Well Pump question
Robert Olin
The well was drilled about 130'. I could see a 1.5 hp pump in the corner of
the well house that must have gone bad. It's a typical 4" centrifugal pump
with a Franklin 240 motor. The pump I pulled out of the well was one I had
never seen before. It was long and thin. It was also a 1.5hp pump, but
this was a 120 volt.
The well is less that 5 years old so to have two pumps go out in this period
of time is unusual.
The power is supplied from a battery bank that is charged by solar panels
and a battery.
I checked the breaker panel and it showed 240 volts to the main breaker, so
I installed my typical centrifugal 4" pump with a Franklin 240 volt motor -
however, I only used a 1 hp pump since it could supply as much water as the
well could produce, according to the well log. I set it at the same level
of pump I pulled out, and then turned it on. It quickly started gulping
air. I then lowered it to the bottom of the well (another 6') and then
there was plenty of water a the 10 gpm the pump and well yielded.
Since two pump has already failed in just 5 years, I talked my client into
installing a PumpTec, which shuts down the pump if it senses no water and
also won't let the pump start if the voltage is low.
Now the client has called and says his "solar guy" says it's the wrong pump
for a solar setup.
Any ideas.
--
Robert Olin
Bob's Water & Septic LLC
jo...@whidbey.net
http://soilsandseptic.com/bobs.html
Josepi
- Many solar systems are only 120volt
- Perhaps the starting surge or running surge takes out the solar inverter
- Harmonics from the inverter may interfere with signal communications or
hurt the pump motor.
"Robert Olin" <jo...@whidbey.net> wrote in message
news:3dtks8....@whidbey.net...
do...@28.usenet.us.com
> I was asked to replace a well pump for a client who has an off grid
> aviarey. The well was drilled about 130'. I could see a 1.5 hp pump in
> the corner of the well house that must have gone bad. It's a typical 4"
> centrifugal pump with a Franklin 240 motor. The pump I pulled out of the
> well was one I had never seen before. It was long and thin. It was also
> a 1.5hp pump, but this was a 120 volt.
> pump for a solar setup.
I suspect the "typical" pump was still good, but replaced for solar
operation.
The smaller pump may have failed, or maybe something else failed, since you
don't seem to understand the system.
Manufacturers? Models? How did the solar guy get involved again? Did the
new pump not operate correctly, and you didn't realize it, or were you
supposed to replace a pump, and the solar guy was checking to see if the
subcontracted job was done properly. Bummer that he didn't specify that
the pump was to be replaced with the same model that was in there.
So little data.
--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5
wmbjk...@citlink.net
<jo...@whidbey.net> wrote:
>I was asked to replace a well pump for a client who has an off grid aviarey.
>The well was drilled about 130'. I could see a 1.5 hp pump in the corner of
>the well house that must have gone bad. It's a typical 4" centrifugal pump
>with a Franklin 240 motor. The pump I pulled out of the well was one I had
>never seen before. It was long and thin. It was also a 1.5hp pump, but
>this was a 120 volt.
>The well is less that 5 years old so to have two pumps go out in this period
>of time is unusual.
It all sounds strange. When calculating head, you use the static water
level, not the well depth, unless the static level drops when pumping,
in which case you generally use the depth the pump is set at. If the
well is 130' deep, then the pump (or suction pickup) is likely set at
perhaps 120', and the water level might be, say, 60'. A 1/2 hp 10 gpm
submersible pump in that circumstance will deliver about 10gpm into a
pressure tank, and that sort of setup is usually considered good for a
home and light irrigation. A standard submersible isn't the most
efficient choice, but it can still be a good choice in some
circumstances like my own. http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/04water.htm
But water consumption should be considered as volume, not just gpm,
especially when powered by solar. If volume demands are higher than
average, or if the solar setup is marginal, then it's common to switch
to a higher-efficiency (and more expensive) specialty pump.
>The power is supplied from a battery bank that is charged by solar panels
>and a battery.
>
>I checked the breaker panel and it showed 240 volts to the main breaker, so
>I installed my typical centrifugal 4" pump with a Franklin 240 volt motor
Common failure modes are - pressure tank failed first, causing the
pump to cycle on and off excessively - water level in the well
dropped, perhaps on a seasonal basis - there was a leak and the pump
ran endlessly, although there's generally less chance of that with a
solar setup.
>however, I only used a 1 hp pump since it could supply as much water as the
>well could produce, according to the well log. I set it at the same level
>of pump I pulled out, and then turned it on. It quickly started gulping
>air. I then lowered it to the bottom of the well (another 6') and then
>there was plenty of water a the 10 gpm the pump and well yielded.
So you came up with something that works, but it sounds like you
haven't given any consideration to efficiency, which is generally
paramount in a solar setup.
>Since two pump has already failed in just 5 years, I talked my client into
>installing a PumpTec, which shuts down the pump if it senses no water and
>also won't let the pump start if the voltage is low.
The PumpTec protects against low water by sensing a reduction in motor
current. They're a really good idea, but they can be fooled in the
case of the water drawing down to the suction level and hovering
there. You should have a low-water cutoff pressure-switch as well.
That way, if for any reason the system pressure drops below about ~20
PSI, the switch will cut off the power and the pump won't restart
without manual intervention. Those switches only cost a couple bucks
more than the standard type, and can be identified by the lever on the
side. Some caution is advised however. If there's any reason that the
pump doesn't run sometimes (grid power failure, or marginal setup
off-grid), then the customer might not like having a manual reset,
especially if the control location requires, say, walking through a
snowbank. :-) There are also fully-programmable motor-protection
devices to allow sensible but limited automatic restarts, but they're
usually considered too expensive for modest installations.
>Now the client has called and says his "solar guy" says it's the wrong pump
>for a solar setup.
The water system is probably over-taxing the solar setup, and the
solar guy is likely miffed that you've added an unnecessarily
inefficient load. He might also have preferred to keep the well pump
on 120 with a more efficient submersible. On the other hand, if the
original setup was designed for what sounds like a poorly chosen pump,
the solar guy could be blaming you for his problems. A third
possibility is that the customer is asking more than the setup could
possibly supply (very common, especially if it's a new owner), and
he's looking to blame anybody but himself.
>Any ideas.
I doubt that it's possible for you to supply all the necessary
information to evaluate this setup properly. If one were starting from
scratch, he'd want to know all the well details including recovery
rate. That may or may not be available from the drilling log, may or
may not be current, and is best verified by testing. You'd also need
to know the planned or desired water consumption rate, as well as
pretty much all the solar setup details, including the customer's
usage patterns. It seldom happens that there's one guy who knows
everything in these situations, so the various contractors each do
their best and success is determined only by whether or not the
customer is satisfied. In this case, if you protect the installation
against low water, and if it doesn't run out, and if the solar setup
can keep up, then you can claim success. But if what you've done
causes the customer to burn more backup fuel, or put more wear and
tear on his batteries, or to have to forego the use of other
appliances, then you've done them a disservice whether they realize it
or not.
