|
Post by Graham on Nov 1, 2016 8:56:11 GMT
I would love to come and see your lovely boat. However Nantwich is about a 500 mile round trip and the old bones need to a break or two on route. When I had Clarence I used her as a mid point break and took a day's rest. Sorry the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. Damn old age.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Nov 1, 2016 9:18:56 GMT
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. If your explanation as give on the article post had been understandable and readable to the target audience then I would agree. But it was not readable and understandable and according to what the reader told me they did not get past the first couple of lines, so not readable or understandable. So whether theoretically it was correct does not matter it was not understood because it was not readable by the target audience. The language etc was wrong and if the language is wrong and not interesting enough for the target audience thus does not get read then the whole thing is wrong as it has not done its job. It is not a question of me writing words I understand that convey meaning and interest to me, I do not matter, it is conveying meaning and interest to the target audience. Without that it is all a total failure if they don't get excited by the words and they are words they can relate to and understand it is a total failure. No I succeeded totally my ego as you put it was well satisfied. I was sad what the reaction would do to a blossoming forum, someone else work damaged.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2016 9:22:59 GMT
I think I mentioned before there are many people on here who have a lot to offer. It's the intent which is the important thing so long as no serious danger comes out of incorrect information being given.
It does take something special to be able to turn complex theory into something which is easy for the layman to understand. At the same time it can be a bit annoying when someone uses knowledge or past experiences to willy wave.
Personally I'd use Google to improve my general electical/electronic background rather than a boaty forum.
Boat specific stuff is useful here though. Things like... How many batteries should I be using? How long should I run my engine for to charge them up? What type of leisure batteries? Etc. To answer these sort of questions properly we need to ask what someones individual circumastances are to be able to fully help. That includes being able to answer in a way they might understand.
This is the problem with the WiKI system. It's pot luck whether the information is levelled correctly for the reader. The great thing here is that it's interactive so we can keep trying to explain it different ways until they understand. Plain English also rules but it doesn suit willy wavers.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 1, 2016 9:25:36 GMT
I think I mentioned before there are many people on here who have a lot to offer. It's the intent which is the important thing so long as no serious danger comes out of incorrect information being given. It does take something special to be able to turn complex theory into something which is easy for the layman to understand. At the same time it can be a bit annoying when someone uses knowledge or past experiences to willy wave. Personally I'd use Google to improve my general electical/electronic background rather than a boaty forum. Boat specific stuff is useful here though. Things like... How many batteries should I be using? How long should I run my engine for to charge them up? What type of leisure batteries? Etc. To answer these sort of questions properly we need to ask what someones individual circumastances are to be able to fully help. That includes being able to answer in a way they might understand. This is the problem with the WiKI system. It's pot luck whether the information is levelled correctly for the reader. The great thing here is that it's interactive so we can keep trying to explain it different ways until they understand. Plain English also rules but it doesn suit willy wavers. So let's be clear. Do you think that when I try to correct fundamental errors of science in others, that I'm willy waving?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2016 9:31:23 GMT
I think I mentioned before there are many people on here who have a lot to offer. It's the intent which is the important thing so long as no serious danger comes out of incorrect information being given. It does take something special to be able to turn complex theory into something which is easy for the layman to understand. At the same time it can be a bit annoying when someone uses knowledge or past experiences to willy wave. Personally I'd use Google to improve my general electical/electronic background rather than a boaty forum. Boat specific stuff is useful here though. Things like... How many batteries should I be using? How long should I run my engine for to charge them up? What type of leisure batteries? Etc. To answer these sort of questions properly we need to ask what someones individual circumastances are to be able to fully help. That includes being able to answer in a way they might understand. This is the problem with the WiKI system. It's pot luck whether the information is levelled correctly for the reader. The great thing here is that it's interactive so we can keep trying to explain it different ways until they understand. Plain English also rules but it doesn suit willy wavers. So let's be clear. Do you think that when I try to correct fundamental errors of science in others, that I'm willy waving? To be clear, can you point out the specific text which you are not happy with. I will add that it's also good to admit it when we are wrong. BTW, I have to go out in a few minutes to finish off doing the timing belt on my missus car so might not be here for a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 1, 2016 9:36:36 GMT
So let's be clear. Do you think that when I try to correct fundamental errors of science in others, that I'm willy waving? To be clear, can you point out the specific text which you are not happy with. I will add that it's also good to admit it when we are wrong. BTW, I have to go out in a few minutes to finish off doing the timing belt on my missus car so might not be here for a bit. I'm confused by your answer. Do you mean the specific text of yours, or the specific text in the OP?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2016 9:38:29 GMT
To be clear, can you point out the specific text which you are not happy with. I will add that it's also good to admit it when we are wrong. BTW, I have to go out in a few minutes to finish off doing the timing belt on my missus car so might not be here for a bit. I'm confused by your answer. Do you mean the specific text of yours, or the specific text in the OP? The text you and Graham are arguing over.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 1, 2016 9:46:11 GMT
It's all getting a bit confusing because Tony started two different threads at much the same time. And they are not the same Tony! I've no idea what graham and I are arguing over, and neither does he, it's just that he likes to argue!
