|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > November 2005 > Runaway Wayne
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| George Ghio 2005-10-25, 11:21 am |
| You have all seen Wayne try to discredit me in these NGs
So here is his latest
You didn't need to George. You gave your before and after battery
voltages of 12 and 12.8. That's a difference of about 75% of charge,
which on your 840Ah rated battery is 630Ah. Care to elaborate on your
story of replacing 630Ah in only 3 hours using a 35A tapered charge?
Put another way (while being generous and leaving out the short
strokes), if 90Ah of supply from 3 hours of tapered-charging generator
time takes an at-rest battery from 12V to 12.8V, then that battery's
capacity is about 120Ah, not 840. You may never understand, but
everybody else does...
I really like these posts where you pretend you haven't blundered. If
rational stories were ball parks and numbers were players, then your
team is stuck in traffic 10 miles from the field while singing "99
bottles of beer on the wall, 99 bottles of beer..."
He has even created several new names to post under.
My response was basically this:
You are still wrong. Now all the clues are there, work it out. I have
the logged data and it is much more reliable than your ranting.
So now that Wayne has both feet wedged firmly in his mouth, perhaps
someone here will explain to Wayne what the effect is when you measure
the voltage of a battery set which is under load.
Well, come on, someone here should know.
Then because Wayne will spout something about voltage being measured
with no load, some one can point out how long one would have to wait for
a battery to equalise before you could get a true voltage result.
Then there is the question why the reading is made at four o'clock in
the afternoon and not earlier. Any one care to speculate? Here is a
clue. This gen cum battery charger is only required in winter if at all.
This is an exercise in understanding how a solar power system really
works. The effects terrain and season has on operation.
It is also why I post here. The point being that if you are going to run
a system you had bloody well better understand how it works. I really
don't care what people think of me here. But I do care if you think. In
particular I want you to think about what you are doing, why you are
doing it and what happens when you do it. I don't want you to believe
what I say or Wayne says or Steve says. I want you to test it, yourself.
This is Usenet, it has more lies and bullshit per line of text than the
communist manifesto or a speech by GW.
Despite what some people will have you believe:
A battery is not a box of electricity.
A flat plain with a single obstruction is not a good model for wind to
rely on unless your site is a flat plain with a single obstruction.
A wind generator that is turning does not indicate smooth wind flow or
energy production.
That "Days of Autonomy" are measured at a reduced load.
That a spreadsheet will still give a correct result if you change the
calculations.
So, all you people who lurk these groups, it's time to get you feet wet.
Come on, jump in, the water is fine.
These are the two posts that Wayne bases his rant on:
The danger here is just too much bad advice. Now from your post:
"None of those concerns are mine for this application. My intention is
to supplement the charging of the photovoltaics when they can't keep up."
You can do this. You will need a regulator to control the charge.
You have three choices:
1) The reg built into the alt. Only if you are desperate.
2) A purpose built reg. Better control, better charging.
3) The reg you have between your ears. Works well, runs on full logic
but requires you to stay awake.
I believe you said 4 225Ah batteries. If that is in fact 500Ah all up (4
T105s series/parallel) then a 30 amp alt will be fine, 60A would be
pushing the friendship a bit. C10 would be 50A. But you want to bring
your batteries up faster than ten hours.This means you need a charging
regime to suit your needs.
My charger:
5hp motor, 35A Bosch alt(external reg type, reg not used) Rheostat for
field control. This is the famous 150A rated ceramic Rheostat scrounged
from a spot welder.
Take the state of charge in your batteries. Yes it is important that you
not let them remain at a low state of charge for long periods, on the
other hand they do not need to reach 100% charge every single day
either. I will run the little generator to charge my batteries if they
drop to 12 Volts (but like the fine print says ”Conditions Apply”)
Condition: Batteries read 12 volts at four o’clock in the afternoon
Condition: I know the sun won’t be out tomorrow.
Condition: I need to use the computer for several hours that night.
(This condition has been negated due to better computer.)
Condition: There will be three hours of Red Dwarf on TV that night.
It takes at least two of these conditions to warrant the running of the
generator. It may be that your "required" conditions will be different.
And when it comes to charging the batteries I am not trying to bring
them up to 100%. I am doing what I call ”Maintenance Charging” which is
to say that I only require that they be in the top twenty per cent of
their capacity. The sun usually does the rest.
When required I run the gen for less three hours. This is for a battery
set of 840Ah. During winter this may be as much as 3 hours a week or as
little as 1-2 hours/month.
Will this harm your batteries, only if you're stupid and don't pay
attention to what you are doing.
Oh, I also run a logger on my system so I know what is going on, at all
times.
George
First the gen is made of found objects. The motor, alternator, rheostat,
pullies and steel frame were scrounged from, Well, from all over. The
rheostat has been in my possession for around 20 years. It finally found
a use.
Motor - 5HP Bogged and Stricken - Vanguard. Why? Because it was
available. 3 - 3.5HP works just as well.
Alt - 35A Bosch, external reg type. Reg not used. Why the 35A Bosch?
Because I have around twenty of them.
Rheo - 8.5 ohm ceramic.
Pulley on motor 4 inch. Why 4"? Because I had one.
Pulley on alt 2 inch. Why 2"? Because it was on the alt.
The use of this setup requires that you stay awake and pay attention to
what is going on. This is how I run it:
Start the motor.
Plug in the field to the rheostat. The other side is connected to Batt
positive.
Set rheostat to the minimum resistance.
Check volt meter for volts, this is actually my digital solar regulator
which has data logging and can read what is going in from the alt.
So, as I have stated my batteries will be at 12 volts more or less at 4
o'clock in the afternoon and at least one other condition is met.
I watch the voltage rise, when it hits 15 volts I raise the resistance
on the rheo, the voltage drops, then starts to rise again, when it hits
15 volts I adjust the rheo up again, the voltage drops, then starts to
rise again, when it hits 15 volts I adjust the rheo up again the voltage
drops, then starts to rise again, when it hits 15 volts I adjust the
rheo up again, when the voltage can no longer be affected by increasing
the resistance on the rheo I shut the gen off. The batteries voltage
will then typically drop to around 13.5 volts. If left overnight the
batteries will be 12.8 volts in the morning.
Keep in mind that I am running 30Amps into a 840Ah set of batteries.
Well under the C10 rate for this set of batteries.
This system works very well. The batteries only ever bubble gently
during charge. I top up my batteries with water once a year, three
litres. No discernible heating occurs. No corrosion on the terminals in
the last 4.5 years. In short happy batteries.
Should you do this? I have no idea. It all depends on your ability to
design for your needs. It works for me and many others around here and
beats the shit out of any electric battery charger in use.
You have to drive this type of charger. You have to monitor the
batteries during charging. If you don't you will kill your batteries in
a short time.
Can't find a rheostat? I can send you a drawing for a cheap and nasty
rheo that will work. Just ask.
George L Ghio
Solar Power Consultant
| |
| JoeSixPack 2005-10-25, 11:21 am |
|
"George Ghio" <AKA@nomailhere.com> wrote in message
news:435e3182_2@news.chariot.net.au...
> You have all seen Wayne try to discredit me in these NGs
>
> So here is his latest
>
>
> You didn't need to George. You gave your before and after battery
> voltages of 12 and 12.8. That's a difference of about 75% of charge,
> which on your 840Ah rated battery is 630Ah. Care to elaborate on your
> story of replacing 630Ah in only 3 hours using a 35A tapered charge?
>
> Put another way (while being generous and leaving out the short
> strokes), if 90Ah of supply from 3 hours of tapered-charging generator
> time takes an at-rest battery from 12V to 12.8V, then that battery's
> capacity is about 120Ah, not 840. You may never understand, but
> everybody else does...
>
> I really like these posts where you pretend you haven't blundered. If
> rational stories were ball parks and numbers were players, then your
> team is stuck in traffic 10 miles from the field while singing "99
> bottles of beer on the wall, 99 bottles of beer..."
>
> He has even created several new names to post under.
>
....
> George L Ghio
> Solar Power Consultant
>
Tsk, those bickering electricians...
Why don't you shake hands and make up?
| |
|
| On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:22:46 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
wrote:
>You have all seen Wayne try to discredit me in these NGs
When are you going to realize that you discredit yourself? First you
say you can't answer some straightforward questions because you don't
want to waste your time or bandwidth. When another poster calls your
bluff and asks similar questions, you pretend that you can't answer
until they say "may I". You say you have logged data, but never
provide any of it. Yet all the while you post dozens of times quoting
hundreds of lines, talk in riddles, start arguments in different
threads, and *still* never answer the questions.
>So now that Wayne has both feet wedged firmly in his mouth, perhaps
>someone here will explain to Wayne what the effect is when you measure
>the voltage of a battery set which is under load.
George, your story didn't make any sense, and I offered 3 possible
explanations, including one conveniently labeled # frigging 1 for
cryin' out loud. Here it is again since you seem to have forgotten.
*********
1. That your "I know what's going on at all times" battery voltage
readings *aren't* at-rest. Instead, 12 Volts is a battery-discharging
reading, 12.8 Volts is a battery-charging reading, and neither reflect
a true state of charge. That's a common mistake made by rookies, who
usually learn to either work around the limitations or buy a proper
battery monitor. But someone claiming 20 years of experience would
have to be one hell of slow learner to keep making the same mistake.
And if we believe that's why your descriptions don't make sense, it
means that you're firing up the generator well in advance of your
frequently bragged-on 5 days autonomy being exhausted. So why "design"
for so much battery capacity if you prefer not to use it, but to run a
generator instead?
********
So, now that you've decided to share with us what I obviously already
knew, let's see how that helps you.... Here are the pertinent sections
of your description again:
************
>Condition: Batteries read 12 volts at four o’clock in the afternoon
>And when it comes to charging the batteries I am not trying to bring
>them up to 100%. I am doing what I call ”Maintenance Charging” which is
>to say that I only require that they be in the top twenty per cent of
>their capacity. The sun usually does the rest.
