connecting batteries in parallel or series, myth and theory

Sulphide"

wayne spouts it

Ooooh, Shakspere is alive and well

Sulphide"

The quote is clear - the struckcheral editar wrote that "the" gas is "hydogen" sulphide. How dare you dispute an expirt on both riting and baterys!

Wayne

Sulphide"

Looking at an internal gas chart there is no H2S evolved in an overcharge situation or a heavy discharge situation. There is O, H, CO2 and a dab of N from the cell but no H2S.

Wouldn't you think that would place some people ON for worrying.

Where do you think Roy places on such a list?

The retarded bastard is a racist and bigot, and you want to have casual conversation with the dippy bastard.

If you are replying to my post, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't snip all of my reply. If you meant to be replying to the same post I was, be more careful next time.

Luck; Ken

No, I mean that it's best to build a known practical design, before attempting to create a modification to that design. The point being that, done properly, it will work/succeed. It is only your modification where there is a need to "see if that succeeds or fails". (See below)

I'm beginning to get the impression that you actually have no intention of building a viable system, and that this is a purely "intellectual" endeavor, for your personal entertainment.

If that's the case: then the ideas you presented in your last post display a great lack of understanding, of the basic physics involved, and can't work.

Luck; Ken

Do you demand circuit diagrams for every IC you use too? GL1? Doping profiles? In this case there is very little difference between "hardware" and "firmware".

I didn't snip anything from that post. Can't help what happens in cyberspace.

Sulphide"

Just more of waynes dodgy science. If you can smell rotten eggs then you have hydrogen sulphide.

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:29:12 -0700 StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt wrote: | On 19 Aug 2008 14:57:43 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: | |>On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 03:56:02 -0400 Roy wrote: |>

|>| That's my point & that Flame Returdant excremental writ nitwit went & |>| fouled up the niceness :-( Can't just Off his stupid switch ? }:-) |>

|>Don't worry, he'll be the first to blow a fuse, someday. | | | Wouldn't you think that would place some people ON for worrying. | | Where do you think Roy places on such a list? | | The retarded bastard is a racist and bigot, and you want to have casual | conversation with the dippy bastard.

Whether I agree with him or not, whether he's right or not, as long as people stay civil, he does, too. His habits may be funny or confusing. But he does not initiate foul language like you do. He's continued foul language once someone else does, and I wish he would not do that. But that does not rank him as bad as others. I'll have civil conversation with those who are willing to do likewise.

In alt.engineering.electrical snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote: | On Aug 20, 12:59 am, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> In alt.engineering.electrical snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote: |>

|> | On Aug 19, 5:25 pm, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> |> In alt.engineering.electrical snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote: |> |>

|> |> | Lead by its nature is contaminated, with lead. And yes I have recycled |> |> | tonnes of batteries as I have replaced tonnes of batteries for many |> |> | people. |> |>

|> |> So pure lead is contaminated with lead. Now that's a weird way to think |> |> about things. But I'm not surprised it's coming from you. |> | |> | Are you really that thick? Lead is a serious contaminant in the |> | environment. Surprised you don't know that. |>

|> But in the contex of a lead plate, it is not a contaminate. Lead is |> what is supposed to be there. | | Ah but the context as stated by you was recycling when you said; | | "He should recycle his leftover lead, if it's not too terribly | contaminated. | Sounds like he probably has a lot of it. " | | In the context of recycling "LEAD" is the contaminate.

No. In that context, anything NOT lead, in the lead, contaminates the lead, and would have to be removed before recycling the lead into making new lead plates for new batteries ... not considering the trace elements generally added to the plates for various reasons.

What do you think happens to the old battery when you trade in your bad car battery to buy a new one? Do you think they're just taking it off your hands so you don't have a dead weight laying around? No. They send it to a battery recycler, or a battery manufacturer, that pays for them by weight, which is an approximation to how much lead they can recover from them for whatever the purpose is.

|> |> | So lets look at waynes assertion. My first set of batteries was a |> |> | parallel string set up. Learned a lesson from that. Followed by three |> |> | sets of second hand batteries, well, there was not the cash to do |> |> | better at the time. Big crime according to wayne. Still they got me |> |> | through to where I could buy a single string of batteries at the |> |> | correct Ah capacity. Listen to wayne and you too can do what I did. |> |>

|> |> All this proves is that you are having better luck with a single string. |> |> But based on your apparent knowledge, it is all about luck. You didn't |> |> try any of the known methods to deal with issues involving two parallel |> |> strings? |> | |> | Nonsense. It proves that I am right about parallel strings. I also |> | tried most of the geewizzery that every one seems to thing is going to |> | solve the inherent problems of parallel strings of batteries for home |> | power systems. |>

|> All it proves is you did parallel strings the wrong way N-1 times. | | No, it means that you will learn an expensive lesson. You have been | fishing for someone to tell you what you want to hear and found wayne.

I have found out there are ways to mitigate the issues of parallel batteries and strings. Apparently you never did; not even recently.

