| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Batteries, again, sorry
I suspect that this has already been discussed, but since I don't have
access to the archives, I beg your indulgence... We have new, L16H batteries in our 880AH house bank, flooded cell. In a perfect world to make them last longest, I know that they'd never be allowed to drop below 100% capacity - but then, what's the point of having a battery? I also know that running them down to 20% on a regular basis will make for a short life span. So, the question (well, maybe two) is: What is the recommended, real-world cycle? That is, how low do you take your flooded batteries on a regular basis? Related, is there a readily available source for information on the numbers of cycles to a given percentage of discharge in a battery life span? I.e., 500 cycles to 50% and back to 100% but only 100 cycles to 20% and up to 75%, or the like (recognizing that these numbers have no relation to any battery made)? Second, what do those of you with flooded cells, not connected to the shore power all the time (that is, full-time cruisers or rarely connected to the utility-based power cord) have as a practice? What charge regime, and how, do you observe? Never below X%, seldom above Y%/Always more than Y% of capacity? We have a variety of charging sources and differing loads which makes for days when we may see close to 50%, and days when it never leaves "full" - and since we can't "force" "full" reasonably, we want to make sure we're not unreasonably asking for our batteries performance. Knowledgeable assistance appreciated, and your practice, whether empirical or just "is" would also be appreciated. Thanks. L8R Skip (Gundlach) and crew, lying Lucaya, over (what else??) wifi among the 14 available open sites we can see Morgan 461 #2 St. Thomas USVI SV Flying Pig KI4MPC See our galleries at www.justpickone.org/skip/gallery ! Follow us at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheFlyingPigLog and/or http://groups.google.com/group/flyingpiglog "And then again, when you sit at the helm of your little ship on a clear night, and gaze at the countless stars overhead, and realize that you are quite alone on a wide, wide sea, it is apt to occur to you that in the general scheme of things you are merely an insignificant speck on the surface of the ocean; and are not nearly so important or as self-sufficient as you thought you were. Which is an exceedingly wholesome thought, and one that may effect a permanent change in your deportment that will be greatly appreciated by your friends."- James S. Pitkin |
Batteries, again, sorry
"Flying Pig" wrote in news:gsb96s$bp9$1
@news.motzarella.org: What is the recommended, real-world cycle? That is, how low do you t 50%.....run them from 50% to 95% charge. Mine are 8 years old in an old stepvan running like that. The shop runs on them all day. L16H is a great power source very cheap! USE ONLY PURE DISTILLED, NOT DEMINERALIZED, WATER! The dissolved iron and calcium in common water simply consume the acid and plate the lead with crap. There's plenty of iron and other odd metals built into the plates to do that for you....especially in a battery THIS cheap. No need to add to the problem not using real distilled pure water to top off at REGULAR intervals....not like most boaters when the lights get dim...(c;] -- ================================================== ========== Larry I've decided to worship Thor. My god has a hammer and isn't afraid to use it. Your god is a pacifist who got nailed to a tree. Any questions? |
Batteries, again, sorry
On 17 apr, 23:16, Larry wrote:
USE ONLY PURE DISTILLED, NOT DEMINERALIZED, WATER! * I use water produced by my watermaker from drinking water that also was produced by my watermaker. When I put my TDS meter in it, it shows less than 100 ppm. What do you think of that? Len. |
Batteries, again, sorry
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:10:59 -0400, "Flying Pig"
wrote: I suspect that this has already been discussed, but since I don't have access to the archives, I beg your indulgence... We have new, L16H batteries in our 880AH house bank, flooded cell. In a perfect world to make them last longest, I know that they'd never be allowed to drop below 100% capacity - but then, what's the point of having a battery? I also know that running them down to 20% on a regular basis will make for a short life span. So, the question (well, maybe two) is: What is the recommended, real-world cycle? That is, how low do you take your flooded batteries on a regular basis? Related, is there a readily available source for information on the numbers of cycles to a given percentage of discharge in a battery life span? I.e., 500 cycles to 50% and back to 100% but only 100 cycles to 20% and up to 75%, or the like (recognizing that these numbers have no relation to any battery made)? Second, what do those of you with flooded cells, not connected to the shore power all the time (that is, full-time cruisers or rarely connected to the utility-based power cord) have as a practice? What charge regime, and how, do you observe? Never below X%, seldom above Y%/Always more than Y% of capacity? We have a variety of charging sources and differing loads which makes for days when we may see close to 50%, and days when it never leaves "full" - and since we can't "force" "full" reasonably, we want to make sure we're not unreasonably asking for our batteries performance. Knowledgeable assistance appreciated, and your practice, whether empirical or just "is" would also be appreciated. Thanks. L8R Batteries should never be run below 50% if you want decent life from them. Further, no battery likes to remain below 100% for extended periods. They should be recharged promptly after being run down. Similarly, batteries not being used should be kept at or very near fully charged at all times. You can, of course vary from this, but it will be at the expense of battery life and capacity. |