Wayne
Robert Olin
I discovered that the last pump was set too high in the well and was drawing
air. But along with that, there were leaks in the plumbing going to the
house which is about 300 feet away. So the pump must have been trying to
run continually - gulping air and with no way to shut off when the batteries
drew down.
My understanding is that 240 volt is always more efficient than 120. It
takes 1/2 the amperage and 1/4 the line loss. What am I missing? The pump
I put in is 1/4 hp less that the last one, so I would guess any efficiency
would be negated by the extra hp???? Everything works fine when he has the
batteries charged up.
When he last called his batteries were at 50%. He hasn't called since so it
seem they must have gotten everything charged up.
Bob
--
Robert Olin
Bob's Water & Septic LLC
jo...@whidbey.net
<wmbjk...@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:uf49k5hvc8l22ba7v...@4ax.com...
wmbjk...@citlink.net
<jo...@whidbey.net> wrote:
>Thanks guys for all the good info.
>
>I discovered that the last pump was set too high in the well and was drawing
>air. But along with that, there were leaks in the plumbing going to the
>house which is about 300 feet away. So the pump must have been trying to
>run continually - gulping air and with no way to shut off when the batteries
>drew down.
>
>My understanding is that 240 volt is always more efficient than 120.
That's incorrect. The main thing you want to know is the watt-hours
per gallon of the various options.
> It
>takes 1/2 the amperage and 1/4 the line loss. What am I missing?
The actual efficiency. And you'd want to know the obvious things such
as whether the entire system is 240, or if there's just a branch on a
transformer that may have other loads on it. You could ask the guy who
put in the 120V pump to tell you why he did that.
> The pump
>I put in is 1/4 hp less that the last one, so I would guess any efficiency
>would be negated by the extra hp????
Nope. From the info so far, it sounds like you could cut the load
substantially with a 1/2 hp conventional submersible, and shave more
again by using a specialty pump.
> Everything works fine when he has the
>batteries charged up.
Check out the curve for the 11 SQF-2 here
http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/wind-sun/SQFlex.pdf. On the setup
you've described (pump needs to run at any time), getting the energy
down might extend battery life span considerably. That's an expensive
pump though, and the benefits might depend on the customer's usage
habits.
>When he last called his batteries were at 50%. He hasn't called since so it
>seem they must have gotten everything charged up.
The first assumption I make with off-grid folks is that they rarely
know their true battery SOC. It's very common that people seriously
overestimate SOC for long periods, and because of that end up with
short-lived batteries. Unless you know for sure that these people have
a reliable system monitor, then considering the circumstances
described I'd be over there with a hydrometer. Just because they
aren't calling you now doesn't mean they won't be irate a year later
when their solar guy hands them a giant bill for new batteries.
Wayne
ghio
> Thanks guys for all the good info.
>
> I discovered that the last pump was set too high in the well and was drawing
> air. But along with that, there were leaks in the plumbing going to the
> house which is about 300 feet away. So the pump must have been trying to
> run continually - gulping air and with no way to shut off when the batteries
> drew down.
>
> My understanding is that 240 volt is always more efficient than 120. It
> takes 1/2 the amperage and 1/4 the line loss. What am I missing? The pump
> I put in is 1/4 hp less that the last one, so I would guess any efficiency
> would be negated by the extra hp???? Everything works fine when he has the
> batteries charged up.
>
> When he last called his batteries were at 50%. He hasn't called since so it
> seem they must have gotten everything charged up.
>
> Bob
>
> --
> Robert Olin
> Bob's Water & Septic LLC
> jo...@whidbey.net
>
Point - The question of 240V vs 110V is moot. The supply voltage is
what ever the battery voltage is(12, 24 or 48).
The formula is - Watts divided by Voltage = Amps. While 750Watts(1Hp)
at 240V = 3.125Amps and 1125Watts(1.5Hp) at 110volts = 10.23Amps
neither of these voltages is appropriate to the situation.
If, for the sake of this argument, the battery voltage is 48V then the
actual answer for your 1Hp pump is 750Watts divided by 48Volts =
15.6Amps, (31.3Amps for 24V battery voltage and 62.5Amps for 12Volt
battery)
For all waynes elusive efficiency claims, what you are faced with is
finding a pump that delivers the most number of gallons per minute for
the least number of Amp hours consumed from the battery supply,
balanced against how fast the well can be replenished.
From what you have said the failure of the pumps in question is caused
by trying to take water out faster than the source can replenish the
well. Running pumps dry will almost certainly destroy them.
wmbjk...@citlink.net
wrote:
No. There are potential efficiency differences between using a single
inverter to supply 120, using multiple inverters to get 240, using a
transformer to boost a single inverter, using a transformer that comes
online with a second inverter, or powering via DC direct. In 3 of
those cases efficiency of existing loads might be boosted by adding
the pump's consumption to an otherwise lightly loaded inverter(s). In
the case of one inverter versus 2, the full-time idle energy alone of
the second inverter could easily surpass the energy consumption of an
efficient home's water pumping.
>The formula is - Watts divided by Voltage = Amps. While 750Watts(1Hp)
>at 240V = 3.125Amps and 1125Watts(1.5Hp) at 110volts = 10.23Amps
>
The SQFlex is often a good choice. It can be powered by 30-300VDC, or
90-240VAC. The choice depends on distance (wire size), and the options
I mentioned above. Only those with system voltages nominally 48V or
higher, or those with an independent water-pumping array will use the
DC option.
Using an educated guess of 50' to water, an SQFlex might need about
500W plus potential inefficiencies to supply 9 gpm at 150' total head
(50' static plus 50 psi). That's a substantial improvement over the
OP's indication of 10 gpm and 1 hp, which if it's a jet pump will
require approximately twice as much energy as the SQFlex.
>neither of these voltages is appropriate to the situation.
That's a ludicrous statement. For example, my own 1/2 hp submersible
is 240VAC, and the choice was entirely appropriate. And 120V is
perfectly appropriate in lots of cases as well.
>If, for the sake of this argument, the battery voltage is 48V then the
>actual answer for your 1Hp pump is 750Watts divided by 48Volts =
>15.6Amps, (31.3Amps for 24V battery voltage and 62.5Amps for 12Volt
>battery)
LOL Why not learn to read pump curves and motor specs, and how to
calculate the actual power and energy needs rather than spouting
irrelevant nonsense? Better yet, get out and measure the performance
of some installations, assuming anyone would be foolish enough to let
you mess with their setup.
>For all waynes elusive efficiency claims
I have 3 different solar pumps on my workbench right now, and a fourth
still in my vehicle after helping yesterday to pull that pump from a
problematic 500' well. I've also worked on hundreds of others of many
types, including some with 6" drop pipe. I build specialty tools for
pump contractors and occasionally drillers. Here's one of my latest
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/clamshell.htm. 1500' of air line, and
1500' of cable and video cam not shown.
