# effectiveness of solar & wind



## xort

I received this comment recently on a mailing list...

"Our experience over the years in the Caribbean is that solar panels work but only on boats which have minimal electrical requirements. Even the sailboats are running their engines to keep the refrigeration and freezer going once or twice a day. We had solar & wind on our sailboats so we do have lots of first hand experience with both.

We encounter sailboats with 4-6 panels and two wind generators who still run the diesel daily. That's a lot of space devoted to panels and a lot of noise 24/7 from the props."

So I'm looking for some real world experience with powering a boat's systems with solar & wind. 

I'm planning on a little over 100 amps per day and was expecting to get most of that from 2 large panels and a wind gen. Not practical?


----------



## Anlyn

We find solar panels are rather over rated. We have two 55 watt panels and they produce enough power to run the fridge as long as we get good sunny days. They have numerous weaknesses
a) ANY shade across the panels (shadow from mast, halyards, lazyjack lines, bird droppings, whatever) or cloud seriously reduces or even eliminates the output.
b) extra panels are heavy, expensive and they only work for about six hours a day IF it is sunny.
c) even suppliers have advised us that wattage on most panels is over rated. That is 120 watts of panel will never produce 10 amps on a 12 volt system - 8 if you are lucky and conditions are perfect.

We find with a freezer (cooled by water pump), hydraulic autopilot, lights and a laptop used for navigation and digital TV reception we use about 100 amp hours per day more than the solars produce. That means we have to run our 110 amp alternator for about 1+ hrs per day to maintain power, more if the solar panels have been limited by cloud etc.

Currently looking for a wind generator as more panels will still have same limitations but a wind generator will work whenever the wind is blowing. There seem to be two different styles. The three bladed feathering prop versions only kick in at about 12+ knots but produce more power when they are operating BUT they are incredibly noisy. The multi blade versions work at lower speeds, are silent, but produce less power for same wind speed. Typically four amps at about 15-17 knots.

Price seems to be equivalent to a single 110 watt panel. We are currently looking at a Rutland 913 made in the UK. Any one tried it?

Not sure if any of this helps but would love to hear what others have experienced.


----------



## sailingdog

I guess a lot of it has to do with what you're running on your boat, and the design and efficiency of the refrigeration. I have relatively modest electrical use on my boat—a small DC refrigerator, a stereo, a VHF, running lights, cabin lights, a laptop computer—and I find that solar power is more than adequate for my needs. 

It also depends on how you plan and implement your solar panel installation. My two panels are setup so that one can be used with no shading whatsoever while at anchor. 

A freezer, cooled by water pump, hydraulic autopilot, and satellite TV is going to draw a lot more power than I use on my boat. 

As for wind generators, I am partial to the DuoGen units. They seem to be pretty well built and the added versatility of being able to use it as a water generator, means that additional electricity can be generated on long passages, without the need for running the engine.


----------



## Valiente

sailingdog said:


> I guess a lot of it has to do with what you're running on your boat, and the design and efficiency of the refrigeration. I have relatively modest electrical use on my boat-a small DC refrigerator, a stereo, a VHF, running lights, cabin lights, a laptop computer-and I find that solar power is more than adequate for my needs. .


It's also a function of your battery capacity and your cruising style. I was having this debate with a friend of mine with a similar steel full keeler. He was thinking that when he upgraded his engine, he would run two 100 amp alternators to get a rapid charge on his battery banks. This is a man who likes his toys, mind you.

Our energy needs are more modest. While we have a 2000 watt inverter, I am going to simply get a bigger battery bank than most people (probably three 8D AGMs). I will charge this on the hook with solar and will carry a Honda 2000 gas generator for running power tools and if necessary to charge the banks. I figure that the key to not running the alternator to produce electricity (which I consider noisy and inefficient) is to have a modest energy budget in the first place (that means fridge, but not a lot else while stationary), and to seriously gear your stays to your passagemaking.

By this I mean that if you expect to be on the hook for a week in some tropical paradise, have enough capacity (with solar charging) to defer running the diesel until you decide to up anchor and go to the next place via *motorsailing*. Then you can run the diesel *under load* efficiently and get your charge on for much of a day, say, while blowing fumes, heat and noise in your wake. Then you can return, if you wish, and get a rep as "the quiet boat".

This is possible for us, of course, because of the nature of our boat and my actual desire to keep a half-ton of lead on either side of the engine room for ballast purposes. But it's not a crazy idea for many cruisers to carry more amp-hours that can give them more of an ability to burn diesel to turn an alternator.

Of course, along with energy budgeting (that plasma 42" LCD has no place aboard, does it?) is the idea of better or even extreme insulation, meal planning that doesn't rely on refrigerated foods, and just saying no to ice cubes that cost a buck a litre.


----------



## camaraderie

My own experience parallels Anlyns. On the last boat we had 160 watts of solar panels (Kyocera...Good product!) and a FourWinds wind generator used over several winters in the Bahamas. 
On good days we would get aybe 40 amps out of the panels. The wind generator is capable of producing 4-6amps/hour in 10-15 knot winds which is around 100 amps in 24 hours BUT...you have to have at least that much wind to generate anything usable...and most people anchor in protected spots where wind and waves are reduced. I am not a fan of the little blade units for this reason as their output is even worse in modest winds. 
Furthermore...I think most people underestimate their electrical usage when planning. As it gets hotter...your refrigeration runs a lot more, you use cabin fans more and there is just more stuff every year to spend amps on. 
So...the net result was that we got an average of 100 amps or so a day out of our passive stuff and "spent" an average of 150amps a day in use which we made up when cruising to other anchorages or running the engine every few days since we had a big battery bank...4x4d's. 
Obviously...you can get closer to "carbon neutral" by being more conservative in your use of stuff, doing without refrigeration etc. but I also found that the passive stuff did not do a good job of cycling the batteries and you DO need to get a good 3 stage charge on them at least once every couple of weeks to keep the sulfation down. We would run the batteries down to 50% and then go for a drive or pull into a dock for a night to accomplish this after we went through our first set of batteries in a year through a lack of understanding of both proper care and the need for good passive regulation. 
Hope the above is helpful.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Xort,

If you will give me just a bit longer, I will give you all first hand experience.

I purchased my stuff a while back, but have been dragging my feet on putting them on (as I do not want them to walk off the dock), but am about ready and everything is prepped. I bought 4 - KC130's, wired series, connected to an Outback MX60 MPPT. The wind is an AirX. THat should give me about 520 watts on solar, somewhere between 36-45 amps depending on voltage at max output. The MX60 MPPT is in theory able to convert even low levels of light into something that is useful (even if to float). The boat I fashioned after had 6 panels and not 4, but put out 65 amps/hour in the summer (an important distinction with panels). 6 panels is a bit tough for me to squeeze (space wise) so I went with 4.

I will try and get pictures and post them. Maybe I should shoot a shot of the charge controller so everyone knows I am not lying about what it puts out!!! HAHA!

I think the problem and negative comments associate with solar are associated with arrays that are too small, not using a MPPT charger, not using AGM's as batts (I will explain), and poor location. Unrealistic expectations might fall in there too.