Batteries, again, sorry
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:10:59 -0400, "Flying Pig"
wrote: What is the recommended, real-world cycle? That is, how low do you take your flooded batteries on a regular basis? Related, is there a readily available source for information on the numbers of cycles to a given percentage of discharge in a battery life span? I.e., 500 cycles to 50% and back to 100% but only 100 cycles to 20% and up to 75%, or the like (recognizing that these numbers have no relation to any battery made)? There is some pretty good information in this deep cycle battery FAQ: http://www.windsun.com/Batteries/Battery_FAQ.htm 50% depth-of-discharge is a good working average with 80% an absolute maximum. Our house bank consists of 4 Trojan golf cart batteries and we get about 3 years out of them adhering closely to those guidelines. I have seen figures quoted that regular cycling to 80% DOD will cut battery life in half. |
Batteries, again, sorry
|
Batteries, again, sorry
"Flying Pig" wrote in message
... I suspect that this has already been discussed, but since I don't have access to the archives, I beg your indulgence... We have new, L16H batteries in our 880AH house bank, flooded cell. In a perfect world to make them last longest, I know that they'd never be allowed to drop below 100% capacity - but then, what's the point of having a battery? I also know that running them down to 20% on a regular basis will make for a short life span. So, the question (well, maybe two) is: What is the recommended, real-world cycle? That is, how low do you take your flooded batteries on a regular basis? Related, is there a readily available source for information on the numbers of cycles to a given percentage of discharge in a battery life span? I.e., 500 cycles to 50% and back to 100% but only 100 cycles to 20% and up to 75%, or the like (recognizing that these numbers have no relation to any battery made)? Second, what do those of you with flooded cells, not connected to the shore power all the time (that is, full-time cruisers or rarely connected to the utility-based power cord) have as a practice? What charge regime, and how, do you observe? Never below X%, seldom above Y%/Always more than Y% of capacity? We have a variety of charging sources and differing loads which makes for days when we may see close to 50%, and days when it never leaves "full" - and since we can't "force" "full" reasonably, we want to make sure we're not unreasonably asking for our batteries performance. Knowledgeable assistance appreciated, and your practice, whether empirical or just "is" would also be appreciated. Thanks. L8R Skip (Gundlach) and crew, lying Lucaya, over (what else??) wifi among the 14 available open sites we can see Morgan 461 #2 St. Thomas USVI SV Flying Pig KI4MPC See our galleries at www.justpickone.org/skip/gallery ! Follow us at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheFlyingPigLog and/or http://groups.google.com/group/flyingpiglog "And then again, when you sit at the helm of your little ship on a clear night, and gaze at the countless stars overhead, and realize that you are quite alone on a wide, wide sea, it is apt to occur to you that in the general scheme of things you are merely an insignificant speck on the surface of the ocean; and are not nearly so important or as self-sufficient as you thought you were. Which is an exceedingly wholesome thought, and one that may effect a permanent change in your deportment that will be greatly appreciated by your friends."- James S. Pitkin You have a big problem, Skippy. The problem is you are trying to run what amounts to the average size house ashore on batteries. Considering your total power usage you need a battery bank of at least 20 (yes, I said TWENTY) of those Trojan deep cycle six-volt batteries. Then you need a separate battery bank of at least 2 heavy duty cranking batteries for your starter. You should do either of three things. 1) continue to be an energy hog and plan on running your diesel with heavy duty alternator for at least 8 hours a day to properly charge the above suggested battery bank. 2) invest in an 8KW diesel variable output genset and run it 24/7 and reduce the size of the suggested battery bank by a factor of five. 3) get rid of 80% of the crap in your boat that runs on electricity that you don't need anyway and start acting like a sensible cruiser and have a battery bank of 4 Trojans plus two starter batteries and charge them using photovoltaics (400 watts worth) plus wind generator and stick to using no more electricity per day than these input. Wilbur Hubbard |
Batteries, again, sorry
"Mark Borgerson" wrote in message
g... RO filters DO NOT pass dissolved metals. If they did they would be of little use in generating fresh water from sea water. Unless you use a laboratory-quality still, RO water will be as pure as distilled water if the filter is operated properly. Mark Borgerson WRONG! Even the best membranes may pass up to 5% of heavy metal ions. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TFX-46WM6V7-1R&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&vie w=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_use rid=10&md5=aabc45cb84f81de69db133da6e5cf12c This is far more than proper distilled water using heat and condensation. Wilbur Hubbard |
Batteries, again, sorry
|
Batteries, again, sorry
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 21:58:43 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: This is far more than proper distilled water using heat and condensation. They used to make stills that ran off the exhaust heat from engine or generator. They would give you several gallons of water for each gallon of fuel burned. The evaporators on ships used to use the heat from condensing water to boil more water at reduced pressure. They had so called quadruple effect evaporators. Casady |