>When required I run the gen for less three hours. This is for a battery
>set of 840Ah.
>I watch the voltage rise, when it hits 15 volts I raise the resistance
>on the rheo, the voltage drops, then starts to rise again, when it hits
>15 volts I adjust the rheo up again, the voltage drops, then starts to
>rise again, when it hits 15 volts I adjust the rheo up again the voltage
>drops, then starts to rise again, when it hits 15 volts I adjust the
>rheo up again, when the voltage can no longer be affected by increasing
>the resistance on the rheo I shut the gen off. The batteries voltage
>will then typically drop to around 13.5 volts. If left overnight the
>batteries will be 12.8 volts in the morning.
*******************
A tapered charge until the batteries won't take any more current
certainly sounds like the batteries are very near fully-charged. You
even included the embellishment of 12.8V just to make sure we got the
message.
Which would mean that you *started* charging when the batteries were
down less than 90Ahrs, which is substantially less than one day of
your energy consumption. Sorry, but that still doesn't come close to
making sense, please try again. And this time you might leave out all
the double talk, it doesn't help you in the slightest.
Wayne
| |
|
| On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:44:59 GMT, "JoeSixPack" <olegp@telus.net>
wrote:
>
>"George Ghio" <AKA@nomailhere.com> wrote in message
>news:435e3182_2@news.chariot.net.au...
[color=darkred]
>Tsk, those bickering electricians...
>Why don't you shake hands and make up?
George is not an electrician. In case you missed it, among other
things he's a net stalker. Have you ever lived in a remote part of
Arizona on the way to nowhere, yet had a Usenet ah, acquaintance from
Australia, write that he just happened to be in your area, and flew
over your place? One doesn't shake hands with such people, restraining
orders would be more likely.
Wayne
| |
| wmbjk 2005-10-26, 10:21 pm |
| On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:52:00 GMT, wmbjk <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net>
wrote:
>
>A tapered charge until the batteries won't take any more current
>certainly sounds like the batteries are very near fully-charged. You
>even included the embellishment of 12.8V just to make sure we got the
>message.
>
>Which would mean that you *started* charging when the batteries were
>down less than 90Ahrs, which is substantially less than one day of
>your energy consumption. Sorry, but that still doesn't come close to
>making sense, please try again. And this time you might leave out all
>the double talk, it doesn't help you in the slightest.
>
>Wayne
George, I can't help but notice your disappearance from every
discussion of your own charging story. Are you ill? Is your tunnel
flooded? Did the growth of your nose finally push you so far back from
the monitor that you can't reach the keyboard? Surely you aren't
running away from reconciling a few contradictory elements of what
should have been a simple description. If you don't know the details,
is there anyone else we should ask? Photos? Perhaps the clues were
designed so that we'd conclude it's a cliffhanger or an allegory.
Whatever, please provide your best version of it for the Ghio FAQ
ASAP.
Wayne
| |
| George Ghio 2005-10-27, 11:21 am |
|
George Ghio wrote:
> You have all seen Wayne try to discredit me in these NGs
>
> So here is his latest
>
>
> You didn't need to George. You gave your before and after battery
> voltages of 12 and 12.8. That's a difference of about 75% of charge,
> which on your 840Ah rated battery is 630Ah. Care to elaborate on your
> story of replacing 630Ah in only 3 hours using a 35A tapered charge?
>
> Put another way (while being generous and leaving out the short
> strokes), if 90Ah of supply from 3 hours of tapered-charging generator
> time takes an at-rest battery from 12V to 12.8V, then that battery's
> capacity is about 120Ah, not 840. You may never understand, but
> everybody else does...
>
> I really like these posts where you pretend you haven't blundered. If
> rational stories were ball parks and numbers were players, then your
> team is stuck in traffic 10 miles from the field while singing "99
> bottles of beer on the wall, 99 bottles of beer..."
>
> He has even created several new names to post under.
>
>
> My response was basically this:
>
>
> You are still wrong. Now all the clues are there, work it out. I have
> the logged data and it is much more reliable than your ranting.
>
>
>
> So now that Wayne has both feet wedged firmly in his mouth, perhaps
> someone here will explain to Wayne what the effect is when you measure
> the voltage of a battery set which is under load.
>
> Well, come on, someone here should know.
Interesting that all these people who know everything there is to know
about RE are so quiet. Now Wayne has to tell lies, misquote and post
more lies under numerous other names to try and convince you that I am
wrong because any other outcome explains why he can't define a simple
two days autonomy. The others only lie by omission.
Anyway the answer to this first question is that batteries with load
always read lower than their real charge. Reason Voltage drop.
The bigger the load the larger the voltage drop. My measurements are
made while the system is running. After 4PM as explained below. The
voltage read is not the true battery voltage, just the benchmark I have
chosen from experience to meet my needs. Which is why I described it as:
"So, as I have stated, my batteries will be at 12 volts more or less at
4 o'clock in the afternoon and at least one other condition is met."
This type of battery charging works a treat. But, it requires
understanding and the ability to make correct decisions. Only you can
decide if it will suit your needs of if your ability suits the method.
The size of the motor, based on price(free), is one hundred per cent
correct.
>
>
> Then because Wayne will spout something about voltage being measured
> with no load, some one can point out how long one would have to wait for
> a battery to equalise before you could get a true voltage result.
Answer: Twelve hours.
>
>
> Then there is the question why the reading is made at four o'clock in
> the afternoon and not earlier. Any one care to speculate? Here is a
> clue. This gen cum battery charger is only required in winter if at all.
>
Answer: In winter there is no longer any sun on my panels at 4PM. If
there was still sun on the panels the voltage reading would be higher
than the true voltage. As opposed to lower.
Oh, and Runaway, sorry if you missed me. It's touching to know you care.
The reason, and I know you will twist it to serve you paranoia, is that
I finish my diploma in just four weeks and still have to write a ninety
minute screenplay, a short lesson on the use of "Track Change" for the
editing class, produce a cd of performance poetry and do a structural
edit on a short story in this time. Please feel free to keep sucking on
your feet.
>
> This is an exercise in understanding how a solar power system really
> works. The effects terrain and season has on operation.
>
>
> It is also why I post here. The point being that if you are going to run
> a system you had bloody well better understand how it works. I really
> don't care what people think of me here. But I do care if you think. In
> particular I want you to think about what you are doing, why you are
> doing it and what happens when you do it. I don't want you to believe
> what I say or Wayne says or Steve says. I want you to test it, yourself.
> This is Usenet, it has more lies and bullshit per line of text than the
> communist manifesto or a speech by GW.
>
>
> Despite what some people will have you believe:
>
> A battery is not a box of electricity.
>
> A flat plain with a single obstruction is not a good model for wind to
> rely on unless your site is a flat plain with a single obstruction.
>
> A wind generator that is turning does not indicate smooth wind flow or
> energy production.
>
> That "Days of Autonomy" are measured at a reduced load.
>
> That a spreadsheet will still give a correct result if you change the
> calculations.
>
>
> So, all you people who lurk these groups, it's time to get you feet wet.
> Come on, jump in, the water is fine.
>
>
>
> These are the two posts that Wayne bases his rant on:
>
>
>
> The danger here is just too much bad advice. Now from your post:
>
> "None of those concerns are mine for this application. My intention is
> to supplement the charging of the photovoltaics when they can't keep up."
>
> You can do this. You will need a regulator to control the charge.
>
> You have three choices:
>
> 1) The reg built into the alt. Only if you are desperate.
>
> 2) A purpose built reg. Better control, better charging.
>
> 3) The reg you have between your ears. Works well, runs on full logic
> but requires you to stay awake.
>
> I believe you said 4 225Ah batteries. If that is in fact 500Ah all up (4
> T105s series/parallel) then a 30 amp alt will be fine, 60A would be
> pushing the friendship a bit. C10 would be 50A. But you want to bring
> your batteries up faster than ten hours.This means you need a charging
> regime to suit your needs.
>
> My charger:
>
> 5hp motor, 35A Bosch alt(external reg type, reg not used) Rheostat for
> field control. This is the famous 150A rated ceramic Rheostat scrounged
> from a spot welder.
>
> Take the state of charge in your batteries. Yes it is important that you
> not let them remain at a low state of charge for long periods, on the
> other hand they do not need to reach 100% charge every single day
> either. I will run the little generator to charge my batteries if they
> drop to 12 Volts (but like the fine print says ”Conditions Apply”)
>
> Condition: Batteries read 12 volts at four o’clock in the afternoon
>
> Condition: I know the sun won’t be out tomorrow.
>
> Condition: I need to use the computer for several hours that night.
> (This condition has been negated due to better computer.)
>
> Condition: There will be three hours of Red Dwarf on TV that night.
>
> It takes at least two of these conditions to warrant the running of the
> generator. It may be that your "required" conditions will be different.
>
> And when it comes to charging the batteries I am not trying to bring
> them up to 100%. I am doing what I call ”Maintenance Charging” which is
> to say that I only require that they be in the top twenty per cent of
> their capacity. The sun usually does the rest.
>
> When required I run the gen for less three hours. This is for a battery
> set of 840Ah. During winter this may be as much as 3 hours a week or as
> little as 1-2 hours/month.
>
> Will this harm your batteries, only if you're stupid and don't pay
> attention to what you are doing.
>
> Oh, I also run a logger on my system so I know what is going on, at all
> times.
>
> George
>
>
>
>
> First the gen is made of found objects. The motor, alternator, rheostat,
> pullies and steel frame were scrounged from, Well, from all over. The
> rheostat has been in my possession for around 20 years. It finally found
> a use.
>
> Motor - 5HP Bogged and Stricken - Vanguard. Why? Because it was
> available. 3 - 3.5HP works just as well.