Meanwhile, aren't you still the nitwit who couldn't afford to drill a
well, but could afford to replace 5 sets of batteries? Nevertheless
I'm sure that we're soon to be entertained by your usual tales of how
your knowledge and experience trumps everyone's, even though you
failed to add a single worthwhile comment to this thread. Same old
same-old.
> what you are faced with is
>finding a pump that delivers the most number of gallons per minute
That much is correct, however you're simply parroting what has already
been posted.
>for the least number of Amp hours consumed from the battery supply
No. On some installations (like mine), energy for water pumping rarely
makes a trip through the batteries. In the OP's case, he may be able
to do the same, but we cannot know because he hasn't supplied
sufficient information to do much beyond speculate. I tell people with
similar setups (single pump systems with pressure tanks) that if they
don't need much water overnight, then they can add a timer to the well
pump (or booster pump) to avoid overnight cycling. A pair of 80 gallon
pressure tanks will store about 50 gallons of water at 50psi,
generally sufficient to prevent unnecessary wear on tear on batteries
overnight.
>balanced against how fast the well can be replenished.
More parroting.
>From what you have said the failure of the pumps in question is caused
>by trying to take water out faster than the source can replenish the
>well.
No, He said that he was told that the suction (or pump, I can't tell)
was placed too high. In that case the recovery rate may well be
sufficient, or not. Regardless, the cause of the previous failures is
impossible to *know* based on what has been posted so far.
> Running pumps dry will almost certainly destroy them.
In his first post the OP noted that he already added a Pumptec to the
installation, so he's obviously aware of dry running, and over and
under voltage.
Wayne
Attention search bots: george Ghio, bealiba, renegade Writing,
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm
ghio
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 20:21:35 -0800 (PST), ghio <beal...@gmail.com>
Actually you are wrong again. While the pump may be 120 or 240 volts,
if the ultimate supply is from an inverter then only the battery
voltage is relevant.
>
> >If, for the sake of this argument, the battery voltage is 48V then the
> >actual answer for your 1Hp pump is 750Watts divided by 48Volts =
> >15.6Amps, (31.3Amps for 24V battery voltage and 62.5Amps for 12Volt
> >battery)
>
> LOL Why not learn to read pump curves and motor specs, and how to
> calculate the actual power and energy needs rather than spouting
> irrelevant nonsense? Better yet, get out and measure the performance
> of some installations, assuming anyone would be foolish enough to let
> you mess with their setup.
Again you are wrong. The argument is about the true source of the
energy that runs the pump. If the source is batteries then the battery
voltage is what is used in the calculation. The actual voltage of the
pump is irrelevant. You only saving point is that pimps need to be
chosen carefully.
>
> >For all waynes elusive efficiency claims
>
> I have 3 different solar pumps on my workbench right now, and a fourth
> still in my vehicle after helping yesterday to pull that pump from a
> problematic 500' well. I've also worked on hundreds of others of many
> types, including some with 6" drop pipe. I build specialty tools for
> pump contractors and occasionally drillers. Here's one of my latesthttp://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/clamshell.htm. 1500' of air line, and ...
>
Given your exhibited welding skills (none at all) one can only laugh
at such claims.
> read more »
ghio
> 1500' of cable and video cam not shown.
>
> Meanwhile, aren't you still the nitwit who couldn't afford to drill a
> well, but could afford to replace 5 sets of batteries? Nevertheless
> I'm sure that we're soon to be entertained by your usual tales of how
> your knowledge and experience trumps everyone's, even though you
> failed to add a single worthwhile comment to this thread. Same old
> same-old.
>
> > what you are faced with is
> >finding a pump that delivers the most number of gallons per minute
>
> That much is correct, however you're simply parroting what has already
> been posted.
>
> >for the least number of Amp hours consumed from the battery supply
>
> No. On some installations (like mine), energy for water pumping rarely
> makes a trip through the batteries. In the OP's case, he may be able
> to do the same, but we cannot know because he hasn't supplied
> sufficient information to do much beyond speculate. I tell people with
> similar setups (single pump systems with pressure tanks) that if they
> don't need much water overnight, then they can add a timer to the well
> pump (or booster pump) to avoid overnight cycling. A pair of 80 gallon
> pressure tanks will store about 50 gallons of water at 50psi,
> generally sufficient to prevent unnecessary wear on tear on batteries
> overnight.
Again you highlight your daylight hours only system.
>
> >balanced against how fast the well can be replenished.
>
> More parroting.
>
> >From what you have said the failure of the pumps in question is caused
> >by trying to take water out faster than the source can replenish the
> >well.
>
> No, He said that he was told that the suction (or pump, I can't tell)
> was placed too high. In that case the recovery rate may well be
> sufficient, or not. Regardless, the cause of the previous failures is
> impossible to *know* based on what has been posted so far.
>
> > Running pumps dry will almost certainly destroy them.
>
> In his first post the OP noted that he already added a Pumptec to the
> installation, so he's obviously aware of dry running, and over and
> under voltage.
Funny, it still failed to due to running dry. So he's obviously not
aware of dry running, and over and
under voltage. Just like you're not aware of your systems production
and use.
So this is where it ends wayne. Your therapist would be very unhappy
if I was to allow your mindless rant to progress to the point where
you have another of your psychotic episodes like the last one over
TecSolars website. Besides it would only end with you in tears,
foaming at the mouth as you destroy another keyboard.
By wayne
wmbjk...@citlink.net
wrote:
>The argument is about the true source of the
>energy that runs the pump.
There is no argument, only corrections of your infantile thinking.
> If the source is batteries then the battery
>voltage is what is used in the calculation.
System voltage is only one of many considerations.
> The actual voltage of the
>pump is irrelevant.
Are you retarded?
Wayne
Attention search bots: george Ghio, bealiba, Renegade writing,
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm
ghio
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:14:59 -0800 (PST), ghio <beal...@gmail.com>
Sorry wayne, you have been told that our discussion is finished.
According to your past performance, and indeed your therapist, your
mental state is fragile at best. It's best that you accept your
limitations, we don't want another of your little episodes now do we.
ghio
>
> I discovered that the last pump was set too high in the well and was drawing
> air. But along with that, there were leaks in the plumbing going to the
> house which is about 300 feet away. So the pump must have been trying to
> run continually - gulping air and with no way to shut off when the batteries
> drew down.
>
> My understanding is that 240 volt is always more efficient than 120. It
> takes 1/2 the amperage and 1/4 the line loss. What am I missing? The pump
> I put in is 1/4 hp less that the last one, so I would guess any efficiency
> would be negated by the extra hp???? Everything works fine when he has the
> batteries charged up.
>
> When he last called his batteries were at 50%. He hasn't called since so it
> seem they must have gotten everything charged up.
>
> Bob
>
> --
When dealing with batteries as an energy source the most important
thing to remember is that a battery is a finite supply.
Battery capacity is measured in Amp hours.
Watts divided by Volts = Amps.
