How many panels to run 230 volt sprinkler pump 30 minutes a day?
Freedom Reigns
sprinkler pump 30 minutes a day. The pump runs at 2500 watts. The
location is Kilauea, Kauai Hawaii.
Assume for instance the panels are 50 watt, 17 vdc, 2.94 amp
How do I calculate how many panels I will need?
bea...@gmail.com
For the information given;
14 panels in series to give you 238V @ 3A
11 parallel strings to give you 2530A
= 154 panels
Perhaps you would like to re-phrase the question. Do you envision the
use of batteries and inverter?
spaco
Doesn't he only need 11 amps, therefore 4 strings = 56 panels?
Awfully pricey though, an way you put it.
Pete
-----------------
wmbjk...@citlink.net
Ballpark, $3k for PV, batteries, inverter, etc. Standard pumps don't
tend to be a good match for solar power, and your application of
(guessing) a lot of water for a short time would be an expensive
approach. You might find that it would be better to change to a pump
that's more efficient and designed to be used solar-direct. Such pumps
tend to be expensive though, so it still wouldn't be cheap. But it's
possible that you could deliver more water per day on as little as
100W with some reconfiguring of the plumbing.
Wayne
Ecnerwal
<18d20ce8-1eb4-46fe...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Freedom Reigns <blueEy...@gmail.com> wrote:
Smart man buys a different pump, and runs it for a longer time period
(thereby allowing purchase of a smaller pump, and one that runs on DC
direct, no inverter or batteries needed). Spends a lot less on total
system.
Not so smart man pays a lot more. Needs an inverter that can start a
motor that draws 2500 watts running - might need as much as 7500 watts
of inverter to get that sucker started. That will be a few thousand
bucks.
Needs 1250 watt-hours per day to run the pump half an hour, plus enough
to cover all the inefficiencies - Inverter losses, battery charging
losses, etc.
Needs a battery bank, preferably of a capacity 5x the daily draw - 6250
watt-hours, plus inefficiency factors. 260 Amp hours at 24V - better
make it 350-400 Ah in the real world, or 200 Ah at 48V.
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/codes_algs/PVWATTS/version1/US/Hawaii/
Pick site closest to you, run the numbers for guesstimated output of
panel arrays of various sizes.
--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by
Morris Dovey
In the best tradition of Usenet, I'll ask: "Are you sure you want to do
that?"
If you have the sunshine and you want to move water, why convert solar
energy to electrical energy and then convert electrical energy to
mechanical energy when you could do a direct conversion from solar
energy to mechanical energy (for a /lot/ less money)?
Or is this a taxpayer-funded project? :-)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
jp838
You need 1.250 kWh per day.
This can be stored in one single 24v, 60 Ah batteries (able to
discharge in 30 min = output 120A for 30 min)
5 panels should be enough on sunny days (250 Wh per panel per day)
You'll need too:
- a battery charger: DC to DC converter
- a 2.5 kW inverter at least to run your pump
As said elsewhere, your design is not the smart design!
You'll have to replace the battery about every year
The 154 panels solution is somewhat too large :)
Contact a professional, you'll save a lot.
Sholly
renewabl...@hotmail.com
<blueEy...@gmail.com> wrote:
The best way is to use a 3000 watt inverter connected to 3, 90
amp/hour 12 volt deep cycle batteries connected in parallel.
such as: (not a recommendation, just a suitable component for
reference)
batteries any deep cycle aka (marine) 12 volt battery rated at a
minimum of 90 amp hours.
Inverter http://www.boatandrvaccessories.com/PWRI3K24012W.htm
3000 watts/12volt=250 amps
3battriesX90amphours=270 amps for 1 hour (a little more than twice
what your minimum need is) If you experiece multiple days of cloudy
weather frequently add more batteries in parrallel to compensate.
If you use the panels you mentioned:
3000 watt/50 watts per panel=60 panels (to run full time)
Since you don't need to run full time and figuring an average of 6
hours of sun per day.
60/6=10 panels
to test this:
10X50W=500watts
500X6hours=3000watt hours (the PV panels in full sun for 6 hours
should provide 2X the power you need to run the pump for 1/2 hour per
day.
Since you can't count on 6 hours of sun every day it is recommended to
increase the PV array by at least 20% or 100% if budget allows.
10 panelsX120%=12 panels
12 panels X 50watts=600 watts (20% over minimum need)
20 panels X 50watts=1000 watts This will recharge the batteries in 3
hours of full sun. (100% over minimum need) If you add more batteries
charge time will increase.
A charge controller is highly recommended to prevent over charging the
batteries (shortens battery life severely at best , or ruins the
battery in short order, worst case)
Hope this info helps you out. I'm not working with PV system at the
moment but the math should be accurate.
Bob
bea...@gmail.com
> 2530W not 2530A? I got 7854 watts when I multiplied 3 X 11 X 238.
>
> Doesn't he only need 11 amps, therefore 4 strings = 56 panels?
>
> Awfully pricey though, an way you put it.
>
> Pete
> -----------------
>
> > On Jun 19, 8:39 pm, Freedom Reigns <blueEyedge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>I need to calculate how many solar panels I need to run 230 volt
> >>sprinkler pump 30 minutes a day. The pump runs at 2500 watts. The
> >>location is Kilauea, Kauai Hawaii.
>
> >>Assume for instance the panels are 50 watt, 17 vdc, 2.94 amp
>
> >>How do I calculate how many panels I will need?
>
> > For the information given;
>
> > 14 panels in series to give you 238V @ 3A
>
> > 11 parallel strings to give you 2530A
>
> > = 154 panels
>
> > Perhaps you would like to re-phrase the question. Do you envision the
> > use of batteries and inverter?
Consider the answer, it is as correct as the question. Which is the
point.
The question is incorrect. Does the OP intend to have batteries,
inverter?
You would like something a bit more real?
12V system
2250 Wh/day
1 Day autonomy
300Ah Battery
66% Daily DOD
5 PSH/Day
17- 50W Panels
Still over the top. Best ditch the pump.
wmbjk...@citlink.net
>On Jun 20, 12:06 am, spaco <sp...@baldwin-telecom.net> wrote:
>> 2530W not 2530A? I got 7854 watts when I multiplied 3 X 11 X 238.
>>
>> Doesn't he only need 11 amps, therefore 4 strings = 56 panels?
>>
>> Awfully pricey though, an way you put it.
>>
>> Pete
>> -----------------
>>
>> beal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Jun 19, 8:39 pm, Freedom Reigns <blueEyedge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>I need to calculate how many solar panels I need to run 230 volt
>> >>sprinkler pump 30 minutes a day. The pump runs at 2500 watts. The
>> >>location is Kilauea, Kauai Hawaii.
>>
>> >>Assume for instance the panels are 50 watt, 17 vdc, 2.94 amp
>>
>> >>How do I calculate how many panels I will need?
>>
>> > For the information given;
>>
>> > 14 panels in series to give you 238V @ 3A
>>
>> > 11 parallel strings to give you 2530A
>>
>> > = 154 panels
>>
>> > Perhaps you would like to re-phrase the question. Do you envision the
>> > use of batteries and inverter?
>
>Consider the answer, it is as correct as the question.
No, the question is just fine. Of several responses, yours was the
only wholly defective answer.
> Which is the
>point.
LOL Do you ever consider pretending to be a normal person, and simply
write "sorry, I screwed up again"?
>The question is incorrect.
No.
> Does the OP intend to have batteries,
>inverter?
He could do it with or without batteries. Either way you'll be of no
help.
>You would like something a bit more real?
Perhaps you mean less wrong...
>12V system
>2250 Wh/day
>1 Day autonomy
>300Ah Battery
>66% Daily DOD
>5 PSH/Day
>17- 50W Panels
Wrong again.
>Still over the top.
For sure. On a battery-inverter setup he probably needs less than half
the PV you're deezining. On a solar-direct installation, even less. In
fact, a friend has an 800W setup that powers his entire place,
*including* running a 1.5 hp submersible for a half hour per day.
> Best ditch the pump.
That remains to be seen. I pump a similar amount of water per day, and
found it best to use a conventional pump. Only if I were to pump a lot
more water would it pay to use a premium model instead.
Wayne
bea...@gmail.com
Let's cut to the chase right at the beginning. You want to discuss
numbers?
What are your loads? What do they draw? How many hours are they run?
You make claims without ever showing you know what you are talking
about.
Show us the numbers for your system.
The smart money says you can't. Ten years and counting, and not a
single set of coherent set numbers to support the claims you make for
your system.
You have no idea, have you? No idea what your pump uses in a day, no
idea of your daily use at all, and not a clue what your system
produces. Your best guess so far is that it is somewhere between 0 and
30,000 watt hours a day.
No numbers, no hope, no credibility.
Eeyore
Freedom Reigns wrote:
Your biggest ptoblem is going to be the batteries and inverter of course
which you apparently didn't consider.
Why does it have to run 30 minutes a day only ? Couldn't you run a
smaller pump say 5-6 hours a day (i.e whilst the sun's shing enough to
run it) ? And make it a DC pump to avoid the cost and complexity of the
inverter.
Why do you even want to do this ?
Graham
Eeyore
wmbjk...@citlink.net wrote:
> Freedom Reigns <blueEy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I need to calculate how many solar panels I need to run 230 volt
> >sprinkler pump 30 minutes a day. The pump runs at 2500 watts. The
> >location is Kilauea, Kauai Hawaii.
> >
> >Assume for instance the panels are 50 watt, 17 vdc, 2.94 amp
> >
> >How do I calculate how many panels I will need?
>
> Ballpark, $3k for PV, batteries, inverter, etc.
Don't forget battery replacement costs.
Graham
Eeyore
Morris Dovey wrote:
Or a 'feelgood' project ?