>
> Alt - 35A Bosch, external reg type. Reg not used. Why the 35A Bosch?
> Because I have around twenty of them.
>
> Rheo - 8.5 ohm ceramic.
>
> Pulley on motor 4 inch. Why 4"? Because I had one.
>
> Pulley on alt 2 inch. Why 2"? Because it was on the alt.
>
> The use of this setup requires that you stay awake and pay attention to
> what is going on. This is how I run it:
>
> Start the motor.
>
> Plug in the field to the rheostat. The other side is connected to Batt
> positive.
>
> Set rheostat to the minimum resistance.
>
> Check volt meter for volts, this is actually my digital solar regulator
> which has data logging and can read what is going in from the alt.
>
> So, as I have stated my batteries will be at 12 volts more or less at 4
> o'clock in the afternoon and at least one other condition is met.
>
> I watch the voltage rise, when it hits 15 volts I raise the resistance
> on the rheo, the voltage drops, then starts to rise again, when it hits
> 15 volts I adjust the rheo up again, the voltage drops, then starts to
> rise again, when it hits 15 volts I adjust the rheo up again the voltage
> drops, then starts to rise again, when it hits 15 volts I adjust the
> rheo up again, when the voltage can no longer be affected by increasing
> the resistance on the rheo I shut the gen off. The batteries voltage
> will then typically drop to around 13.5 volts. If left overnight the
> batteries will be 12.8 volts in the morning.
>
> Keep in mind that I am running 30Amps into a 840Ah set of batteries.
> Well under the C10 rate for this set of batteries.
>
> This system works very well. The batteries only ever bubble gently
> during charge. I top up my batteries with water once a year, three
> litres. No discernible heating occurs. No corrosion on the terminals in
> the last 4.5 years. In short happy batteries.
>
> Should you do this? I have no idea. It all depends on your ability to
> design for your needs. It works for me and many others around here and
> beats the shit out of any electric battery charger in use.
>
> You have to drive this type of charger. You have to monitor the
> batteries during charging. If you don't you will kill your batteries in
> a short time.
>
> Can't find a rheostat? I can send you a drawing for a cheap and nasty
> rheo that will work. Just ask.
>
> George L Ghio
> Solar Power Consultant
>
| |
|
| On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 00:09:29 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
wrote:
>George Ghio wrote:
>Interesting that all these people who know everything there is to know
>about RE are so quiet. Now Wayne has to tell lies, misquote and post
>more lies under numerous other names to try and convince you that I am
>wrong because any other outcome explains why he can't define a simple
>two days autonomy. The others only lie by omission.
I see... since insulting me has only resulted in your hole getting
deeper, you thought it would work in reverse if you insulted
*everyone*? Nice going Ghinius.
>The size of the motor, based on price(free), is one hundred per cent
>correct.
Your motor isn't the issue, it's your hypocrisy for claiming that
another generator was grossly overpowered when all the while your own
was far worse. And why are you always bragging about your "design"
prowess when apparently you just cobble together whatever's at hand?
You claimed that you "know what's going on at all times". So why not
simply say exactly what the battery state-of-charge was (in Ahrs)
before and after charging?
[color=darkred]
>Oh, and Runaway, sorry if you missed me. It's touching to know you care.
>The reason, and I know you will twist it to serve you paranoia, is that
>I finish my diploma in just four weeks and still have to write a ninety
>minute screenplay, a short lesson on the use of "Track Change" for the
>editing class, produce a cd of performance poetry and do a structural
>edit on a short story in this time. Please feel free to keep sucking on
>your feet.
ROTFLMAO Clarifying <snorf> your story would only take a few lines,
and you already found time to post hundreds during this supposed
Renaissance Nitwit period. BTW, how does an alleged writer "finish a
diploma"? Is that anything like "learning the computer"?
Here it is in a nutshell George - your description indicates that
charging added about 10% to your 840Ahr battery capacity. If that 10%
was needed because the batteries were getting low, then why would you
be tapering the charge, and how did the batteries end up full? If
adding 10% brought the batteries to 100%, or even to 80%, then why are
you charging at all given that when you started, you'd have had either
3 or 4 days remaining of your much bragged-on 5 days autonomy?
Face it man, you're busted. What I really want to know is why you
think you can get away with such deceptions in a group of
knowledgeable readers.
Wayne
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2005-10-27, 2:21 pm |
| George Ghio wrote:
....
> Interesting that all these people who know everything there is to know
> about RE are so quiet.
....
Most likely everyone has simply killfiled both you and Wayne.
Anthony
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-10-27, 4:21 pm |
| Anthony Matonak wrote:
> George Ghio wrote:
> ...
> ...
>
> Most likely everyone has simply killfiled both you and Wayne.
So did you _have_ to remind us they're still here?
--
derek
| |
| wmbjk 2005-10-27, 10:21 pm |
| On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:04:32 -0700, Anthony Matonak
<anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net> wrote:
>George Ghio wrote:
>...
>...
>
>Most likely everyone has simply killfiled both you and Wayne.
Not *everyone*. :-) Anthony, George claims that you're a "liar by
omission" for not explaining the discrepancies in his charging story.
Care to give it a whirl? ;-) It won't take long, just fill in the
two blanks in this sentence: The charging started at < > Ahrs
from full, and finished at < > Ahrs from full.
It won't be a wasted effort, some readers may learn why a battery
monitor is such a good idea.
Wayne
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-10-27, 11:21 pm |
| wmbjk wrote:
>
> Not *everyone*. :-) Anthony, George claims that you're a "liar by
> omission" for not explaining the discrepancies in his charging story.
> Care to give it a whirl? ;-) It won't take long, just fill in the
> two blanks in this sentence: The charging started at < > Ahrs
> from full, and finished at < > Ahrs from full.
> It won't be a wasted effort, some readers may learn why a battery
> monitor is such a good idea.
>
> Wayne
Don't forget, this is the guy who thinks a kWh meter like the
Kill-a-Watt is an unnecessary toy.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| George Ghio 2005-10-28, 2:21 am |
|
wmbjk wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 00:09:29 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I see... since insulting me has only resulted in your hole getting
> deeper, you thought it would work in reverse if you insulted
> *everyone*? Nice going Ghinius.
>
>
>
>
> Your motor isn't the issue, it's your hypocrisy for claiming that
> another generator was grossly overpowered when all the while your own
> was far worse. And why are you always bragging about your "design"
> prowess when apparently you just cobble together whatever's at hand?
Oh I see buying a genset that is far to big for the application is ok.
Using a motor that is a bit too big, but which was free is stupid.
Nah mate, a free motor is the correct size from cost per unit compared
to buying too large a gen any day.
>
>
>
>
> You claimed that you "know what's going on at all times". So why not
> simply say exactly what the battery state-of-charge was (in Ahrs)
> before and after charging?
It could be said that you might produce the same info but then you
can't. Full stop.
You are asking for information that is beyond your own ability to
produce. The instructions I gave are usable by any one with a volt meter
and an understanding of their system..
As of this moment I have used 34 Ah today and collected 56 Ah. SOC 100%
Max volts 15.1, Min volts 12.1, Solar Volts 19,Current volts 12.1
And just so you know what others will already know, the voltages are all
from a running system. They are not measured from a battery set which
has been disconnected and rested for twelve hours.
I have not used the charger for the last three months.
Can you provide any meaningful numbers aside from the weight of your
inverters or batteries. I think not. This is evident to all who have
followed you exploits.
>
>
>
>
> ROTFLMAO Clarifying <snorf> your story would only take a few lines,
> and you already found time to post hundreds during this supposed
> Renaissance Nitwit period. BTW, how does an alleged writer "finish a
> diploma"? Is that anything like "learning the computer"?
>
> Here it is in a nutshell George - your description indicates that
> charging added about 10% to your 840Ahr battery capacity. If that 10%
> was needed because the batteries were getting low, then why would you
> be tapering the charge, and how did the batteries end up full? If
> adding 10% brought the batteries to 100%, or even to 80%, then why are
> you charging at all given that when you started, you'd have had either
> 3 or 4 days remaining of your much bragged-on 5 days autonomy?
>
> Face it man, you're busted. What I really want to know is why you
> think you can get away with such deceptions in a group of
> knowledgeable readers.
>
> Wayne
| |
| wmbjk 2005-10-28, 12:21 pm |
| On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 21:17:07 -0400, Steve Spence
<sspence@green-trust.org> wrote:
>wmbjk wrote:
>
>
>Don't forget, this is the guy who thinks a kWh meter like the
>Kill-a-Watt is an unnecessary toy.
I expect that if we could ever get him to stick to the subject long
enough we'd find out that he's against battery monitors as well. It's
too funny that after 20 years of practice running an off-grid home,
probably a lifetime of prevaricating, and years of getting busted for
blunders in these newsgroups, he *still* couldn't make up a credible
story about how he operates his own generator. And now he's writing
*screenplays*! Which at least helps explain one of life's great
mysteries.... what kind of a guy would write a screenplay that has the
engineer on a starship wielding a huge crescent wrench. :-)
Wayne
| |
|
| On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:37:13 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
wrote:
>
>
>wmbjk wrote:
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>Oh I see buying a genset that is far to big for the application is ok.
>
>Using a motor that is a bit too big, but which was free is stupid.
<sigh> A much better matched alternator could also have been had for
free. A 65 instead of a 35 would get you into the same ballpark as the
unit you criticized. Then again, even at 65A it would still be 7 times
worse if you're not smart enough to accept the commonly offered
recommendation of running it at a fixed output.
>Nah mate, a free motor is the correct size from cost per unit compared
>to buying too large a gen any day.
Most excellent logic! Let's extend it out... if you wanted to avoid
the high cost of buying an old clunker, and a free concrete truck was
at hand, you'd be able to get 4mpg, carry your groceries in the drum,
and criticize someone else because they bought an Accord when they
could have bought a Prius. How many days did it take you to come up
with that sorry excuse for your hypocrisy?
