|
Post by Telemachus on Oct 31, 2016 21:58:11 GMT
My Amp Hour counter (Merlin Powergauge)doesn't show AmpHours into the battery, only Amphours out, which is really Amphours out minus AmpHours in with a bit of a "fiddle factor", designed to overcome the fact that you need to put more in than you get out. The "time to go before recharge" is the time the current current (!!) would take to discharge the battery to a pre-set level (Default is 50%), assuming that the bank size is accurate. Yes I think all the makes have an "AH deficit" display which starts at zero when the battery is fully charged, shows an increasing number during discharge and a decreasing number during charge. It's interesting that your "time to go" display is to a preset value rather than the other gauges I have come across where it's to zero SoC. Yours is more useful. But just a bit, since the current current rarely remains current.
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Oct 31, 2016 22:01:59 GMT
The current current can only be current currently.
|
|
|
Post by tonyb on Nov 1, 2016 7:42:58 GMT
Thanks Tonyqj & Graham
Original post now edited and PM sent to suggest that just the original first post be copied into Advice with the whole thread left here so any discussions can continue without confusing new commers.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Nov 1, 2016 8:25:56 GMT
The current current can only be current currently. My grandmother put put currents in buns, they were lovely, she soaked them in tea and brandy over night before use.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 1, 2016 8:31:19 GMT
Thanks Tonyqj & Graham Original post now edited and PM sent to suggest that just the original first post be copied into Advice with the whole thread left here so any discussions can continue without confusing new commers. So pointedly not mentioning me. I guess you think I'm disruptive, just as Dan does. If you persist in giving a false explanation for CEF I will continue to criticise it. I must say I am surprised and disappointed that you are happy to give out false information.
|
|
|
Post by tonyb on Nov 1, 2016 9:11:10 GMT
Thanks Tonyqj & Graham Original post now edited and PM sent to suggest that just the original first post be copied into Advice with the whole thread left here so any discussions can continue without confusing new commers. So pointedly not mentioning me. I guess you think I'm disruptive, just as Dan does. If you persist in giving a false explanation for CEF I will continue to criticise it. I must say I am surprised and disappointed that you are happy to give out false information. No I do not think that you are disruptive and I know you are very intelligent BUT, and its a very big but, you are very theory lead. In fact so much so at times I wonder if you have very much practical, real world experience at all. You will note that rather than keep with understandable words it was you, I think, who started throwing initials about (CEF EFF?). In any case your perception of "correct information" has been challenged by others and it is not that clear if anyone really knows what goes on in a battery. Yes I am happy to bend the truth a little if it enables people with less knowledge to understand something that is to their benefit. I would rather that than publish technically correct but highly specialised and detailed information that is only likely to confuse the target audience. To be honest I had you in mind when I made the comment about first class degrees, masters and doctorates although I suspect it does not all literally apply to you. I find you often seem incapable of grasping the fact that not everyone is as clever or able as you (in the theory stakes).
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 1, 2016 9:17:38 GMT
Well there does seem to be a bit of a common theme on here deriding me for trying to get things right. Which is a shame. I totally take the point about the need to keep it simple but as I've said a few times now, if you can keep it simple and get it basically correct, surely that is better than keeping it simple and getting it fundamentally wrong?
The trouble with "errors of convenience" i.e. simplifying things to the point of them being directly contrary to the laws of physics, is that it can come back to bite later and gives rise to a generation who think they know what's what but in fact don't. I'd liken it to picking folk up for saying amp/hours. They don't like it, but ultimately yousometimes have to be cruel to be kind.
