Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Battery charging

G

George Ghio

Jan 1, 1970
0
More fantasy to make himself feel good
Batteries that haven't been equalized for ten months (and probably
never) sulphated? Naw, that can't be it, because even George would
notice the lost capacity. Assuming he'd tell anyone... Now that I
think about it though, about 2 years ago he announced that he intended
to replace these batteries. Later he changed his tune and said they
didn't need replacing. Hmm... Still, they'd have to be in really bad
shape to account for the contradictions in his charging story. They
*could* be that bad. But considering his history, I think it's more
likely that he wrote himself into a hole with senseless hyperbole and
is now trying to write himself out. Supplying a few simple details
like the beginning and ending SOC would be a lot easier for him and
better for his rep. Instead, as usual, he prefers to do things the
painful way.

Wayne
 
G

George Ghio

Jan 1, 1970
0
Keep working on your story, it's great fiction.
But your panels aren't capable of finishing your battery maker's
recommended absorption charge (according to you). Neither are they
capable of equalization. Most owners in that situation would want
their backup source to cover those two deficiencies. Would you say
that the battery manufacturer doesn't know as much as a guy on his
fifth set of batteries? Or is that the company's recommendations on
absorption and equalization don't apply to self-titled "power
consultants"?

Wayne
 
W

wmbjk

Jan 1, 1970
0
Keep working on your story, it's great fiction.

If that were true then you'd have written another opus of obtuseness
attempting to create (im)plausible deniability for your errors.
Instead you're suddenly reticent. Could it be that you've finally
realized that your BS explanations for bungling only exacerbate the
problems? After some six years of posting silly denials I guess that
would be progress. Perhaps in another six you might find the strength
to simply own up to your mistakes when you make them.

Wayne
 
L

Landline

Jan 1, 1970
0
Actually George is quite smart, he always has the last two words to his
wife - "yes dear".
 
L

Landline

Jan 1, 1970
0
Since when is flat country a requirement of wind power generation.
We have more small wind generators in mountainous country than anywhere
else.
All the large grid wind generators I have seen in inland Australia are all
in mountainous country.
I have always been led to believe it only mattered if it was windy - not the
terrain of the country.
Looking at the BOM website for wind it appears to make no difference to the
terrain, it just matters if it blows a lot there.
Your area appears to be full of wind only 8% calm.
 
G

George Ghio

Jan 1, 1970
0
Feel better now?
George, the only lie here is from you. I believe that you bungled the
original story, and as usual are too spineless to own up to the
mistake. One can't take a battery from a somewhat low SOS to fully
charged by adding only 10%. It just ain't possible, and no amount of
your strained elaborations can change that. I do hope you keep trying
though...

Wayne
 
G

George Ghio

Jan 1, 1970
0
OK Joe, You make a valid point.

1 - The battery was a dud from the start. It happens. If this is the
case then it is still a dud and will remain a dud for ever. Why? Well
you will just have to cut it open to see.

2 - At some point you charged the battery to the point where it actually
gassed off. This means that the battery has lost some of its
chemicals.(oxygen/hyd.) Result - Because these batteries use a
recombination process and the chemicals are no longer available to
recombine the battery has lost capacity.

3 - Parallel batteries are not recommended because parallel strings do
not charge/discharge evenly. Two parallel strings is the second best
choice for home power. Yes parallel strings are used in marine,
automotive and RV applications. The reason for these uses is usually
space restrictions.
 
G

George Ghio

Jan 1, 1970
0
Landline said:
Since when is flat country a requirement of wind power generation.

Since when did I say it was?
We have more small wind generators in mountainous country than anywhere
else.

I don't live on a mountain.
All the large grid wind generators I have seen in inland Australia are all
in mountainous country.

Yes, and even on top of hills they are quite tall structures.
I have always been led to believe it only mattered if it was windy - not the
terrain of the country.

You have been seriously mislead.
Looking at the BOM website for wind it appears to make no difference to the
terrain, it just matters if it blows a lot there.
Your area appears to be full of wind only 8% calm.

