|
Post by canaldweller on Oct 31, 2016 23:52:42 GMT
The point is that if you are going to explain why you need to put more charge back into a battery than you take out, you might as well explain it the correct way rather than a fallacious way if both are equally simple concepts to understand. I thought it was black magic!!!!! or it is in my black batteries I thought it was something to do with what happens when the lights go out because the batteries have failed again!
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Nov 1, 2016 7:10:16 GMT
Just a real life circuit that operates as you described earlier before Gibbo left us. Can't remember the exact words you you used about charge etc I didn't describe any circuit, well apart from the superconducting one. That is just the point you did not provide a real life circuit you side stepped the question
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 1, 2016 7:33:02 GMT
I didn't describe any circuit, well apart from the superconducting one. That is just the point you did not provide a real life circuit you side stepped the question That is because such a circuit doesn't exist. As you well know. As Gibbo knows. It was just a smokescreen question.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 1, 2016 7:34:33 GMT
Just as AmpHours have caveats about C/100, C/5, etc. We might know how much lead and lead oxide are in the battery, but we don't know how much is available to react. Once both plates are covered in lead sulphate, I wouldn't think there's anything left to react. Don't forget that AH are not permanently lost as a result of faster discharges, whereas WH are. Which doesn't exactly refute your point but it makes your approach a lot more complicated. Anyway we'd have to come up with a new term instead of capacity. We couldn't say the capacity is x WH!
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 1, 2016 7:51:04 GMT
I didn't describe any circuit, well apart from the superconducting one. That is just the point you did not provide a real life circuit you side stepped the question So let's recap. I said AH didn't intrinsically have any energy until volts were applied. Gibbo disagreed even though that is contrary to the basic laws of physics and dimensional analysis. He said so draw a circuit with current flowing that doesn't use any energy. Putting aside the superconductor case, the question was a non sequitur since once you have current flowing you will encounter resistance and thus require energy to move the charge. taking a Newtonian mechanics corollary, a cannon ball has mass but no energy (mass = charge in the corollary). In order to move it in the real world (i.e. with friction) you need to supply energy. But that is not a proof that the cannonball intrinsically has energy. Of course you can give it energy by pushing it up a slope (voltage). The energy is then realeased if you let the ball roll back down the slope but again the ball has no intrinsic energy except that given to it by its height (voltage).
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Nov 1, 2016 7:57:23 GMT
That is just the point you did not provide a real life circuit you side stepped the question That is because such a circuit doesn't exist. As you well know. As Gibbo knows. It was just a smokescreen question. Oh the real life circuit exists there are hundreds on every boat it is just they do not conform to your theories. That is your problem there is real life and explaining it in a manner that real normal everyday people can relate to and your ivory tower which bears no relationship to what actually happens as far as Mr & Mrs Boat owner is concerned. That is why you could not understand that my simple explanation was what was needed to allow Mrs boat owner to start to understand and you trashed it. I removed it because of the agro, the hassle and it was giving the outside world a bad impression about TB and I thought that that impression was important to the forum at that time with the possible influx from CW. Things do not have to be theoretically perfect to get over the point to someone who just want to know enough to run a system on a boat. It makes me sad that you are unable to join the real world but have to sit in your ivory tower where everything has to be perfect else it has to be destroyed. People have painted Gibbo to me as someone who was always technically correct. I do not think that is the case, I think Gibbo is someone who lives in the real world and has as much or more knowledge than you do but uses it for the real world where you attempt to destroy the real world and make us live in your ivory tower. We don't have the time, no want the knowledge of ivory towers we have lives that we wish to enjoy instead of be absolutely being hide bound to absolutes. ETA while I was writing this you wrote a post using the words, Newtonian mechanics corollary, etc etc etc. I have not even bothered to read it. Yes there are some on here that will know what you are talking about but I have good reason to believe Mrs Boat owner probably does not have any idea what you are talking about. I left that all behind many many years ago probably more years ago than your entire working life.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 1, 2016 8:03:42 GMT
That is because such a circuit doesn't exist. As you well know. As Gibbo knows. It was just a smokescreen question. Oh the real life circuit exists there are hundreds on every boat it is just they do not conform to your theories. That is your problem there is real life and explaining it in a manner that real normal everyday people can relate to and your ivory tower which bears no relationship to what actually happens as far as Mr & Mrs Boat owner is concerned. That is why you could not understand that my simple explanation was what was needed to allow Mrs boat owner to start to understand and you trashed it. I removed it because of the agro, the hassle and it was giving the outside world a bad impression about TB and I thought that that impression was important to the forum at that time with the possible influx from CW. Things do not have to be theoretically perfect to get over the point to someone who just want to know enough to run a system on a boat. It makes me sad that you are unable to join the real world but have to sit in your ivory tower where everything has to be perfect else it has to be destroyed. People have painted Gibbo to me as someone who was always technically correct. I do not think that is the case, I think Gibbo is someone who lives in the real world and has as much or more knowledge than you do but uses it for the real world where you attempt to destroy the real world and make us live in your ivory tower. We don't have the time, no want the knowledge of ivory towers we have lives that we wish to enjoy instead of be absolutely being hide bound to absolutes. There are no circuits on a boat where current flows without energy being expended. Regarding the rest of your post of course I understand the point about keeping it simple. However if there is an explanation that keeps it simple whilst defying the basic laws of physics and being plain wrong, and another that is equally simple and is fundamentally correct then I prefer to use the latter. Does that make me a bad or foolish person? If you want to use the former, why not just say "it's all down to the electrical fairys" or some such unhelpful thing?