As far as AGM's, (not bringing up an old thread), but for the life of me I do not know why anyone would not go with them (except cost)??!! THe only comparable wets are probably Rolls, but they are not cheap so why not a good AGM like a Lifline?? With an AGM, assuming voltage is regulated, you can really put in high current and faster recharges. THis makes them a better candidate for cruising with generators, mains (as a recharge source), and solar. Wind will be longer and more constant, so would be applicable to either battery type. Here is a post from Lifeline, which I use:

_LIFELINE MARINE BATTERY BENEFITS 
User Safe 
sealed construction
non-spillable 
install in any position if properly supported. 
submersible without damage

Maintenance free (no adding water or repairing corroded terminals) 
Fastest recharge. (no current limitations with voltage regulated recharging) 
Deep Cycle (thick positive plates to provide real deep cycle performance) 
Outstanding cranking performance (aircraft cell construction lowers internal resistance) 
Best charge retention (especially against flooded cell types) 
Lowest discharge rates (Less that 3 percent per month unattended) 
Easily shipped (even via UPS except GPL-8D and GPLAD because of weight) 
Shock and vibration resistant. (100% of plates are covered with separator liners) 
Properly supported, LIFELINE AGM batteries with absorbed electrolyte can be installed and operated on their side. _

I also use 4 - 4D's plus an alternate starter battery totally seperated from any of these systems as a backup/emergency starter. I also have a generator and use a Prosine Inverter/Charger 2.0 (I really like it).

I agree with Cam's point about a good MS charge.

My array is smaller than the boat I fashioned after, so the real test is coming very soon. We will see and I will let you know if I can arcweld in full sunlight!!

Take care.

- CD


----------



## Freesail99

If your going to use solar to charge your batterys, I don't think you should use AGM's. Goft cart batterys would be far more "forgiving" if you don't get the full charge into your batterys from the solar panels. Goft cart batterys would also allow you to dip down to a 50% charge, 100's of times more then an AGM. You could also buy 2 goft cart batterys for the price of 1 AGM and have more amps also. My 2 cents.....

Fair winds.....


----------



## Cruisingdad

Just another quick post:

My lifeline AGMS sat in my dockbox (infreezing and sub freezing temps) for 3-4 months. I pulled them out and hooked them up to the Prosine. They were fully charged in about an hour or two. They only lost a very, very small % of their charge and accepted the charge very quickly. Versus my experience with wets, those POS would still be trying to charge up and would have been seriously depleted. 

I am not changing the subject on Solars and wind efficency, I am merely pointing out that it is a piece of an entire system that works together. I will try and put some thoughts into writing up something more detailed and complex, but will likely need Hello's & Dave.Verry's help as there are pieces of electrical planning and engineering that get a bit confusing to me (and they seem to know their stuff). 

- CD


----------



## xort

camaraderie said:


> So...the net result was that we got an average of 100 amps or so a day out of our passive stuff and "spent" an average of 150amps a day in use which we made up when cruising to other anchorages or running the engine every few days since we had a big battery bank...4x4d's.
> Hope the above is helpful.


Sounds about like what I'm planning. With an 800 amp battery bank, I figure I'll have the 400 to 700 amp range to use. That's 300 amps. If I'm short by 50 amps per day (100 supplied & 150 used) then I'll have aprox 6 days before reaching 50%. I can deal with that, no problem.
Cam, thanks for some real world data.


----------



## camaraderie

Xort...sounds about right. 
CD...you found room for 520 watts on a 40 footer?? Are you building a pilot house out of them?? <g> Send pix when you're done. I will be most interested in seeing your results in use as well. Will stay tuned! BTW...I agree with you on the AGM's...they are QUITE forgiving and lose less charge and charge faster than any other type. Many people confuse them with Gels which are a whole different ballgame. Of course the price differential is massive between wet and AGM which is why I started out with flooded...but I've learned my lesson.


----------



## sailingdog

I've got 260 watts of solar panels on a 28' boat....but my boat is 18' wide...


----------



## mikeedmo

We were recently priced out of our slip when Huizenga bought our marina and increased our slip fee 400% so we are on a mooring in the intra-coastal now and learning to deal with the battery charging challenge given we use our Westerbeke diesel engine and a genset. We've been looking at the solarstik system which we can mount on a vestigial radar mount on our stern. The system has two solar panels and a mount for a wind generator. We've checked the units out over the last year and have heard nothing negative about them so we're getting ready to pull the trigger and install a system. Hope this is of interest for your given application and if anyone has any good or bad to say about solarstik I'd appreciate hearing from you before we write the check!


----------



## camaraderie

Mike...my opinion on the solar stick is that it is a good but expensive mounting system that provides a clear path for sunlight to your panels which helps on smaller vessels or vessels with a lot of shading. Their graphs are BS unless you are out there adjusting your panels hourly as the sun moves. My two panels were mounted on my stern rails in a horizontal position and were dual 80 watters with NO SHADING affecting them. On a good day...they produced 40-50 amps. If you get that much out of your proposed install of 100W panel even with the MPPT charger I will be surprised. If that is what you expect out of them...then write the check. 
BTW...I spent 9 months at "rob the rich" in 2005!! A shame....


----------



## sailingdog

I'd second Cam's last post. You really won't get the efficiency they're claiming out of their panels, unless you are anal-retentive about trackng the sun with them. That gets old fast... 

The other problem I see with the solar stick type mounts is how durable they will be when you have any significant wind. Rigid solar panels are heavy and present a fair bit of windage. Without proper support, they can destroy the mounts. Mine mount to two 1" stainless steel rails and the bases are through-bolted where they attach to the boat.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Mike,

I wonder if you would be better served spending the $ of the stick on more panels?

If you are trying to bulk, 14.2 V, that only gives you 7 amps peak service/hour. FLoat might be better?? The MPPT is definietly the better way to go. I keep reserving some of my comments a bit as I want to give everything totally first hand, though I have seen this system on the boat beside me firsthand (though he used 6 panels, not 4). He put out a sold 65/hour during summer, over 90 degrees. As many know, that is an important distinctio as panel output diminishes with heat. At colder temps, your panels will likely put out more than specs.

Cam,

As far as the arch, absolutely will get a bunch of pictures. I have about 6 now but they are not really good. I used (let me rephrase, had the machine shop use) 2 inch, polished, double bright-dipped anodized for the arch. It is double barred with lots of reinforcements. I almost went stainless, but decided against becuase of weight. I bet this thing does not weigh 100 lbs!!! One man can lift it. For the panels, I had aluminum angle-iron welded for each panel, welded to the arch, and through bolted. Lots of support for the panels. Now done, it matches into the rest of the boat nicely, and the arch will easily supprt (in seas) over 500 pounds easily!! My panels do not weigh anything near that. I can walk across it and it does not bulge. THis whole structure is through bolted and 4200 (not 5200 since I may need to take it off at some point) to a double reinforced plate glassed in through the deck. 

Then panels themselves fit snugly across the arch in the angle iron, running with the length of the boat. I could add at least one or two more with a minimal cost and some more machine shop time... but I have hopes (low hopes) my wind will make up the difference. 

I don't know if all that made sense??? Pictures will help. I will do what I can.

- CD


----------



## camaraderie

CD...Yup...I can almost picture it. Should be interesting...can you get them off reasonably quickly in storm prep?


----------



## Cruisingdad

Cam,

YOU BETCHA!!! After Gabrielle, charlie, jean, (oh... yawn) Francis, Ivan... nothing goes on this tub that cannot come down within hours. The arch is permanent, obviously, but the windage on that is very low. If it takes the arch off there wont be any boat left anyways.

I will try and get pics soon.


----------



## mikeedmo

Much food for thought. We're holding off on the solarstik (sorry for the digression) and looking at incorporating a few of the excellent suggestions on this thread. Cam - were you at Rybovich in WPB by any chance???

And thanks again for all the sage advice!


----------



## camaraderie

Yes Mike...in 2005 up till September. Just as Huz was taking over the operation. We were in the floating shed much of the time...probably met you or saw you on the docks. Don't recall your boat though...got any pix? 
You are not exactly in protected waters right there...must be fun when the weather blows in!!