Graham
Eeyore
jp838 wrote:
> On 19 juin, 10:39, Freedom Reigns <blueEyedge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I need to calculate how many solar panels I need to run 230 volt
> > sprinkler pump 30 minutes a day. The pump runs at 2500 watts. The
> > location is Kilauea, Kauai Hawaii.
> >
> > Assume for instance the panels are 50 watt, 17 vdc, 2.94 amp
> >
> > How do I calculate how many panels I will need?
>
> You need 1.250 kWh per day.
> This can be stored in one single 24v, 60 Ah batteries
Not if you expect it to last very long !
Graham
Ron Rosenfeld
<blueEy...@gmail.com> wrote:
You've received lots of answers and recommendations. But it should be clear
that if you want to run your pump every day, you will need some kind of
storage as I don't believe Kialauea has full sun every day.
You can store electricity, or you can store water. Five days supply is the
usual recommendation. If you store water, you'll need to have room for a
large enough tank. But if you do that, you can use a different pump that
runs off DC, and not require batteries or an inverter.
If you're storing electricity, you would use batteries to run the pump on
the days when the sun doesn't shine.
Also, does your sprinkler pump run on AC or DC? If AC, you'll need an
inverter capable of supplying not only the running current (about 11A) but
also the startup surge which may be quite a bit more than the running
current -- might by five times or more. Some pumps have a "soft-start"
controller that can mitigate this somewhat. Also, most motors run better
(cooler, more efficient) on sine-wave vs square wave, adding even more to
the expense of the inverter.
Again, assuming this is an AC pump, if you have the inverter and storage,
then one way to figure how many panels (which is what you asked) is as
follows:
AC Load 2500W x 0.5hrs/day --> 1250 watt-hrs/day
Inverter Efficiency 85%
Adjusted AC Load 1471 Watt-hrs/day
Nominal system voltage 12V (This is appropriate for your panels)
Total load in AH 123 amp-hrs per day
System Losses, etc 20%
Total Required 147 amp-hrs per day
Worst month insolation 5.08 kWh/m^2 per day (effective full sun hours)
Required array current 28.95A (total/insolation)
Numbe of panels 28.95/2.94 --> 9.85 --> 10 panels
You should consider other options, including a DC pump; longer watering
times; water storage; etc.
It might also be the case that you don't need to water every day, which
would decrease the amount of storage required.
Anyway, this thread should get you thinking.
--ron
Ron Rosenfeld
Of course, with this ludicrous system, he won't be able to run the pump
daily, which is what he requested.
--ron
bea...@gmail.com
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 03:39:34 -0700 (PDT), Freedom Reigns
>
What is this. At this point of the calculation why are you adding 20%
losses when you have already calculated the loss with an 85% inverter
efficiency.
>
> Total Required 147 amp-hrs per day
122 amp hours is the correct answer and includes the 15% loss from the
inverter.
>
> Worst month insolation 5.08 kWh/m^2 per day (effective full sun hours)
Yeah that's 5 PSH/day.
>
> Required array current 28.95A (total/insolation)
Yours;
147Ah(daily) / .9(battery efficiency) = 163Ah required from the
array.
Without the fictional 20% loss;
122 / .9 = 136 Ah required from the array. Battery capacity 180Ah with
a daily DoD of 68%
>
> Numbe of panels 28.95/2.94 --> 9.85 --> 10 panels
Under normal conditions the panels output will be closer to 2.6A.
Still and all ten panels would just do the job. And as you have
already pointed out the system is a non starter as it would not work
after the first day if it is cloudy.
Ron Rosenfeld
>What is this. At this point of the calculation why are you adding 20%
>losses when you have already calculated the loss with an 85% inverter
>efficiency.
George,
Any intelligent explanation would be well beyond your ability to
comprehend.
And your 154 panel system won't even run things for the OP daily.
--ron
bea...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:08:12 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >What is this. At this point of the calculation why are you adding 20%
> >losses when you have already calculated the loss with an 85% inverter
> >efficiency.
>
> George,
>
> Any intelligent explanation would be well beyond your ability to
> comprehend.
>
> And your 154 panel system won't even run things for the OP daily.
> --ron
If the truth be told, you are just guessing at a figure. And what you
are applying that figure to is losses in the cables. Of course if you
are willing to accept a 20% voltage drop in the cabling that is up to
you.
But when it come to system sizing all the losses are calculated within
the formula. Adding an arbitrary 20% is the mark of an amateur.
Can you give a rational explanation for the 20%? Bet you can't come up
with a story that I can't show to be a crock of shit.
Ron Rosenfeld
>Can you give a rational explanation for the 20%? Bet you can't come up
>with a story that I can't show to be a crock of shit.
George,
The explanation is so simple and straight-forward, that even you should be
able to figure it out. But your purpose here, evidenced by what and how
you write, is merely to insult and denigrate, not to learn or teach. So
I'll let you find it on your own.
--ron
bea...@gmail.com
TRUTH - You heard someone else say it, thought it sounded good, so you
repeated it.
I guess you're right. It was simple and straight-forward after all.
You have no idea, so fake it, eh.
I'll tell you right now that if you try to explain it away by claiming
that batteries are only 80% efficient you have already lost the
argument.
Yes, batteries do have an efficiency between 80% and 90%. But adding
to the battery capacity does nothing to offset that loss.
So, your options are disappearing. And you, well you're beginning to
look like a person who is doing a runner in the face of humiliation.
Face it, there was, and is, no reason to add 20%, because the losses
are a fantasy.
Eeyore
bea...@gmail.com wrote:
> Face it, there was, and is, no reason to add 20%, because the losses
> are a fantasy.
Have you found a conductor with zero resistance ?
Graham
bea...@gmail.com
wrote:
Oh good god no. Adding an arbitrary 20% to the size of the battery
bank to cover losses is stupid. A 100Ah battery with a 20% efficiency
is the same as a 1000Ah battery with a 20% efficiency.
Now you come along and say that the losses are in the wire. Would you
accept a 20% voltage drop? Because that is what you have said.
Adding capacity to a battery will not offset losses due to poor
conductor selection. You don't get more electricity down a wire just
because you use a larger Ah battery.
So, in your infinite wisdom, can you name the 20% losses that require
a 20% increase in battery size?
Come on, ron is struggling here. Help the poor boy out.
Eeyore
bea...@gmail.com wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > beal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Face it, there was, and is, no reason to add 20%, because the losses
> > > are a fantasy.
> >
> > Have you found a conductor with zero resistance ?
> >
> > Graham
>
> Oh good god no. Adding an arbitrary 20% to the size of the battery
> bank to cover losses is stupid. A 100Ah battery with a 20% efficiency
> is the same as a 1000Ah battery with a 20% efficiency.
>
> Now you come along and say that the losses are in the wire. Would you
> accept a 20% voltage drop? Because that is what you have said.
At present the 'system' exists only in someone's imagination.
One thing for sure is the power storage and transmission is anything but
100% efficient. Without worked examples, all one can do is put guesstimates
on those numbers, UNDER estimating losses is a recipe for disaster, so it's
better to 'play safe' and expect them to be not that good.
> Adding capacity to a battery will not offset losses due to poor
> conductor selection. You don't get more electricity down a wire just
> because you use a larger Ah battery.
Where did I suggest that ?
> So, in your infinite wisdom, can you name the 20% losses that require
> a 20% increase in battery size?
>
> Come on, ron is struggling here. Help the poor boy out.
What battery technology ? That alone covers that much of a range.
Graham
jp838
Funny to notice that the creator of this thread did not reply to our
hard computations and soft speculations.
sholl
bea...@gmail.com
wrote:
> beal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Eeyore wrote:
> > > beal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Face it, there was, and is, no reason to add 20%, because the losses
> > > > are a fantasy.
>
> > > Have you found a conductor with zero resistance ?
>
> > > Graham
>
> > Oh good god no. Adding an arbitrary 20% to the size of the battery
> > bank to cover losses is stupid. A 100Ah battery with a 20% efficiency
> > is the same as a 1000Ah battery with a 20% efficiency.
>
> > Now you come along and say that the losses are in the wire. Would you
> > accept a 20% voltage drop? Because that is what you have said.
>
> At present the 'system' exists only in someone's imagination.
>
> One thing for sure is the power storage and transmission is anything but
> 100% efficient. Without worked examples, all one can do is put guesstimates
> on those numbers, UNDER estimating losses is a recipe for disaster, so it's
> better to 'play safe' and expect them to be not that good.
Ok, how does adding capacity to a battery over come efficiency losses?
Simple question, why have you not answered it.
>
> > Adding capacity to a battery will not offset losses due to poor
> > conductor selection. You don't get more electricity down a wire just
> > because you use a larger Ah battery.
>
> Where did I suggest that ?
Remember this; Have you found a conductor with zero resistance ? You
seem to be saying that the loss is in the wire used.
Eeyore
bea...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ok, how does adding capacity to a battery over come efficiency losses?
It improves LIFETIME and hence lowers replacement costs.
Do you not know about the relationship between DoD and lifetime.
Graham
bea...@gmail.com
wrote:
> beal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Ok, how does adding capacity to a battery over come efficiency losses?
>
> It improves LIFETIME and hence lowers replacement costs.
That is not the question. Ron wants to add battery capacity to
overcome "Losses". So the question is - What are the losses.
One thing that is abundantly clear is that neither you or Ron are able
to answer the question.
>
> Do you not know about the relationship between DoD and lifetime.
Far better than you do sonny. Daily Depth of Discharge and Maximum
Depth of Discharge and their relationship within system sizing.
>
> Graham
bea...@gmail.com
Looks like ronnie has done a runner folks.
Ron Rosenfeld
>Looks like ronnie has done a runner folks.