Batteries, again, sorry
Mark Borgerson wrote in
g: RO filters DO NOT pass dissolved metals. If they did they would be of little use in generating fresh water from sea water. Unless you use a laboratory-quality still, RO water will be as pure as distilled water if the filter is operated properly. Mark Borgerson Then were does the 100ppm dissolved solids come from? RO will NEVER be as pure as distilled water.... -- ================================================== ========== Larry I've decided to worship Thor. My god has a hammer and isn't afraid to use it. Your god is a pacifist who got nailed to a tree. Any questions? |
Batteries, again, sorry
Mark Borgerson wrote in
g: Neither RO filters nor distillation are particularly effective in removing metal ions if you then use metal pipes or containers for the reulting water. To get lab quality water generally requires double distillation and deionization. For drinking water made from seawater, RO filters may result in a few parts per thousand of sodium and chlorine and a few hundred parts per billion of heavier metals. This is probably comparable to still that you will find on a boat---but the RO filter will be a lot more energy efficient. Mark Borgerson You don't need lab quality water for batteries, just water free of anything that combines with sulphuric acid to form salts, using up the acid in the cells. However, my water made with this: http://www.waterwise.com/productcart...p?idproduct=24 I have two. They had a slew of bad clixon thermostats so I bought them broken for nothing and repaired. The boiler seals are also bad. I replaced the stupid seals with neoprene fuel hose made into a "pressurizing O-ring" with a plastic nipple to hold the ends tight. When the heat hits it, the air inside the hose expands and you can't get the lid off before it cools...(c;] Condensed in stainless steel tubing and collected through activated carbon to eliminate distillates of mostly benzene and hexane, the water will not conduct electricity at 2000VDC. The meter doesn't even wiggle. The only thing in my lab report was a part per billion polycarbonate from the collector. I store in glass. You never had a better drink of water than I make....one drop at a time. -- ================================================== ========== Larry I've decided to worship Thor. My god has a hammer and isn't afraid to use it. Your god is a pacifist who got nailed to a tree. Any questions? |
Batteries, again, sorry
Richard Casady wrote in
: On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 21:58:43 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote: This is far more than proper distilled water using heat and condensation. They used to make stills that ran off the exhaust heat from engine or generator. They would give you several gallons of water for each gallon of fuel burned. The evaporators on ships used to use the heat from condensing water to boil more water at reduced pressure. They had so called quadruple effect evaporators. Casady They also have vacuum evaporators. It takes lots less heat to make steam in a vacuum. It's really too bad boats waste all that heat overboard cooling the exhaust with seawater and just dumping it, instead of converting it to steam and condensing drinking water. I suspect they think the boaters too lazy to operate such a system that requires constant flushing and manual maintenance, which it does. -- ================================================== ========== Larry I've decided to worship Thor. My god has a hammer and isn't afraid to use it. Your god is a pacifist who got nailed to a tree. Any questions? |
Batteries, again, sorry
In article ,
says... Mark Borgerson wrote in g: RO filters DO NOT pass dissolved metals. If they did they would be of little use in generating fresh water from sea water. Unless you use a laboratory-quality still, RO water will be as pure as distilled water if the filter is operated properly. Mark Borgerson Then were does the 100ppm dissolved solids come from? RO will NEVER be as pure as distilled water.... Not at the laboratory still level, for sure. But it compares well to large-scale distillation plants used to produce drinking water: http://www.oas.org/dsd/publications/...ea59e/ch21.htm "Desalination of seawater is a relatively expensive method of obtaining freshwater. The MSF system has proved to be a very efficient system, when properly maintained. It produces high quality product water (between 2 and 150 mg/1 of total dissolved solids at the plant in Curaçao); TDS contents of less than 10 mg/1 have been reported from the VC plant in Chile. Because the water is boiled, the risk of bacterial or pathogenic virus contamination of the product water is minimal. " Shipboard evaporators also have other problems: the resulting water needs pH adjustment and and treatment to kill bacteria, since the water is often distilled at only 60 deg. C. http://www.facetinternational.net/potabilizer.htm Mark Borgerson |
Batteries, again, sorry
Mark Borgerson wrote in
: Shipboard evaporators also have other problems: the resulting water needs pH adjustment and and treatment to kill bacteria, since the water is often distilled at only 60 deg. C. RO sounds great and I know you love yours....but, alas, there's a long trail of problems related to RO its supporters, and especially manufacturers and dealers, don't like to talk about. Too many people forget about the bacteria piled up against the membrane at high pressure. When that bacteria breaks under pressure, its toxins DO pass through the membrane making your RO love boat cruise much more interesting, but lots less fun, than you'd planned. If you put "reverse osmosis toxins" into Google, the first 9 pages of findings are all ads for RO systems, or "reports", disguised RO ads from someone hawking RO products. Like reading a boat magazine, there's never a discouraging word. If there are bad reports not from the industry, they have them well buried in bull**** Google finds. It's very hard to get unspoiled information from neutral sources..... -- ================================================== ========== Larry I've decided to worship Thor. My god has a hammer and isn't afraid to use it. Your god is a pacifist who got nailed to a tree. Any questions? |