>As of this moment I have used 34 Ah today and collected 56 Ah. SOC 100%
>Max volts 15.1, Min volts 12.1, Solar Volts 19,Current volts 12.1
>And just so you know what others will already know, the voltages are all
>from a running system. They are not measured from a battery set which
>has been disconnected and rested for twelve hours.
I thought the latest reason you couldn't explain yourself was a
shortage of time? Yet here you are posting a bunch more stuff that has
no more to do with reconciling your original story than your <snorf>
screenplays and poetry CD. Quit weaseling! Here, simply fill in the
blanks if you can: The charging started at < > Ahrs from fully
charged. It finished at < > Ahrs from fully charged.
>I have not used the charger for the last three months.
IIRC, some time ago you claimed that you used the generator for
equalizing. How, and how often, do you equalize?
Wayne
| |
| Landline 2005-10-29, 8:21 am |
| Wayne what do you have that George finds so damn attractive and attracted
towards you?
Wayne come on, come clean and pray please do tell the secret.
"wmbjk" <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:vm70m1ph0u84ja2m0vi5r7tmc3se19l8hu@4ax.com...
>
> George, I can't help but notice your disappearance from every
> discussion of your own charging story. Are you ill? Is your tunnel
> flooded? Did the growth of your nose finally push you so far back from
> the monitor that you can't reach the keyboard? Surely you aren't
> running away from reconciling a few contradictory elements of what
> should have been a simple description. If you don't know the details,
> is there anyone else we should ask? Photos? Perhaps the clues were
> designed so that we'd conclude it's a cliffhanger or an allegory.
> Whatever, please provide your best version of it for the Ghio FAQ
> ASAP.
>
> Wayne
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-10-29, 10:21 am |
| Landline wrote:
> Wayne what do you have that George finds so damn attractive and attracted
> towards you?
> Wayne come on, come clean and pray please do tell the secret.
>
>
>
George secretly wishes he was knowledgable enough to be a real solar
energy consultant, instead of just playing one on usenet .....
It's envy. He attacks his betters because it makes him feel more of a
man. Sounds like he's trying to compensate ....
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| George Ghio 2005-10-29, 12:21 pm |
| Back again, eh. Been keeping busy have you?
Your question is the wrong way around. What Wayne finds so attractive
about me is that I exposed his website as a sad fraud. He has forever
since tried to prove me wrong at every point. Even if it means posting
under a myriad of personalities telling the most god awful lies. Perhaps
you can get Wayne to let you look at his site. All you have to do is
promise not to let me see it. Oh and you have to fail a maths test as well.
Still it is worth a look just from the point of it's lack of real
information about load and input. But it does have some interesting
weights for the batteries and inverters.
While you are looking at sites you might look at:
http://www.green-trust.org/2003/pvsizing/default.htm
Scroll down and down load the excel spreadsheet. That's good for a
laugh. See if you can spot the flaw.
Landline wrote:
> Wayne what do you have that George finds so damn attractive and attracted
> towards you?
> Wayne come on, come clean and pray please do tell the secret.
>
>
>
> "wmbjk" <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote in message
> news:vm70m1ph0u84ja2m0vi5r7tmc3se19l8hu@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-10-29, 1:21 pm |
| Look like both sides have more mental issues than knowledge from here.
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:8PJ8f.21200$ol.12766@fe08.lga...
> Landline wrote:
>
> George secretly wishes he was knowledgable enough to be a real solar
> energy consultant, instead of just playing one on usenet .....
>
> It's envy. He attacks his betters because it makes him feel more of a
> man. Sounds like he's trying to compensate ....
>
>
>
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
|
| On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:44:18 +1000, "Landline" <nospam@spam.com>
wrote:
>"wmbjk" <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote in message
>news:vm70m1ph0u84ja2m0vi5r7tmc3se19l8hu@4ax.com...
[color=darkred]
>Wayne what do you have that George finds so damn attractive and attracted
>towards you?
>Wayne come on, come clean and pray please do tell the secret.
Oh that's easy - he's after my wife's bread maker! :-)
Consider the evidence: first a quote from me - "Barbara bakes all of
our bread, as well as other treats". Then check out this search
http://tinyurl.com/8xkwl. Yikes! Perhaps we should take up a
collection and buy him a bread maker before he blows all his
screenplay-writing profits on plane tickets so he come creeping over
to my place again.
I would have emailed our "sad fraud" site URL so you could see for
yourself, but couldn't find an address for you. Here it is
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/solar1.htm. I'll change it again after a
couple of days so that George can't go back to claiming that I'm
bragging.
Wayne
| |
|
| On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 00:48:20 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
wrote:
>Scroll down and down load the excel spreadsheet. That's good for a
>laugh. See if you can spot the flaw.
Gee George, I thought you said you were too busy "finishing your
diploma"? If you have time to look for "flaws", wouldn't it be more
productive to look closer to home? Why write another 14 lines of
Ghioloney yet still neglect to fill in two little blanks in your tall
tale of "driving" your own generator? Would it help if we provided you
with the name of a decent beginner's guide to solar?
Wayne
| |
|
| On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 08:21:26 -0400, Steve Spence
<sspence@green-trust.org> wrote:
>Landline wrote:
[color=darkred]
>George secretly wishes he was knowledgable enough to be a real solar
>energy consultant, instead of just playing one on usenet .....
>
>It's envy. He attacks his betters because it makes him feel more of a
>man. Sounds like he's trying to compensate ....
Wasn't it about 2 years ago that he claimed to be working on a web
site? It must bug the hell out of him to see your site and ESSN's
doing so well while he has to wait for the short bus to take him to
web site school. ;-) Imagine if he'd used all the time he's spent
criticizing, to work on his own site instead... ooh, on reflection
that's a scary image. That many Ghioisms in one place might cause
brain damage. :-)
Wayne
| |
| George Ghio 2005-10-29, 8:21 pm |
| Sad little Runaway Wayne.
Yes I am busy. Thank you for your concern. But I don't need you to
organise my schedule.
Anyone who knows the formula for system sizing should be able to spot
the flaw(s) in the spreadsheet offered at www.greendodgytrust.com.
As for the information you want. It may happen, but depends on what the
weather does. Been raining and/or cloudy for the last 4 days. Then OTOH
the batteries have still managed to hit float for three of those days.
Still you never know.
In the mean time feel free to post some more weights for your system
components. God knows you can't produce any real information on the
performance of you system.
wmbjk wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 00:48:20 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Gee George, I thought you said you were too busy "finishing your
> diploma"? If you have time to look for "flaws", wouldn't it be more
> productive to look closer to home? Why write another 14 lines of
> Ghioloney yet still neglect to fill in two little blanks in your tall
> tale of "driving" your own generator? Would it help if we provided you
> with the name of a decent beginner's guide to solar?
>
> Wayne
| |
| wmbjk 2005-10-29, 10:21 pm |
| `On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 09:37:03 +1100, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
wrote:
>As for the information you want. It may happen
When pigs fly perhaps? What's your Ghinius strategy here, to flail
about and absorb ridicule until you can think up another excuse like
the "I need an NDA first" classic? What's it going to be this time....
clock stopped mid charge? Mislabeled batteries? Faulty 150A rheostat?
Metric VM? Blanks too difficult, waiting for multiple-choice? I can
hardly wait, it's sure to be the mother of all Ghioisms!
Wayne
| |
| Landline 2005-10-30, 4:21 am |
| George I always thought and strongly believed till today, there was a great
culture in the solar community to help and assist others wherever possible.
Unfortunately and apparently this great culture does not apply in your case.
If it did, and there is a mistake in the Excel spreadsheet, would it not be
the right and proper thing to do, to point out the error and explain the
reason why. So George unfortunately you fail in the first case to the solar
community, and in the second case you fail the basic test as a true
Australian. George, I think you need to mend some bridges before it is to
late. George thankfully this is forgiving graceful group, and sure an
apology for allowing your judgement to let you err and make an error will be
forgiven with grace.
"George Ghio" <AKA@nomailhere.com> wrote in message
news:43638b93$1_4@news.chariot.net.au...
> Back again, eh. Been keeping busy have you?
>
> Your question is the wrong way around. What Wayne finds so attractive
> about me is that I exposed his website as a sad fraud. He has forever
> since tried to prove me wrong at every point. Even if it means posting
> under a myriad of personalities telling the most god awful lies. Perhaps
> you can get Wayne to let you look at his site. All you have to do is
> promise not to let me see it. Oh and you have to fail a maths test as
> well.
>
> Still it is worth a look just from the point of it's lack of real
> information about load and input. But it does have some interesting
> weights for the batteries and inverters.
>
> While you are looking at sites you might look at:
>
> http://www.green-trust.org/2003/pvsizing/default.htm
>
> Scroll down and down load the excel spreadsheet. That's good for a laugh.
> See if you can spot the flaw.
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-10-30, 8:21 am |
| Landline wrote:
> George I always thought and strongly believed till today, there was a great
> culture in the solar community to help and assist others wherever possible.
> Unfortunately and apparently this great culture does not apply in your case.
> If it did, and there is a mistake in the Excel spreadsheet, would it not be
> the right and proper thing to do, to point out the error and explain the
> reason why. So George unfortunately you fail in the first case to the solar
> community, and in the second case you fail the basic test as a true
> Australian. George, I think you need to mend some bridges before it is to
> late. George thankfully this is forgiving graceful group, and sure an
> apology for allowing your judgement to let you err and make an error will be
> forgiven with grace.
>
>
If there is a mistake, please, point it out and I'll fix it. George has
claimed for a few years that it's flawed (even claimed at one point that
it was pirated from him) but has never pointed out the flaw. I think the
problem is that he charges for his work, and gets testy when others give
their work away for free. Then he derides them for accepting donations.