Anyway regarding this OP my only comment was that float charge isn't really a charging state, it's a maintenance state. The OP text implies that float is necessary to bring a battery to a fully charged state, I'd say this is misleading and counter-productive, especially as we often advocate those charging from a genny not to have a float stage at all.
Regarding the other thread's text (tonyb's) I just object to battery heating being the explanation for having to put more AH back in than were taken out. It is dimensionally incorrect. Maybe it doesn't matter that much but when the real explanation is just as simple, why not give that?
All the rest of the waffle is mostly people just arguing pointlessly from positions of ignorance, mischief, and boredom. Although I'll admit that it has been beneficial to me. When you have to put a cogent argument down on paper, it helps one to crystallise one's thoughts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2016 9:55:30 GMT
It's all getting a bit confusing because Tony started two different threads at much the same time. And they are not the same Tony! I've no idea what graham and I are arguing over, and neither does he, it's just that he likes to argue! Anyway regarding this OP my only comment was that float charge isn't really a charging state, it's a maintenance state. The OP text implies that float is necessary to bring a battery to a fully charged state, I'd say this is misleading and counter-productive, especially as we often advocate those charging from a genny not to have a float stage at all. Regarding the other thread's text (tonyb's) I just object to battery heating being the explanation for having to put more AH back in than were taken out. It is dimensionally incorrect. Maybe it doesn't matter that much but when the real explanation is just as simple, why not give that? All the rest of the waffle is mostly people just arguing pointlessly from positions of ignorance, mischief, and boredom. Although I'll admit that it has been beneficial to me. When you have to put a cogent argument down on paper, it helps one to crystallise one's thoughts. Lol. Well I suppose that's the down side of being a bit clever. I think it was nice for the OP'er to put their time into the OP though.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 1, 2016 10:00:02 GMT
It's all getting a bit confusing because Tony started two different threads at much the same time. And they are not the same Tony! I've no idea what graham and I are arguing over, and neither does he, it's just that he likes to argue! Anyway regarding this OP my only comment was that float charge isn't really a charging state, it's a maintenance state. The OP text implies that float is necessary to bring a battery to a fully charged state, I'd say this is misleading and counter-productive, especially as we often advocate those charging from a genny not to have a float stage at all. Regarding the other thread's text (tonyb's) I just object to battery heating being the explanation for having to put more AH back in than were taken out. It is dimensionally incorrect. Maybe it doesn't matter that much but when the real explanation is just as simple, why not give that? All the rest of the waffle is mostly people just arguing pointlessly from positions of ignorance, mischief, and boredom. Although I'll admit that it has been beneficial to me. When you have to put a cogent argument down on paper, it helps one to crystallise one's thoughts. Lol. Well I suppose that's the down side of being a bit clever. I think it was nice for the OP'er to put their time into the OP though. Yes it was. It's a pity folk don't think it was nice for me to try to correct a few minor mistakes. I guess that if you are the OP you can say what you like and not expect to have it corrected. Or was that CWDF?
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Nov 1, 2016 10:04:35 GMT
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! Not sure of your first point: I haven't done a quantitive experiment! If the voltage is (nearly) constant, then AmpHours can be used to measure of energy (V x (I x T)), In the same way, with an analogue meter, we can measure voltage by the current flowing through the meter, and our digital ammeters display current, although they are measuring voltage. AmpHours are a handy shortcut.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2016 10:08:27 GMT
Lol. Well I suppose that's the down side of being a bit clever. I think it was nice for the OP'er to put their time into the OP though. Yes it was. It's a pity folk don't think it was nice for me to try to correct a few minor mistakes. I guess that if you are the OP you can say what you like and not expect to have it corrected. Or was that CWDF? Nothing wrong with trying to correct mistakes nicely. The problem with CWF was more down to willy waving and control freakery rather than fighting over factual information. Then again, I suppose it depends why we come on forums in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Nov 1, 2016 10:23:51 GMT
I was trying to gently educate
Go BB problems here
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 1, 2016 10:32:45 GMT
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! If the voltage is (nearly) constant, then AmpHours can be used to measure of energy (V x (I x T)), But that is the problem, V isn't constant. It varies from perhaps 13v shortly after charge, to <11v under heavy discharge. Anyway the battery is fundamentally (due to the way the chemistry works) a charge store not an energy store.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2016 10:39:54 GMT
Yes it was. It's a pity folk don't think it was nice for me to try to correct a few minor mistakes. I guess that if you are the OP you can say what you like and not expect to have it corrected. Or was that CWDF? FWIW I appreciate your inputs to these type of threads and don't think that the OP should expect not to have errors corrected. I do sometimes think you can get bogged down in trying to get everything technically correct (according to you) rather than focusing on what the OP was trying to achieve. This is a minor criticism and I could criticise other contributors as well so please don't take offense. Currently I only post on these threads to try to help the discussion move on rather than one of 'ignorance, mischief or boredom', I want to get a better understanding of the basics so that when I come to start making specific questions I can make them fairly specific/detailed rather than 'why have my batteries died again'. My areas of expertise can be summed up as; - Human Factors expert in control center design and operation - Independent technical expert during Union/Management negotiations - Writer of technical/operational/emergency manuals I hope you and others will accept my inputs as potentially helpful (even if they come from someone who is currently fairly ignorant of the technical details).
|
|