Batteries, again, sorry
In article ,
says... Mark Borgerson wrote in : Shipboard evaporators also have other problems: the resulting water needs pH adjustment and and treatment to kill bacteria, since the water is often distilled at only 60 deg. C. RO sounds great and I know you love yours....but, alas, there's a long trail of problems related to RO its supporters, and especially manufacturers and dealers, don't like to talk about. I don't have a boat large enough to need an RO filter---in fact I don't have a boat at all since I donated my Windrose 18 to the sea scouts. I've used RO filters to generate ultra-pure water for the testing of optical oceanographic instruments. However, we were more concerned with particulates than with a few ppm of dissolved salts. (Scattering makes PPB of solid particles detectable, but dissolved minerals don't really show up). I also maintain a GE home RO system that generates about 18l per day that is in my wife's greenhouse. It runs off the pressure from our well. A few ppm of salts and bacterial residue aren't much of a problem there. Too many people forget about the bacteria piled up against the membrane at high pressure. When that bacteria breaks under pressure, its toxins DO pass through the membrane making your RO love boat cruise much more interesting, but lots less fun, than you'd planned. We had to clean our RO filters with a pretty strong peroxide solution a few times per month to flush the junk off the filters. I suspect that filters for seawater may need cleaning even more often, as the lab was starting with tap water passed through a 1-micron filter. Why do you assume that the materials passing through the filter are toxins? Perhaps they're nutritional carbohydrates? Such assumptions and wording seem to show a bias against RO filters in your response. In any case, you probably get a good dose of the same 'toxins' in your city drinking water after the chlorination has killed the bacteria. If you put "reverse osmosis toxins" into Google, the first 9 pages of findings are all ads for RO systems, or "reports", disguised RO ads from someone hawking RO products. Like reading a boat magazine, there's never a discouraging word. If there are bad reports not from the industry, they have them well buried in bull**** Google finds. It's very hard to get unspoiled information from neutral sources..... You need to be a bit smarter in your searches,then. I Googled "RO filter bacterial accumulation" and found this in the first link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...B6TFX-42KDG2J- N&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view =c&_acct=C000050221 &_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5 =b78fb8fa60f8aef434d57d032c5d96df "No doubt that biofouling is one of the most serious problems associated with the RO membrane systems which has not yet been effectively solved." OTOH, if you get your ship's water from flash distillation, you have to worry about contamination from volatile organics. For this reason, many ships don't start producing water until they get 12 miles offshore. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/2372744/...oard-Drinking- Water-Chemical-Contaminants Mark Borgerson |
Batteries, again, sorry
Mark Borgerson wrote in
g: Why do you assume that the materials passing through the filter are toxins? Perhaps they're nutritional carbohydrates? Such assumptions and wording seem to show a bias against RO filters in your response. In any case, you probably get a good dose of the same 'toxins' in your city drinking water after the chlorination has killed the bacteria. AS it was explained to me, these boat RO systems, to be small, use very high pressure on the membrane, as opposed to large commercial systems like a public utility would use in a purification plant at low pressure. This high pressure traps the bacteria against the membrane, where I suppose it's like his little head is stuck in a hole his body can't fit through, a crude cartoon-of-the-mind's-eye. Now trapped in a high pressure environment, at some point, the bacteria explodes, releasing its internal load of really small toxins onto the surface of the membrane where it can, because of its tiny size crude molecules pass through the membrane with the H2O, contaminating the outlet water. The key, I'm told, is the high pressure, which rips many biologicals apart into tiny pieces. I don't see why this is not a possible scenario and a source of possible sickness for the drinkers. We're still talking about FILTRATION. Anything small in molecular size passes through because the holes have to be big enough for water to pass through in large quantities. There are a lot of such molecules. Water is a fairly large molecule because of its oxygen atom's atomic number. I just don't think it's the holy grail the sales brochures profess it to be. Dissent against the RO community is treated the same way as someone who wonders how 6,000,000 bodies in Nazi concentration camps fit in such a tiny space...to be attacked at all costs! -- ================================================== ========== Larry I've decided to worship Thor. My god has a hammer and isn't afraid to use it. Your god is a pacifist who got nailed to a tree. Any questions? |