If I charged for my work, I wouldn't need donations, but I believe that
knowledge should be free, and a donation is like a tip for good service.
http://www.green-trust.org/2003/pvsizing/default.htm
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| George Ghio 2005-10-30, 9:21 am |
| Ummm... We are talking about Steve Spence here are we?
Not possible. He has been told in the past that the SS presented on his
site was at best a dogs breakfast.
He is surely aware of my point and is free to either fix or remove the
SS. As it is, it is incorrect.
The dissemination of misleading and/or incorrect information should be
discouraged. This SS is on Steve's site. Steve should fix it.
As it would appear that Steve can't even see the simple broken
calculation in the DC loads I hold no hope that he can fix the more
serious problems. And no, I have no intention of telling him how to fix
the SS.
You may not have noticed that 99% of Steves posts go uncommented on.
It's not like I am being unfair to Steve or picking on everything he
says. Count his posts on these NGs and make a note on how many of them I
have commented on.
Then there is your crack about not being a true Australian. Who the hell
do you think you are. When was the last time you helped a battler get
panels at cost price. How many people do you take phone calls from who
are in trouble with their system that was installed by an accredited
installer who took their money, installed a system that does not meet
the specs they were promised and won't return their calls. And then go
over the whole system with them and explain what the system will do in
the real world and what they will need to get the system up to the
standard required for their needs.
Am I a nice guy?
No. I'm too honest to tell people what they want to hear just because
they want to hear it. I tell them the truth.
I told Steve that the SS on his site was a dogs breakfast.
I told Wayne that the numbers on his site did not add up.
Should I have lied to these people?
If I told Steve that the SS was a clever bit of work or Wayne that his
site was a wonderful site full of useful information then I would not
only have lied to them but also to anyone who read the posts.
Would that be Australian? Shit no. It would make me the same as Never
Ever Johnny brown snouting GW.
Steve can fix the SS. He is free to ask me what I think is incorrect and
I will go over the whole SS with him. He can do it via email and I will
never say a word about it in these NGs if that's what he wants. I also
am very forgiving. I don't hold a grudge with people who don't hold
grudges. I even offered to document Waynes site for him by email. It
really was quite interesting but needed the numbers for people to
understand what is being done. With the numbers people would be able to
design better systems for their needs.
Am I a good Australian? I don't know. Is lying part of the job description?
Landline wrote:
> George I always thought and strongly believed till today, there was a great
> culture in the solar community to help and assist others wherever possible.
> Unfortunately and apparently this great culture does not apply in your case.
> If it did, and there is a mistake in the Excel spreadsheet, would it not be
> the right and proper thing to do, to point out the error and explain the
> reason why. So George unfortunately you fail in the first case to the solar
> community, and in the second case you fail the basic test as a true
> Australian. George, I think you need to mend some bridges before it is to
> late. George thankfully this is forgiving graceful group, and sure an
> apology for allowing your judgement to let you err and make an error will be
> forgiven with grace.
>
>
> "George Ghio" <AKA@nomailhere.com> wrote in message
> news:43638b93$1_4@news.chariot.net.au...
>
>
>
>
| |
| wmbjk 2005-10-30, 11:21 am |
| On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 23:36:58 +1100, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
wrote:
>Landline wrote:
[color=darkred]
>The dissemination of misleading and/or incorrect information should be
>discouraged.
Exactly. And that is at the root of your problem. For as long as
you've been posting you've been posting mistakes. Sometimes they were
minor, sometimes major, and sometimes intentional deception as in your
recent charging description. But in every case, whenever you're
corrected you fog up the discussion with additional ignorance rather
than admit the original error. For instance, after picking a fight
over the use of KillaWatts and being chastised for it, you wrote
dozens of posts trying to convince readers that KillaWatts were a
waste of time. In your mind you may have been saving face, but in the
real world it was a confusing disservice to novices.
> This SS is on Steve's site. Steve should fix it.
Another poster wrote that when he pointed out a mistake, Steve fixed
it immediately. The contrast between that reality and the impression
you keep trying to sell is pretty clear. And it's equally clear who
most of us believe.
>You may not have noticed that 99% of Steves posts go uncommented on.
>It's not like I am being unfair to Steve or picking on everything he
>says. Count his posts on these NGs and make a note on how many of them I
>have commented on.
You've made a habit of *starting* fights with Steve, and the frequency
of those attacks has increased lately. Which is why after reading your
irreconcilable charging story, instead of being embarrassed for you
many are munching on popcorn while you self-destruct yet again.
> I'm too honest to tell people what they want to hear just because
>they want to hear it. I tell them the truth.
Well then, *tell the bloody truth* about your *own* "flaws" instead of
inventing flaws in others.
>Am I a good Australian? I don't know. Is lying part of the job description?
It's not, so you're not.
Wayne
| |
| wmbjk 2005-10-30, 11:21 am |
| On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 19:11:38 +1100, "Landline" <nospam@spam.com>
wrote:
>George I always thought and strongly believed till today, there was a great
>culture in the solar community to help and assist others wherever possible.
>Unfortunately and apparently this great culture does not apply in your case.
>If it did, and there is a mistake in the Excel spreadsheet, would it not be
>the right and proper thing to do, to point out the error and explain the
>reason why. So George unfortunately you fail in the first case to the solar
>community, and in the second case you fail the basic test as a true
>Australian. George, I think you need to mend some bridges before it is to
>late. George thankfully this is forgiving graceful group, and sure an
>apology for allowing your judgement to let you err and make an error will be
>forgiven with grace.
Landline, that's a nice sentiment, and you're right about the
forgiveness that could come from a mea culpa. But George simply isn't
capable of making one. Consider the history - years ago his mistakes
were minor but his intentions seemed honest. I even defended him a
little because I thought it was mean-spirited of others to mock his
blunders. But it was rare and only grudgingly that he'd admit an
error, instead making increasingly outrageous claims about those who
corrected him. Over the years the mistakes went from being innocent
slip-ups to willful ignorance and finally outright lying. But one
thing has never changed - he won't admit fault. These days he doesn't
even seem to bother pretending that he's trying to help anyone, he's
only here to smear those who've embarrassed him.
Wayne
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-10-30, 12:21 pm |
| wmbjk wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 23:36:58 +1100, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Exactly. And that is at the root of your problem. For as long as
> you've been posting you've been posting mistakes. Sometimes they were
> minor, sometimes major, and sometimes intentional deception as in your
> recent charging description. But in every case, whenever you're
> corrected you fog up the discussion with additional ignorance rather
> than admit the original error. For instance, after picking a fight
> over the use of KillaWatts and being chastised for it, you wrote
> dozens of posts trying to convince readers that KillaWatts were a
> waste of time. In your mind you may have been saving face, but in the
> real world it was a confusing disservice to novices.
>
>
>
>
> Another poster wrote that when he pointed out a mistake, Steve fixed
> it immediately. The contrast between that reality and the impression
> you keep trying to sell is pretty clear. And it's equally clear who
> most of us believe.
>
>
>
>
> You've made a habit of *starting* fights with Steve, and the frequency
> of those attacks has increased lately. Which is why after reading your
> irreconcilable charging story, instead of being embarrassed for you
> many are munching on popcorn while you self-destruct yet again.
>
>
>
>
> Well then, *tell the bloody truth* about your *own* "flaws" instead of
> inventing flaws in others.
>
>
>
>
> It's not, so you're not.
>
> Wayne
To think I would ask george for help is ludicrous. He can't even get his
own facts straight. I'd ask Nick or Duane, but never george. Silly
welder ....
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-10-30, 2:21 pm |
| Pot, kettle, black.
"wmbjk" <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:6kn9m1lpimp19enbdea4n6mp1nqppu8nio@4ax.com...
> Landline, that's a nice sentiment, and you're right about the
> forgiveness that could come from a mea culpa. But George simply isn't
> capable of making one. Consider the history - years ago his mistakes
> were minor but his intentions seemed honest. I even defended him a
> little because I thought it was mean-spirited of others to mock his
> blunders. But it was rare and only grudgingly that he'd admit an
> error, instead making increasingly outrageous claims about those who
> corrected him. Over the years the mistakes went from being innocent
> slip-ups to willful ignorance and finally outright lying. But one
> thing has never changed - he won't admit fault. These days he doesn't
> even seem to bother pretending that he's trying to help anyone, he's
> only here to smear those who've embarrassed him.
>
> Wayne
| |
| Landline 2005-10-31, 9:21 pm |
| Well with George's reluctance to say what the mistake is or correct it, I
think you can assume there is no mistake.
George if his spreadsheet is such a dogs breakfast, why not do up a new one
that all can use.
"Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c4ednSXV9Pqbl_jeRVn-hQ@golden.net...
> Pot, kettle, black.
| |
|
| On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 11:26:24 +1100, "Landline" <nospam@spam.com> wrote:
>Well with George's reluctance to say what the mistake is or correct it, I
>think you can assume there is no mistake.
Yup. Originally he claimed that the spreadsheet was pirated, then he
said it was useless or some such. Now he's down to "flaw". Odds are
that whatever his beef is, telling us exactly what it is would reflect
worse on George than on Steve, who's the host not the author anyway.
>George if his spreadsheet is such a dogs breakfast, why not do up a new one
>that all can use.
He's been offering a spreadsheet here for years, first for money, and
later for free if one is willing to email him for it. The trouble is,
some of the mistakes he's posted he blamed on an "older version" of
that spreadsheet. Who wants to email for something that generates
mistakes when perfectly good alternatives are freely available? He
could put his spreadsheet on a free site - I've even offered him the
names of some. The trouble with that is, if he could put stuff on the
web at will, then he would no longer have an excuse not to post photos
of his place, something he clearly doesn't want to do despite
promising years ago he would.