Oh and by the way, on your point about CEF etc many battery gauges use the same initials in their setup pages and manuals. I was not necessarily suggesting you put it in your article, and certainly not suggesting you talk about EEF, that was just to try to explain to you why explaining the need to put back more AH than you take our in terms of battery warming is fundamentally wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Nov 1, 2016 11:31:31 GMT
Well there does seem to be a bit of a common theme on here deriding me for trying to get things right. Which is a shame. I totally take the point about the need to keep it simple but as I've said a few times now, if you can keep it simple and get it basically correct, surely that is better than keeping it simple and getting it fundamentally wrong? The trouble with "errors of convenience" i.e. simplifying things to the point of them being directly contrary to the laws of physics, is that it can come back to bite later and gives rise to a generation who think they know what's what but in fact don't. I'd liken it to picking folk up for saying amp/hours. They don't like it, but ultimately yousometimes have to be cruel to be kind. Oh and by the way, on your point about CEF etc many battery gauges use the same initials in their setup pages and manuals. I was not necessarily suggesting you put it in your article, and certainly not suggesting you talk about EEF, that was just to try to explain to you why explaining the need to put back more AH than you take our in terms of battery warming is fundamentally wrong. Nick, no one least of all me is deriding you for your knowledge or intelligence. What we are saying there are two worlds the theoretical world that researches and designs all these wonderful things we have today and the real world where people who have little or no knowledge or the level of technical intelligence you have, have to use and operate these things. Those people are by far the majority. They vary from, forgive me ladies, the housewife who want a bit of information in a simple way so she can understand what her other half is saying when he talks about the batteries and charging to those who have some knowledge and just need a specific about x or y but does not know how or why it works nor real does not want to know. People like Tonyb and I have spent our lifetimes working with people like these trying different ways of explaining things so they can use there stuff as well as possible. That means we have learn the important thing to get across is the idea, the concept of a or b not the absolute pure technical detail. To use words that the people we are talking to understand and meet in their everyday lives. To use ideas that they know to hang other ideas on to help them understand why this or that. As an example when on Modque I posted a technical post and initially it was refused, I know it was referred to the experts I even know who, they were, were asked to judge. The piece was correct in its context the language was correct. So I sent the post to a real life practical engineer for him to judge, his opinion the same as mine. So I challenge the Mod to tell me exactly what was wrong with it, they could not, reason it was an OK post, it was posted unaltered. That was the CW pure technically or not at all that you ruled over, that is not here and I amongst it seems other will not accept it. Things do not need or have to be pure technical.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 1, 2016 11:46:16 GMT
I keep saying this, and this is the last time I'm going to repeat it (thank god, they say!). Of course I understand the need for simplifications and analogies such as water etc. However where there are two possible equally simple explanations for something, and one is fundamentally wrong whilst the other is fundamentally right, what possible justification is there for giving the wrong one?
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Nov 1, 2016 12:10:00 GMT
I keep saying this, and this is the last time I'm going to repeat it (thank god, they say!). Of course I understand the need for simplifications and analogies such as water etc. However where there are two possible equally simple explanations for something, and one is fundamentally wrong whilst the other is fundamentally right, what possible justification is there for giving the wrong one? Language and understanding are the keys. It is not good to define one set of words, which by your definition, as fundamentally wrong unless you can produce the words in the language and way needed to explain what you think is fundamentally right. If the words put into the mind of the reader, not you, the basics of what is being described, then the description being used is OK. Not pure technically correct I agree, but it has lifted that read one step up the ladder. Unless you can produce the words in the language and way needed for the target you will not help by talking about Newton, pure energy, etc etc or insisting on pure technical answers.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 1, 2016 12:15:07 GMT
I did provide suggested clear and simple and brief text, it was ignored. There then was a prolonged debate amongst "experts" some of whom were trying to defy the basic laws of physics. That was the point that it was necessary to go back to basic theory. Of course, none of that was intended as "final output". Anyway I know you of old, this conversation will continue ping pong style until D9's servers are full, and I now have something important to do.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Nov 1, 2016 12:17:11 GMT
Now a question to all. How much of this thread would have survived and how many modques, ban or suspension would have been issued on CW?
ETA I suspect that some simple explanations trying to get a concept across do defy the laws of physics etc. But they get the concept across and the idea. Then you slowly build.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Nov 1, 2016 12:18:56 GMT
I did provide suggested clear and simple and brief text, it was ignored. There then was a prolonged debate amongst "experts" some of whom were trying to defy the basic laws of physics. That was the point that it was necessary to go back to basic theory. Of course, none of that was intended as "final output". Anyway I know you of old, this conversation will continue ping pong style until D9's servers are full, and I now have something important to do. Not on my thread your explanation was not understandable to the target read. I know that for fact.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 1, 2016 12:21:36 GMT
I did provide suggested clear and simple and brief text, it was ignored. There then was a prolonged debate amongst "experts" some of whom were trying to defy the basic laws of physics. That was the point that it was necessary to go back to basic theory. Of course, none of that was intended as "final output". Anyway I know you of old, this conversation will continue ping pong style until D9's servers are full, and I now have something important to do. Not on my thread your explanation was not understandable to the target read. I know that for fact. On your thread you said that in bulk, the battery limited the current flowing. I said that was wrong, in bulk the charger limited the current flowing. What is not understandable about that? Your definition of bulk was in fact the definition of absorption. Why get it wrong for the sake of it? anyway, I'm definitely off now!
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Nov 1, 2016 12:30:51 GMT
Now a question to all. How much of this thread would have survived and how many modques, ban or suspension would have been issued on CW? But we know that. That's why we're here. At least that's why I'm here, and I know (because he said so publicly) that TonyB is here because Dan slapped him down for criticising some very poor and potentially dangerous advice from someone we must assume is one of Dan's mates. We're completely OT here now but if you go back to 2009 and earlier on CW you will find some great slanging matches in some of the threads. They were interesting and illuminating and the fluffy bunnies who complained were ignored. Since then the bunnies have been getting their way and the forum was ruined.
|
|