And georgie continues to spout nonsense, and show evidence by what he
writes that he is incapable of understanding even simple explanations.
As I wrote, "your purpose here, evidenced by what and how
you write, is merely to insult and denigrate, not to learn or teach".
--ron
Eeyore
bea...@gmail.com wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > beal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Ok, how does adding capacity to a battery over come efficiency losses?
> >
> > It improves LIFETIME and hence lowers replacement costs.
>
> That is not the question. Ron wants to add battery capacity to
> overcome "Losses". So the question is - What are the losses.
I'm not interested in your stupid game any more.
Byeeeeee.
Graham
bea...@gmail.com
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 20:43:51 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >Looks like ronnie has done a runner folks.
>
> And georgie continues to spout nonsense, and show evidence by what he
> writes that he is incapable of understanding even simple explanations.
As you have not offered a simple, or any other, explanation for adding
20% to the batteries capacity to make up for loads that do not exist
it is plain that you have no explanation at all.
Therefor it is understood that you can't give a valid reason for
adding the 20% to the battery capacity.
>
> As I wrote, "your purpose here, evidenced by what and how
> you write, is merely to insult and denigrate, not to learn or teach".
My purpose here is to keep fools like you from misleading people about
solar power design.
If you don't like being a fool you can make your simple, or other,
explanation and hope that I can't prove it to be a total load of
bollocks.
It's a very simple question, "What system losses are addressed by
increasing the battery capacity?"
Come on, everybody's waiting to see you; 1) Shoot me down, or, 2) Make
an ass of yourself.
Of course the second option is likely to be a self fulfilling
prophecy, all you have to do is either put up an argument for the 20%
or just run away. Same result in the end.
>
> --ron
bea...@gmail.com
wmbjk...@citlink.net
It's bizarre. The ghinius has a habit of making astonishingly wrong
calculations, and his lack of experience prevents him from seeing even
his most blatant errors. Which he posts obsessively, thereby
inexplicably advertising his deficiencies world-wide almost daily. Yet
according to him, it's everyone else who's wrong and "running". How
curious that with all the posters who've supposedly "run" from him,
there's never a shortage of readers available to correct his latest
blunder. :-)
Wayne
wmbjk...@citlink.net
>My purpose here is to keep fools like you from misleading people about solar power design.
Then why not start by smashing your own computer, since your initial
recommendation in this thread is by far the most faulty that's been
posted in this newsgroup... since your last FUBAR calculation, and the
one before that and the one... I've added the latest example of your
defective thinking to http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm,
about a third of the way down the page under the heading of "System
SIZing (my most famuse abiliti)", where it will join several other
examples of you undeniably "misleading people about solar power
design".
Wayne
Phil Ross
<bea...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:43c52ec1-509f-4524...@n19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 22, 5:32 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> Come on, ron is struggling here. Help the poor boy out.
>
>
did not seem to know the difference between watts and amps. 154 panels for
2500 watts? My 14 Sharp ND200U1 panels can just about handle that load.
Phil
bea...@gmail.com
> <beal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Ok Phil, heres your chance to be a usenet hero;
"What system losses are addressed by increasing the battery capacity
as ron claims."
Ron doesn't know or he would tell us and gain the kudos.
wayne has no hope as he has no idea at all. He has run away from every
question about his systems numbers for more than ten years.
So far. plenty of attacks on George, but no answer to the question of
the 20% increase to the battery capacity to cover "system Losses".
Ron has quantified the losses as being 20%. Pity he can't name those
losses. Can you name the losses?
bea...@gmail.com
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 04:33:35 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >My purpose here is to keep fools like you from misleading people about solar power design.
>
> Then why not start by smashing your own computer, since your initial
> recommendation in this thread is by far the most faulty that's been
> posted in this newsgroup... since your last FUBAR calculation, and the
> one before that and the one... I've added the latest example of your
> about a third of the way down the page under the heading of "System
> SIZing (my most famuse abiliti)", where it will join several other
> examples of you undeniably "misleading people about solar power
> design".
>
> Wayne
So you have come back for another go.
Tell us about your system.
What are the loads, what do they draw, how long are they run for.
Ten years and not a single set of coherent numbers for your system
design. The numbers are beyond you ability.
You don't know what your system produces or what it uses.
Phil Ross
news:9dee19b1-bdce-4f61...@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
20% above and beyond the already accounted for 85% inverter efficiency does
seem excessive.
Phil
bea...@gmail.com
Excessive? Totally pointless to add any arbitrary amount what-so-
ever.
That 20% crap has been around for years with no sound reason ever put
forward for doing it.
It is always "System Losses". But nobody can ever define those losses.
Ron sure as hell can't, wayne can't even defend his two days autonomy
claim for his own system.
Can you name these system losses?
Ron Rosenfeld
>As you have not offered a simple, or any other, explanation for adding
>20% to the batteries capacity to make up for loads that do not exist
>it is plain that you have no explanation at all.
*You* expect *me* to explain another of your idiotic recommendations? How
ghinius of you.
I suppose you also expect *me* to explain *your* recommendation that the OP
needs 154 panels to run his system daily.
I imagine Wayne will add this idiocy of yours to
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm
--ron
wmbjk...@citlink.net
wrote:
><bea...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9dee19b1-bdce-4f61...@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> Ron has quantified the losses as being 20%. Pity he can't name those
>> losses. Can you name the losses?
>
>20% above and beyond the already accounted for 85% inverter efficiency does
>seem excessive.
No, it doesn't. A quicky estimating shortcut is to allow for one-third
total losses from nameplate PV rating to account for inefficiencies
for non MPPT, inverter, battery and wiring losses. 20% is a frequently
used figure to account for charge/discharge inefficiency alone. In
fact, a quick search for "battery charging loss", author "george
ghio", turns up this quote - "Batteries are, sadly, only around 80 to
90% efficient. This should always be part of a sizing calculation."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.solar.photovoltaic/msg/26c5c12eb214e18d
He has also repeatedly claimed, without ever providing any proof, that
some inverters are only 60% efficient.
Of course, once the ghinius goes into his idiotically transparent
divert-attention-from-my-latest-blunder mode, he'll invent fault with
anything or anyone, even if it contradicts his previous theeerees or
requires telling bald-faced lies. It will always be so, since he
doesn't have the backbone to admit his errors, no matter how obvious
or egregious. Lots of examples here
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm.
Wayne
bea...@gmail.com
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 04:33:35 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >As you have not offered a simple, or any other, explanation for adding
> >20% to the batteries capacity to make up for loads that do not exist
> >it is plain that you have no explanation at all.
>
> *You* expect *me* to explain another of your idiotic recommendations? How
> ghinius of you.
Umm, it seems that it has slipped you mind that "YOU" proposed that
20% be added to the batteries capacity. Remember this:
AC Load 2500W x 0.5hrs/day --> 1250 watt-hrs/day
Inverter Efficiency 85%
Adjusted AC Load 1471 Watt-hrs/day
Nominal system voltage 12V (This is appropriate for your panels)
Total load in AH 123 amp-hrs per day
System Losses, etc 20%
Total Required 147 amp-hrs per day
>
> I suppose you also expect *me* to explain *your* recommendation that the OP
> needs 154 panels to run his system daily.
No, I expect you to fail to explain why "YOU" want to add 20% to the
batteries capacity. So far you have met my expectations 100%.
>
> I imagine Wayne will add this idiocy of yours tohttp://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm
Oh, no doubt. That's how I keep score. The more he squeals, the more I
know that he's been proven to be incompetent.
>
> --ron
Yes, a self fulfilling prophecy indeed. The fact that you have not
provided an explanation, simple or otherwise, for adding 20% to the
batteries capacity is simply that you have no idea.
Lets look at what poor 20% ronnie can't explain.
This is the basic formula used to size a system. It has been in use
for 20-30 years.
A2 Daily load
A4 Inverter Efficiency
A5 Account for inverter inefficiency - Load (A2/A4)
A7 System Voltage
A8 Total A-hr demand per day (A5 / A7)
At this point of the system sizing we have corrected the daily load
for the inverter’s inefficiency.
(Note - It is at this point that Ron insists on adding a further 20%
to the batteries capacity. The question is, “WHY?” The answer is that
he is an amateur who has no understanding of system sizing.)
B1 Number of days of autonomy
B2 Maximum allowable depth of discharge
B3 Battery capacity (A8 x B1 / B2)
B4 Lowest 24 hour average temperature
B5 Temperature correction factor
B6 Adjusted battery capacity (B3 / B5)
B7 Selected Battery
B8 Selected battery discharge rate
B9 A-hr capacity of selected battery
B10 Number of batteries in parallel (B6 / B9, rounded off)
B11 Number of batteries in series (A7 / battery voltage)
B12 Check Capacity of selected battery at l00 Hr rate
B13 Capacity of battery bank at 100 hr rate (B12 x B10)
B14 Daily depth of discharge (100 x A8 / B13)
At this point we have adjusted the battery capacity by allowing for:
1) Number of days of autonomy
2) Maximum allowable depth of discharge
3) The lowest 24 hour average temperature.
C1 Design tilt
C2 Design month
C3 Total energy demand per day (A8)
C4 Battery efficiency
C5 Array output required per day (C3 / C4)
C6 Peak sun hours at design tilt for design month
C7 Selected module
C8 Selected module I at 14 volts at NOCT
C9 Selected module nominal operating voltage.
C10 Guaranteed current (C8 x 0.9)
C11 Number of modules in series (A7 / C9)
C12 Output per module (C10 x C6)
C13 Number of parallel strings of modules (C5 / C12)
By the time we get to the end we have taken into account the batteries
inefficiency at “C5”. As can be seen, the batteries inefficiency is
accounted for with the charging circuit as anything that is taken out
of the batteries must be replaced, plus the losses incurred.
