think he gave up any hope of that many years ago. Probably about the
same time he decided that he had nothing more to lose.
Coming soon: "Usir Input Solar Power Consutling" :-)