Wayne
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-10-31, 9:21 pm |
|
"//colin//.Haress//Taz//Tazoar//T@z//dob.a.TROLL//P.BENGI//Digi//wmbjk//JohnTutt
le//.Hfress//GimmieButt///Eunty JEck//Aunty Jack//Bunty Jack//Gimmie
Bob//Digi//anonymous//helga//wingnut//Nemisis.0.GimmeButt//Paul
Vader//windows.embroidery.Gymmy//Shylork//Hatunen//Lectron_Nuis//BugHunter//fant
0m//KazAdz//Gabriel//a miriad of other munged versions of same//"
<wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:33fdm1pgp82d2ogft5og13hbkalv6o1iip@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 11:26:24 +1100, "Landline" <nospam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>
> Yup. Originally he claimed that the spreadsheet was pirated, then he
> said it was useless or some such. Now he's down to "flaw". Odds are
> that whatever his beef is, telling us exactly what it is would reflect
> worse on George than on Steve, who's the host not the author anyway.
>
>
> He's been offering a spreadsheet here for years, first for money, and
> later for free if one is willing to email him for it. The trouble is,
> some of the mistakes he's posted he blamed on an "older version" of
> that spreadsheet. Who wants to email for something that generates
> mistakes when perfectly good alternatives are freely available? He
> could put his spreadsheet on a free site - I've even offered him the
> names of some. The trouble with that is, if he could put stuff on the
> web at will, then he would no longer have an excuse not to post photos
> of his place, something he clearly doesn't want to do despite
> promising years ago he would.
>
> Wayne
| |
|
|
| George Ghio 2005-11-01, 7:21 pm |
| Why the rush. Should I not have given Steve a chance to fix the
spreadsheet. In Australia it's called "A Fair Go".
Okay let's look at the spreadsheet Steve has up for offer.
Step 1: Calculate your AC loads. If there are no AC loads, skip to Step
2, "Calculate your DC loads".
1. List all AC loads, wattage and hours of use per week (Hrs/Wk) in the
spaces below.
Multiply watts by Hrs/Wk to get watt-hours per week (WH/Wk). Add all the
watt hours per week to determine AC Watt Hours Per Week.
Problem 1: When this formula was written, it was written for a daily
load. By using a weekly load and taking an average of 7 days the daily
load is reduced. This is an incorrect number. Use you worst day.
Description of AC Loads Run by an Inverter Watts X Hrs/Wk = Wh/Wk
Coffee maker 800 X 3.5 = 2800
Microwave 800 X 2 = 1600
Blow Dryer 1000 X 2 = 2000
TV/DVD 19" 40 X 28 = 1120
Clock Radio 1 X 168 = 168
Lights CF 20 watts x 6 100 X 40 = 4000
Total Wh/Wk 11688
2. DC watt hours per week. Multiply total of step 1 by 1.2 to correct
for inverter loss.
11688 X 1.2 = 14025.6
Problem 2: When Steve re-wrote this formula he changed it by assigning
the figure of 1.2 to cover the inverter inefficiencies. That is 80%
efficiency. The original formula asks for a figure for the inverters
efficiency.
3. Inverter DC input voltage; usually 12 or 24 volts
12
4. Divide line 2 by line 3. This is total amp hours per week used by
AC loads.
14025.6 / 12 = 1168.8
Problem 3: The number 14025.6 is incorrect unless your inverter is 80%
efficient. This means that any number generated past line two can only
compound the error. Also note that an inverters efficiency could be as
low as 60% or better than 95% depending on the make of inverter.
5. List all DC loads in the spaces below:
Description of DC Loads Watts X Hrs/Wk = Wh/Wk
Lights Fluorescent 15 watts x 6 90 X 42 = 3780
computer laptop 50 X 28 = 1400
Car stereo CD 15 X 42 = 630
Total Wh/Wk 3780
Problem 4: Does any one believe that 3780 + 1400 + 630 = 3780?
Well, any takers?
6. DC system voltage. Usually 12 or 24 volts. (Same as line 3)
12
7. To determine total amp hours per week used by DC loads, divide line 5
by line 6.
3780 / 12 = 315
Problem 5: 169 Amp hours out.
8. To determine total amp hours per week used by AC loads enter line 4
1168.8
Problem 5: We already determined the Ah of the AC load at line 2 is
incorrect unless your inverter is 80% efficient.
9. Add lines 7 and 8. This is total amp hours per week used by
all loads.
315 + 1168.8 = 1483.8
Problem 6: DC load is out by 169 Ah at line 7 because the calculation at
line five is broken and the figure from line 2 is incorrect unless your
inverter is 80% efficient.
10 Divide line 9 by 7 days. This is total average amp hours per day.
1483.8 / 7 = 211.9714286
Problem 7: See Problems 1 and 2.
Battery Sizing
1. Enter your daily amp-hour requirement. (From the Load Sizing
Worksheet, line 10)
211.9714286
Problem 8: 211.9 is an incorrect number because the DC load is incorrect
as is the AC load at line 2.
2. Enter the maximum number of consecutive cloudy weather days expected
in your area,
or the number of days of autonomy you would like your system to support.
1
Problem 9: The reason "1" is used here is because the more "Days of
Autonomy" used the further out the calculation becomes due to so many of
the numbers being incorrect from the beginning. If you use five days
autonomy the error at this point would be five times larger.
3. Multiply the amp-hour requirement by the number of days. This is the
amount of amp-hours your system will need to store.
211.9714286 X 1 = 211.9714286
Problem 10: See Problem 9.
4. Enter the depth of discharge for the battery you have chosen.
This provides a safety factor so that you can avoid over-draining your
battery bank
(Example: If the discharge limit is 20%, use 0.2) This number should not
exceed 0.8
0.5
Problem 11: See Problem 10.
5. Divide the amp-hours (line 3) of storage needed by the depth of
discharge (line 4) limit.
211.9714286 / 0.5 = 423.9428571
Problem 12: 211.9 is incorrect, dividing this number by 0.5 will not
make it correct.
6. Select the multiplier that corresponds to the average wintertime
ambient temperature your battery bank will experience.
1.04
7. Multiply the amp-hours by line 6. This calculation ensures that your
battery bank will have enough capacity to overcome cold weather
effects.
This number represents the total battery capacity you will need.
423.9428571 X 1.04 = 440.9005714
Problem 13: Have a guess. Yes these numbers are also incorrect. See any
of the points above. Also note that the original calculation gave the
actual depth of discharge as a percentage.
8. Enter the amp-hour rating for the battery you have chosen.
360 (Trojan L16; 6V, 360AH)
9. Divide the total battery capacity by the battery amp-hour rating and
round
off to the next highest number. This is the number of batteries wired in
parallel required.
440.9005714 / 360 = 1
10. Divide the nominal system voltage (12 or 24V) by the battery
voltage
and round off to the next highest number. This is the number of
batteries wired in series.
12 / 6 = 2
11. Multiply the number of batteries in parallel by the number
of batteries in series. This is the number of batteries required.
1 X 2 = 2
Array Sizing worksheet
1. Total average amp hours per day from the Load Sizing Worksheet,
line 10.
211.9714286
Problem 14: The number 211.9 has been incorrect from the beginning.
2. Multiply line 1 by 1.2 to compensate for loss from battery
charge/discharge.
211.9714286 X 1.2 = 275.5628571
3. Average sun hours per day in your area (from chart)
4.76 (NJ - Summer)
4. Divide line 2 by line 3,. This is the total solar array amps
required.
275.5628571 / 4.76 = 57.89135654
5. Optimum or peak amps of solar module used. See module specifications.
7.1 (AstroPower AP1206; 120 watt, 16.9v, 7.1 amp)
6. To determine total number of solar modules in parallel required,
divide line 4 by line 5.
57.89135654 / 7.1 = 8.153712189
7. Round off to the next highest whole number.
9
8. Number of modules needed to provide DC Battery voltage:
1
9. To determine total number of solar modules required, multiply line 7
by line 8.
9 X 1 = 9
Steve Spence wrote:
> Landline wrote:
>
>
>
> I'd be happy if you could find the flaw and point it out so I can fix it.
>
> http://www.green-trust.org/2003/pvsizing/default.htm
The original calculation.
SYSTEM SIZING SYS. VOLTS BATT. V
PHOTO VOLTAIC 12 2 TEMP. C/F
240 VOLT WATT HOURS PER DAY 1220 W HOURS -10/.85
INVERTER EFFICIENCY 0.9 % -5/.88
ACCOUNT FOR INVERTER INEFFICENCY 1355.55 W HOURS 0/.91
INVERTER SIZE 813.33 WATTS 5/.94
12,24,48 VOLT WATT HOURS PER DAY 0 W HOURS 10/.96
SYSTEM VOLTAGE 12 VOLTS 15/.97
TOTAL Ah DEMAND PER DAY 112.96 A HOURS 20/.99
BATTERY SIZING 25/1.00
NUMBER OF DAYS AUTONOMY 5
MAX. ALLOWABLE DEPTH OF DISCHARGE 0.7
BATTERY CAPACITY 806.87 A HOURS
LOWEST 24 Hr AVERAGE TEMPERATURE 5 DEGREES
TEMPERATURE CORRECTION FACTOR 0.94
ADJ. BATTERY CAPACITY 858.38 A HOURS
SELECTED BATTERY
SELECTED BATTERY DISCHARGE RATE 120 HOURS
Ah CAPACITY SELECTED BATTERY 1100 A HOURS
NUMBER OF BATTERIES IN PARALLEL 1 Round off 0.78
NUMBER OF BATTERIES IN SERIES 6 Round off 6
CAPACITY BATT. BANK 120 Hr RATE 1100 A HOURS
DAILY DEPTH OF DISCHARGE 10.26 %
SUITABILITY OF SELECTED BATTERIES Yes
PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAY SIZING
DESIGN TILT 60 DEGREES
DESIGN MONTH JUNE
TOTAL ENERGY DEMAND PER DAY 112.96 A HOURS
BATTERY EFFICIENCY 0.9
ARRAY OUTPUT REQUIRED PER DAY 125.51 A HOURS
PEAK SUN HOURS FOR TILT/MONTH 4.5
SELECTED MODULE
SELECTED MODULE I AT 14 V NOCT 4.5 AMPS
SELECTED MODULE NOMINAL VOLTAGE 12 VOLTS
GUARANTEED CURRENT 4.05 AMPS
NUMBER OF MODULES IN SERIES 1 MODULES
OUTPUT PER MODULE 18.225 A HOURS
NUMBER OF PARALLEL STRINGS 6.88 STRINGS
NOTE. This Spreadsheet will fit on the screen of your computer. You can
see the whole calculation and the effect of any changes you make
instantly. I did not write the formula. But it may be that I was the
first to set it in a spreadsheet freely available. All the systems I
have designed using this SS have functioned to spec.