All losses are accounted for within the formula, in direct relation to
those losses.
The only other losses in an installation are the result of poor
judgment and bad workmanship.
bea...@gmail.com
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:37:40 -0700, "Phil Ross" <par...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> >news:9dee19b1-bdce-4f61...@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> >> Ron has quantified the losses as being 20%. Pity he can't name those
> >> losses. Can you name the losses?
>
> >20% above and beyond the already accounted for 85% inverter efficiency does
> >seem excessive.
>
> No, it doesn't. A quicky estimating shortcut is to allow for one-third
> total losses from nameplate PV rating to account for inefficiencies
> for non MPPT, inverter, battery and wiring losses. 20% is a frequently
> used figure to account for charge/discharge inefficiency alone. In
> fact, a quick search for "battery charging loss", author "george
> ghio", turns up this quote - "Batteries are, sadly, only around 80 to
> He has also repeatedly claimed, without ever providing any proof, that
> some inverters are only 60% efficient.
>
> Of course, once the ghinius goes into his idiotically transparent
> divert-attention-from-my-latest-blunder mode, he'll invent fault with
> anything or anyone, even if it contradicts his previous theeerees or
> requires telling bald-faced lies. It will always be so, since he
> doesn't have the backbone to admit his errors, no matter how obvious
> or egregious. Lots of examples herehttp://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm.
>
> Wayne
Wrong again wayne
wmbjk...@citlink.net
I wasn't going to bother adding his latest caraaazy recommendation
since there were already several similar examples. But I reconsidered
after a few rounds of his attempts to divert attention from his errors
by inventing fault with others. Apparently he's incapable of learning
that failing to own up to his blunders only ever makes his dilemma
worse.
Wayne
bea...@gmail.com
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:04:23 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 04:33:35 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>As you have not offered a simple, or any other, explanation for adding
> >>20% to the batteries capacity to make up for loads that do not exist
> >>it is plain that you have no explanation at all.
>
> >*You* expect *me* to explain another of your idiotic recommendations? How
> >ghinius of you.
>
> >I suppose you also expect *me* to explain *your* recommendation that the OP
> >needs 154 panels to run his system daily.
>
> >I imagine Wayne will add this idiocy of yours to
> >http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm
>
> >--ron
>
> I wasn't going to bother adding his latest caraaazy recommendation
> since there were already several similar examples. But I reconsidered
> after a few rounds of his attempts to divert attention from his errors
> by inventing fault with others. Apparently he's incapable of learning
> that failing to own up to his blunders only ever makes his dilemma
> worse.
>
> Wayne
Tell us about you system wayne, what are the loads? What do they draw?
How long are they run.
Talk about a dilemma. Ten years and you still can't do it. Tsk tsk
bea...@gmail.com
> >news:9dee19b1-bdce-4f61...@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> >> Ron has quantified the losses as being 20%. Pity he can't name those
> >> losses. Can you name the losses?
>
> >20% above and beyond the already accounted for 85% inverter efficiency does
> >seem excessive.
>
> No, it doesn't. A quicky estimating shortcut is to allow for one-third
> total losses from nameplate PV rating to account for inefficiencies
The figure is ten percent (C10)
> for non MPPT,
> inverter,
(A5)
> battery
(C5)
and wiring losses. This is a good one. Wiring losses are measured as
voltage drop. Increasing the capacity of the battery does not reduce
the resistance of wire.
20% is a frequently
> used figure to account for charge/discharge inefficiency alone.
(C5)
> In
> fact, a quick search for "battery charging loss", author "george
> ghio", turns up this quote - "Batteries are, sadly, only around 80 to
> 90% efficient. This should always be part of a sizing calculation.
(C5) again.
>"http://groups.google.com/group/alt.solar.photovoltaic/msg/26c5c12eb21...
> He has also repeatedly claimed, without ever providing any proof, that
> some inverters are only 60% efficient.
True.
stevey
I like Wayne's response the best.
Roughly 3KW of power is needed for 1/2 hour, considering the mis-
match, inverter inefficiency, etc.
This translates to 60 panels. Probably in 3 strings of 20 will offer
the best efficiency.
It will be far cheaper to go for longer soaking period than the 30-
minute burst of 3KW power.
Good Luck,
Steve
On Jun 19, 5:07 am, beal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 19, 8:39 pm, Freedom Reigns <blueEyedge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I need to calculate how many solar panels I need to run 230 volt
> > sprinkler pump 30 minutes a day. The pump runs at 2500 watts. The
> > location is Kilauea, Kauai Hawaii.
>
> > Assume for instance the panels are 50 watt, 17 vdc, 2.94 amp
>
> > How do I calculate how many panels I will need?
>
> For the information given;
>
> 14 panels in series to give you 238V @ 3A
>
> 11 parallel strings to give you 2530A
>
> = 154 panels
>
> Perhaps you would like to re-phrase the question. Do you envision the
> use of batteries and inverter?
bea...@gmail.com
Well good for you.
wayne said 3000 dollars you said 3000Wh. One, or both, of you seems to
be confused.
1250Wh/day, ten panels, will do the job for one day. Stupid system.
Just as stupid as 14 panels in series to give you 238V @ 3A
11 parallel strings to give you 2530A = 154 panels.
Which was the whole point from the beginning. The whole project needs
to be defined better before trying to design a system.
Ron Rosenfeld
>Umm, it seems that it has slipped you mind that "YOU" proposed that
>20% be added to the batteries capacity. Remember this:
>
>AC Load 2500W x 0.5hrs/day --> 1250 watt-hrs/day
>Inverter Efficiency 85%
>Adjusted AC Load 1471 Watt-hrs/day
>
>Nominal system voltage 12V (This is appropriate for your panels)
>Total load in AH 123 amp-hrs per day
>System Losses, etc 20%
>
>Total Required 147 amp-hrs per day
>
>>
>> I suppose you also expect *me* to explain *your* recommendation that the OP
>> needs 154 panels to run his system daily.
>
>No, I expect you to fail to explain why "YOU" want to add 20% to the
>batteries capacity. So far you have met my expectations 100%.
You just want to engage in further polemics. You think you know all the
answers. But your postings reveal that you do not, and also that you are
unwilling or unable to learn.
Hint: Battery sizing was not mentioned in either what you quoted, or in my
original post. It's not even clear what kind of storage the OP will be
using.
And if that's not enough of a hint for you to figure things out on your
own, that is your problem.
--ron
Ron Rosenfeld
wrote:
>
>
>Freedom Reigns wrote:
>> I need to calculate how many solar panels I need to run 230 volt
>> sprinkler pump 30 minutes a day. The pump runs at 2500 watts. The
>> location is Kilauea, Kauai Hawaii.
>>
>> Assume for instance the panels are 50 watt, 17 vdc, 2.94 amp
>>
>> How do I calculate how many panels I will need?
>
>
>Funny to notice that the creator of this thread did not reply to our
>hard computations and soft speculations.
>
>sholl
He was probably frightened off by Ghio's 154 panel recommendation!
--ron
Ron Rosenfeld
What's also interesting is that the calculations which I posted have to do
with estimating array output current, and his own, frequently posted,
calculation methods include a similar factor! But he can't, or won't, see
that.
--ron
bea...@gmail.com
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 06:15:06 -0700, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:
> >On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:37:40 -0700, "Phil Ross" <par...@pacbell.net>
> >wrote:
>
> >>news:9dee19b1-bdce-4f61...@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> Ron has quantified the losses as being 20%. Pity he can't name those
> >>> losses. Can you name the losses?
>
> >>20% above and beyond the already accounted for 85% inverter efficiency does
> >>seem excessive.
>
> >No, it doesn't. A quicky estimating shortcut is to allow for one-third
> >total losses from nameplate PV rating to account for inefficiencies
> >for non MPPT, inverter, battery and wiring losses. 20% is a frequently
> >used figure to account for charge/discharge inefficiency alone. In
> >fact, a quick search for "battery charging loss", author "george
> >ghio", turns up this quote - "Batteries are, sadly, only around 80 to
> >90% efficient. This should always be part of a sizing calculation."
> >He has also repeatedly claimed, without ever providing any proof, that
> >some inverters are only 60% efficient.
>
> >Of course, once the ghinius goes into his idiotically transparent
> >divert-attention-from-my-latest-blunder mode, he'll invent fault with
> >anything or anyone, even if it contradicts his previous theeerees or
> >requires telling bald-faced lies. It will always be so, since he
> >doesn't have the backbone to admit his errors, no matter how obvious
> >or egregious. Lots of examples here
> >http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm.
>
> >Wayne
>
> What's also interesting is that the calculations which I posted have to do
> with estimating array output current, and his own, frequently posted,
> calculation methods include a similar factor! But he can't, or won't, see
> that.
> --ron
This is from your original post
You can store electricity, or you can store water. Five days supply
is the
usual recommendation. If you store water, you'll need to have room
for a
large enough tank. But if you do that, you can use a different pump
that
runs off DC, and not require batteries or an inverter.
If you're storing electricity, you would use batteries to run the pump
on
the days when the sun doesn't shine.
Also, does your sprinkler pump run on AC or DC? If AC, you'll need an
inverter capable of supplying not only the running current (about 11A)
but
also the startup surge which may be quite a bit more than the running
current -- might by five times or more. Some pumps have a "soft-
start"
controller that can mitigate this somewhat. Also, most motors run
better
(cooler, more efficient) on sine-wave vs square wave, adding even more
to
the expense of the inverter.