If you have an obstacle in the way of the wind and that obstacle is 30
metres tall then you will have a zone of disturbed air flow extending
approx 5 times the height to the wind ward and 10 to 20 times the height
to the leeward and as much as 2 times the height of the obstacle.

A minimum of 9 meters higher than the height of obstructions within 100
metres is recommended.

And a good rule of thumb is a minimum height 3 times that of the tallest
upwind barrier. (RPC, Energy from Nature)

My site is all obstacles.
 
W

wmbjk

Jan 1, 1970
0
Since when did I say it was?


I don't live on a mountain.


Yes, and even on top of hills they are quite tall structures.


You have been seriously mislead.


If you have an obstacle in the way of the wind and that obstacle is 30
metres tall then you will have a zone of disturbed air flow extending
approx 5 times the height to the wind ward and 10 to 20 times the height
to the leeward and as much as 2 times the height of the obstacle.

A minimum of 9 meters higher than the height of obstructions within 100
metres is recommended.

Wow. More progress. It seems like only yesterday you were blindly
recommending 100' of obstacle clearance, and claiming that 30' of
clearance was "rubbish".
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.homepower/msg/442ffd77b842a304?dmode=source&hl=en

Should we take from your new position, and your claim of needing a
200' tower at your place, that you have 170' trees?
And a good rule of thumb is a minimum height 3 times that of the tallest
upwind barrier. (RPC, Energy from Nature)

RPCs suggestions are pretty much the same as everyone else's
http://www.rpc.com.au/products/windturbines/wind_faq.html. Their first
recommendation is to use an anemometer. Failing that, they give advice
about using less reliable methods to *estimate* viability. If I'd
ignored all such good advice, and focused on a single mention of a "3
times" ROT, then I might have erroneously believed that my own site
needed a 1500' tower, and therefore might have overlooked the
usefulness of wind here. Instead I considered *all* the information
offered by folks like RPC, built a 65' tower, and gained perhaps
10,000 kWh from wind so far. Enough to have powered your electrical
needs for about 23 years.
My site is all obstacles.

Change the word "site" to "mind" and you've got it.

Wayne
 
W

wmbjk

Jan 1, 1970
0
OK Joe, You make a valid point.

1 - The battery was a dud from the start. It happens.

IIRC, Joe suggested that scenario early on. Yet only after penning
many critical posts have you come to agree with him and accept the
possibility. Apparently he's taught *you* something. Congratulations
Joe, that's quite an accomplishment!

Wayne
 
W

wmbjk

Jan 1, 1970
0
When is somebody going to build a dirigible instead of a tower?

I doubt that a dirigible generator support would generally be as
practical as a simple tower. Most folks manage with a couple sticks of
pipe imbedded in a few bags of concrete, with some guy wires for
additional support. Tell you what though, I have the perfect site for
a dirigible test. If you or anyone wants to experiment, then bring
your stuff and we'll try it out.
I have little wind and live 1500' from an airport.

Then a dirigible is especially impractical for you. Erect or fly
anything permanent or even semi-permanent above about 50' that close
to an airport and you'll very likely be getting an irate call before
long.

Wayne
 
J

Jim Baber

Jan 1, 1970
0
George said:
Since when did I say it was?
Jim writes; California has 2 of the largest wind farms in the United
States, both are in low mountain passes. One is in Altemont pass
between the central San Joaquin valley and the San Francisco bay area.
The second is in the Tehachepi pass area between the Mohave desert and
the southern San Joaquin valley. Both are quasi desert areas, rugged,
but not vertical nor high by any means. I do not know for sure, but I
suspect the primary reason for these locations was the nearby markets
for their power in San Francisco and Los Angeles.
I don't live on a mountain.



Yes, and even on top of hills they are quite tall structures.



You have been seriously mislead.



If you have an obstacle in the way of the wind and that obstacle is 30
metres tall then you will have a zone of disturbed air flow extending
approx 5 times the height to the wind ward and 10 to 20 times the
height to the leeward and as much as 2 times the height of the obstacle.