----------



## Newport41

*interesting thread*

Well this has brought up a few questions for me. First of all I'll let you know what I'm planning on here. We've got six Trojan T-105 golf cart batteries with a total (rated) capacity of 675ah. I don't want to run our poor old universal to charge the batteries. We have pretty minimal electronics. LED running lights and cabin lights, computer was designed with no moving parts and a 12'' LCD, small compressor/evaporator refer with interior closed cell foam inserts for extra insulation in the tropics, low draw fans, foot pumps for the sinks, monitor windvane, Raytheon sailing interments, small and simple GPS, and a conservative Furno radar. I figure our daily consumption at about 100ah. I know that these estimates are always low but I am assuming that we'll only use the windlass and electric autopilot when motoring or when we'll be motoring soon. So, we have an AirX, which is loud and not serviceable at the moment but we're going to keep it. the next purchase is a solar array. Kyocera panels have been suggested more than once and they are on the short list. I was thinking two 80w panels for the radar arch or one larger panel for the arch and two 80w panels for the rails. 
Now for the questions. First of all, regulators. We have a balmar ARS-5 for the alternator but there has never been a regulator for the AirX. I'm wondering what you all would recommend for a charge regulator that would handle both the solar and wind generator. Second, radar arches. I'm curious about the practicality of aluminium. In my experience driving (yes I call it driving if the boat has no sails) aluminium safety boats with aluminum radar arches the welds break loose unless the thing is so over built that it weighs as much as steel. If anyone has experience otherwise I'd like to know. Any pictures of successful arch designs, of any material would be appreciated too.
Now for the questions. First of all, regulators. We have a balmar ARS-5 for the alternator but there has never been a regulator for the AirX. I'm wondering what you all would recommend for a charge regulator that would handle both the solar and wind generator. 
Second, radar arches. CD-I'm curious about the practicality of aluminium. In my experience driving (yes I call it driving if the boat has no sails) aluminium safety boats with aluminum radar arches the welds break loose unless the thing is so over built that it weighs as much as steel. If anyone has experience otherwise I'd like to know. You seem quite happy with yours, I'm curious how you overcame this. Any pictures of successfull arch designs, of any material would be appreciated too. Thanks agian in advance.


----------



## Valiente

Newport41 said:


> Well this has brought up a few questions for me. First of all I'll let you know what I'm planning on here. We've got six Trojan T-105 golf cart batteries with a total (rated) capacity of 675ah. I don't want to run our poor old universal to charge the batteries. We have pretty minimal electronics. LED running lights and cabin lights, computer was designed with no moving parts and a 12'' LCD, small compressor/evaporator refer with interior closed cell foam inserts for extra insulation in the tropics, low draw fans, foot pumps for the sinks, monitor windvane, Raytheon sailing interments, small and simple GPS, and a conservative Furno radar. I figure our daily consumption at about 100ah. I know that these estimates are always low but I am assuming that we'll only use the windlass and electric autopilot when motoring or when we'll be motoring soon.


Your set-up fairly closely mirrors what we are putting together. Ideally, I want enough reserve to spend seven days or so without starting the engine for electrical generation, and with the assumption that I will get 8 hours of usable sun five days out of those seven. I don't expect to keep a full charge; I do expect to draw down multiple AGMs to 50-60% gradually on the basis of "three amps out/two amps in" logic.

I am not entirely convinced I need a wind generator...yet, because I have pipe "lifelines" and a pilothouse roof and will build an arch to hold panels, like Cruisingdad's, and an easily stripped-off bimini. So I might have enough surface area to just have solar as the top-up device. I am installing a Xantrex RS2000 charger-inverter by May or so, and will be able to start making "real-life consumption" estimates, even with just two Seavolt 6 VDCs and one 12 VDC start battery (all flooded lead-acid types). I will see what I eat and excrete, so to speak, with 30 amps of shore power, with a stock 55 amp alternator at cruising and motorsailing speeds, and on the hook with no charge available (haven't bought a Honda portable genset or panels yet).

This will be a start to establish where the investment in gear should go. But the goal is the same: a conservative use of total amps, plus the ability to generate from the sun (and perhaps the wind) enough of a surplus to keep us running the diesel for power as much as possible.


----------



## Idiens

*Watching with interest*

I started off thinking all solar, because the wind doesn't blow well where I like to anchor and the blades make a lot of noise. The DuoGen looks neat, but expensive, and I have a lot of clutter on the rear deck anyway. 
What has slowed me down is the top-weight and the drag. My rig and wheelhouse are already pretty robust. She's not particularly tender, but 25 knots and 20 degrees heel are my reefing guides close hauled (also to reduce weatherhelm). When I looked at how much 240 Wp of panels, plus supporting structure, weighs, plus height above water line.... hmmm. Then my past involvement in aerodramatics taught me that drag loves sharp corners and standard panels have lots of those. So there will be more drag from them than looks likely from their size. Not that 240 Wp of panels are particularly small.
My More Intelligent Partner suggested that maybe taking them down before sailing might solve my draggy top-weight concerns. - Which would be OK if I had a towed generator and suitable places to store them.
Then I find that the more efficient monocrystal panels loose power very quickly with any shadow at all. Nearer the equator that may not be such a problem but here in the 40's there is nearly always a shadow cast by part of the rig. I would need 480 Wp to compensate.
MMIP also suggested if the panels were moveable, then they could be always deployed somewhere sunny side up.
On the basis that experience is better than theory. I went for a 32Wp flexible panel. This has the disadvantage of being the less efficient, but is a shadow tolerant thin-film type that can withstand a bit of moving about. At the moment it is bungied to the boom facing south and has kept my battery bank happy all winter. I would need another 7 to reach my desired 240 Wp for operational use but I could add them one at a time. The cost differential is a bit frightening though. Maybe the DuoGen is competitively priced....


----------



## ebs001

I have 160 watts of solar and an Air-X 400. I have a Honda 2000. which I run every 2nd day or so. My discussions with other cruisers is it's the only way to go. A friend lent me the Honda. I will probably buy the 1000 next year. The 1000 will fulfill my charging draw and is smaller and quieter.


----------



## Idiens

ebs001 said:


> ... The 1000 will fulfill my charging draw and is smaller and quieter.


Retrospectively, if you initially had the geset, would it be worth adding the solar and wind generators?


----------



## Brezzin

ebs001 said:


> I have a Honda 2000. which I run every 2nd day or so. My discussions with other cruisers is it's the only way to go. A friend lent me the Honda. I will probably buy the 1000 next year. The 1000 will fulfill my charging draw and is smaller and quieter.


Based on the specs I read, these units only put out about 8amps which can't be right. How long do you run the Honda?

Dave


----------



## sailingdog

Idiens said:


> Retrospectively, if you initially had the geset, would it be worth adding the solar and wind generators?


The advantage of solar and wind is that they do not require fuel.  Fuel is heavy...and expensive nowadays... wind and sun are free and don't weigh anything.


----------



## camaraderie

Brezzin...you're getting AC/DC mixed up I think. The Honda 1000 operating specs are:
AC Output 120V
1000W max.(8.3A)
900W rated (7.5A)

900Watts= 120V x 7.5 AC
900Watts= 12V x 75 DC

The A/C output of the alternator used to drive the battery charger on board will yield a 75amp DC current (with some loss due to conversion efficiency). Remember the 10 x rule....multiply AC amps times 10 to get DC amps. (US ONLY!!)


----------



## Idiens

sailingdog said:


> The advantage of solar and wind is that they do not require fuel.


Yes, but catching the wind or the sunshine is not for free. However, going back to global warming.....


----------



## sailingdog

Idiens said:


> Yes, but catching the wind or the sunshine is not for free. However, going back to global warming.....


The Honda genny is cheaper than a good solar setup or wind generator... but the fuel cost over the long run makes it far more expensive.


----------



## Idiens

I've got an old Honda generator - 300W side-valve four-stroke. I not sure if I carry it for ballast or sentimentality (I inherited it from my father). Since I have only run it one a year - for servicing - it probably is using too little fuel.


