Richard J Kinch wrote:
DSK writes:

Jeff is right, current consumption from a
battery bank is commonly (and correctly) measured in in
amp-hours, and this is the important spec to most boaters.


Amp-hours is a unit of charge, and not a unit of current.

Of course. Thank you for repeating what I said.

Charge is not current.

Of course.


It is nonsensical to specify current in amp-hours. It is
like asking what gas mileage a car gets, and responding,
"18 gallons".

However, when you specify current as Amp-hours/day, its perfectly
valid. In fact, it is the preferred way of stating it in this
situation. That is what is stated in the spec sheet. Its like
stating the number of gallons of gas used in an average year, assuming
a certain number of miles.

You inability to grasp this is in direct contradiction to your claim
of having a PhD in some field of physics or engineering.


Of course people use the term "current" to mean a vague or
naive notion of "electricity", such as "house current".
But this doesn't excuse a technical specification giving
a bogus value in nonsensical units.

Perhaps you should look at the spec sheet again:
http://www.avxcel.com/docs/TropiKool...5%20r 1.1.pdf

Right next to the label "Nominal current" is a little number "(2)" -
this is called a "foot note" - and if you look down a few lines you
find: "(2) Average current consumption for 12 VDC systems over 24-hour
period." In other words, the value listed is Amp-hours per day, a
perfectly fine measure of current.

It appears that the only bogus aspect to this discussion is your claim
of any knowledge in the area.



.... Amp-hours are not a measure
of current.

Also correct, but then nobody (except you) is stating such.


You just said, "current consumption ... correctly measured in amp-
hours".

As noted, its current consumption over a 24 hour period, or Amp-hours
per day.

Jeff writes:

"(2) Average current consumption for 12 VDC systems over 24-hour
period." In other words, the value listed is Amp-hours per day, a
perfectly fine measure of current.

Learn the difference between intensive and extensive units. They do not
equate. Both the amp-hour statement and the footnote are thereby
nonsensical. A footnote of nonsense does not redeem the nonsense being
footnoted, as if they were some kind of inverse nonsense that cancels out.
Your "in other words" is just a blind assumption of what the author meant
to say, but didn't.

You inability to grasp this is in direct contradiction to your claim
of having a PhD in some field of physics or engineering.

Scoffing at the wise is the habit of fools.

I would gladly settle issues based on my credentials, but this is Usenet,
the river of foolishness. Engage at your peril.

Richard J Kinch wrote:
Jeff writes:


"(2) Average current consumption for 12 VDC systems over 24-hour
period." In other words, the value listed is Amp-hours per day, a
perfectly fine measure of current.


Learn the difference between intensive and extensive units.

I learned it. Did you? You really like to make yourself seem
important by using technical terms that you think others don't know.

They do not
equate. Both the amp-hour statement and the footnote are thereby
nonsensical.

This sounds like another huge backpedal. You seem to be implying that
the "Amp-hour" spec would make sense, except that they left out the
BTU rating, which I admitted up front would be very handy.

Of course, it only takes a little digging (very little, since the site
only has about 10 pages and its mentioned several times) to find the
the specs are based on the setup of the Cruising World tests performed
by Joe Minick in 1995. For better or worse, this report is a standard
often referenced when comparing units. In that test, a 5 cu. ft. box
with 4 inches of foam was used, with some added heat to simulate
usage. The daily load was 1850 BTU.

At 18 Amp-hours/day, the Tropikool rates substantially better than of
of the units tested by CW, except for the Glacier Bay.

A footnote of nonsense does not redeem the nonsense being
footnoted, as if they were some kind of inverse nonsense that cancels out.
Your "in other words" is just a blind assumption of what the author meant
to say, but didn't.

In other words, you made a huge blunder and now you're trying to find
a way to weasel out with a shred of your dignity intact. Sorry, way
too late.


You inability to grasp this is in direct contradiction to your claim
of having a PhD in some field of physics or engineering.


Scoffing at the wise is the habit of fools.

Yes, that's just what got you into this problem. Based on a quick
glance you decided to label this as "either a fraud, or a nutcase."
You thought no one would call you on that. Frankly, I don't know if
this technology will catch on, but labeling it as a "hoax" because you
don't understand it makes you the fool.



I would gladly settle issues based on my credentials, but this is Usenet,
the river of foolishness. Engage at your peril.

So now you're claiming you must be right, because you're a "Dawkter."
Maybe that carries some weight down in the boonies, but up here
in Cambridge, PhD's from MIT and Harvard are a dime a dozen, and most
who brag about their credentials are considered jackasses. What's
next? Are you going to claim you're a member of Mensa?

Richard J Kinch wrote:
Learn the difference between intensive and extensive units.


Jeff wrote:
I learned it. Did you? You really like to make yourself seem important
by using technical terms that you think others don't know.

Hey Jeff, why are you bothering to argue with this guy?

At least Jax was kind of funny.

DSK

DSK wrote:
Richard J Kinch wrote:

Learn the difference between intensive and extensive units.



Jeff wrote:

I learned it. Did you? You really like to make yourself seem
important by using technical terms that you think others don't know.


Hey Jeff, why are you bothering to argue with this guy?

At least Jax was kind of funny.