Batteries, again, sorry
|
Batteries, again, sorry
Larry, I usually agree with your posts, but I have to respectfully
disagree with these about RO water. I've been "making" and drinking RO water for several years with no problems nor any ill effects. I have no affliation with any RO watermaker company other than as a customer. On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 04:16:01 +0000, Larry wrote: AS it was explained to me, these boat RO systems, to be small, use very high pressure on the membrane, as opposed to large commercial systems like a public utility would use in a purification plant at low pressure. Incorrect. The reason high pressure is used is because the salt concentration of seawater results in an osmotic pressure of about 800 psi. Brackish water generally ranges between 200 and 400 psi. Home RO systems (and brackish water systems) use different membranes and lower presures - 30 - 65 psi for home, freshwater systems. Same for large commercial _freshwater_ plants; sal****er ones use the higher pressure with seawater membranes. This high pressure traps the bacteria against the membrane, where I suppose it's like his little head is stuck in a hole his body can't fit through, a crude cartoon-of-the-mind's-eye. Never heard of that. I guess it could happen if feed water flow were insufficient. Generally a system is set up for 10% recovery. That is feedwater flow is 10 times freshwater output. 60 GPH feed to get out 6 GPH of potable water. So 90% of the feed water is rushing through the system, in one end and out the other. This flow rate, along with the design of the housing and membrane result in optimum "washing" of the membrane surface. I think you may be under the impression that the "other end" is closed off and all the water is forced though the membrane. Not so. Shutting down with seawater in the system, then not running it for too long, will result in bacterial growth and eventual "plugging" of the membrane. The result is reduced product water flow with no "pieces" of bacteria included. Now trapped in a high pressure environment, at some point, the bacteria explodes, releasing its internal load of really small toxins onto the surface of the membrane where it can, because of its tiny size crude molecules pass through the membrane with the H2O, contaminating the outlet water. The key, I'm told, is the high pressure, which rips many biologicals apart into tiny pieces. I don't see why this is not a possible scenario and a source of possible sickness for the drinkers. Doesn't happen. The bacteria normally is not "trapped". The little bugger is spun around and bounced around, then spit out of the reject line. BTW, the poor little creature would implode, not explode. The nearest thing to your scenerio occurs right at startup and lasts at most 5 minutes. There will be a certain amount of "smelly stuff" in the water, mostly hydrogen sulfide. That "rotten egg" smell. Running enough product water, about a gallon, through the system just before shutting down minimizes this. This is because seawater (or river water) contains organic material: plankton, seaweeds and flotsam of all types. After a watermaker has been turned off, this material soon begins to decompose, both in the prefilters and the membrane housings. As it does, it breaks down into a number of chemicals composed of smaller molecules. Some of these molecules are small enough to pass through the watermaker membrane along with the product water. Again, all this is flushed out after a few minutes. It's simply a matter of rejecting the first few minutes of product water. Rick Morel S/V Valkyrie http://www.morelr.com/valkyrie |
Batteries, again, sorry
Mark Borgerson wrote in
g: You still haven't shown why you think the bacterial fragments are 'toxins'. Toxins are generally considered to be special-purpose chemicals released by an organism for a specific purpose. Toxin: "A poisonous substance, especially a protein, that is produced by living cells or organisms and is capable of causing disease when introduced into the body tissues but is often also capable of inducing neutralizing antibodies or antitoxins" This definition doesn't seem to include fragments of dead bacteria. First, this isn't court so I don't have to "show" you anything. People get sick drinking it, so it's a toxin. People get sick on cruise ships drinking it, too. -- ================================================== ========== Larry I've decided to worship Thor. My god has a hammer and isn't afraid to use it. Your god is a pacifist who got nailed to a tree. Any questions? |
Batteries, again, sorry
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 04:16:01 +0000, Larry wrote:
AS it was explained to me, these boat RO systems, to be small, use very high pressure on the membrane, as opposed to large commercial systems like a public utility would use in a purification plant at low pressure. Higher pressure is needed to desalinate sea water, much higher. It depends on the quantity of disolved salts, not membrane size. |
Batteries, again, sorry