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Nov 1, 2016 8:08:33 GMT
Oh the real life circuit exists there are hundreds on every boat it is just they do not conform to your theories. That is your problem there is real life and explaining it in a manner that real normal everyday people can relate to and your ivory tower ... There are no circuits on a boat where current flows without energy being expended. Regarding the rest of your post of course I understand the point about keeping it simple. However if there is an explanation that keeps it simple whilst defying the basic laws of physics and being plain wrong, and another that is equally simple and is fundamentally correct then I prefer to use the latter. Does that make me a bad or foolish person? If you want to use the former, why not just say "it's all down to the electrical fairys" or some such unhelpful thing? I know there are no circuits on a boat were current flows without expending energy. You don't have to tell me that. Simple things that get a point over frequently are not technically correct but they paint the picture for the person that is why they are used. They are normally prefaced as being not technically correct as that article of mine was deliberately at the start of writing to allow the use of the imperfect technically to paint a picture that got over a basic point. You ignored the preface and destroyed for your own ego, I know better, someone else's work that got the point over whilst your own effort was not understandable to the target audience. Note you destroyed not you built on or improved
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 1, 2016 8:10:35 GMT
I'm hoping to find a Thunderboater who would be happy to come aboard some time and drop into our engine room and explain to me how our electrics work and what all the wires are for. What we have is simple, I'm sure. But it is so, that our internal electrics don't come from the batteries themselves via the isolator switch, but from a cable that's attached to the engine block! I would be interested in knowing is our alternator really charging the batteries, and can wiring be improved/made neater. Also, we have an old solar panels box with a light that is supposed to show the state of the batteries - usually it's green, goes to yellow, then to red. This last trip it's been flashing red all the time, so I'm guessing it's giving a false signal. I'd be happy to have it removed and replaced with something that really shows the batteries' charge state (not even that if the alternator is working as it should).
Also, what are all the wires for under the shore-line charger, and the little Victron 350W inverter we have... it all looks so confusing to me, but I'm sure a real expert would have it sussed in minutes. If you ever see our boat and are curious, just shout "Stop! I want to finger your entrails!"