DSK


Yeah, its sad, this guy makes Jax look good.

Jeff writes:

Based on a quick
glance you decided to label this as "either a fraud, or a nutcase."
You thought no one would call you on that

All I have to go on is a Web site peddling a refrigeration device,
strangely void of any claim to pump any actual quantity of heat, and
specifying current in units of charge. The guts seems to have originated
from a project GE abandoned over 10 years ago, sponsored by the EPA and
Greenpeace, and since carried on by Dutchmen. No one has "called" me on
anything.

Maybe that carries some weight down in the boonies, but up here
in Cambridge, PhD's from MIT and Harvard are a dime a dozen, and most
who brag about their credentials are considered jackasses.

I didn't bring up the issue. People like you will mock others for being
uneducated simply because they are in a dispute, and then when some such
other turns out to be educated, you mock him for that, as you have just
done. I hope you get over your phobia of PhDs, especially the contempt
for honorifics, because whatever a dime's worth of them amounts to in
your benighted village, such a degree certifies mastery of a field,
often broadly so, and competence to produce original research.

One thing I will brag about, "Jeff", is being honest about who I am.
Posting with a pseudonym is for puny cowards, and women. It is not
respectable, or manly, to boast about "calling" someone, while hiding
under your mother's skirt. But Usenet is to many a game involving
feigned debate, and not a means to help discover truth through debate,
so I don't expect your faux Usenet persona will change.

Richard J Kinch wrote:
Jeff writes:


Based on a quick
glance you decided to label this as "either a fraud, or a nutcase."
You thought no one would call you on that


All I have to go on is a Web site peddling a refrigeration device,

All you saw was an easy target for your troll

strangely void of any claim to pump any actual quantity of heat,

actually it was there, you didn't see it

and specifying current in units of charge.

The "amp-hour/day" spec is perfectly correct as you know; you're too
stubborn to admit your blunder.

....

Maybe that carries some weight down in the boonies, but up here
in Cambridge, PhD's from MIT and Harvard are a dime a dozen, and most
who brag about their credentials are considered jackasses.


I didn't bring up the issue.

I'm sorry - I though you claimed you had a PhD. I guess I was mistaken.

People like you will mock others for being
uneducated simply because they are in a dispute,

I mock you because that seems to be your modus operandi. Might I
repeat once again, your first post in this thread included the words
"fraud" and "nutcase." I've been posting here for years - show me
another person I've mocked (not counting, of course, jax or bobsprit).

and then when some such
other turns out to be educated, you mock him for that, as you have just
done.

I mock you for bragging about your alleged degree, not for the
possibility that you were educated. For the last 40 years I've
studied and worked with the brightest of the bright - not once has any
of them claimed that they must be right because they are a doctor.

I hope you get over your phobia of PhDs,

Phobia? Is this your diagnosis, Doctor?

especially the contempt
for honorifics, because whatever a dime's worth of them amounts to in
your benighted village, such a degree certifies mastery of a field,
often broadly so, and competence to produce original research.

Of course, you have no idea what my level of education is.


One thing I will brag about, "Jeff", is being honest about who I am.
Posting with a pseudonym is for puny cowards, and women. It is not
respectable, or manly, to boast about "calling" someone, while hiding
under your mother's skirt.

I haven't tried to disguise my persona: Jeff is my real name. I've
frequently published pictures of my boat and discussed my home port.
If you go back a little ways you can find my email addy. I just don't
see the point of publishing my home address and phone number in a
usenet forum.

But Usenet is to many a game involving
feigned debate, and not a means to help discover truth through debate,
so I don't expect your faux Usenet persona will change.

You seem to know a lot about faux personae. I wonder what the real
Richard Finch would say about that?

Jeff writes:

I haven't tried to disguise my persona: Jeff is my real name.

Right. Your self-disclosed identity consists of "Jeff". 390,000,000
hits on Google for your "From:" header "Jeff" today. 119,000 for mine,
including all of the first 10.

I just don't
see the point of publishing my home address and phone number in a
usenet forum.

Identities should be disclosed to keep people honest and earnest,
something lacking on Usenet. Fear of disclosure (evidenced, for example,
by obscuring your email address, or using only your given name) is a
sign of weakness, timidity, and inability to defend yourself in the
virtual and/or real worlds. Without genuine identities, Usenet degrades
into a running farce, which it mostly is. Also, if we can also know
something about you, then you will be humanized, instead of being a
cranky abstraction worthy of disrespectful discourse.

Now by "identity", I don't mean your address or phone. Just enough
that, say, in a court of law, you could be tied to what you wrote, and
inversely, knowing your name, I can find out what else you've written.
This makes you accountable for your words. Lack of accountability makes
for mischief.

You seem to know a lot about faux personae. I wonder what the real
Richard Finch would say about that?

The funny thing is, the ugly side of Usenet stems from anonymity, but
when one tries to be up-front about one's identity (nonymous?), still
more abuse follows. Anonymous Usenet, like CB radio did in the 1970s,
reveals human nature from its normal civilized disguise.

Richard J Kinch wrote:

Scoffing at the wise is the habit of fools.

I would gladly settle issues based on my credentials, but this is Usenet,
the river of foolishness. Engage at your peril.

Don't feed the troll