Rick Morel wrote: This high pressure traps the bacteria against the membrane, where I suppose it's like his little head is stuck in a hole his body can't fit through, a crude cartoon-of-the-mind's-eye. Never heard of that. Happens all the time. Biofilms are the bane of RO systems and need to be addressed through proper membrane care (cleaning, sanitizing, replacing, etc.). RO membranes provide a perfect substrate for bugs, and the constant flow provides a fresh source of nutrients. Take care of the system, however, and it need not be a problem. snip Now trapped in a high pressure environment, at some point, the bacteria explodes, releasing its internal load of really small toxins onto the surface of the membrane where it can, because of its tiny size crude molecules pass through the membrane with the H2O, contaminating the outlet water. The key, I'm told, is the high pressure, which rips many biologicals apart into tiny pieces. I don't see why this is not a possible scenario and a source of possible sickness for the drinkers. Doesn't happen. The bacteria normally is not "trapped". The little bugger is spun around and bounced around, then spit out of the reject line. That's *one* possibility of course, but with millions of opportunities, over time, many of the little buggers do get "caught". BTW, the poor little creature would implode, not explode. Well, considering its fluid filled, how would it implode? It will be lysed in either event. snip Again, all this is flushed out after a few minutes. It's simply a matter of rejecting the first few minutes of product water. Dumping the first few minutes of product is always a good idea. Keith Hughes |
Batteries, again, sorry
Mark Borgerson wrote: snip You still haven't shown why you think the bacterial fragments are 'toxins'. Toxins are generally considered to be special-purpose chemicals released by an organism for a specific purpose. Toxin: "A poisonous substance, especially a protein, that is produced by living cells or organisms and is capable of causing disease when introduced into the body tissues but is often also capable of inducing neutralizing antibodies or antitoxins" You're talking about "exotoxins". Larry is talking about endotoxins (I'm assuming). This definition doesn't seem to include fragments of dead bacteria. Endotoxins are typically lipopolysaccharide components of the cell membranes of gram negative bacteria (like pseudomonads which like to live in water). When the cells are lysed, the endotoxins are released. However, and a big however it is, endotoxins are generally in the range of 10 kda to 100000 kda or more, and the RO membranes are more in the 1 kda range relative to retention. We're talking *drinking* water here. The FDA allows the manufacture of Water for Injection to be manufactured with dual pass RO (i.e. safe for injecting into your veins). Problems do arise, however, when the pressure is jacked up to deal with poorly maintained plugged membranes, and you get seam or joint cracks, o-ring leaks, etc. that allow water to bypass the membranes. Like any other critical system, RO needs to be maintained properly to work properly. Keith Hughes |
Batteries, again, sorry
|
Batteries, again, sorry
The heck with this battery water stuff. Go Lithium-ion! http://www.genasun.com/genasunbattery.shtml Only 5 grand a pop! Gordon |
Batteries, again, sorry
Mark Borgerson wrote: In article , says... Thanks for the explanations. It's been decades since my last biology course. I'm not familiar with the kda term, Its kilo-dalton. One dalton is the mass of one Hydrogen atom. When you start talking about very minute masses - as in tangential flow (TFF) and diafiltration systems (like RO as an example)- daltons are a common unit, especially in the biotech world where TFF is commonly used for protein purification/extraction for example. Keith Hughes |
Batteries, again, sorry
In article ,
says... Mark Borgerson wrote: In article , says... Thanks for the explanations. It's been decades since my last biology course. I'm not familiar with the kda term, Its kilo-dalton. One dalton is the mass of one Hydrogen atom. When you start talking about very minute masses - as in tangential flow (TFF) and diafiltration systems (like RO as an example)- daltons are a common unit, especially in the biotech world where TFF is commonly used for protein purification/extraction for example. Must be more of a biochemical thing. In chemical oceanography, we generally used either AMUs or micro-moles. Mark Borgerson |
Batteries, again, sorry
Mark Borgerson wrote: In article , says... Mark Borgerson wrote: In article , says... Thanks for the explanations. It's been decades since my last biology course. I'm not familiar with the kda term, Its kilo-dalton. One dalton is the mass of one Hydrogen atom. When you start talking about very minute masses - as in tangential flow (TFF) and diafiltration systems (like RO as an example)- daltons are a common unit, especially in the biotech world where TFF is commonly used for protein purification/extraction for example. Must be more of a biochemical thing. In chemical oceanography, we generally used either AMUs or micro-moles. 1 Dalton = 1 AMU. Since there are historically a couple different definitions for AMU (physical and chemical), a Unified Atomic Mass Unit was identified, and that equals 1 Dalton. Neither is an official SI unit, but both are recognized by SI. In biochemistry (esp. proteins) the dalton is the unit that's used, and since UF/DF is really geared to the biochem industry, that's what they use as well. What good are units if you can't use them to confuse everyone? :-) Keith Hughes |
Batteries, again, sorry
|
Batteries, again, sorry
|
Batteries, again, sorry
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 07:59:35 -0500, Rick Morel
wrote: Implode/explode. Okay, I'll go with both are impossible because it's fluid filled. This then negates any effect of high (or low) ambient pressure in either event, so that argument is thrown out. If you put them in pure water the salts inside the cell will suck in water. Osmosis. The cell membrane will become tighter, although I don't know about actually exploding. Depends on the cell, I think. Casady |
Batteries, again, sorry
In article ,
says... wrote in : What good are units if you can't use them to confuse everyone? :-) Keith Hughes "If we knew what we were doing, we couldn't call it research!" Albert Einstein Maybe that works for mathematics. For the physical sciences, I would probably change it a bit: "If we knew the results of this experiement beforehand, we wouldn't call it research." You can know how to set up the experiment without knowing the results ahead of time. Mark Borgerson |