In the case of your energy coming from a battery, it is the battery
voltage that is used in the above formula. After all, the battery is
your energy source. To achieve the best best result you would also
include the inverters inefficiency.
With a battery supplied system a well pump does two things, it removes
water from the well and it removes Amp hours from the battery. Just as
you would not choose a pump that removes water faster than the
recharge rate of the well, you should not choose a pump that removes
Amp hours from the batteries at a rate greater than the systems
recharge capabilities.
There are some here in these groups who can muddy even the clearest of
waters. Some like to big note themselves and will always use Watt
hours. The main reason for this is that they want to make their system
seem more impressive than it really is. They have a 1200 Amp hour
battery bank, but they can make it seem bigger by claiming that they
have a 28800 Watt hour battery bank. (1200Ah x 24V = 28800Wh). Sad
really, but that's people for you.
wmbjk...@citlink.net
wrote:
> Some like to big note themselves and will always use Watt
>hours. The main reason for this is that they want to make their system
>seem more impressive than it really is.
No, nitwit. Knowledgeable folks use watt hours because it's a measure
of energy rather than of power, and because it's independent of
battery voltage. Plus, in the case of pumps which are frequently
installed solar-direct, it's a bit difficult to rate them in terms of
batteries they don't have.
When amateurs think in a battery-centric tunnel-vision fashion, they
end up writing confused nonsense that's worthless except for its
entertainment value. Readers can see dozens of examples at
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm, including one of my
all time favorites:
*************
"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."
*************
Last December was the ten year anniversary of that quote, and yet the
writer hasn't learned anything in the interim, and is *still* cranking
out the same devoid-of-any-useful-content "batteries are everything"
posts.
ghio
> >hours. The main reason for this is that they want to make their system
> >seem more impressive than it really is.
>
> No, nitwit. Knowledgeable folks use watt hours because it's a measure
> of energy rather than of power, and because it's independent of
> battery voltage. Plus, in the case of pumps which are frequently
> installed solar-direct, it's a bit difficult to rate them in terms of
> batteries they don't have.
>
1) When one makes a general statement about the actions of some people
there is always one person who will hold their hand up and say, “Hey,
that's me”.
2) While Watt hours are, for all intents and purposes, independent of
voltage, photovoltaic systems are not. A stand alone PV system is
dependent on its battery. All energy comes from the batteries. Take
away the batteries and you have a system that is much like waynes,
daylight only operation. According to waynes simplistic view of
battery systems Watts are constant. If we accept this notion then ;
If - 100Whs / 240V = .416Ahrs – and 100Whrs / 48V = 2.08Ahrs – then
2.08Ahrs X 240V should equal 100Whrs, after all waynes law says that
Watt hours are independent of voltage.
3) This thread is about a system that has batteries. This being the
case, waynes assertion above is just another example of a failing
mental state.
4) Battery capacity is measured in Amp hours.
5) If you're using batteries for your energy storage you need to know
the relationship between Watt hours and Amp hours.
Finis
wmbjk...@citlink.net
wrote:
>> > Some like to big note themselves and will always use Watt
>> >hours. The main reason for this is that they want to make their system
>> >seem more impressive than it really is.
wmbjk wrote:
>> No, nitwit. Knowledgeable folks use watt hours because it's a measure
>> of energy rather than of power, and because it's independent of
>> battery voltage. Plus, in the case of pumps which are frequently
>> installed solar-direct, it's a bit difficult to rate them in terms of
>> batteries they don't have.
>>
>There are a couple of points here that need to be addressed:
>
>1) When one makes a general statement about the actions of some people
>there is always one person who will hold their hand up and say, �Hey,
>that's me�.
LOL Yes, which is why when I mention people ignoring details and
efficiency, ghinius ghio hits his keyboard to say, "hey, that's me
you're talking about".
>2) While Watt hours are, for all intents and purposes, independent of
>voltage, photovoltaic systems are not. A stand alone PV system is
>dependent on its battery.
That's a somewhat bizarre but correct statement. However, I sense
another silly "but" coming along...
>All energy comes from the batteries.
NO! For example, in lots of off-grid cases, well pumps deliver to
storage, either a reservoir or a bladder tank. See if this helps your
feeble mind absorb what's obvious to those of normal intelligence: the
stored water itself becomes a sort of battery. In my area 3000 gallon
poly tanks are popular. At say, 200 gallons per day, the tank holds a
reserve of 15 days supply. So it's a no-brainer to put the well pump
on a timer or use the inverter or charge controller's aux relay to
only allow the pump to run when solar power would otherwise be wasted.
Therefore, all, most, or some (depending on the setup) of the pump's
energy need not EVER make a trip through the batteries. Who would want
to unnecessarily charge and discharge their batteries for what's
sometimes a kWh per day? Case in point: because we're watering a good
number of cattle right now, for the last month or so our water pumping
has required about 2kWh per day. The pumping time must be spread out,
so about half of the energy required is going through the batteries.
When the cattle numbers are reduced we'll be back to our normal
routine of no battery cycling due to water-pumping, which is one of
the reasons our batteries have lasted 14 years so far. One can apply a
similar concept to most ANY discretionary load, the most common I see
being clothes washing. The strategy seems to come naturally to every
off-gridder except nitwit ghio, who unsurprisingly holds the record
for most replaced batteries.
> Take
>away the batteries and you have a system that is much like waynes,
>daylight only operation. According to waynes simplistic view of
>battery systems Watts are constant. If we accept this notion then ;
>If - 100Whs / 240V = .416Ahrs � and 100Whrs / 48V = 2.08Ahrs � then
>2.08Ahrs X 240V should equal 100Whrs, after all waynes law says that
>Watt hours are independent of voltage.
>3) This thread is about a system that has batteries. This being the
>case, waynes assertion above is just another example of a failing
>mental state.
WTF is wrong with you?
>4) Battery capacity is measured in Amp hours.
Not exactly. Battery capacity is seldom measured. It is generally
stated in AH, but that's only useful to the reader if the voltage is
stated as well. One can include both numbers, or simply state it in
kWh. When I talk to newbs I find that they "get it" quicker if I
relate off-grid concepts in terms of their on-grid experience. A
recent example (after quizzing the owner about his last home): "Your
consumption at your last place averaged about 20kWh per day. Your home
power setup makes an average of about 5kWh per day, and you have about
15kWh reserve that must be replenished whenever you tap into it". Then
I showed them how their charge controller logs float time and
explained how that is a useful indicator of whether or not they're
living within their energy budget. Finally I mentioned that I'd be
checking that log next time I visited.
>5) If you're using batteries for your energy storage you need to know
>the relationship between Watt hours and Amp hours.
No. In fact, you're one of too many people who never understand much
at all about their home power setup, leading to a lot of battery
failures much like yours. Which is why knowledgeable folks use and
recommend battery monitors, which provide a sort of "fuel gauge". It
helps teach the system owner how their consumption habits affect the
frequency of full charges. My own monitors allow a choice between
percent or AH. I prefer the latter, but most people prefer percent.