----------



## Valiente

sailingdog said:


> The Honda genny is cheaper than a good solar setup or wind generator... but the fuel cost over the long run makes it far more expensive.


This is correct, of course. But you have to consider a couple of things: frequency of use and availability of fuel. I will likely always carry ten gallons of gasoline for the outboard (which is enough fuel to cover a fairly significant expedition to and from the shore or to go exploring nearby sheltered bays).

The other consideration is that ideally, the generator is a backup to a backup, which is the solar recharging of the batteries as an alternative to the altenator. Meaning, I'll need cloudy, hot days with heavy drawdowns and no spare fuel to run the diesel to bother rigging the Honda to charge the batteries.

I like the Honda for foreseeable heavy AC use that is better not handled by the inverter, like for power sanding, drilling or even a weekly run with the Shop-Vac (I like Shop-Vacs of the small 1.5 gallon size because they are like portable bilge pumps for hard to dry spaces). They are also portable in the extreme, and if I trade services on a small island, it's probably going to be as a courtesy if I show up to drill down a tin roof bringing my own power in return for a 20 kilo tuna.

But that's just me. Others have a different mix of energy use and capacities. Me, I'm into flexibility, not total raw amperage.


----------



## Brezzin

camaraderie said:


> Brezzin...you're getting AC/DC mixed up I think. The Honda 1000 operating specs are:
> AC Output 120V
> 1000W max.(8.3A)
> 900W rated (7.5A)
> 
> 900Watts= 120V x 7.5 AC
> 900Watts= 12V x 75 DC
> 
> The A/C output of the alternator used to drive the battery charger on board will yield a 75amp DC current (with some loss due to conversion efficiency). Remember the 10 x rule....multiply AC amps times 10 to get DC amps. (US ONLY!!)


Yep your right. the Genny has DC output of 8 amps. I didn't even think of using the AC throught the charger.

thanks


----------



## Cruisingdad

*My Setup*

All,

I connected and got all the panels put in this weekend. With the exception of putting a few more screws in to hold the panels down, I am done. I should be able to give you real-life on what they put out by next week. I hooked the panels up last night (so as not to get bit... which I got bit anyways). Thus, I do not have the real-life for you yet.

My budget is somewhere around 150-180 amps day. That is real life. For those of you that have come in considerably smaller, I can only assume you are not running 12 v refrigeration?? No microwave or coffemaker or something. I think you cruise differently than I do or are a lot more efficent (which is very likely). I wanted to be fairly off-the-grid. Here is what I put in, what is cost, and what I can expect. Hopefully it will help many of you as you budget out your cruising money and electrical budget. Maybe this will help many of you make intelligent decisions on what will work best for you.

*Arch:* Why aluminum? Two reasons, cost and weight. THe arch I had built (I will get you pictures soon) is "overbuilt" as has been mentioned. The folks that built it build them for offshore fishing boats and tend to overbuild versus underbuild. It is a "double" 2 inch frame with connections. It is polished aluminum, not brushed, thus looks like SS except at the bends (and you have to get close to see that). Most of the rest of my boat is SS, with the exception of the toe rail and mast/boom. The arch cost me about $3200-$3500, installed.

To give you a cost comparrison, Valiant wanted about $10,000 to build the same arch. Weight would have been high, not to mention the cost. One man can lift the arch on my boat. It is somewhere in that 100lbs area, without anything on it. Another benefit of going larger aluminum versus smaller steel is the wire runs. Depending on the panels and the system, you will be fishing a pretty large wire down those legs. You have to run one at each end (or two down the pipe). Think series install. You may also have your wind gen going down those tubes which is 12 and will require a larger wire AWG, likely 4 gauge.

*The panels.* I have 4-Kyocera 130's, giving me a theoretical 520Watts. They weigh about 30lbs a piece, I guess. The KC-130's already have the diodes so a seperate install is not neccessary. Install is VERY easy. They are set up to be opened upside down. You take out the 4 screws holding the "flap" closed, and it latches open. The screws do not come out. Access is easy and straight forward. Only caution: Before you go to hook them up, get some extra screws that connect your lugs. Unless you are a better mecahnic than I am, Triton will get a few of them. Remember you are hooking these things up upside down in the sailboat yoga. I budegted *150 amps/day *with this array. Cost of panels is around $650-$700/piece.

*The charger.* Outback MX60. It is too cool for me to go into too much explanation on, but for that size array, I cannot imagine a better controller. It is solar only. I am not aware of a controller to run both wind and sun. I might still keep them seperate for redundancy. Hooking up the outback is so simple you will not have any problems. Only consideration is to make sure you get the battery temp sensor. It is sold seperate. It is worth the $30.

The only negative of the Outback is the array size. I think you have to get somewhere in the 400 watts or better to realize its efficency. I had a salesman tell me this that sold both the Outback and Blue Sky. He said the BS was better for small arrays, the Outback for large ones. I have not used a BS, I think Sailingdog does. WOrth asking him about it. If you go with a small array, I do not think you will use an Outback and it is cost prohibitive. Cost of Outback is around $450-650.

*Batteries. * We wrote up a small thread about this on Cruisers Forum. Might be worth taking a look at as you consider your batteries. AGM's charge faster than wets, but they are not exponentially faster. Still, there are so many other positives with agms, I cannot imagine buying anything else for cruising. I went with 4 Lifeline AGM's (4D). That gives me about 840 AH. It is hooked into a Prosine 2.0 Inverter/charger. The Prosine mandates 4/0 minimum up to 350 mcm depending on the wire run. Luckily my run was small. 4/0 wire and the lugs are pretty much special order only. I went through Cobra Wire. The Prosine comes with its own temp sensor and is an easy install. Moving the cables (4/0) through very confined spaces is very difficult. You will also need a 600 amp rated switch and a fuse block (I used a 300 amp fuse).

This system is all paralleled together. I have a seperate bank with its own independent charger and a small Optima. It can be pulled into or out of the system, as neccessary. It is pretty much just there as an emergency backup and will not be used except otherwise. Cost of batteries is about $1800. Cost of Charger is about $1300. Cost of 4/0 wire and lugs, 300-400 (on the low side). The fuseblock and switch will run you about $200 or so online, as I recall.

*Wind Generator.* The AirX has a built in charge controller. I have everything here to hook it up but have been slow to do wo until winter was over (do not want it walking off the docks). The AirX is a direct wire. (EBS001, not sure which model AirX you have, but the new ones have in theory fixed some of the regulation and noise problems). You have to fuse and run heavy gauge wire. I am running 4 gauge (again) with a 50 amp fuse. At an average of 12 mph wind speed, they say you will get 70 *amps/day*. Cost of wind is about 800, plus about 200 in wire, plus several hundred in switches, bushings, connectors, pole, sound insulation and fuses.

*Diesel Generator. * I have used boat a Fisher Panda and a Mastervolt 3.5. My current is a MV 3.5kw. I think I like it better than the FP. Very user friendly and a lot of information at the panel. It just sips the fuel and is tied in with the main engine. Cost is somewhere in the $15,000 range.

Each one of these systems work together and independent of each other. The Xantrex, solar and wind will all work at the same time, which will be beneficial in saving money on charging batteries at the dock (which is a very small $$ anyways). But, Nigel Calder reccomends getting off of city power if you have a green power source.

Let me know what questions you have. I will answer.

- CD


----------



## camaraderie

Great, detailed write-up CD...we ended up with a lot of the same approaches...I just put my passive stuff on one boat and the active stuff on the current one...You've got the best of both worlds!! <g> Keep us posted on results!!


----------



## Cruisingdad

*Xantrex Inverter/Charger install and batteries*

Here is the install of the Xanrex invert/chg 2.0, along with the 4/0 wire, switches, Lifeline batteries, etc...