Again, assuming this is an AC pump, if you have the inverter and
storage,
then one way to figure how many panels (which is what you asked) is as
follows:
AC Load 2500W x 0.5hrs/day --> 1250 watt-hrs/day
Inverter Efficiency 85%
Adjusted AC Load 1471 Watt-hrs/day
Nominal system voltage 12V (This is appropriate for your panels)
Total load in AH 123 amp-hrs per day
System Losses, etc 20%
Total Required 147 amp-hrs per day
Worst month insolation 5.08 kWh/m^2 per day (effective full sun
hours)
Required array current 28.95A (total/insolation)
Numbe of panels 28.95/2.94 --> 9.85 --> 10 panels
Let's see what your numbers actually add up to
A2 Daily load = 1250Wh
A4 Inverter Efficiency = 85%
A5 Account for inverter inefficiency - Load (A2/A4) = 1470.5
A7 System Voltage = 12
A8 Total A-hr demand per day (A5 / A7) = 147
At this point of the system sizing we have changed the correct Total
Ah demand of 122.55 to ron's best 20% guess of 147 amp-hrs per day.
Note the sizing below.
B1 Number of days of autonomy = 1
B2 Maximum allowable depth of discharge = 70%
B3 Battery capacity (A8 x B1 / B2) = 210Ah
B4 Lowest 24 hour average temperature =15c
B5 Temperature correction factor =.97
B6 Adjusted battery capacity (B3 / B5) = 216.5
B7 Selected Battery
B8 Selected battery discharge rate 100
B9 A-hr capacity of selected battery = 216.5Ah
B10 Number of batteries in parallel (B6 / B9, rounded off) = 1
B11 Number of batteries in series (A7 / battery voltage) = 1
B12 Check Capacity of selected battery at l00 Hr rate = 216
B13 Capacity of battery bank at 100 hr rate (B12 x B10) = 216
B14 Daily depth of discharge (100 x A8 / B13) = 68%
C1 Design tilt
C2 Design month
C3 Total energy demand per day (A8) =147Ah
C4 Battery efficiency = 90%
C5 Array output required per day (C3 / C4) = 163.33
C6 Peak sun hours at design tilt for design month = 5
C7 Selected module
C8 Selected module I at 14 volts at NOCT 2.94A
C9 Selected module nominal operating voltage. = 12V
C10 Guaranteed current (C8 x 0.9) = 2.65A
C11 Number of modules in series (A7 / C9) = 1
C12 Output per module (C10 x C6) = 13.2Ah
C13 Number of parallel strings of modules (C5 / C12) = 12.35 (13)
Compare this to th same system without the 20% addition.
A2 Daily load = 1250Wh
A4 Inverter Efficiency = 85%
A5 Account for inverter inefficiency - Load (A2/A4) = 1470.5
A7 System Voltage = 12
A8 Total A-hr demand per day (A5 / A7) = 122.55
B1 Number of days of autonomy = 1
B2 Maximum allowable depth of discharge = 70%
B3 Battery capacity (A8 x B1 / B2) = 175Ah
B4 Lowest 24 hour average temperature =15c
B5 Temperature correction factor =.97
B6 Adjusted battery capacity (B3 / B5) = 180.5
B7 Selected Battery
B8 Selected battery discharge rate 100
B9 A-hr capacity of selected battery = 180Ah
B10 Number of batteries in parallel (B6 / B9, rounded off) = 1
B11 Number of batteries in series (A7 / battery voltage) =1
B12 Check Capacity of selected battery at l00 Hr rate = 180
B13 Capacity of battery bank at 100 hr rate (B12 x B10) = 180
B14 Daily depth of discharge (100 x A8 / B13) = 68%
C1 Design tilt
C2 Design month
C3 Total energy demand per day (A8) =122.55Ah
C4 Battery efficiency = 90%
C5 Array output required per day (C3 / C4) = 136.2
C6 Peak sun hours at design tilt for design month = 5
C7 Selected module
C8 Selected module I at 14 volts at NOCT 2.94A
C9 Selected module nominal operating voltage. = 12V
C10 Guaranteed current (C8 x 0.9) = 2.65A
C11 Number of modules in series (A7 / C9) = 1
C12 Output per module (C10 x C6) = 13.2Ah
C13 Number of parallel strings of modules (C5 / C12) = 10.3 (11)
The only thing that changed between these two sizings is rons
pointless 20%, and of course something close to $1800 for larger
batteries and 2 more panels.
No matter how you want to put it, ron, your 20% is a crock of shit.
wmbjk...@citlink.net
Considering that he overestimated his latest quack deezine by a factor
of near 20, and makes a habit of badly overestimating generally, it's
hilarious that his chosen distraction this time was to pretend that
somebody else was overestimating by a mere 20%. Not to mention that
the 500W setup he's now calling "stupid" is very similar in size and
output to his own! A case of what's stupid for normals being normal
for a stupid I suppose. :-) The topper is the claim that the 154
panel deezine was *intentional*! Which, as usual, was a far worse
insult to the intelligence of readers than the original blunder.
Imagine the time he's wasted over the years writing all these
diversionary posts that only serve to advertise his failings. He could
have built a solar water-heating setup instead a hundred times over,
saved enough to upgrade his setup and decrease his reliance on fuel
burning, and for the first time had something useful to write about.
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being
very wasteful. How true that is" - Dan Quayle
Wayne
Solar Flare
you could prove it with a picture. fecal boy?
<wmbjk...@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:rj136411ts3gstebb...@4ax.com...
bea...@gmail.com
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:19:57 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld
>
>
>
wayne said;
> No, it doesn't. A quicky estimating shortcut is to allow for one-third
> total losses from nameplate PV rating to account for inefficiencies
> for non MPPT, inverter, battery and wiring losses. 20% is a frequently
> used figure to account for charge/discharge inefficiency alone. In
> fact, a quick search for "battery charging loss", author "george
> ghio", turns up this quote - "Batteries are, sadly, only around 80 to
> 90% efficient. This should always be part of a sizing calculation."
1) Inverter efficiency. Accounted for at A5, Also accounted for by
ron, before he added 20%
2) Battery efficiency. Accounted for at C5.
3) Wiring losses. This is where wayne shows the true state of his
ignorance. Wiring losses are the result of "Resistance" for a given
length of cable run.
Example 1: Battery = 100Ah capacity - A 10 metre run of 2.9sq mm cable
at a current of 10 Amps has a voltage drop of 1.15 Volts
Example 2: Battery = 1000Ah capacity - A 10 metre run of 2.9sq mm
cable at a current of 10 Amps has a voltage drop of 1.15 Volts
Gee, it seems that increasing the battery capacity does nothing to cut
wiring losses.
Example 3: Battery = 100Ah capacity - A 10 metre run of 2.9sq mm cable
at a current of 10 Amps has a voltage drop of 1.15 Volts
Example 4: Battery = 100Ah capacity - A 10 metre run of 7.9sq mm cable
at a current of 10 Amps has a voltage drop of .42 Volts
Example 5: Battery = 1000Ah capacity - A 10 metre run of 2.9sq mm
cable at a current of 10 Amps has a voltage drop of 1.5 Volts
Example 6: Battery = 1000Ah capacity - A 10 metre run of 7.9sq mm
cable at a current of 10 Amps has a voltage drop of .42 Volts
It would seem that the best way to reduce line losses is to choose the
correct cable size for the application.
Adding 20% to the daily load ain't gonna do it.
So wayne, tell us about your system. What are the loads? How much do
they draw? How long are they run for? And now we can add a new
question that you will never be able to answer, How does adding 20% to
the calculated daily load reduce line losses?
Your biggest ambition is to be a wit, Congratulations you're half way
there.
bea...@gmail.com
explain what system loads are addressed by adding 20% to the daily
load.
The formula I posted will correctly size a stand alone system. Without
resorting to a pointless addition to the daily load.
Line losses can only be addressed by: 1) Increasing the voltage, or,
2) Increasing the size of the conductor.
The next post from ron or wayne will contain no valid reason for
adding (enter number here)% to the daily load.
Solar Flare
<bea...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2af91d84-6fe7-476a...@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Ron Rosenfeld
Gee, georgie, you're becoming less and less comprehensible:
Ron: Number of panels 28.95/2.94 --> 9.85 --> 10 panels
BUT, GG *claims* that Ron is recommending:
Number of parallel strings of modules (C5 / C12) = 12.35 (13)
He then compares it to GG's recommended number of panels:
Number of parallel strings of modules (C5 / C12) = 10.3 (11)
Why don't you claim that I recommended 154 panels? Then you could claim a
much larger sizing differential.
Oh, I forgot, 154 panels is what *you* initially recommended.
--ron
Ron Rosenfeld
>it's
>hilarious that his chosen distraction this time was to pretend that
>somebody else was overestimating by a mere 20%.
And, in order to do that, he had to ignore the number of panels that I had
actually recommended!
Hilarious is the correct word, indeed.
--ron
bea...@gmail.com
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:05:27 -0700, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:
> >it's
> >hilarious that his chosen distraction this time was to pretend that
> >somebody else was overestimating by a mere 20%.
>
> And, in order to do that, he had to ignore the number of panels that I had
> actually recommended!
>
> Hilarious is the correct word, indeed.
> --ron
There you go. My point is proven, ron can't show what system losses
are addressed with his addition of 20%.
Not only that, when it came down to the actual sizing he threw away
his 20% addition and recommended 10 panels. So why did he in fact add
the 20% for system losses in the first place? The only thing the 20%
was added to was to the battery capacity. Despite this claim -
"Hint: Battery sizing was not mentioned in either what you quoted, or
in my original post."
Seeing as you claim to have not added the 20% to the batteries and you
sure didn't add it to the panels, it would be fair to ask just what
you did with the 20%.
And just for the record, the actual panel requirement for the system
is (10.3) 11 panels. 10 Panels is a net loss.