Again you have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge.

Really! The first and foremost method is to use a single string of the correct Ah rating.

Now you can tell us your new discoveries. Of course they won't be new, they won't be yours and they won't be effective in cost or application.

Been there, done it.

You will find that there is nothing "intellectual" about his attempt to find someone to tell him it is okay to do stupid things. Also a fair bet that "he" is in fact a sock puppet of either wayne or ron.

|> >But would he know exactly what gas these bubble contain |>

|> He's very clear about that, in one of previous battery wisdumb |> demonstrations, he asserted that "When charging, the gas given off is |> Hydogen Sulphide"

How high a charge rate are you talking about? Specific numbers, please.

|> >> Batteries can and |> >>will give off Hydrogen Sulphide under high charge rates. |>

|> > The quote is clear - the struckcheral editar wrote that "the" gas is |> > "hydogen" sulphide. How dare you dispute an expirt on both riting and |> > baterys! |>

|> > Wayne |>

|> Looking at an internal gas chart there is no H2S evolved in an overcharge |> situation or a heavy discharge situation. There is O, H, CO2 and a dab of N |> from the cell but no H2S. |>

|>

|> et alia |>

|> -- |>

|> Don Thompson |>

|> Stolen from Dan: "Just thinking, besides, I watched 2 dogs mating once, |> and that makes me an expert. " |>

|> There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance. |> ~Goethe |>

|> It is a worthy thing to fight for one's freedom; |> it is another sight finer to fight for another man's. |> ~Mark Twain | | Just more of waynes dodgy science. If you can smell rotten eggs then | you have hydrogen sulphide.

Searching the internet for cases where lead-acid batteries can give off hydrogen sulfide, I find virtually nothing. There's more about using H2S for recycling the chemistry of a battery.

I don't know all the chemistry possible. Given that there is H's and S's in the broth, getting H2S is not out of the question. But how? Electrolysis would give just H and O. Maybe an arc is needed to get H2S. I guess if you get an arc between plates, then you do have a very high rate of "charge".

The question to answer, then, is why/how does H2S get produced instead of just H and O, and under what exact chemical condition?

| If you are replying to my post, I would appreciate it if | you wouldn't snip all of my reply. If you meant to be | replying to the same post I was, be more careful next | time.

He was replying to my reply to your post. I snip things. The reason for quoting is NOT to make extra copies of someone else's post available. Instead, quoting is to "finger point" at the part of the post I am writing about specifically. I tend to try to leave about a paragraph so some amount of context is retained. But if someone wants to see the entire post I am replying to, they need to access that post itself.

| No, I mean that it's best to build a known practical | design, before attempting to create a modification | to that design. The point being that, done properly, | it will work/succeed. It is only your modification | where there is a need to "see if that succeeds or | fails". (See below) | | I'm beginning to get the impression that you actually | have no intention of building a viable system, and that | this is a purely "intellectual" endeavor, for your personal | entertainment.

The impression is off. I intend to be a viable system. But I do intent to jump directly to a different design (which has already changed as a result of info others have posted in this thread).

| If that's the case: then the ideas you presented in your | last post display a great lack of understanding, of the | basic physics involved, and can't work.

If something I suggest can't work, I'd like to know which that is, and to the extent possible, why. The "why" part might lead to a variation of design that perhaps could work. There are things I still don't know about batteries. But based on the experience reports here, it seems clear that if I install some battery system, and replace it a few times, and end up with a massive single cell string system, I still won't know anything about any of this. So just building and having and running a conventional system is not a very good way to learn. My approach is to learn as much of the science as I can, then plan my approach to experiments, and actually try things.

My Bad, you were replying to the same post I was and I misread the indentation on the thread titles. Looking back at it, there is an > in front of the "wrote" line that referenced me, which indicated that was a reference to the previous post.

My mistake.

Luck; Ken

Well, good luck with that, and since you have no more to provide to a discussion of the subject, farewell. If you ever have any actual practical information to impart someday, let us know. If you should ever be willing to disclose this "different design", there might be something to discuss.

For those of us in alt.energy.homepower we don't construct systems that employ battery banks strictly for the learning experience. (In fact I suspect most of us would rather avoid as many "learning experiences" as possible, as they are often painful.) It seems that you want to design "something different" based on our experience, but aren't interested in acquiring any of your own. You expect us to provide answers to suit your needs, but we just like to examine subjects of interest to us.

By "learn as much of the science as I can", you mean seeing what NewsGroup posters have to say about a subject? To be fare, I should inform you that we seldom cover as much "of the science" as you expect. Some things get left out of the discussions. But if you actually build something that works, you would have to have learned a few more things, related to the issue, than what might appear in a dozen threads.

Then there is the fact that actual projects get a lot of support from interested posters ("z" and his pelton wheel micro-hydro project for example.) If or when, you actually are trying to design or construct something real, try posting again. (Hopefully not too many will remember this run around.)

Luck; Ken