Anyone who would like to have a copy of this spreadsheet can email me
at ghiog@netconnect.com.au.
Which I think answers the question; "George if his spreadsheet is such a
dogs breakfast, why not do up a new one that all can use".
It has been available for free for the best part of 18 years.
The cost is Zip, Zero, Zilch, Nada. If you feel that it is good value
you can make a donation to the Salvation Army or other charity of your
choice. Which is the same deal it has been for the last 18 years. I do
not require proof of donation. The SS is yours. You can share it with
others. You can put it on your website. And you can have it in Mac as well.
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2005-11-01, 11:21 pm |
| George Ghio wrote:
> Why the rush. Should I not have given Steve a chance to fix the
> spreadsheet. In Australia it's called "A Fair Go".
Nah, a fair go would be to simply say "Dude, that line there is wrong."
rather than posting massive amounts of text that amounts to... "I know
something you don't know and I'm not gonna tell you!" (Note to the
readers. Inflection is everything. Try to imagine a 4 year old saying
that line in the traditional taunting sing-song common to children.)
You could simply have written the following:
J32 should read =SUM(J29:J31) instead of =SUM(J29:J29)
Now, isn't that easier than all that ranting and making false
accusations?
Anthony
| |
| George Ghio 2005-11-02, 1:21 am |
| No. He was told two or more years ago that the spreadsheet was not worth
the bandwidth and was told that I didn't know what I was talking about.
The SS is still a dogs breakfast.
Compare the two, they are the same formula. Right down to the
Temperature conversion factors. Which I have not seen anywhere else. The
problem is the Steve who wrote it was trying to be clever, and failed.
The SS is flawed in its presentation and function. Has been all along.
Anthony Matonak wrote:
> George Ghio wrote:
>
>
>
> Nah, a fair go would be to simply say "Dude, that line there is wrong."
> rather than posting massive amounts of text that amounts to... "I know
> something you don't know and I'm not gonna tell you!" (Note to the
> readers. Inflection is everything. Try to imagine a 4 year old saying
> that line in the traditional taunting sing-song common to children.)
>
> You could simply have written the following:
> J32 should read =SUM(J29:J31) instead of =SUM(J29:J29)
That little problem is so obvious that it was a joke. It only serves to
highlight the fact that the SS was written without care as to its
function. The real problems arise from a complete lack of understanding
of the whole calculation. What it does. What it means.
>
> Now, isn't that easier than all that ranting and making false
> accusations?
When you talk about false accusations think Steve and Wayne.
I never post except under my own name.
>
> Anthony
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2005-11-02, 7:21 am |
| George Ghio wrote:
> No. He was told two or more years ago that the spreadsheet was not worth
> the bandwidth and was told that I didn't know what I was talking about.
Perhaps you meant to say that you started telling him in highly
insulting language that you did not like his spreadsheet. He
responded by telling you that your opinion wasn't worth much
because your postings indicated you didn't know what you were
talking about (or language to that effect).
> The SS is still a dogs breakfast.
The less said about that line the better for the entire world.
> Compare the two, they are the same formula. Right down to the
> Temperature conversion factors. Which I have not seen anywhere else. The
> problem is the Steve who wrote it was trying to be clever, and failed.
> The SS is flawed in its presentation and function. Has been all along.
Compare which two? I only saw one publicly available spreadsheet.
I did a quick google search and found several PV sizing
spreadsheets that include temperature. Perhaps the reason
you have not seen it anywhere else is because you have not
looked.
http://www.catas1.org/eng/eng/elec.htm
http://www.energytrust.org/TA/solar/forms.html
http://www.senecass.com/software.html
http://www.discoversolarenergy.com/...calculators.htm
Anthony
| |
| wmbjk 2005-11-02, 12:21 pm |
| On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 09:40:44 +1100, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
wrote:
>Why the rush. Should I not have given Steve a chance to fix the
>spreadsheet. In Australia it's called "A Fair Go".
You too were given "a fair go" to reconcile your whopper of a charging
story. But as always, you seek to disguise your own embarrassment by
trying to embarrass others. Why haven't you answered Daestrom and I on
your charging story? Let's count the excuses so far: 1. Answer is too
obvious 2. Won't answer a particular person 3. Waiting for second
request from second inquirer 4. Waiting for "liars by omission" to do
the answering. 5. Logged data is infallible 6. Wayne's autonomy. 7.
Steve's spreadsheet. 8. Too busy on poetry and screenplays.
Now, let's start a count of the blunders you've made trying to divert
attention from your own mistake. #1 is the original deceptive story,
#2 the failure to correct it, #3 the refusal to explain *why* you
think you can get away with 1 and 2. #s 4 through 11 your excuses.
>Problem 1: When this formula was written, it was written for a daily
>load. By using a weekly load and taking an average of 7 days the daily
>load is reduced. This is an incorrect number. Use you worst day.
No, average day is correct, and weekly is a reasonable duration to
use. That's how it's normally done, as in this example
http://homepower.com/resources/energy_master.cfm So your claim that
Shepard's method is wrong would be blunder #12, and assuming your own
spreadsheet is based on worst day, that's #13.
>Problem 2: When Steve re-wrote this formula he changed it by assigning
>the figure of 1.2 to cover the inverter inefficiencies. That is 80%
>efficiency.
No, that would be 83.3%, and you've been corrected on the same bungled
ratio calculation in the past. Blunder #14 for not grasping such a
simple concept. Ignoring previous corrections, #15. Since you've
likely incorporated that same misconception into your own spreadsheet,
#16.
> The original formula asks for a figure for the inverters
>efficiency.
Blunder #17. He used an arbitrary efficiency, you prefer to use a
custom one. His method would be best for those who have yet to choose
an inverter. The custom number would only be best for those who
already know their average load and which inverter they intend to use.
>Problem 3: The number 14025.6 is incorrect unless your inverter is 80%
>efficient.
Blunder #18 for needlessly repeating #14.
> Also note that an inverters efficiency could be as
>low as 60% or better than 95% depending on the make of inverter.
You made this 60% claim a couple months back, were asked to provide
examples, and you failed to do so. 83% is a conservative number.
Blunder #19 for your current mistake, #20 for reminding us again that
you're too pigheaded to learn anything from your previous mistakes.
As I predicted, you managed to show us more about your own failings
than about those you seek to embarrass. This is where I'll give you a
"fair go" to acknowledge and/or correct the first 20 blunders before
critiquing your analysis any further.
Wayne
| |
| George Ghio 2005-11-03, 7:21 am |
| //colin//.Hfress//wmbjk//Taz//Tazoar//T@z//dob.a.TROLL//P.BENGI//Digi//JohnTuttl
e//.Haress//GimmieButt///Eunty JEck//Aunty Jack//Bunty Jack//Thunnus
Albacarus//Gimmie Bob//Digi//M
II//anonymous//helga//wingnut//Nemisis.0.GimmeButt//Paul
Vader//windows.embroidery.Gymmy//Shylork//Hatunen//Lectron_Nuis//BugHunter//fant
0m//KazAdz//Gabriel//a miriad of other munged versions//
Has said
wmbjk wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 09:40:44 +1100, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> You too were given "a fair go" to reconcile your whopper of a charging
> story. But as always, you seek to disguise your own embarrassment by
> trying to embarrass others. Why haven't you answered Daestrom and I on
> your charging story? Let's count the excuses so far: 1. Answer is too
> obvious 2. Won't answer a particular person 3. Waiting for second
> request from second inquirer 4. Waiting for "liars by omission" to do
> the answering. 5. Logged data is infallible 6. Wayne's autonomy. 7.
> Steve's spreadsheet. 8. Too busy on poetry and screenplays.
>
> Now, let's start a count of the blunders you've made trying to divert
> attention from your own mistake. #1 is the original deceptive story,
> #2 the failure to correct it, #3 the refusal to explain *why* you
> think you can get away with 1 and 2. #s 4 through 11 your excuses.
>
>
>
>
> No, average day is correct, and weekly is a reasonable duration to
> use. That's how it's normally done, as in this example
> http://homepower.com/resources/energy_master.cfm So your claim that
> Shepard's method is wrong would be blunder #12, and assuming your own
> spreadsheet is based on worst day, that's #13.
>
>
>
>
> No, that would be 83.3%, and you've been corrected on the same bungled
> ratio calculation in the past. Blunder #14 for not grasping such a
> simple concept. Ignoring previous corrections, #15. Since you've
> likely incorporated that same misconception into your own spreadsheet,
> #16.
>
>
>
>
> Blunder #17. He used an arbitrary efficiency, you prefer to use a
> custom one. His method would be best for those who have yet to choose
> an inverter. The custom number would only be best for those who
> already know their average load and which inverter they intend to use.
>
>
>
>
> Blunder #18 for needlessly repeating #14.
>
>
>
>
> You made this 60% claim a couple months back, were asked to provide
> examples, and you failed to do so. 83% is a conservative number.
> Blunder #19 for your current mistake, #20 for reminding us again that
> you're too pigheaded to learn anything from your previous mistakes.