Ron, where are the 20% system losses? You can't answer the question.
That is quite clear and shows a level of ignorance on par with wayne.
bea...@gmail.com
This is incorrect, it does not show rons 20% for system losses.
This shows the correct number of panels if 20% is added for supposed
system losses
>
> BUT, GG *claims* that Ron is recommending:
> Number of parallel strings of modules (C5 / C12) = 12.35 (13)
See above
>
> He then compares it to GG's recommended number of panels:
> Number of parallel strings of modules (C5 / C12) = 10.3 (11)
> >A2 Daily load = 1250Wh
This shows the correct number of panels without rons pointless 20% for
system losses
>
> Why don't you claim that I recommended 154 panels? Then you could claim a
> much larger sizing differential.
Because you didn't
>
> Oh, I forgot, 154 panels is what *you* initially recommended.
Yes I did, on the basis that it was as correct as the question
>
> --ron
As predicted. ron has failed to account for the 20% system losses.
Again. The reason being is that those losses do not exist.
Compare the two sizings. One contains the 20% ron insists is
essential, the other does not contain rons 20%.
The only difference is the 20%. The results are correct. The numbers
do not lie. On the other hand ron certainly can lie "about" the
numbers.
He can cry, stamp his feet and lie till he's blue in the face. The one
thing he can't do is tell you where the 20% system losses are.
Sad really.
wmbjk...@citlink.net
Oh well, at least he's provided some fresh material for
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm. I count no less than 6
new pearls of wisdumb worthy of inclusion in the last few weeks:
"cloths" washing is a power tool, inventing a level of editing below
copy editing, recommending a 30kWh setup to power a 1kWh load,
spinning generator-powered laundry as a plus, admitting to having
practiced "black art", and caught telling an outright lie about having
15 years of success with a 7 year-old setup. Every one of those
blundering quotes was the result of trying to BS his way out of a hole
he'd written himself into. Yet he simply refuses to accept that it's
easier and better to admit his mistakes, and that it's a predictably
self-destructive strategy to pretend he's something he's not.
Wayne
bea...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:32:34 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld
>
> >On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:05:27 -0700, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:
>
> >>it's
> >>hilarious that his chosen distraction this time was to pretend that
> >>somebody else was overestimating by a mere 20%.
>
> >And, in order to do that, he had to ignore the number of panels that I had
> >actually recommended!
>
> >Hilarious is the correct word, indeed.
> >--ron
>
> new pearls of wisdumb worthy of inclusion in the last few weeks:
> "cloths" washing is a power tool, inventing a level of editing below
> copy editing, recommending a 30kWh setup to power a 1kWh load,
> spinning generator-powered laundry as a plus, admitting to having
> practiced "black art", and caught telling an outright lie about having
> 15 years of success with a 7 year-old setup. Every one of those
> blundering quotes was the result of trying to BS his way out of a hole
> he'd written himself into. Yet he simply refuses to accept that it's
> easier and better to admit his mistakes, and that it's a predictably
> self-destructive strategy to pretend he's something he's not.
>
> Wayne
And here's the other monkey. Lots of words no answer as to what the
"System Losses" are, or how adding 20% to the daily load reduces
resistance in conductors.
No surprise.
Ron Rosenfeld
>And just for the record, the actual panel requirement for the system
>is (10.3) 11 panels. 10 Panels is a net loss.
For the record, you've oversized the required system by 10% by making
unwarranted assumptions in your spreadsheet. But I don't expect you to be
able to find your errors. You never have in the past.
--ron
bea...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:27:32 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >And just for the record, the actual panel requirement for the system
> >is (10.3) 11 panels. 10 Panels is a net loss.
>
> For the record, you've oversized the required system by 10% by making
> unwarranted assumptions in your spreadsheet. But I don't expect you to be
> able to find your errors. You never have in the past.
> --ron
Prove it. But then that is just like asking you to name the system
losses. You can't. It's just more nonsense trying to cover your
incompetence.
bea...@gmail.com
> >And just for the record, the actual panel requirement for the system
> >is (10.3) 11 panels. 10 Panels is a net loss.
>
> For the record, you've oversized the required system by 10% by making
> unwarranted assumptions in your spreadsheet. But I don't expect you to be
> able to find your errors. You never have in the past.
> --ron
Tweedledee, Tweedledum and George.
Tweedledee says, That after you adjust the daily load for the
inverters inefficiency you need to add 20% for the system losses, but
is unable to define those system losses.
Tweedledum says, The the system losses are in the wiring and further
says that these losses can be reduced by increasing the daily load.
i.e. That increasing the daily load will reduce the resistance in the
wiring.
George says, Here is the correct formula for sizing a stand alone PV
system. You can use this formula to check any claims made about any
stand alone PV system.
You get to choose between Tweedledee and Tweedledum who have no
answers at all and a formula that has been used for as long as 20 - 30
years, with unfailing success, by the industry.
Beyond that, well, unless Tweedledee and/or Tweedledum can come up
with some proof for their claims, there is no point to prolong this
discussion.
Tweedledee - Question: What are the supposed system losses?
Tweedledum - Question: How does increasing the daily load reduce
resistance in the wire?
There will be no answers forthcoming.
Ron Rosenfeld
>George says, Here is the correct formula for sizing a stand alone PV
>system. You can use this formula to check any claims made about any
>stand alone PV system.
George says many things. He is frequently wrong, but never in doubt. And
this is just another example.
--ron
wmbjk...@citlink.net
>George says, Here is the correct formula for sizing a stand alone PV
>system. You can use this formula to check any claims made about any
>stand alone PV system.
How does this formula explain a 7 year-old PV system operating for 15
years? What does it say about using 7500W to power a 2500W load? Does
it give any clues about a 1200W, 12V, 10A deezine?
Wayne
wmbjk...@citlink.net
I believe he's frequently in doubt about his abilities, yet willfully
pretends otherwise. For example, he's well able to say exactly how old
his PV setup is, yet when writing about it recently, he more than
doubled its age in order to deceive readers. This article
http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/confront_a_liar/public/pathological-compulsive.html
has a general description of the various afflictions.
Wayne
bea...@gmail.com
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:04:26 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld
>
> >On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 23:45:36 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>George says, Here is the correct formula for sizing a stand alone PV
> >>system. You can use this formula to check any claims made about any
> >>stand alone PV system.
>
> >George says many things. He is frequently wrong, but never in doubt. And
> >this is just another example.
> >--ron
>
> I believe he's frequently in doubt about his abilities, yet willfully
> pretends otherwise. For example, he's well able to say exactly how old
> his PV setup is, yet when writing about it recently, he more than
> has a general description of the various afflictions.
>
> Wayne
Well there was never any doubt that you are unable to answer the
question; How does increasing the daily load reduce
resistance in the wire?
Thank you for confirming the answer I predicted. none at all.
But then given you track record of the last ten years, the lies,
misquotes, quoting out of context and the inability to define so much
as two days autonomy for your system, says it all really.
bea...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 23:45:36 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >George says, Here is the correct formula for sizing a stand alone PV
> >system. You can use this formula to check any claims made about any
> >stand alone PV system.
>
> George says many things. He is frequently wrong, but never in doubt. And
> this is just another example.
> --ron
Well there was never any doubt that you are unable to answer the
question; What are the supposed system losses?
Thank you for confirming the answer I predicted. Non at all.
Ron Rosenfeld
>But then given you track record of the last ten years, the lies,
>misquotes, quoting out of context and the inability to define so much
>as two days autonomy for your system, says it all really.
Now that's a really funny claim, George, given your documented record of
exactly that! (at http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm )
--ron
bea...@gmail.com
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:07:34 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >But then given you track record of the last ten years, the lies,
> >misquotes, quoting out of context and the inability to define so much
> >as two days autonomy for your system, says it all really.
>
> Now that's a really funny claim, George, given your documented record of
> exactly that! (athttp://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm)
> --ron
Truth;
"YOU" claimed that 20% more was needed for system losses.
"YOU" failed to identify those losses.
"YOU" claimed that I oversized the system by 10%.
"YOU" filed to prove it.
"YOU" have demonstrated "YOUR" complete ignorance beyond any doubt.
Of course, if you feel that you can name the system losses or prove
that I over sized the system by 10% please feel free to regale us with
some more nonsense.
wmbjk...@citlink.net
Those must be the "misquotes" he was referring to! Of course, the only
particular quote he ever tried to disavow was promptly shown to be
undeniably his, just like all the others. BTW, have you noticed that
every time he quotes material that includes the
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm link, he always munges
the text to break the link? Finally, proof that he really is an
edatir! :-)
Wayne
Solar Flare
Everybody but two, apparently.
<wmbjk...@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:d28764l6da2c1alpp...@4ax.com...
bea...@gmail.com
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:02:07 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld
>
> >On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:07:34 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>But then given you track record of the last ten years, the lies,
> >>misquotes, quoting out of context and the inability to define so much
> >>as two days autonomy for your system, says it all really.
>
> >Now that's a really funny claim, George, given your documented record of
> >exactly that! (athttp://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm)
> >--ron
>
> Those must be the "misquotes" he was referring to! Of course, the only
> particular quote he ever tried to disavow was promptly shown to be
> undeniably his, just like all the others. BTW, have you noticed that
> the text to break the link? Finally, proof that he really is an
> edatir! :-)
>
> Wayne
wayne, you can blame me for a lot of things, but not your own
ignorance.
You have no idea what your system uses or produces, you've been
proving this for ten years. And now, you have raised your standard of
ignorance to a new high with your assertion that adding 20% to the
daily load will reduce the resistance in wire.
Why don't you explain exactly how that theory works.
Are you hoping that if you increase the daily load enough you will get
a super conductor?
What an ass.