Which is all that some monitors display, and the most that some people
can be expected to understand.
>Finis
Too funny. It's been ten years since you first arrived on Usenet to
promote your peculiar theories and to sell "sizings". Thousands of
blunders later you're no closer to taking off your blinders, which is
why you were never able to sell your services here.
Wayne
Attention search bots: george Ghio, bealiba, Renegade writing,
ghio
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:37:55 -0800 (PST), ghio <beal...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> > Some like to big note themselves and will always use Watt
> >> >hours. The main reason for this is that they want to make their system
> >> >seem more impressive than it really is.
> wmbjk wrote:
> >> No, nitwit. Knowledgeable folks use watt hours because it's a measure
> >> of energy rather than of power, and because it's independent of
> >> battery voltage. Plus, in the case of pumps which are frequently
> >> installed solar-direct, it's a bit difficult to rate them in terms of
> >> batteries they don't have.
>
> >There are a couple of points here that need to be addressed:
>
> >1) When one makes a general statement about the actions of some people
> >there is always one person who will hold their hand up and say, Hey,
> >that's me .
>
> LOL Yes, which is why when I mention people ignoring details and
> efficiency, ghinius ghio hits his keyboard to say, "hey, that's me
> you're talking about".
Sorry, it was you who put his hand up.
>
> >2) While Watt hours are, for all intents and purposes, independent of
> >voltage, photovoltaic systems are not. A stand alone PV system is
> >dependent on its battery.
>
> That's a somewhat bizarre but correct statement. However, I sense
> another silly "but" coming along...
Good
>
> >All energy comes from the batteries.
>
> NO! For example, in lots of off-grid cases, well pumps deliver to
> storage, either a reservoir or a bladder tank. See if this helps your
> feeble mind absorb what's obvious to those of normal intelligence: the
> stored water itself becomes a sort of battery.
Yes, charged with electricity.
> In my area 3000 gallon
> poly tanks are popular. At say, 200 gallons per day, the tank holds a
> reserve of 15 days supply.
You really are wasteful of your resources, aren't you. We have 16000
gallons of storage, that is enough for a years supply if required.
> So it's a no-brainer to put the well pump
> on a timer or use the inverter or charge controller's aux relay to
> only allow the pump to run when solar power would otherwise be wasted.
Ah the famous daylight only system.
> Therefore, all, most, or some (depending on the setup) of the pump's
> energy need not EVER make a trip through the batteries. Who would want
> to unnecessarily charge and discharge their batteries for what's
> sometimes a kWh per day? Case in point: because we're watering a good
> number of cattle right now, for the last month or so our water pumping
> has required about 2kWh per day. The pumping time must be spread out,
> so about half of the energy required is going through the batteries.
> When the cattle numbers are reduced we'll be back to our normal
> routine of no battery cycling due to water-pumping, which is one of
> the reasons our batteries have lasted 14 years so far. One can apply a
> similar concept to most ANY discretionary load, the most common I see
> being clothes washing. The strategy seems to come naturally to every
> off-gridder except nitwit ghio, who unsurprisingly holds the record
> for most replaced batteries.
The point you are trying so hard to avoid is that whether the energy
to pump water comes from the batteries or direct from the panels that
energy is at system voltage. According to waynes law Watts are
constant. If we accept this notion then ; If - 100Whs / 240V = .
416Ahrs and 100Whrs / 48V = 2.08Ahrs then 2.08Ahrs X 240V should equal
100Whrs, after all waynes law says that Watt hours are independent of
voltage.
All you have to do is prove "wayne's law". IF Watts are independent of
voltage then; If - 100Whs / 240V = .416Ahrs and 100Whrs / 48V =
2.08Ahrs then 2.08Ahrs X 240V should equal 100Whrs.It's your law, now
make it work.
>
> > Take
> >away the batteries and you have a system that is much like waynes,
> >daylight only operation. According to waynes simplistic view of
> >battery systems Watts are constant. If we accept this notion then ;
> >If - 100Whs / 240V = .416Ahrs and 100Whrs / 48V = 2.08Ahrs then
> >2.08Ahrs X 240V should equal 100Whrs, after all waynes law says that
> >Watt hours are independent of voltage.
> >3) This thread is about a system that has batteries. This being the
> >case, waynes assertion above is just another example of a failing
> >mental state.
>
> WTF is wrong with you?
Nothing, I'm waiting for you to make wayne's law work
>
> >4) Battery capacity is measured in Amp hours.
>
> Not exactly. Battery capacity is seldom measured. It is generally
> stated in AH, but that's only useful to the reader if the voltage is
> stated as well. One can include both numbers, or simply state it in
> kWh. When I talk to newbs I find that they "get it" quicker if I
> relate off-grid concepts in terms of their on-grid experience. A
> recent example (after quizzing the owner about his last home): "Your
> consumption at your last place averaged about 20kWh per day. Your home
> power setup makes an average of about 5kWh per day, and you have about
> 15kWh reserve that must be replenished whenever you tap into it". Then
> I showed them how their charge controller logs float time and
> explained how that is a useful indicator of whether or not they're
> living within their energy budget. Finally I mentioned that I'd be
> checking that log next time I visited.
Batteries are chosen by their capacity (Amp hours) to meet the energy
requirements of the user.
It is also noticed that you failed to supply the daily consumption and
the the system voltage in the example. Not surprising given your past
performance.
>
> >5) If you're using batteries for your energy storage you need to know
> >the relationship between Watt hours and Amp hours.
>
> No. In fact, you're one of too many people who never understand much
> at all about their home power setup, leading to a lot of battery
> failures much like yours. Which is why knowledgeable folks use and
> recommend battery monitors, which provide a sort of "fuel gauge". It
> helps teach the system owner how their consumption habits affect the
> frequency of full charges. My own monitors allow a choice between
> percent or AH. I prefer the latter, but most people prefer percent.
> Which is all that some monitors display, and the most that some people
> can be expected to understand.
Sorry to burst your bubble but I log all performance, have done for
years. Your claim, though, is of interest as for the last ten years
you have been unable to provide any information regarding production
or consumption for your system other to claim between 15kWhs and
30kWhrs for both.
Nothing has changed. You never designed a system in your life. The
system you have was copied from a magazine and when you found that it
fell far short of your actual needs you just kept adding panels to the
system until it worked, at least during daylight hours.
But back to the point, PROVE YOUR LAW and make this work:
wayne's law - "Watts are independent of voltage" If - 100Whs / 240V
= .416Ahrs and 100Whrs / 48V = 2.08Ahrs then 2.08Ahrs X 240V should
equal 100Whrs.
wmbjk...@citlink.net
wrote:
>On Jan 14, 2:30�am, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:
>Yes, charged with electricity.
Then what is the voltage of this water? LOL
>> In my area 3000 gallon
>> poly tanks are popular. At say, 200 gallons per day, the tank holds a
>> reserve of 15 days supply.