>
> As I predicted, you managed to show us more about your own failings
> than about those you seek to embarrass. This is where I'll give you a
> "fair go" to acknowledge and/or correct the first 20 blunders before
> critiquing your analysis any further.
>
> Wayne
And still can't define a simple 2 days autonomy with or with out some
magical reduced load.
| |
| George Ghio 2005-11-03, 7:21 am |
|
Anthony Matonak wrote:
> George Ghio wrote:
>
>
>
> Perhaps you meant to say that you started telling him in highly
> insulting language that you did not like his spreadsheet. He
> responded by telling you that your opinion wasn't worth much
> because your postings indicated you didn't know what you were
> talking about (or language to that effect).
I told him the truth.
>
Nothing has changed[color=darkred]
>
>
> The less said about that line the better for the entire world.
>
>
>
> Compare which two? I only saw one publicly available spreadsheet.
Are you blind? Or is it just that by not telling the truth you hope to
win points
NOTE. This Spreadsheet will fit on the screen of your computer. You can
see the whole calculation and the effect of any changes you make
instantly. I did not write the formula. But it may be that I was the
first to set it in a spreadsheet freely available. All the systems I
have designed using this SS have functioned to spec.
Anyone who would like to have a copy of this spreadsheet can email me
at ghiog@netconnect.com.au.
Which I think answers the question; "George if his spreadsheet is such a
dogs breakfast, why not do up a new one that all can use".
It has been available for free for the best part of 18 years.
The cost is Zip, Zero, Zilch, Nada. If you feel that it is good value
you can make a donation to the Salvation Army or other charity of your
choice. Which is the same deal it has been for the last 18 years. I do
not require proof of donation. The SS is yours. You can share it with
others. You can put it on your website. And you can have it in Mac as well.
>
> I did a quick google search and found several PV sizing
> spreadsheets that include temperature. Perhaps the reason
> you have not seen it anywhere else is because you have not
> looked.
>
> http://www.catas1.org/eng/eng/elec.htm
> http://www.energytrust.org/TA/solar/forms.html
> http://www.senecass.com/software.html
> http://www.discoversolarenergy.com/...calculators.htm
My god. What a waste of space.
What is with people. Do they think that by increasing the size of
something it gets better.
The SS on the first link 752kb & the second is 176kb
The SS I offer is a whopping 16kb. Will fit in a single screen and is
correct and free.
| |
| Lectron_Nuis 2005-11-03, 11:21 am |
| George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>, sucked on a bit of squid to
mumble::
>//colin//.Hfress//[....] edited BS attributes
[-]
George, You are in error when u copy *anything* Gymmy Bob produces as
fact *u n l e s s* you check it for yourself first. Guaranteed.
Dave (RPC) 'speaks' highly of you in relation to business practice,
doan then be letting the side down by making a complete goose of
yourself in following Gimmbutts lead simply because he patronises your
ego(?) a tad, when it suits him.
Have debate, have disagreement but do not make the mistake of allowing
the GB arsehole to influence your posted work. That is a mistake.
The attribution list you posted is complete and utter BullShit, o f
the first order. As sure as a Roquefort (cheese) fart , the
attribution stinks.
Do your homework, the look will take u all of 10 minutes.
Just a bit of friendly advice from one bloke to another.
cheers
Ln
--
posted in response to<4369e887_3@news.chariot.net.au>
| |
|
| On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:25:00 +0930, Lectron_Nuis
<Lectron_Nuis@spark.em.n.rark.em.noe> wrote:
>George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>, sucked on a bit of squid to
>mumble::
>
>
>[-]
>
>George, You are in error when u copy *anything* Gymmy Bob produces as
>fact *u n l e s s* you check it for yourself first. Guaranteed.
It's nice of you to give George the benefit of the doubt, but the fact
is that they're both willful BS artists. George surely recognized 5 of
the names (including yours) on the list as regulars here (at least 2
of whom have web sites), making it kinda' obvious they're not all the
same people. He doesn't care, he imagines that smears, even
pathetically weak ones, can somehow lessen his own embarrassment.
>Dave (RPC) 'speaks' highly of you in relation to business practice,
I wonder what Dave would have to say about George's story of getting a
battery from a low SOC to fully charged by adding only 10%? The only
thing harder than making that story sound like an innocent mistake
would be rationalizing how it could have been written by someone who's
supposed to be knowledgeable.
>doan then be letting the side down by making a complete goose of
>yourself in following Gimmbutts lead simply because he patronises your
>ego(?) a tad, when it suits him.
>Have debate, have disagreement but do not make the mistake of allowing
>the GB arsehole to influence your posted work. That is a mistake.
>
>The attribution list you posted is complete and utter BullShit, o f
>the first order. As sure as a Roquefort (cheese) fart , the
>attribution stinks.
>Do your homework, the look will take u all of 10 minutes.
Neither of them care. George knows that Gymmy is a basket case, and
Gymmy knows that George was born with the bungle gene. But each
finally has a lone supporter in the other, so look for more shared BS
from both of them.
>Just a bit of friendly advice from one bloke to another.
Landline already tried the friendly fellow-Aussie approach to
encourage George to wise up. But George is too pigheaded to recognize
good advice. On the plus side, he's a transplant from California, so
nobody can think worse of Australians because of him. ;-)
Wayne
| |
| George Ghio 2005-11-03, 6:21 pm |
| Just remember that Wayne has posted under so many different names
including mine that it it is hard to keep up.
I suspect Wayne is in fact 50% of the posters in these groups including
Gymmy Bob. Which is the point I was making.
And all the personalities he posts under rolled together wouldn't have
enough ability to define two days autonomy, with or with out a magical
decreased load.
Lectron_Nuis wrote:
> George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>, sucked on a bit of squid to
> mumble::
>
>
>
>
> [-]
>
> George, You are in error when u copy *anything* Gymmy Bob produces as
> fact *u n l e s s* you check it for yourself first. Guaranteed.
> Dave (RPC) 'speaks' highly of you in relation to business practice,
> doan then be letting the side down by making a complete goose of
> yourself in following Gimmbutts lead simply because he patronises your
> ego(?) a tad, when it suits him.
> Have debate, have disagreement but do not make the mistake of allowing
> the GB arsehole to influence your posted work. That is a mistake.
>
> The attribution list you posted is complete and utter BullShit, o f
> the first order. As sure as a Roquefort (cheese) fart , the
> attribution stinks.
> Do your homework, the look will take u all of 10 minutes.
>
> Just a bit of friendly advice from one bloke to another.
>
> cheers
>
> Ln
>
>
>
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2005-11-03, 6:21 pm |
| George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com> wrote:
>Just remember that Wayne has posted under so many different names
>including mine that it it is hard to keep up.
Would you have any evidence for this article of faith?
Nick
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-11-03, 7:21 pm |
| Do you have an evidence for the contrary?
The math has already been done.
<nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:dke1kv$c21@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
> George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com> wrote:
>
>
> Would you have any evidence for this article of faith?
>
> Nick
>
| |
|
| On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 08:53:18 +1100, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
wrote:
>Lectron_Nuis wrote:
[color=darkred]
>Just remember that Wayne has posted under so many different names
>including mine that it it is hard to keep up.
No, it isn't hard at all. Whenever a South Park character or the
former Information Minister of Iraq, or "alternate reality George
Ghio" responds in these groups, and his domain is the same as mine,
then that's probably me.
>I suspect Wayne is in fact 50% of the posters in these groups including
>Gymmy Bob. Which is the point I was making.
You're responding to Lectron_ Nuis, whose name is on the list you just
posted. If I'm L_N, then shouldn't you be addressing him as Wayne? And
if you think I'm Gymmy Bob, then why would you repost his list? The
fact is that by your own actions we can tell that you well knew the
list was BS, and you posted it anyway because it saved you writing
more BS of your own.
Now, if you really want to convince anyone of your latest outrageous
claim, that "Wayne is fact 50% of the posters" here, then let's see
your list of which ones they are. Let me guess... every poster who's
ever corrected you? That would be 100% less one nitwit, nitwit.
Wayne
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-11-03, 7:21 pm |
| That makes three of that think you are the supertroll now since there is only
one of you anyway.
I have been doing some history digging on some of your posts. Standby for your
intellegence shows...LOL
"wmbjk" <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:c84lm1pmb9al5qp7ndlrh28ik10vegtler@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 08:53:18 +1100, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> No, it isn't hard at all. Whenever a South Park character or the
> former Information Minister of Iraq, or "alternate reality George
> Ghio" responds in these groups, and his domain is the same as mine,
> then that's probably me.
>
>
> You're responding to Lectron_ Nuis, whose name is on the list you just
> posted. If I'm L_N, then shouldn't you be addressing him as Wayne? And
> if you think I'm Gymmy Bob, then why would you repost his list? The
> fact is that by your own actions we can tell that you well knew the
> list was BS, and you posted it anyway because it saved you writing
> more BS of your own.
>
> Now, if you really want to convince anyone of your latest outrageous
> claim, that "Wayne is fact 50% of the posters" here, then let's see
> your list of which ones they are. Let me guess... every poster who's
> ever corrected you? That would be 100% less one nitwit, nitwit.
>
> Wayne
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2005-11-03, 10:21 pm |
| George Ghio wrote:
> Anthony Matonak wrote:
>
> I told him the truth.
Yes, it's quite true that you did not like his spreadsheet.
He told you the truth also, that, to paraphrase, he believes
you lack credibility and therefore your opinions are worthless.
>
> Are you blind? Or is it just that by not telling the truth you hope to
> win points
Your spreadsheet is not publicly available. You personally control
its dissemination on a per-request basis and have attacked people
for putting anything even remotely resembling it on websites.
> NOTE. This Spreadsheet will fit on the screen of your computer. You can
> see the whole calculation and the effect of any changes you make
> instantly. I did not write the formula.
Perhaps the important part is "I did not write the formula".
If you did not write it then how can you lay claim to al | | |