Batteries, again, sorry
In article ,
says... In article , says... The heck with this battery water stuff. Go Lithium-ion! http://www.genasun.com/genasunbattery.shtml Only 5 grand a pop! Gordon Which raises a question about battery-driven cars. Those LiH batteries don't last very long in my laptop computer. How long will they last in a car given normal neglect? Hybrid cars are designed to keep the batteries between 70 and 100 percent charged at all times. That won't be so easy with an all-electric car. However, they may have the system set up to use less than the full capacity of the batteries to prolong the life. Mark Borgerson |
Batteries, again, sorry
Rick Morel wrote: On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 08:22:29 -0700, wrote: snip snip BTW, the poor little creature would implode, not explode. Well, considering its fluid filled, how would it implode? It will be lysed in either event. Definition of lysed: The disintegration of a cell resulting from destruction of its membrane by a chemical substance, especially an antibody or enzyme This is *one* definition. There are a number of others, and it is commonly used for any action, mechanical/chemical/biochemical, that ruptures the cell wall/membrane releasing the cell contents. It's from the Greek "lysis" which just means a loosening, setting free, releasing, or dissolution. I honestly don't see how this would apply, unless it's a normal event of decomposition? Is that it? I plead ignorance and welcome any info. Yes, it is primarily through decomposition. As a biofilm forms on the membrane (a layer of growing critters), the base, or underlying organisms get farther and farther away from the source of nutrients (the water flow) and they die. They then decompose, but instead of getting flushed away by the water flow, their detritus gets trapped by the layer of living and dying bugs above them. More food for the growing bugs. Implode/explode. Okay, I'll go with both are impossible because it's fluid filled. This then negates any effect of high (or low) ambient pressure in either event, so that argument is thrown out. snip Again, all this is flushed out after a few minutes. It's simply a matter of rejecting the first few minutes of product water. Dumping the first few minutes of product is always a good idea. Actually I would say it's a necessary idea. Wait, that reads sarcastic. I don't mean it that way. I simply mean that I think it's a necessary part of using an RO system. Depends on whether or not you want your first drink of the day "fortified" or not ;-) Rather than play theory, here's the results of my real world experience cruising and supplying water from RO: Well, it's not theory. It's 25+ years experience with qualifying high purity water systems, all of which utilized RO as one part of the purification process. snip Don't get a too big watermaker. Size it to run at least a couple hours a day, and run it every day to top off the tank. Membrane fouling and all that bad stuff happen when they're idle. Happens whether they're idle or not, but your point is well taken. My experience is with units in the 2000-3000gph range, typically running 24/7 with treated city water as feed. Still require routine cleaning, and biocide treatment. Stagnant water is *always* a bad idea... It bears repeating. If you don't run it every day, or at least every two or three days, you will have problems. Do the biocide treatment (pickle it!) if you're not going to run it for more than a few days. Thousands (tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands?) of people drink RO water every day. On boats, ships, islands, Israel, and now California from processed sewerage water. I guess some get sick from it. It would be interesting to see what percentage compared to those that get sick from city water and bottled water. I doubt you'll find *one* case of sickness from drinking water made from a properly maintained RO system. But it does bear repeating that RO is a very good incubator for water bugs if not maintained and operated sensibly. Not that hard to do as you obviously have experienced. Keith Hughes |
Batteries, again, sorry
"Mark Borgerson" wrote in message g... In article , says... In article , says... The heck with this battery water stuff. Go Lithium-ion! http://www.genasun.com/genasunbattery.shtml Only 5 grand a pop! Gordon Which raises a question about battery-driven cars. Those LiH batteries don't last very long in my laptop computer. How long will they last in a car given normal neglect? Hybrid cars are designed to keep the batteries between 70 and 100 percent charged at all times. That won't be so easy with an all-electric car. However, they may have the system set up to use less than the full capacity of the batteries to prolong the life. Even if the dial on the dashboard is set to indicate 'recharge' when the battery falls to, say, 70%, people out on the road are going to discover that you can go on driving for quite a while after this so the battery is likely to go much lower than planned on many occasions. Current advertisements suggest battery life will be about 5 years but I suspect this is optimistic for reason above. When a large and complex battery needs replacing, say after 5 years, the way auto spares are priced will ensure that it will be more sensible to buy a new car and start afresh rather than spending as much as a 5 year old car is worth in order to renew its battery. And do not forget there is sure to be an 'environmental' charge to safely dispose of the toxic substances in the old battery. |
Batteries, again, sorry
Mark Borgerson wrote in