----------



## Cruisingdad

You see the size of the yellow and red wire?? That is 4/0. That is the minimum. Very expensive right now. West Marine wants $20/foot. I got it for around $8/foot at Cobra. Lugs are high too and you will need to find a place to rent 4/0 crimpers. Also, if your circle is more than about 20-30 feet, you will jump into 250 or 350 mcm. Again, look at that wire and imagine running it through your boat before you commit yourself to that approach.

- CD


----------



## Cruisingdad

Thanks Cam. 

- CD


----------



## mikeedmo

Great set-up.... are you close enough to Palm Beach County to replicate on my boat!! I'm using a few of your examples in discussions with my mooring neighbor from Trans-Marine as I settle on wind (he sells 4winds and airx - uses 2 4wind red barons and 3 165 sharp solar panels) and solar. Thanks again for the advice.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Mike,

My boat is at Cedar Mills right now (where they make Valiant). You will have to hop a plane.

I have not heard a lot of discussions on the Sharp panels. Do your research. There are many, many vendors of panels and I am not sure they are all completely truthful on what their output is. It is easy to fool perspective buyers. An easy way to do it is take the outputs at very low temps... or put the panels in a room with beyond natural sunlight... etc, etc. In general, as with most things in life, you get what you pay for. The panels sold through west marine (sunsei) have been written up as being fairly truthful. I know cruisers who use them.

http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/wc.../0/solar panel/All_2/mode+matchallpartial/0/0

I went with Kyocera. They are on sale right now with N Arizona (as is the Outback). Here is a good site and a link to their product(s). Kyocera are very good panels.

http://store.solar-electric.com/kc-120.html

You may be able to jump up to the 160s, depending on the size you have available to you on your boat. I almost did, but the price/watt (because of the sale pric I got them) did not make up for it. If I am still short and need to make up some more power, I can add another panel or two very easily. Easy expansion now.

As far as the wind gen... I have not heard blazing good reviews on any of them, honestly. But if you look above to my cost comparisson, it is by far the cheapest method to charge your batteries... short of doing nothing. However, unless you look like a S California wind farm, you will NOT get enough out of wind to satisfy your power requirements and will need to supplement.

Don't forget on the wind you will likely be running 4 gauge wire for each one. Other than the cost and weight, that stuff is not a lot of fun to work with (better than 4/0 though!!!).

- CD


----------



## PBzeer

CD - if you pole mount the Air-X, you're looking at another $400 for their pole setup (rubber bushings at all attachment points, I have no vibration to the hull.) On mine, I was able to go with 8ga, and also used a 50amp fuse block. I also have mine wired direct to the house bank, since if I'm using the wind generator, I'm not running the engine, and so have the selector on house (2) anyway.

I also went with the AGM's, though I got mine through Port Supply. Aside from cost, the reason for choosing them over the Lifelines was that Lifelines have to be returned to the manufacturer, and not a dealer, if there are any problems with them. I'm only using 3 Group 31's though, for a total of 315 ah. I do have 12v refridgeration, but that is the only high draw 12v I have.

I took out a 1500 watt inverter/charger and replaced it with a 20 amp Truecharge, and use a 400 watt portable inverter for the laptop. I don't use the A/C unless hooked to the grid, nor the W/H.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Sounds like a nice setup John.

As far as the bushing, etc, yes. I bought them too. And yes to the pole...although depending on the set-up it will differ for some boats. Looking back, I am not sure I put that in the original post. If not, I will edit.

- CD


----------



## Newport41

CD- Very nice set up. I'd love to see some pictures of your arch if you get a chance. I wanted to build ours out of aluminium but between my experience with them (those I have to admit were a little underbuilt) and what I've been told by a few friends I was talked out of it. We have some very good aluminium fabricators here and you've got me thinking aluminium again, the benifits are obvious. I have to ask though, how long have you had the arch and do you really have no cracks in the welds at all?
Thanks for the write up it was very informative.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Newport,

The arch is new. Using aluminum on boats is not. The only negatives I have seen is that salt water can pit aluminum depending on the coatings and how it is used. Valiant builds most of their stuff out of stainless steel. A lot of weight and expense though.

I will get some pics for you very soon. Will take a very long weekend on the boat this weekend and should be able to give good feedback.

- CD


----------



## sailingdog

CD-

From what I understand, due to the difference in tensile strength, the stainless steel arches are usually fairly comparable in weight to the aluminum ones, which have to be larger and heavier to have the same strength. A few other points... 1) Aluminum is harder to repair, as welding it is more difficult to do; 2) Aluminum is subject to galvanic corrosion if you have any stainless fittings attached to it; 3) Aluminum is much more susceptible to fatigue than is stainless steel...


----------



## sailaway21

I think I might have you on that one, Dog. Those Hondas really sip the fuel. Just watched a DVD on a guy who sailed his Potter to Hawaii from San Francisco in twenty four days, ran the honda every day to charge, and used a gallon and a half of gas.
Solar panels are not a "good for ever" investment either. I suspect that Honda will still be ticking along about the time you're tacking on your third set of panels.

The most intriguing aspect to the Duo-gen is the towed water generator. Now that baby will generate some amps. If you were going to be underway alot, I would consider it first and add the wind option later. And, it's quiet.


----------



## Freesail99

The Kyocere 130 watt panels are on sale for $599.00

http://www.affordable-solar.com/kyocera.kc130TM.130watt.solar.panel.htm


----------



## sailingdog

sailaway21 said:


> I think I might have you on that one, Dog. Those Hondas really sip the fuel. Just watched a DVD on a guy who sailed his Potter to Hawaii from San Francisco in twenty four days, ran the honda every day to charge, and used a gallon and a half of gas.
> Solar panels are not a "good for ever" investment either. I suspect that Honda will still be ticking along about the time you're tacking on your third set of panels.
> 
> The most intriguing aspect to the Duo-gen is the towed water generator. Now that baby will generate some amps. If you were going to be underway alot, I would consider it first and add the wind option later. And, it's quiet.


I am guessing that his boat has significantly lower electrical demands than most, being it is a West Wight Potter...

Most solar panels will last 15-20 years with a little care, and require far less maintenance than a gasoline generator, and have far fewer things that can go wrong with them. I don't see a Honda generator lasting 15 years in a marine environment.


----------



## Cruisingdad

SD,

All thing equal, I would have gone stainless. I even had it (my arch) double dipped & polished to look like stainless. I did like the size of the arch (2 inch). Only time will tell, I guess. I guess if it seriously starts having problems (which I highly doubt) I can replace for a stainless. But my guess if that it will be fine and saved me about $7000. (PS, the Kyoceras as aluminum framed also, so if you go SS, you will still have aluminum on SS). If money is not an obect and you do not mind the weight, go stainless. Why wouldn't you?

Still, others have different preferences. Only time will tell for me. 

- CD


----------



## sailingdog

CD-

If money is not an object, I'd go TITANIUM...  Fewer corrosion issues and much lighter weight.


----------



## Cruisingdad

*Nice Link for Solar*

Here is a nice link for solar panels comparissons and real world outputs.

http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/cgi-bin/eligible_pvmodules.cgi


----------



## sailaway21

I am pretty sure I have read about the decreasing efficiency of solar panels with age. And while it might take twenty years to fully deplete their effectiveness, I doubt many will find them desirable at 50% effective. In the quantities needed to produce significant power I think their margin utility is questionable. Probably explains why all our roofs are not covered with them.

The Honda does offer a lightweight and quiet alternative that cranks out 'reliable' amperage without the fickleness of the sun. I would expect it to last as long as the average boat motor. My 20 year old Honda lawnmower is currently sitting out in a semi-marine environment, albeit frozen, and I fully expect it to answer the bell as it has for the last twenty years.