>You really are wasteful of your resources, aren't you. We have 16000
>gallons of storage, that is enough for a years supply if required.
So what? 44 gallons per day of weather-dependent rainwater at a few
psi isn't anything to brag on unless you're trying to one-up the
unibomber's shed. Some jurisdictions wouldn't even issue an occupancy
permit to a home equipped like that. It's about enough water for 2
cows who, like your family apparently, don't bathe or flush much, and
haven't any consideration of resale value. Even modest solar-powered
wells can deliver many times as much. For example, the one I helped
reinstall yesterday supplies an average of >1000 gallons per day from
200' static level into a 20k gallon storage tank, and is powered only
by 300W of fixed, birdshit encrusted PV. The cattle that drink the
water probably dribble more than Casa Locoghinius would have available
during a drought.
>> So it's a no-brainer to put the well pump
>> on a timer or use the inverter or charge controller's aux relay to
>> only allow the pump to run when solar power would otherwise be wasted.
>Ah the famous daylight only system.
Let's try again, as if you might ever accept the most basic of
concepts. Imagine a 1000W solar setup that can deliver 800W to the
batteries. It could well be the OP's setup. Now imagine that the
batteries are full but full sun is still on the array, and an 800W
load is started. How much energy is being drawn from the batteries?
The answer is a fact, and obviously doesn't comport with your
decade-long insistence that "all energy comes from the batteries". You
might also learn to accept that such scenarios play out by happy
accident every day at many successful solar power installations.
There's no need for the owners to be smart or even lucky, although
owners who work toward taking best advantage of the concept are more
likely to have the longest-lived batteries. Inverter and controller
makers build in aux relays to make it as easy as possible. Again, all
facts. Should hell freeze over and you ever agree to quit denying
those facts in favor of your cockamamie wisdumb, you'll find it
liberating.
>> Therefore, all, most, or some (depending on the setup) of the pump's
>> energy need not EVER make a trip through the batteries. Who would want
>> to unnecessarily charge and discharge their batteries for what's
>> sometimes a kWh per day? Case in point: because we're watering a good
>> number of cattle right now, for the last month or so our water pumping
>> has required about 2kWh per day. The pumping time must be spread out,
>> so about half of the energy required is going through the batteries.
>> When the cattle numbers are reduced we'll be back to our normal
>> routine of no battery cycling due to water-pumping, which is one of
>> the reasons our batteries have lasted 14 years so far. One can apply a
>> similar concept to most ANY discretionary load, the most common I see
>> being clothes washing. The strategy seems to come naturally to every
>> off-gridder except nitwit ghio, who unsurprisingly holds the record
>> for most replaced batteries.
>The point you are trying so hard to avoid is that whether the energy
>to pump water comes from the batteries or direct from the panels that
>energy is at system voltage.
If one is interested in the energy demand (as opposed to inverter
details etc.) of a load and states it in watt-hours including all
losses, then it doesn't matter if it comes from batteries, inverter,
direct, or what the voltage or current is. You of all people should
have learned that years ago, considering how many of your blunders
were caused by a pig-headed insistence on thinking in amps no matter
how clearly the energy requirements are given. For example:
Q: The pump runs at 2500 watts...30 minutes a day...how many 50W
panels are required?
Ghioloon answer: 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
A normal person, off the top of his head and without any need for a
calculator or a spreadsheet, could have estimated perhaps 2kWh
including a huge allowance for losses, which requires say, 400W of PV
for a few hours. Notice that there's no need to bring volts or amps
into the discussion until one at least gets into the ballpark, and
therefore less chance of bungling the answer as you did by a factor of
>15, an error rate that you've certainly topped many times by getting
bogged down in your wacked ghinius logic, which somehow also prevents
you from giving your answers a sniff test before blurting them out.
But in your defense on that last count, a 2500W load might as well be
a moon rocket, and therefore nearly 8kW of PV probably makes perfect
sense to you.
Now, this is where you generally refuse to be mortified by your own
mistake, and instead pretend that the guy who made the mistake is the
perfect choice to crap out yet more nonsense in order to confuse and
embarass... himself.
> According to waynes law Watts are
>constant.
I'm not going to respond to your bizarre straw men until you provide a
quote and an archive link to support your accusation. You won't,
because you can't. Same old same-old, can't change reality, resorts to
making up his own.
>> WTF is wrong with you?
>Nothing,
How would you know?
"Yes, it�s true, intelligence deficiency strikes tens of millions of
people every year, and yet, most sufferers haven�t a clue they have
it. Symptoms include gullibility, irrationality, lack of common sense,
fear, and the inability to think things through or make intelligent
decisions. Only through recognition, intervention, and rehabilitation
can this epidemic be conquered."
http://helpcurestupidity.com/main_page.htm
> I'm waiting for you to make wayne's law work
Why would you be waiting for me to detail something conceived by, and
existing solely in, your quack brain?
>> >5) If you're using batteries for your energy storage you need to know
>> >the relationship between Watt hours and Amp hours.
>> No. In fact, you're one of too many people who never understand much
>> at all about their home power setup, leading to a lot of battery
>> failures much like yours. Which is why knowledgeable folks use and
>> recommend battery monitors, which provide a sort of "fuel gauge". It
>> helps teach the system owner how their consumption habits affect the
>> frequency of full charges. My own monitors allow a choice between
>> percent or AH. I prefer the latter, but most people prefer percent.
>> Which is all that some monitors display, and the most that some people
>> can be expected to understand.
>Sorry to burst your bubble but I log all performance, have done for
>years.
You may be doing it, but clearly you're not understanding the results.
ghio
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:20:43 -0800 (PST), ghio <beal...@gmail.com>
Hang on, Watts are Watts now you're saying that 1000 Watts is 800
Watts. What happened to wayne's law?
> It could well be the OP's setup. Now imagine that the
> batteries are full but full sun is still on the array, and an 800W
> load is started.
That depends on the load. A large 800W motor could require up to 10
times its running Watts to start.
> How much energy is being drawn from the batteries?
See above. The amount could be as much as 7200 Watts.
> The answer is a fact, and obviously doesn't comport with your
> decade-long insistence that "all energy comes from the batteries". You
> might also learn to accept that such scenarios play out by happy
> accident every day at many successful solar power installations.
> There's no need for the owners to be smart or even lucky, although
> owners who work toward taking best advantage of the concept are more
> likely to have the longest-lived batteries. Inverter and controller
> makers build in aux relays to make it as easy as possible. Again, all
> facts. Should hell freeze over and you ever agree to quit denying
> those facts in favor of your cockamamie wisdumb, you'll find it
> liberating.
BS
>
>
>
> >> Therefore, all, most, or some (depending on the setup) of the pump's
> >> energy need not EVER make a trip through the batteries. Who would want
> >> to unnecessarily charge and discharge their batteries for what's
> >> sometimes a kWh per day? Case in point: because we're watering a good
> >> number of cattle right now, for the last month or so our water pumping
> >> has required about 2kWh per day. The pumping time must be spread out,
> >> so about half of the energy required is going through the batteries.