g: In article , says... In article , says... The heck with this battery water stuff. Go Lithium-ion! http://www.genasun.com/genasunbattery.shtml Only 5 grand a pop! Gordon Which raises a question about battery-driven cars. Those LiH batteries don't last very long in my laptop computer. How long will they last in a car given normal neglect? Hybrid cars are designed to keep the batteries between 70 and 100 percent charged at all times. That won't be so easy with an all-electric car. However, they may have the system set up to use less than the full capacity of the batteries to prolong the life. Mark Borgerson Lithium-Ion batteries in any product will not discharge past 50% as there is a built-in nanny IC in ever battery that prevents deep discharge, which destroys them completely. Li-Ion, unlike Ni-Cd or Ni-Mh, are FLOAT batteries like your boat. The less you discharge them, the longer they live. What's killing his laptop is he leaves it discharged, rather than immediately recharging it asap, or doesn't recharge it until it's fully run down, the complete enemy of the Li-Ion battery pack. Continuously discharging a laptop battery to the point of shutdown....then leaving it in this state for hours instead of diligently recharging asap just kills them. REcharging, even if only discharged 5%, asap will make them last the life of the laptop. Leaving them plugged in with the CHARGED light on does NOT destroy laptop batteries. There is one problem with Li-Ion battery packs....out of sync. The discharge curve stored in the IC gets further and further from the real charge state as time goes by in all Li-Ion/Li-Polymer battery packs. So, they APPEAR to hold less and less charge over time. What happens is the charging state IC's charging curve becomes out-of-sync with battery reality. To reset this IC, discharge the battery as far as the IC will allow you to, to the point of automatic shutdown...then, IMMEDIATELY recharge fully to recharge autoshutdown. Test the battery runtime and if it's still shorter than it was, repeat this procedure no more than three times. If it continues to fail, the battery pack is defective and should be replaced. But, you'll find many "bad batteries" will simply restore after 1 or 2 "cyclings" to reset the IC's charging curve to reality. My Gateway laptop and its original battery pack are 9 years old. The battery pack has been "reset" about every 6 months since it was new, recharging in between these resets (above procedure) as soon as possible no matter how much it was discharged by portable operation. Battery pack runtime is down around 10-15% in 9 years of operation like this, which is way beyond its service life. A little care and loving can really extend a Li-Ion/Li-Polymer battery life. NEVER RUN DOWN YOUR SELLPHONE BATTERY ANY MORE THAN YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST...Plug it back in to recharge at every opportunity and stop bragging about you only have to charge it twice a month. Do the above deep cycle once every 6 months. You'll never need another battery for it. Leave it plugged in as much as you can really lengthens its service life. DEEP CYCLING Li-Ion/Li-Polymer batteries over and over is suicide...just like a boat battery. -- ----- Larry You can tell there's very intelligent life in the Universe because none of them have ever tried to contact us..... |
Batteries, again, sorry
"Edgar" wrote in
: Even if the dial on the dashboard is set to indicate 'recharge' when the battery falls to, say, 70%, people out on the road are going to discover that you can go on driving for quite a while after this so the battery is likely to go much lower than planned on many occasions. Current advertisements suggest battery life will be about 5 years but I suspect this is optimistic for reason above. When a large and complex battery needs replacing, say after 5 years, the way auto spares are priced will ensure that it will be more sensible to buy a new car and start afresh rather than spending as much as a 5 year old car is worth in order to renew its battery. And do not forget there is sure to be an 'environmental' charge to safely dispose of the toxic substances in the old battery. The outrageous cost of hybrid car battery replacement, beyond the car company's masking warranty, will ensure these cars have near zero resale value if the used car buyer is staring at a $4000 battery pack replacement in the face in the used car lot. This must make new car dealers simply elated. The ultimate used car is one that is worthless at the end of the payment book. Hybrids will be the ultimate used car. So, you actually save nothing buying a hybrid exoticar noone but a $150/hour dealer jacking up parts prices 500% can repair. You either keeps swapping cars, which is just STUPID at these outrageous car prices.....or pay thousands and thousands at some point for a battery pack it MUST have! It's why I'm driving diesel Mercedes cars, even if they weren't running on free fuel from Chinese restaurants.....(c;] UPS trucks are diesels for a reason, you know.....None of them are hybrids or electric. Ask yourself why.... -- ----- Larry You can tell there's very intelligent life in the Universe because none of them have ever tried to contact us..... |
Batteries, again, sorry
|
Batteries, again, sorry
Gogarty wrote in news:20090421-210944.92.0
@Gogarty.news.bway.net: You make a very good point. Are there not emergency stills that work on sunlight? Yes. Only trouble is they are evaporators, not stills. Biology grows right up to around 180F so these solar evaps are easily contaminated, a source of nasty bacteria because they are just right inside in temperature. If you don't see it boil, it just isn't safe. -- ----- Larry You can tell there's very intelligent life in the Universe because none of them have ever tried to contact us..... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:15 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com