Ron Rosenfeld
It would a waste of time to try to explain any of this to you. You have
demonstrated repeatedly over the years that you are unable to discern the
errors in the assumptions you make regarding systems, or in the logic of
the spreadsheet you so freely distribute.
--ron
bea...@gmail.com
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:13:30 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Jun 29, 11:02 pm, Ron Rosenfeld <ronrosenf...@nospam.org> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:07:34 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >But then given you track record of the last ten years, the lies,
> >> >misquotes, quoting out of context and the inability to define so much
> >> >as two days autonomy for your system, says it all really.
>
> >> Now that's a really funny claim, George, given your documented record of
> >> exactly that! (athttp://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm)
> >> --ron
>
> >Truth;
>
> >"YOU" claimed that 20% more was needed for system losses.
> >"YOU" failed to identify those losses.
> >"YOU" claimed that I oversized the system by 10%.
> >"YOU" filed to prove it.
> >"YOU" have demonstrated "YOUR" complete ignorance beyond any doubt.
>
> >Of course, if you feel that you can name the system losses or prove
> >that I over sized the system by 10% please feel free to regale us with
> >some more nonsense.
>
> It would a waste of time to try to explain any of this to you.
The simple answer is you can't explain any of it.
> You have
> demonstrated repeatedly over the years that you are unable to discern the
> errors in the assumptions you make regarding systems,
What assumptions?
> or in the logic of the spreadsheet you so freely distribute.
You mean the spreadsheet here:
http://www.green-trust.org/2003/pvsizing/default.htm
Same formula, same steps, dog's breakfast of layout.
You really are an idiot. Your 20% for system losses is an old wives
tale. Repeating doesn't make it true or make you intelligent.
Repeating such rubbish only shows the gullibility of the ignorant. You
can't name the losses, if you could, you would, just to show me up.
Ron Rosenfeld
>You mean the spreadsheet here:
>
>http://www.green-trust.org/2003/pvsizing/default.htm
>
>Same formula, same steps, dog's breakfast of layout.
And I'll quote this from that source, which you seem to have overlooked in
your blathering about the 20% factor and name-calling. It's in the
array-sizing section, which is what the OP asked about and to which I
responded with a recommendation of 10 panels and you responded with a
recommendation of 154 panels.
-----------------------
1. Total average amp hours per day from the Load Sizing Worksheet, line 10.
2. Multiply line 1 by 1.2 to compensate for loss from battery
charge/discharge.
-------------------------------
>
>You really are an idiot. Your 20% for system losses is an old wives
>tale. Repeating doesn't make it true or make you intelligent.
Your command of language is underwhelming. But your practice has been to
resort to insults instead of facts, so I 'm not surprised.
>
>Repeating such rubbish only shows the gullibility of the ignorant. You
>can't name the losses, if you could, you would, just to show me up.
>
>
When your recommendations (even when you tried to mindlessly apply your
worksheet) disagree significantly with that of the values produced by that
of respected sources, such as NREL, or even the BP Solar sizing worksheets,
it is clear who is providing the rubbish.
--ron
bea...@gmail.com
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 06:26:08 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >You mean the spreadsheet here:
>
> >http://www.green-trust.org/2003/pvsizing/default.htm
>
> >Same formula, same steps, dog's breakfast of layout.
>
> And I'll quote this from that source, which you seem to have overlooked in
> your blathering about the 20% factor and name-calling. It's in the
> array-sizing section, which is what the OP asked about and to which I
> responded with a recommendation of 10 panels and you responded with a
> recommendation of 154 panels.
>
> -----------------------
> 1. Total average amp hours per day from the Load Sizing Worksheet, line 10.
>
> 2. Multiply line 1 by 1.2 to compensate for loss from battery
> charge/discharge.
> -------------------------------
Yeah, so. This is not what you suggested. You said:
> Again, assuming this is an AC pump, if you have the inverter and storage,
> then one way to figure how many panels (which is what you asked) is as
> follows:
This is an inverter and battery system you have described. You can't
size the array without first sizing the battery bank.
> AC Load 2500W x 0.5hrs/day --> 1250 watt-hrs/day
> Inverter Efficiency 85%
> Adjusted AC Load 1471 Watt-hrs/day
This is the daily load adjusted for the inverter inefficiency of 85%.
> Nominal system voltage 12V (This is appropriate for your panels)
> Total load in AH 123 amp-hrs per day
> System Losses, etc 20%
And here you add 20% to the daily load for some undefined system
losses. 123Ahs is the correct daily load.
The step after this is the battery sizing and you have added 20% to
the daily load which makes this,
> Total Required 147 amp-hrs per day
incorrect of course.
> Worst month insolation 5.08 kWh/m^2 per day (effective full sun hours)
> Required array current 28.95A (total/insolation)
>Numbe of panels 28.95/2.94 --> 9.85 --> 10 panels
Using the correct formula with the correct daily load of 123Ahs and
the figure of 80% for battery efficiency makes the array output
required 153.75 Ahs. This with a guaranteed current of 2.65A for each
panel make 11.62 panels in parallel.
You should learn that multiplying by 1.2 is not the same as dividing
by .8. And dividing is correct. I did warn you that the calculation
at:
http://www.green-trust.org/2003/pvsizing/default.htm
is a dogs breakfast.
And if we add your 20% to the load the array output becomes 164Ahs.
And the number of panels in parallel becomes 13.85.
Now, even with the added 20%, if this system is meant to run off the
panels without batteries it won't start the pump. Simply because the
inverter will shut down on overload. And I don't care how "Numbe" the
panels are.
20% system losses is a load of crap.
wmbjk...@citlink.net
<ronros...@nospam.org> wrote:
>When your recommendations (even when you tried to mindlessly apply your
>worksheet) disagree significantly with that of the values produced by that
>of respected sources, such as NREL, or even the BP Solar sizing worksheets,
>it is clear who is providing the rubbish.
>
>--ron
Why he insists on using any form of spreadsheet is a mystery, since
it's clear that one of his primary problems is failing to recognize
hideously-wrong GIGO calculations. I think it was in grade 5 or so
that I was taught to always estimate an answer after making
calculations, and to compare the two to verify accuracy. Ghio was
probably busy that day accusing a fellow student of having an
upside-down peanut butter and jelly sandwich or some such. :-)
Wayne
wmbjk...@citlink.net
>On Jul 2, 9:41 pm, Ron Rosenfeld <ronrosenf...@nospam.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 06:26:08 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >You mean the spreadsheet here:
>>
>> >http://www.green-trust.org/2003/pvsizing/default.htm
>>
>> >Same formula, same steps, dog's breakfast of layout.
>>
>> And I'll quote this from that source, which you seem to have overlooked in
>> your blathering about the 20% factor and name-calling. It's in the
>> array-sizing section, which is what the OP asked about and to which I
>> responded with a recommendation of 10 panels and you responded with a
>> recommendation of 154 panels.
>required 153.75 Ahs.
... and rounded off to 154 *panels*, eh ghinius? Too funny.
>You should learn that multiplying by 1.2 is not the same as dividing
>by .8.
!!!!!!!! It's close enough for estimating, but how many times have I
corrected *you* on the point? Why haven't you thanked me for teaching
you? But more importantly, what in gawd's name drives you to criticize
others (usually erroneously) for minor shortcuts when you're so
frequently guilty of astonishingly wrong calculations, and of
constantly confusing watts and amps?
Wayne
bea...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 06:54:35 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Jul 2, 9:41 pm, Ron Rosenfeld <ronrosenf...@nospam.org> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 06:26:08 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >You mean the spreadsheet here:
>
> >> >http://www.green-trust.org/2003/pvsizing/default.htm
>
> >> >Same formula, same steps, dog's breakfast of layout.
>
> >> And I'll quote this from that source, which you seem to have overlooked in
> >> your blathering about the 20% factor and name-calling. It's in the
> >> array-sizing section, which is what the OP asked about and to which I
> >> responded with a recommendation of 10 panels and you responded with a
> >> recommendation of 154 panels.
> >required 153.75 Ahs.
>
> ... and rounded off to 154 *panels*, eh ghinius? Too funny.
>
> >You should learn that multiplying by 1.2 is not the same as dividing
> >by .8.
>
> !!!!!!!! It's close enough for estimating,
> but how many times have I corrected *you* on the point?
Well, let's see. Ummm. Never. You avoid system numbers like the
plague. You have no idea what your system produces or uses. The
closest you have come with your "Close enough for estimating" is that
both input and output for your system is between 0 and 30Kw/day.
You copied your system from a magazine, found that it would not supply
your needs and kept throwing money at it until it would work, at least
during daylight hours.
Tell us about your system. What are the loads? How much do they draw?
How long are they run for?
Pointless even asking, after ten years you still can't do it.
wmbjk...@citlink.net
>On Jul 3, 12:12 am, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 06:54:35 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >On Jul 2, 9:41 pm, Ron Rosenfeld <ronrosenf...@nospam.org> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 06:26:08 -0700 (PDT), beal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >You mean the spreadsheet here:
>>
>> >> >http://www.green-trust.org/2003/pvsizing/default.htm
>>
>> >> >Same formula, same steps, dog's breakfast of layout.
>>
>> >> And I'll quote this from that source, which you seem to have overlooked in
>> >> your blathering about the 20% factor and name-calling. It's in the
>> >> array-sizing section, which is what the OP asked about and to which I
>> >> responded with a recommendation of 10 panels and you responded with a
>> >> recommendation of 154 panels.
>> >required 153.75 Ahs.
>>
>> ... and rounded off to 154 *panels*, eh ghinius? Too funny.
What, no retarded explanation for your latest "power consultant"
methodology?
>> >You should learn that multiplying by 1.2 is not the same as dividing
>> >by .8.