> >> When the cattle numbers are reduced we'll be back to our normal
> >> routine of no battery cycling due to water-pumping, which is one of
> >> the reasons our batteries have lasted 14 years so far. One can apply a
> >> similar concept to most ANY discretionary load, the most common I see
> >> being clothes washing. The strategy seems to come naturally to every
> >> off-gridder except nitwit ghio, who unsurprisingly holds the record
> >> for most replaced batteries.
> >The point you are trying so hard to avoid is that whether the energy
> >to pump water comes from the batteries or direct from the panels that
> >energy is at system voltage.
>
> If one is interested in the energy demand (as opposed to inverter
> details etc.) of a load and states it in watt-hours including all
> losses, then it doesn't matter if it comes from batteries, inverter,
> direct, or what the voltage or current is. You of all people should
> have learned that years ago, considering how many of your blunders
> were caused by a pig-headed insistence on thinking in amps no matter
> how clearly the energy requirements are given. For example:
Pump - 240V - inverter 12/24/48V. Fact of life. Pump runs off system
voltage.
>
> Q: The pump runs at 2500 watts...30 minutes a day...how many 50W
> panels are required?
>
> Ghioloon answer: 14 panels in series to give you 238V @ 3A 11 parallel
> strings to give you 2530A = 154 panelshttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.solar.photovoltaic/msg/9e8befae42d...
>
> A normal person, off the top of his head and without any need for a
> calculator or a spreadsheet, could have estimated perhaps 2kWh
> including a huge allowance for losses, which requires say, 400W of PV
> for a few hours. Notice that there's no need to bring volts or amps
> into the discussion until one at least gets into the ballpark, and
> therefore less chance of bungling the answer as you did by a factor of>15, an error rate that you've certainly topped many times by getting
Which explains why you have never been able to design a system.
>
> bogged down in your wacked ghinius logic, which somehow also prevents
> you from giving your answers a sniff test before blurting them out.
> But in your defense on that last count, a 2500W load might as well be
> a moon rocket, and therefore nearly 8kW of PV probably makes perfect
> sense to you.
>
> Now, this is where you generally refuse to be mortified by your own
> mistake, and instead pretend that the guy who made the mistake is the
> perfect choice to crap out yet more nonsense in order to confuse and
> embarass... himself.
>
> > According to waynes law Watts are
> >constant.
>
> I'm not going to respond to your bizarre straw men until you provide a
> quote and an archive link to support your accusation. You won't,
> because you can't. Same old same-old, can't change reality, resorts to
> making up his own.
You clearly stated that watts are watts no matter what the voltage is
so you should be able to make this work;
All you have to do is prove "wayne's law". IF Watts are independent of
voltage then; If - 100Whs / 240V = .416Ahrs and 100Whrs / 48V =
2.08Ahrs then 2.08Ahrs X 240V should equal 100Whrs.It's your law, now
make it work.
But you can't, and to make matters worse, you don't even know why you
can't. That's what makes it so damned funny.
>
> >> WTF is wrong with you?
> >Nothing,
>
> How would you know?
>
> "Yes, it’s true, intelligence deficiency strikes tens of millions of
> people every year, and yet, most sufferers haven’t a clue they have
> it. Symptoms include gullibility, irrationality, lack of common sense,
> fear, and the inability to think things through or make intelligent
> decisions. Only through recognition, intervention, and rehabilitation
> can this epidemic be conquered."http://helpcurestupidity.com/main_page.htm
You're a constant visitor there are you.
>
> > I'm waiting for you to make wayne's law work
>
> Why would you be waiting for me to detail something conceived by, and
> existing solely in, your quack brain?
Oh no. wayne's law is your very own creation. Let's see you make it
work.
>
> >> >5) If you're using batteries for your energy storage you need to know
> >> >the relationship between Watt hours and Amp hours.
> >> No. In fact, you're one of too many people who never understand much
> >> at all about their home power setup, leading to a lot of battery
> >> failures much like yours. Which is why knowledgeable folks use and
> >> recommend battery monitors, which provide a sort of "fuel gauge". It
> >> helps teach the system owner how their consumption habits affect the
> >> frequency of full charges. My own monitors allow a choice between
> >> percent or AH. I prefer the latter, but most people prefer percent.
> >> Which is all that some monitors display, and the most that some people
> >> can be expected to understand.
> >Sorry to burst your bubble but I log all performance, have done for
> >years.
>
> You may be doing it, but clearly you're not understanding the results.
I'm not the one who had to keep adding panels to my system to make it
work. You may be willing to stay at home all day to run everything
while the sun shines but thousands of people around the world who took
the time do design a proper system love the freedom afforded by around
the clock power with out being tied to domestic drudgery during
daylight hours.
ghio
Cut to the chase time
wayne's law says that Watts are constant and independent of voltage.
This being the case the following should be no problem for wayne;
All you have to do is prove "wayne's law". IF Watts are independent of
voltage(wayne's law) then; If - 100Whs / 240V = .416Ahrs and 100Whrs /
48V =
2.08Ahrs then 2.08Ahrs X 240V should equal 100Whrs. It's your law, now
make it work.
Come on wayne, everybody's waiting. It's 100Whrs and according to you
Watt hours are independent of voltage, So sink your teeth into it and
make it work or accept one of the options below.
The first option is that you admit that 2.08Ahrs X 240V = 499.2Watt
hours and explain why 100Whrs became 499.2Whrs. It is so simple that
one of your cows could work it out.
The second option is one that is familiar to you. Run away crying.
Well, it's your base state really, isn't it?
The truth is your just don't have the understanding of system design
required.
wmbjk...@citlink.net
wrote:
>On Jan 14, 11:55�am, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:
>> >Yes, charged with electricity.
I'm saying that your weaseling will always be a pathetic substitute
for facts, which is in this case are what even the greenest of newbs
learns in a few minutes of reading: that PV connected to batteries
delivers something less than its nominal rating.
>> It could well be the OP's setup. Now imagine that the
>> batteries are full but full sun is still on the array, and an 800W
>> load is started.
>That depends on the load. A large 800W motor could require up to 10
>times its running Watts to start.
As usual you'd rather weasel than admit your faulty reasoning. If only
you could estimate the actual energy, eh, ghinius? Let's call it an
hour. 800W for 59.95 minutes is 799.33Wh, and 8000W for .05 minutes is
an additional 6.66Wh, for a total of 806Wh, which means that 99.76% of
the energy did *not* make a trip through the batteries. Therefore
starting-surge, even of a Weasel Industries motor, in no way supports
your retarded notion that "all energy comes from the batteries".
Unless perhaps there's a dictionary on Planet Stupid that defines
"all" as "not necessarily any".
>> How much energy is being drawn from the batteries?