A minimum of 9 meters higher than the height of obstructions within
100 metres is recommended.

And a good rule of thumb is a minimum height 3 times that of the
tallest upwind barrier. (RPC, Energy from Nature)

My site is all obstacles.

--
Jim Baber
Email [email protected]
1350 W Mesa Ave.
Fresno CA, 93711
(559) 435-9068
(559) 905-2204 (Verizon IN cellphone (to other Verizon IN accounts))
See 10kW grid tied solar system at "http://www.baber.org/solarpanels.jpg"
See solar system production data at "http://www.baber.org/solar_status.htm"
 
G

George Ghio

Jan 1, 1970
0
When is somebody going to build a dirigible instead of a tower?

I have little wind and live 1500' from an airport.

Nick

If you believe it is a good idea, DO IT.
 
G

George Ghio

Jan 1, 1970
0
wmbjk said:
Wow. More progress. It seems like only yesterday you were blindly
recommending 100' of obstacle clearance, and claiming that 30' of
clearance was "rubbish".
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.homepower/msg/442ffd77b842a304?dmode=source&hl=en

Should we take from your new position, and your claim of needing a
200' tower at your place, that you have 170' trees?

My tallest upwind barrier would top out at 150 feet.

Just more of your savoury lies to make yourself feel good.
 
G

George Ghio

Jan 1, 1970
0
wmbjk said:
IIRC, Joe suggested that scenario early on. Yet only after penning
many critical posts have you come to agree with him and accept the
possibility. Apparently he's taught *you* something. Congratulations
Joe, that's quite an accomplishment!

Wayne
Another one of waynes fantasy's. I have said the same thing on at least
three occasions.
 
G

George Ghio

Jan 1, 1970
0
Ah, another "Don't tell me anything I don't want to hear" Munchkin.


Tony said:
George said:
OK Joe, You make a valid point.

1 - The battery was a dud from the start. It happens.
Apparently he's [Joe] taught *you* something. Congratulations
Joe, that's quite an accomplishment!

Another one of waynes fantasy's.


Wayne, George is right. The idea of him learning something is just
fantasy.
 
W

wmbjk

Jan 1, 1970
0
Perhaps you'd like to DO IT :)

Unless there's a way for George to do it from his chair, then there's
no chance of him doing diddly.

I'd be happy to lend some help to anyone who wanted to try it. Plenty
of winds for torture testing here, plus no local regs, no liability,
and no neighbors. You might be in better shape than you think for
experimenting at home though. A small dirigible must fit in some
aircraft classification. All the info you need about regulations
should be available at www.eaa.org Email them if needed, they're very
responsive. You could build it attached to a trailer, and then tow it
1500 ft and start experimenting. There are generally fewer light
aircraft in the pattern on windy days. A handheld radio for announcing
its position to airmen should be sufficient.

Wayne
 
W

wmbjk

Jan 1, 1970
0
My tallest upwind barrier

A wall is a barrier. Trees or terrain are not. If you disagree, then
post some photos and we'll see if anyone supports your site assessment
and the need for a 200' tower. You won't because you know that many
will describe using lower towers to get useful wind power from more
difficult sites.
would top out at 150 feet.

Just more of your savoury lies to make yourself feel good.

My tallest upwind (half the time) impediment is ~500'. Yet a 65' tower
does the job well, and it's likely that one half as tall would have
worked. Yet you've claimed that my setup is no good, making your
opinion about such things worthless.

Your excuses for not making use of wind power are weak, and you have
none at all for not doing solar water heating which costs even less.
Which makes you a nitwit who prefers rationalizations to work. The
fact is that most wind power sites have some impediments, and it's
likely that the main impediment at yours is your own preference for
avoiding physical labor. Judging by your efforts to discourage and
denigrate others who are "doing", you'd be happier if everyone was as
helpless as you. But since that ain't gonna' happen you'll have to be
satisfied to stew in your bile.

Wayne
 
Top