All of the ocean racing teams are using water generators and I find it surprising that we hear little about them here. They offer a good amount of amps and minimal drag on the boat. They seem to be the best form of "free" energy. But of course you need to be making way to use them. Between the wind generators and solar panels, not to mention the wind vane steering, some boats are starting to look more like "Ice Station Zebra" than boats.<G>

Here's an idea to get the dog scratching his ears: with all that lead we are hauling around in various designs of keels it occurs to me that we've got about 75% of a battery's components bolted to the bottom of our boat. Any thoughts on replaceable keels for mass produced cruising boats? Every ten years you replace your keel and recycle the old one? That would be a heck of a storage cell. Not the least of which we could combine the fin versus wing, and series versus parallel debate into one thread.<G> Maybe this belongs over in "Perfect Boat".


----------



## Cruisingdad

sailaway,

As far as the keel... you laugh, but some aspect of that could be plausable. Why not? Of course a hard grounding would not be pretty for the environment, especially if it was battery acid spilling onto a reef.

As far as the wind generator, as a liveaboard/cruiser, I will tell you why it would not work well for me: you have to be moving! We spend the majority of our time anchored somewhere and exploring. Both wind and solar are passive and work in either environment. Water gens make a poor solution for the typical cruisers I know. THe racers are not anchoring for weeks on end somewhere (well, hopefully (smile)). They are hauling butt to cross the finish line. Thus, a water gen is a better solution.

Here is another "fun" little exercise we can play with. No one take any offense. THis is just quick numbers I threw out:

My solar cost me (even adding in the wire and radar arch and everything): $7,500. Sounds like a lot of money for something that only puts out a budgeted 150 amps/day. Let's cost compare that to a generator, the cheapest one we can. 

Wind: For the sake of argument, let's say it is only 80% efficent, only works 80% of the year, and only runs for 80% of the years they say it will. THat means that my amps/dollar = (150ah*.8)(365days*.8)(20yrs*.8)/$7500. THis equals 560640 (total amps)/ $7500 (total cost). That equals 74.75 amps/dollar.

Generator.

Let's not use a "real" marine generator like a Fisher or Mastervolt or Westerbeke. They are a solid $15,000 and solar would blow them away. Let's use a Honda generator (as was your example). Let's say you find it on Ebay brand new and ready to go for $800. Let's say it is the new and improved model and never needs an oil change, never needs any maintenance, will never break down, and does not need any special cords to connect - basically, it comes straight out of the box and runs for 20 years without anything but gasoline. Let's also assume gasoline never goes up a penny. It stays at @2.50 forever, no inflation. Let's say you have put the coin into your batery system and only have to run your generator every 3 days for a gallon a day (4-6 hours on a gasoline generator at 1 gallon total).

In order for that same generator to compare to the solar, it will have to run for 80% of 20 years. It will run every three days. It's comparable cost is $800 for generator + $2.50 (cost of gas) * 16 years (number of years it will run) * 365/3 (days in the year/# days it will run). THis equals:

$5,666.67 to run your generator. You will have purchased 1,946.67 gallons of gasoline. In the end, your generator is cheaper by: $7,500 - $5,666.67 = $1,833.33.

Now, what happens if you take out the cost of my radar arch from that equation? Many people do not go to that expense. They simply strap them on the top of their davits or their stanchions. Many people get arches and never even go solar - so was that completely fair?? That means the new cost comparrison is ($7,500 - $3,300) - $5,666.67 = ($1466.67). That means the generator cost you $1,466.67 to run. You just made money on solar.

Now, what if you DO have to change the oil on your generator? WHat happens if you DO have to service other parts? What happens if gas DOES cost more that $2.50 gallon over time? What happens if you DO have to run it more than once every 3 days? What happens if it DOES burn more than a gallon every 4-6 hours? What happens if you DO get bad gas (come on, be realistic... I sure have gotten bad gas). And let's not forget this: 

RRRRMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM in the middle of a quiet anchorage. THe birds fly off. THe fish find another home. Your neighbors hate you. The vibration. The nasty fumes. And most of all: YOU HAVE TO BE THERE THE WHOLE TIME, EVERYTIME, YOU WANT THAT POS TO CHARGE YOUR BATTS. 

Nah. I have been around too much. I hate those things. THere are other benefits with going with a generator (kinda like, running your air conditioner, which is why I have a diesel genny that is quieter and more efficient and does not require my boat to be lined with red gerry cans down both sides eroding with the sun). But, there are many positives to solar too. The initial bill is tough to swallow. The catch phrase is IF you keep your boat that long. Almost none of us do and will NEVER realize the cost benefit of solar. Thus, they should go green for the other reasons mentioned. 

This was just meant as a fun excercise, so please take it as such. We can nit-pick each other on the details, but I have tried to be more than fair (or at least I thought I have). Is solar worth it?? That is what each person has to decide for themselves, I guess.

Smile.

- CD


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Solar panels _work_ on any boat. They are not a "complete solution" for most boats.

From experience -

We have a Morgan 36 Out Island, without refrigeration. We have a computer, heavily-used SSB, mix of flourescent and incandescent cabin lighting.

There are two 55-watt panels on the hardtop, and one 75-watt movable panel, usually on the lifelines or foredeck. No fancy mounts.

Solar-panel regulator is a Xantrex Trace 12 (I think) -- PWM-type, user-settable voltage. [PWM regulators need lots of ferrite chokes around them -- otherwise, the SSB is unusable during the day.]

The engine alternator is rated at 55 amps, and I run it at below 50. There are four golf-cart-size 6-volt deep-cycle batteries (two Rolls, two off-brand).

In west-coast Mexico and Costa Rica, at anchor, we ran the engine once per week for a few hours.

The solar panels were very, very useful. They didn't supply _all_ our power needs, but they did a lot to reduce engine-hours. I love them.

Your results may vary. We were in very sunny, low-latitude locations.

Charles


----------



## Cruisingdad

Charles,

Are your panels connected in series or parralell? If series, can you connet another panel, onle larger, to help replenish more of your juice? WIll your charger support it?

A nice thing about the MX60, for example, is that you can use multiple panels of varying size. They are all wired series. It takes the volts and reduces down to your bank volts with applicable current. Thus, adding more power to your system is as easy as buying another panel and putting it into the system. You basically have nothing else to deal with: a panel plus accompanying wire.

Just thoughts.

- CD

http://store.solar-electric.com/outpowmxmp.html


----------



## Idiens

Thanks for the good thoughts CD. 
I have my heaviest electrical load at night en-route: nav-lights, autohelm, radar, classic instruments, FLS, cabin lights, etc.. That's where I see a towed generator having some advantage. Currently, I just run the engine occasionally to recharge en-route, plus a bit of solar during the day. 
I don't want to run my Honda genset, it makes more noise than the engine and produces less power, plus I don't have a good stable location for it in a seaway. I have only used it when moored, with it at the furthest end of a long extension cord and when I had dying batteries. So it is really ballast. I suppose with aircon and deep freeze in a hot climate, a built-in soundproofed genset may have something going for it.
All the wind generators I have heard of - I have heard, on other boats, in the dead of night, maybe someone makes a really silent one. 
Fuel cells are coming onto the market, they are supposed to be quiet, but the current ones guzzle a lot of something odd, the most acceptable being camping gaz. Perhaps they are the future for the gensets.
I wonder about having two big alternators on the engine and a suitable charge controller with big AGM batteries. For coastal hopping, the engine usually gets run an hour a day. With a couple of 110 A alternators, theoretically one could pump 200 Ah back.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Idiens,

If you are running your main to charge your batteries, it is tough on the main. However, while underway, why wouldn't you??? I think Balmar has the market on this, with their correponding 3stage charger that connects to their alternator. I was reading in CF that their low end (100amps) are really made cheaply, but I cannot comment. I would hesitate putting a really large one on my engine (other than the fact I do not need it) because of the power loss. 