>>
>> !!!!!!!! It's close enough for estimating,
>
>> but how many times have I corrected *you* on the point?
>
>Well, let's see. Ummm. Never.
Au contraire, nitwit. Here are a couple of examples of you getting
math lessons from those you accuse. I corrected you on the first, Ron
helped you on the second. Yet not a word of thanks to either of us!
********
SUms
A power consultant needs to be good at math.
"1.2 to cover the inverter inefficiencies. That is 80%"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.homepower/msg/f063e1042e339964
see how an expirt calculates rekwired batteri capacity fir 80%
discharg. "4.8*5/0.8 = 31.5"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.solar.photovoltaic/msg/a3115b6a931701cf-
************
And here are just a few of your other math-based pearls of wisdumb.
"A load of 1 kWh = 83 kWh/day"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/msg/1d9839d367a1123d
"six 12V - 100Ah batteries in series will be 100Ah at 12V twelve
12V - 100Ah batteries in series will be 100Ah at 24V Adding batteries
to a series string does not add capacity but increases voltage."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.homepower/msg/9edc14e7b8863995
"As the batteries provide the power, all loads must reflect this.
1200w/120=10amps comeing out of your batteries. I can see now why you
lot cant seem to make Solar Power work. What ever the ac load is the
loss is from the batteries. You may not like my method"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.solar.photovoltaic/msg/8be6fe3f3117ee1a
Here's one my favorites, another in a long line of your loaves and
fishes proclamations, busted by a thoughtfully-included
too-stupid-for-words-failure to check for doofusness.
"my petrol use is, as it has been for many years, an average of twenty
liters per fortnight. The bulk of this is for the motorcycle which is
used for transport to and from school (280 KM a week). The rest is
used to run the tractor, chainsaw and of course the generator."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.homepower/msg/15fc1693a2893b42
And let us not forget that humdinger from this very thread...
"14 panels in series to give you 238V @ 3A 11 parallel strings to give
you 2530A = 154 panels"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.solar.photovoltaic/msg/9e8befae42df39f3?hl=en
If you had half a brain you'd have learned long ago to stay off the
topic of math entirely.
New readers can find many other samples of ghinius expirteeze at
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm.
Wayne
bea...@gmail.com
> ************
>
> And here are just a few of your other math-based pearls of wisdumb.
>
> "A load of 1 kWh = 83 kWh/day"http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/msg/1d9839d367a1123d
>
> "six 12V - 100Ah batteries in series will be 100Ah at 12V twelve
> 12V - 100Ah batteries in series will be 100Ah at 24V Adding batteries
> to a series string does not add capacity but increases voltage."http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.homepower/msg/9edc14e7b8863995
>
> "As the batteries provide the power, all loads must reflect this.
> 1200w/120=10amps comeing out of your batteries. I can see now why you
> lot cant seem to make Solar Power work. What ever the ac load is the
>
> Here's one my favorites, another in a long line of your loaves and
> fishes proclamations, busted by a thoughtfully-included
> too-stupid-for-words-failure to check for doofusness.
>
> "my petrol use is, as it has been for many years, an average of twenty
> liters per fortnight. The bulk of this is for the motorcycle which is
> used for transport to and from school (280 KM a week). The rest is
> used to run the tractor, chainsaw and of course the generator."http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.homepower/msg/15fc1693a2893b42
>
> And let us not forget that humdinger from this very thread...
>
> "14 panels in series to give you 238V @ 3A 11 parallel strings to give
>
> If you had half a brain you'd have learned long ago to stay off the
> topic of math entirely.
>
> New readers can find many other samples of ghinius expirteeze athttp://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm.
>
> Wayne
Never means never. The
Ron Rosenfeld
But it's all he knows!
--ron
Ron Rosenfeld
George,
Your continued postings with misinterpretations continue to point out the
fallacies in your logic. And you throw in a lot of quotes, which seem only
to confuse what you write.
But here's a summary:
GG: (1st try) 154 panels
RR: 10 panels (with no mention of an amount of battery capacity)
GG: (2nd try) 17- 50W Panels
GG: (3rd try) (C5 / C12) = 10.3 (11)
After all this, GG claims that Ron's system is 20% larger and "something
close to $1800 for larger batteries and 2 more panels".
Hmmm, it seems GG thinks that 10 panels is 20% "larger" than 11 panels.
--ron
bea...@gmail.com
Ron, with out the battery sizing you can't size the array. That's the
way a system is sized - Load, Batteries, Array, in that order.
It looks like this:
A2 Daily load = 1250Wh
A4 Inverter Efficiency = 85%
A5 Account for inverter inefficiency - Load (A2/A4) = 1470.5
A7 System Voltage = 12
A8 Total A-hr demand per day (A5 / A7) = 122.55
B1 Number of days of autonomy = 1
B2 Maximum allowable depth of discharge = 70%
B3 Battery capacity (A8 x B1 / B2) = 175Ah
B4 Lowest 24 hour average temperature =15c
B5 Temperature correction factor =.97
B6 Adjusted battery capacity (B3 / B5) = 180.5
B7 Selected Battery
B8 Selected battery discharge rate 100
B9 A-hr capacity of selected battery = 180Ah
B10 Number of batteries in parallel (B6 / B9, rounded off) = 1
B11 Number of batteries in series (A7 / battery voltage) =1
B12 Check Capacity of selected battery at l00 Hr rate = 180
B13 Capacity of battery bank at 100 hr rate (B12 x B10) = 180
B14 Daily depth of discharge (100 x A8 / B13) = 68%
C1 Design tilt
C2 Design month
C3 Total energy demand per day (A8) =122.55Ah
C4 Battery efficiency = 90%
C5 Array output required per day (C3 / C4) = 136.2
C6 Peak sun hours at design tilt for design month = 5
C7 Selected module
C8 Selected module I at 14 volts at NOCT 2.94A
C9 Selected module nominal operating voltage. = 12V
C10 Guaranteed current (C8 x 0.9) = 2.65A
C11 Number of modules in series (A7 / C9) = 1
C12 Output per module (C10 x C6) = 13.2Ah
C13 Number of parallel strings of modules (C5 / C12) = 10.3
With batteries and a silly 20% added to daily load at “A8” for system
losses. And while Ron whines about it, have a look at his post because
this is where he added the 20%, right after accounting for the
inverter inefficiency.
A2 Daily load = 1250Wh
A4 Inverter Efficiency = 85%
A5 Account for inverter inefficiency - Load (A2/A4) = 1470.59
A7 System Voltage = 12
A8 Total A-hr demand per day (A5 / A7) = 144.17 (rons 20% added)
B1 Number of days of autonomy = 1
B2 Maximum allowable depth of discharge = 70%
B3 Battery capacity (A8 x B1 / B2) = 206Ah
B4 Lowest 24 hour average temperature = 15c
B5 Temperature correction factor =.97
B6 Adjusted battery capacity (B3 / B5) = 212.Ah
B7 Selected Battery
B8 Selected battery discharge rate 100
B9 A-hr capacity of selected battery = 212Ah
B10 Number of batteries in parallel (B6 / B9, rounded off) = 1
B11 Number of batteries in series (A7 / battery voltage) =1
B12 Check Capacity of selected battery at l00 Hr rate = 212
B13 Capacity of battery bank at 100 hr rate (B12 x B10) = 212
B14 Daily depth of discharge (100 x A8 / B13) = 68%
C1 Design tilt
C2 Design month
C3 Total energy demand per day (A8) =144.17Ah
C4 Battery efficiency = 90% (Ron likes 80% here. If you use 80% the
required panels come to 13.62)
C5 Array output required per day (C3 / C4) = 160.19
C6 Peak sun hours at design tilt for design month = 5
C7 Selected module
C8 Selected module I at 14 volts at NOCT 2.94A
C9 Selected module nominal operating voltage. = 12V
C10 Guaranteed current (C8 x 0.9) = 2.65A
C11 Number of modules in series (A7 / C9) = 1
C12 Output per module (C10 x C6) = 13.23Ah
C13 Number of parallel strings of modules (C5 / C12) = 12.11
These sizings take into account the all "losses" within system sizing:
INVERTER
1) Inverter efficiency
BATTERIES
1) Maximum allowable Depth Of Discharge
2) Temperature correction
PANELS
1) Panels guaranteed current
2) Battery efficiency
Just adding 20% at any point is not good design practice. Every part
of system design depends on all the numbers in the right places.
Ron says you should take his word for it.
George says here is the formula, have fun, take nobodies word for it,
work it out for yourself.
wmbjk...@citlink.net
He only needed 3 tries to come close this time? That might be a record
for him. In this thread
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.homepower/msg/a93222e3baf702e6
he went from a 1.6kW recommendation, all the way to 52kW, and never
did figure out the OP's actual daily demand even though it was clearly
stated. His final deezine was 6X too large, but the funniest part was
that his original answer, which was based on his usual failure to
grasp the difference between power and energy, was much closer - only
2X too small. :-)
Wayne
wmbjk...@citlink.net
<ronros...@nospam.org> wrote:
GIGO spreadsheets or upside-down sandwiches? :-) I'd say that the only
thing he really knows is how to bungle whatever he tries. He's a
"power consultant" who can flub any calculation no matter how simple,
a "writer" who struggles at 6th grade level, and an "editor" who
doesn't know to capitalize both words in his own "company" name! Pine
nailed it 8 years ago when he wrote "Who would hire this PV nitwit?".
Wayne
bea...@gmail.com
> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:26:36 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld
>
>
>
You will notice that wayne has yet to provide any numbers to support
his claims, but then, it's been the same for the last ten years.
Solar Flare
ignored there too.
<wmbjk...@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:si2n6493nrlcqcsfd...@4ax.com...