>See above. The amount could be as much as 7200 Watts.
NO! For the thousandth time: energy includes a time component, power
does not.
<sigh> Ten years ago, in your infinite wisdumb, you gave a
hilariously-wrong lecture on that very concept, and got bitch-slapped
for it.
**********
"Solar Power Consultant George Ghio" <g...@netconnect.com.au> wrote:
"Power is is the time rate of using energy. So energy = 400 watts.
Power = 400 watt hours"
Nick Pine wrote:
"This is precious. I'm starting a file of "Ghio's technical tips" to
be posted periodically... :-)
**************
And yet here you are a whole decade later, still pigheadedly refusing
to accept reality. And what do you have to show for being the most
boneheaded poster on the energy groups? For one thing, as suggested
way back when, "a file of "Ghio's technical tips" follows each of your
new pearls of wisdumb. http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm
>> The answer is a fact, and obviously doesn't comport with your
>> decade-long insistence that "all energy comes from the batteries". You
>> might also learn to accept that such scenarios play out by happy
>> accident every day at many successful solar power installations.
>> There's no need for the owners to be smart or even lucky, although
>> owners who work toward taking best advantage of the concept are more
>> likely to have the longest-lived batteries. Inverter and controller
>> makers build in aux relays to make it as easy as possible. Again, all
>> facts. Should hell freeze over and you ever agree to quit denying
>> those facts in favor of your cockamamie wisdumb, you'll find it
>> liberating.
>BS
By now I'm wondering if you even realize that supply, inverters,
direct loads, and batteries are all wired in parallel. Instead you
seem to believe that everything is in series, beginning with supply
and batteries. Too funny.
ghio
All waynes excuses removed
Cut to the chase time
wayne's law says that Watts are constant and independent of voltage.
This being the case the following should be no problem for wayne;
All you have to do is prove "wayne's law". IF Watts are independent of
voltage(wayne's law) then; If - 100Whs / 240V = .416Ahrs and 100Whrs /
48V =
2.08Ahrs then 2.08Ahrs X 240V should equal 100Whrs. It's your law, now
make it work.
Come on wayne, everybody's waiting. It's 100Whrs and according to you
ghio
waynes excuses deleted.
wayne has some real problems.
One is that he claimed;
"Knowledgeable folks use watt hours because it's a measure
of energy rather than of power, and because it's independent of
battery voltage."can't explain the following;
But can't explain;
If Watts are independent of
voltage(wayne's law) then; If - 100Whs / 240V = .416Ahrs and 100Whrs /
48V = 2.08Ahrs then 2.08Ahrs X 240V should equal 100Whrs.
wayne also said;
"Battery capacity is seldom measured. It is generally
stated in AH, but that's only useful to the reader if the voltage is
stated as well. One can include both numbers, or simply state it in
kWh. When I talk to newbs I find that they "get it" quicker if I
relate off-grid concepts in terms of their on-grid experience. A
recent example (after quizzing the owner about his last home): "Your
consumption at your last place averaged about 20kWh per day. Your home
power setup makes an average of about 5kWh per day, and you have about
15kWh reserve that must be replenished whenever you tap into it". Then
I showed them how their charge controller logs float time and
explained how that is a useful indicator of whether or not they're
living within their energy budget. Finally I mentioned that I'd be
checking that log next time I visited."
The problem with this is that while people need to understand their
energy use, and it is easily understood when described in terms of
Whrs in and out, this simple explanation does not impart an
understanding of system design. As wayne points out, this explanation
is sufficient for "newbs". But as this explanation of energy use is
all that wayne knows, it firmly places him in the "newb" category. It
also explains why wayne can't explain;
If Watts are independent of
voltage(wayne's law) then; If - 100Whs / 240V = .416Ahrs and 100Whrs /
48V =
2.08Ahrs then 2.08Ahrs X 240V should equal 100Whrs.
wayne has also claimed that I am fixated on Amp hours. This is not
true. The only fixation is wayne's fixation on Watt hours as that
total sum of system design. As a designer of PV systems I fully accept
the holistic nature of system design. Every part of a system's design
interacts with every other part. Understanding the relationships
between each part of a system as a whole is very important to a
successful design, wayne lacks this understanding. This also
explains why wayne's system produces several thousand Watt hours more
energy than wayne can use but still requires fifty hours of petrol
driven battery charger to make up the short fall in storage.
The truth is that wayne will never explain;
If Watts are independent of voltage(wayne's law) then;
If - 100Whs / 240V = .416Ahrs
and
100Whrs / 48V = 2.08Ahrs
then
2.08Ahrs X 240V should equal 100Whrs.
The reason he will never explain this is simply because he hasn't the
experience or knowledge to be able to do so.
ghio
"Who was that masked man?"
"Him, that was the lone waynger."
"He sure do run purty.
ghio
As is evident, wayne has decided to do a runner rather than explain
why his “Law” does not work.
Wayne said, and this is a direct quote;
“Knowledgeable folks use watt hours because it's a measure
of energy rather than of power, and because it's independent of
battery voltage.”
The thing about this statement is that if Whrs are independent of
voltage one could expect that the following is true.
If - 100Whs / 240V = .416Ahrs
and
100Whrs / 48V = 2.08Ahrs
then
2.08Ahrs X 240V should equal 100Whrs.
But of course, the reality is that “2.08Ahrs X 240V should equal
499.2Whrs.”
So, what does this tell us about waynes assertion that Watt hrs are
independent of voltage. Largely that it is only partly true in as much
as one Watt hour is one Watt hour.
OTOH this exercise shows that one must be aware of the relationship of
all the parts within a pv system's design. The following is what one
faces when looking at a system design from the beginning (load) to the
end (choice of panels).
The first step is the load, this is measured in Watt hours, or more
commonly, kiloWatt hours.
This load is usually supplied by an inverter.
The inverter's output is rated in Watts, but the inverters input from
the batteries is measured in Amps.
The batteries capacity is measured in Amp hours.
The panels which supply the batteries are rated in watts but their
output is measured in amps.
You can check on these points by simply downloading spec sheets for
inverters, batteries and panels.
Wayne will claim that all these manufactures are mislead and that the
industry only uses Watt hours.
Then again, wayne also posted this little snippet, and this is another
direct quote;
“Which is why knowledgeable folks use and
recommend battery monitors, which provide a sort of "fuel gauge". It
helps teach the system owner how their consumption habits affect the
frequency of full charges. My own monitors allow a choice between
percent or AH. I prefer the latter,”
My regulator which logs data about my systems performance, logs Amp
hours in and out. As do most data loggers. Even wayne's.
ghio
he answer was in response to;
"I like it but it wouldn't be much good here as we experience 120km
winds on odd days from December to June, most years."
This is a significant wind loading. Correct spacing reduces the wind
loading by allowing some of the wind, that otherwise would cause
pressure on the panels, to pass through the obstruction. Still, it
comes as no surprise that you can't understand this, you understand so
little about design to begin with.