As far as making a passage... all bets are off. A water gen could be awesome in thos circumstances. My electrical usagae goes way up offshore because of radar, chartplotter, autopilot, etc. I am assuming others have the same problem. Using a system that connects to the prop shaft and spin it (like the lagoonn 420) would be nice in the future.

Regarding a diesel generator, like a Fisherpanda or a Mastervolt, I can comment on both as I have owned (1st was a FP, now a MV) both. They are quiet and just sip the diesel. Very effiecent and I could run my fp in an anchorage and you would never know it. It had plenty of power for one 16k btu ac and full battery charger or full batt charger and hot water heater or full batt charger and mw. Other combinations would shut it down. The MV seems a bit different. It will take an overload, but will shut itself down when it starts getting hot. It likes to run at about 80%. However, comparing a 15k Mastervolt diesel generator to a gasoline honda is apples and oranges, so I will leave it there. 

- CD


----------



## camaraderie

Idiens...two big alternators on most sailboat marine engines will prematurely wear out the bearings due to load and side pull needed. Thats 8HP to drive them too!!


----------



## Idiens

HI CAm - I'm surprised Yanmar sells the kit then - but maybe they sell more engines that way


----------



## camaraderie

Yup...when you go to a double belt rig and have that much HP pulling you have a tremendous side loading cause te second pulley is further out on the shaft too.


----------



## christyleigh

camaraderie said:


> Yup...when you go to a double belt rig and have that much HP pulling you have a tremendous side loading cause te second pulley is further out on the shaft too.


Cam - I would think that if you have the engine room - room with some creative idlers to get the two alts as close to pulling 180 degrees from each other as possible you could pretty much negate the bearing issue. Also if you have some HP to spare such as on a motorsailor it may be a winable situation. I'm pretty sure I have read out on the NC list about some who have 2 running. I'm not saying they are not doing some damage or that it is necessarily a win - win situation but I just wanted to throw that out here as a little more food for thought


----------



## camaraderie

Yeah...you can mitigate the damage getting 180 degrees but that is not possible on most sailboats. You may have a different situation and it is still 8hp of pull on a small engine. The other way is to extend the shaft of the pulley block forward into another bearing (mounted to the hull no the engine) to relieve about 1/2 of the load. (note:this was advice to ME from Don Casey when I was looking at this issue...don't wanna seem like I am the authority on this and he is due the credit for the advice.)
FWIW he guaranteed me I would have bearing problems if I simply used a 200A single alternator to double pulleys. 
So...I guess you do what you can to mitigate the damage if you really need the amps....and again...this my not even be an issue once you get into larger engines with beefier bearings than the under 100HP stuff we generally discuss on here.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Other than the fact that it is not good for your main, I think the biggest issue would be the 8hp loss. If you are in a strong current, that could be a problem on many boats.


----------



## sailaway21

Cam,
If I may? I do not think the problem is that the alternators are not 180 degrees opposed. After all, look inside virtually any auto. The alternator, air pump, a/c compressor are not equilateraly opposed. I think, from your other comment, that the problem is more one of finding a very secure way to mount the second alternator. If it flexes, you're gonna schwanz it. Stock components on the block have attachment points right in the casting. I would posit that the install is not impossible, but merely very difficult without the aid of a machine shop and professional fabricator.


----------



## sailaway21

I was more than a little serious about the battery in the keel idea. I think a good chemical engineer and a tool and die maker could have a field day with the idea.

Here's another one. We've all seen the keel on Giu's boat, and been sworn to secrecy about same. Imagine that the bulb was hollowed out longitudinally. One could mount a venturi tube with an impeller in there. Viola!, a water generator. And yes, properly designed the debri could be kept out.


----------



## camaraderie

Sailaway...I agree about the need for a machine shop/mechanic. The difference between the items you mention and a 100 amp alternator is that you are looking at a 4HP takeoff on those bearings...much more force than an A/C. Either way though as you say...not very practical.


----------



## sailaway21

Actually A/C will knock off about seven HP on a four cylinder engine under load. Alternators are not as bad as generators or A/C because they, well, alternate.<g>


----------



## Idiens

Looking at the Yanmar twin alternator installation, it looks pretty robust to me. Instead of a second alternator an Aircon pump can be fitted, and I bet that can pull a bit of hp too.
However, my idea was to get the most from the typical 30 minutes engine running out of harbour and 30 minutes running back in. Mostly, the full 200A would not be taken, so the hp loss to the propellor would not be so significant. If hp loss were a problem, there are ways to trick the alternators into thinking the batteries were full(er) and not pump 200 A or any at all. Then there is only the friction loss from the installation.


----------



## PBzeer

With my new alternator (70 amp on a 13 hp motor), and external regulator, part of the installation was a 3 position toggle switch. This allows use of the external, internal, or freewheel. Even with the built in ramp up time for the alternator to kick in, I've found in colder weather, that I needed to switch to freewheel on startup, until the engine had warmed up. It came in the most handily though when I was traversing a lock with a very swift opposing current.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Hello All,

Been out enjoying Spring Break and testing out the new systems. At the risk of sounding like a schoolboy who just got back from Xmas (and bragging about his toys), let me tell you about the panels: Awesome!!!

I basically kept my batteries floating or full the entire time without the need for any outside electrical generation. Saturday, which was partially sunny during peak charging, I still put out 176 amps for the day. The day before I am not sure because they filled the batts and went into standby.

There are only two issues I should mention. The first I have brought up before: Making a passage. With the Chartplotter running, radar, autopilopt, microwave, etc... I will seriously dig into my batts. Somewhere close to 200/day is probably realistic, unless you really use a lot of conservation. Thus, underway, my batts will slowly deplete even with the panels. Second, Hot water may become an issue. I did not (and have not) planned that into my budget. We always ended up having to run the main or genny before to generate electricity (and would in turn generate hot water too). Going for days without running them will deplete your hot water. I have some ideas about this, but before I go into anything too drastic, I will wait and see how the warmer weather reduces hot water use. It was quite cold this weekend (well, for Texas). Anyone trying to be completely off the grid should be aware of that.

I made a point to try and remember many of the exact numbers for this discussion (which I subsequently forgot about happy hour everyday), but I would generate about 3-4 amps shortly after after sun up. By 930 that number was 6-8 amps. It quickly jumped exponentially from there. By 1130-200, we were putting out well into the low 30s. In overcast, our output dropped about 20-30%, but would jump back up as the sun broke through the clouds. 

I have not changed my electrical budget for the panels from 150 ah/day. However, I can see it is quite possible (and likely) I may exceed my budget. I am hopeful that the wind generator will pick up any slack the solars cannot. I should have those answers for everyone soon.

- CD


----------



## Idiens

Sounds great CD - what are the dimensions and weight of those panels again?


----------



## Cruisingdad

Hi Idiens,

They are Kyocera 130's. http://store.solar-electric.com/kc-120.html

That link gave the dimensions. I have 4 wired in series to an Outback MX60 charge controller.

I ran 4 gauge wire, which was probably an overkill.

- CD


----------



## sailingdog

CD-

The 4 AWG wire is probably not overkill from the charge controller output to wherever you have it hooked up. From the panels, it might or might not be, depending on the distance from the charge controller.


----------



## Cruisingdad

4 awg all the way through. Remember, the panels are running 48v, not 12v, since they are in series. But as silly as this sounds, there are two reasons I did this:

1) As much $ as I spent on the panels, I wanted NOOO Voltage loss (or as little as I could).

2) Most importantly, I had 4 awg on hand (already purchased from a previous project) and did not want to go buy more!!! HAHA!! Still, the 4 awg is a little awkward to wire into the panels, where they reccomend 12-10 (as I recall).

- CD

PS Agree, 4 awg is probably good for the charge controller SD.