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Nov 1, 2016 8:17:57 GMT
I'm hoping to find a Thunderboater who would be happy to come aboard some time and drop into our engine room and explain to me how our electrics work and what all the wires are for. What we have is simple, I'm sure. But it is so, that our internal electrics don't come from the batteries themselves via the isolator switch, but from a cable that's attached to the engine block! I would be interested in knowing is our alternator really charging the batteries, and can wiring be improved/made neater. Also, we have an old solar panels box with a light that is supposed to show the state of the batteries - usually it's green, goes to yellow, then to red. This last trip it's been flashing red all the time, so I'm guessing it's giving a false signal. I'd be happy to have it removed and replaced with something that really shows the batteries' charge state (not even that if the alternator is working as it should). Also, what are all the wires for under the shore-line charger, and the little Victron 350W inverter we have... it all looks so confusing to me, but I'm sure a real expert would have it sussed in minutes. If you ever see our boat and are curious, just shout "Stop! I want to finger your entrails!" lol If you are serious and not too far from me I would be happy to finger your entrails, can I wear plastic gloves
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 1, 2016 8:27:32 GMT
There are no circuits on a boat where current flows without energy being expended. Regarding the rest of your post of course I understand the point about keeping it simple. However if there is an explanation that keeps it simple whilst defying the basic laws of physics and being plain wrong, and another that is equally simple and is fundamentally correct then I prefer to use the latter. Does that make me a bad or foolish person? If you want to use the former, why not just say "it's all down to the electrical fairys" or some such unhelpful thing? I know there are no circuits on a boat were current flows without expending energy. You don't have to tell me that. Simple things that get a point over frequently are not technically correct but they paint the picture for the person that is why they are used. They are normally prefaced as being not technically correct as that article of mine was deliberately at the start of writing to allow the use of the imperfect technically to paint a picture that got over a basic point. You ignored the preface and destroyed for your own ego, I know better, someone else's work that got the point over whilst your own effort was not understandable to the target audience. Note you destroyed not you built on or improved Some moments ago you said "Oh the real life circuit exists there are hundreds on every boat" and now you say "I know there are no circuits on a boat were current flows without expending energy". Are you confused? Regarding your "article" you gave a simple explanation for bulk charge that was in fact the simple explanation for absorption. That is pointlessly wrong and confusing when the correct explanation for bulk charge is equally simple, correct and not confusing. Unfortunately you allowed your ego take priority over giving a correct and simple explanation. in the case of CEF the correct answer is just as simple as the incorrect one, so why not give the correct one?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 1, 2016 8:35:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 1, 2016 8:42:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Nov 1, 2016 8:49:41 GMT
I know there are no circuits on a boat were current flows without expending energy. You don't have to tell me that. Simple things that get a point over frequently are not technically correct but they paint the picture for the person that is why they are used. They are normally prefaced as being not technically correct as that article of mine was deliberately at the start of writing to allow the use of the imperfect technically to paint a picture that got over a basic point. You ignored the preface and destroyed for your own ego, I know better, someone else's work that got the point over whilst your own effort was not understandable to the target audience. Note you destroyed not you built on or improved Some moments ago you said "Oh the real life circuit exists there are hundreds on every boat" and now you say "I know there are no circuits on a boat were current flows without expending energy". Are you confused? Regarding your "article" you gave a simple explanation for bulk charge that was in fact the simple explanation for absorption. That is pointlessly wrong and confusing when the correct explanation for bulk charge is equally simple, correct and not confusing. Unfortunately you allowed your ego take priority over giving a correct and simple explanation. in the case of CEF the correct answer is just as simple as the incorrect one, so why not give the correct one? lol again you are trying to twist words, the words used "real life circuit exists" of course real life circuits use energy that was the point use one to demonstrate your point. Interestingly I was more worried about the forum I was used to your insistence at always being right, I had carefully made it plain that the article was not technically correct nor intended to be and I used the words that I felt would get the point over to Mrs Boater. Interestingly enough it did, the words also excited her about electricity, yours she could not understand no be bothered to read after couple of lines. No ego was not involved I have been writing pieces like that for many years it is get mind in gear and they come with a bit of effort. I feel sorry for you that you cannot see the need and point of such articles. I will leave you to your theoretical world and continue in mine it is much nicer here people like being treated as humanbeings and talked to as equals not being talked down to and being told they are wrong all the time.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 1, 2016 8:55:06 GMT
Some moments ago you said "Oh the real life circuit exists there are hundreds on every boat" and now you say "I know there are no circuits on a boat were current flows without expending energy". Are you confused? Regarding your "article" you gave a simple explanation for bulk charge that was in fact the simple explanation for absorption. That is pointlessly wrong and confusing when the correct explanation for bulk charge is equally simple, correct and not confusing. Unfortunately you allowed your ego take priority over giving a correct and simple explanation. in the case of CEF the correct answer is just as simple as the incorrect one, so why not give the correct one? lol again you are trying to twist words, the words used "real life circuit exists" of course real life circuits use energy that was the point use one to demonstrate your point. Interestingly I was more worried about the forum I was used to your insistence at always being right, I had carefully made it plain that the article was not technically correct nor intended to be and I used the words that I felt would get the point over to Mrs Boater. Interestingly enough it did, the words also excited her about electricity, yours she could not understand no be bothered to read after couple of lines. No ego was not involved I have been writing pieces like that for many years it is get mind in gear and they come with a bit of effort. I feel sorry for you that you cannot see the need and point of such articles. I will leave you to your theoretical world and continue in mine it is much nicer here people like being treated as humanbeings and talked to as equals not being talked down to and being told they are wrong all the time. You have persistently failed to acknowledge my point that where two explanations are equally simple, it makes no sense to give the one that is wrong. I would love to say that I'll leave you to mislead people but I can't just bring myself to do that.
|
|