----------



## sailingdog

I have my panels wired into a charge controller in parallel, rather than in series. The wiring runs are fairly short and I have a fuse block that allows me to add more panels without modifying the other wiring. The reason I have them setup in parallel, is that the panels are removable and I wanted to be able to charge with either the starboard, the port or both panels, depending on the situation. The run from the fuse block to the charge controller is about two feet of 6 AWG wire. The run from the charge controller to the main battery switch is about four feet of 4 AWG.


----------



## tigerregis

Very informative, gentlemen. A real pleasure to read hands-on experiences and empirical advice.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Thank you Tiger. Hope it helps.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Just to clarify on the solarstick you don't have to adjust each hour. And the system does produce between 80-100 amp hours a day.


----------



## Valiente

Cruisingdad said:


> Second, Hot water may become an issue. I did not (and have not) planned that into my budget. We always ended up having to run the main or genny before to generate electricity (and would in turn generate hot water too). Going for days without running them will deplete your hot water. I have some ideas about this, but before I go into anything too drastic, I will wait and see how the warmer weather reduces hot water use. It was quite cold this weekend (well, for Texas). Anyone trying to be completely off the grid should be aware of that.- CD


1) Heat exchanger and this baby (about $300) might do the trick: http://marineengineparts.com/shopsite_sc/store/html/page200.html

I have an Atlantic T6E that runs on shore AC (like a big kettle) or via a heat exchanger tap-in. Nice! But hardly worth running the engine for.

Another thought is hanging the black bags on deck or off the boom. Shower in the cockpit! Rig weathercloths in an anchorage!

You need water, sure, but HOT water? Not so much, maybe. You can boil a gallon on the stove in a pot quickly and that will suffice for dishes, etc. For shaving, take a pint of hot water out of the bag into a Thermos cup.

If you really want hot pressure water on demand for ten gallon showers, it's going to take money, space and diesel. If you want something to sponge off salt from bathing in the sea, it's very low tech.


----------



## Freesail99

If you have opening ports, a $15.00 solar shower bag ( 5 gallons ) and a hose would be a easy quick fix, for the hot water issue.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Thanks for the reply's.

Valiente,

Yes, I have a hot water heater with exchanger. But, as you said, it requires running the main, generator, or really sucking down the batts for. Previously cruising, we did not have the solar system we have today and would run one of the diesels enough that hot water was rarely a problem. I have also found that south of Tampa, your hot water useagae drops considerably. 

I actually thought of a different idea:

What about snaking a small diameter tube through a black cloth/black plastic. Make it look like a cooling coil on an airconditioner. Put that system on a closed water loop with a circulating, low amp, solar activated pump. Roll it out across the bimini or cabin top. Once the water reaches critical temperature, it can be connected (manually or permanently) into the main water system on the hot water side of the boat. The entire system would be light, it would carry extra water, it could be stowed below when not in use, and the water could be drained when neccessary to prevent high COG weight. I just have to design it now. Seems easy enough and I have not seen anything like it on the market. You might also be able to snake that sytem around the refrigeration lines and pull some of the hot water off of them - making both of them more efficient.

Thoughts? No one steal my idea!!!!


Freesail,

I have seen and used solar showers. They are "ok" and that was the first thing I thought about too. It may be my only non-diesel answer.


----------



## soul searcher

I worked on a solar system that was on a house that used water to heat the concrete pad preheat water for the hot water heater and preheat air going into the central heating. It pumped water through the pannels when ever the temp differance between the storage tank and the pannels was right. it had a anti syphon at the pannel so that when the pump shut off the water would fall back down into the tank. it kept the pannels from boiling. I keep thinking about that system. and how to adapt it to the boat for hot water. My neighbor has a black 100 ft garden hose coiled up that works good.Too good the problem is getting the right temp at the nozle with out a mixer valve. maybe you could work out some sort of T into the hot line going to the shower with a selector, solor water or hot water heater. you could just T off the heat exchanger and circulate coolant through the pannel and the water heater but I dont know if keeping the engine at 140 degrees all the time would be good. be nice up north but not down here.
gets hot enough in my boat as it is. I guess you could isolate the engine then it would work. all you need is a differetial control and a small ciculaion pump.
Just a thought.
Matt


----------



## Idiens

Hey CD - There are plenty of hot water solar panels you could fit. They will need a circulation pump (powered by your new panels). Just another area of black on the roof top.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Matt,

Neat ideas. I thought about the T too. I would just run it into the hot water side of the hot water heater. Pull the hot water out of the heater and from the panel.

I gotta put my thinking cap on that one.



Idiens,

I was thinking about something that was more like a big flat mat that could be thrown here or there. Nothing permanent. Too much weight top side. Thoughts?????

- CD


----------



## Idiens

CD - I think a mighty length of black rubber hose coiled up in a matt shape and a pump to circulate the water through the calorifier would work fine. A bit of rope work to hold it all together would do. Or uncoiled, it could be used to fill the water tanks. Ali tube would be more efficient, but not so easily stored.


----------



## soul searcher

I Think the coolant Idea is better. be less plumbing and easer to control. I dont think it would take much of a pump to handle the ciculation.
The best sytem would be to cruise to about 15 degrees south then it's a nonissue


----------



## Idiens

Ah! If he sails south the problem will reverse - how to get cool?


----------



## Cruisingdad

Idiens,

Good idea and cheap experiment on the hose. I will try it. Thanks.


Matt,

I agree on the lattitiude... and the attitude (wouldn't Bob Bittchin be happy)!!


----------



## soul searcher

Idiens,

Thats kind of what my neighbor was thinking you have to carry a hose anyway why not get a black one. he even had a hevy card board box that was spray painted black on the inside just didnt have any way of controling it
temp wise. panels are better because they keep the wind from cooling the coils the dead air inside the panel heats up really fast Even in sub zero temps.
That house I worked on was 90 miles from the Canadian boarder in Idaho. and I saw the panel temps at 180 several times when it was 20 below outside. I know If I lived In New England and kept my boat in the water I'd work it out so my engine was in the loop and it would help heat the inside of the boat with a small fan. the optimum arangment would thermo syphon and require no power.
Matt


----------



## Idiens

Hi Matt, yes it's all about heat transfer. For efficiency, black aluminium pipe would work well, but with plenty of heat to spare, a hose pipe would be fine. Even in my climate, the water in the dockside hose starts off hot, having been cooked in the hose.


----------



## soul searcher

It's easy to cool off just hop overboard  
CD, If I ever run into Bob Bitchin out there We will have to change the name of our boats

Matt


----------



## conchyjoe

sailingdog said:


> I'd second Cam's last post. You really won't get the efficiency they're claiming out of their panels, unless you are anal-retentive about trackng the sun with them. That gets old fast...
> 
> The other problem I see with the solar stick type mounts is how durable they will be when you have any significant wind. Rigid solar panels are heavy and present a fair bit of windage. Without proper support, they can destroy the mounts. Mine mount to two 1" stainless steel rails and the bases are through-bolted where they attach to the boat.


Actually they are as efficient as they say, according to 3-4 folks I have talked to that actually have them installed. One couple keeps them pointed in the direction of the sun during midday when their boat is in it's slip, and gets the rated output of the panels. The MPPT controller does the rest. They NEVER got rated output from their permanent mount panels because they never got direct sunlight.

I don't think moving a panel 3 times a day is anal retentive. After all, we are looking to get the best charge rate, right?

The SolarStik has been in development for a number of years according to the owners I interviewed, and I found the mount points and hardware to be stronger than anything I had seen. And the whole unit can be removed in seconds and stowed in case of inclement weather. Try taking a bimini top down when you have panels mounted on it.

Solarstik is at all the large trade shows, you should stop by and talk to them. And they are expanding into the EU soon as well.


----------



## camaraderie

tookewl...with a 100 watt solar panel at 12V the physics dictates that in direct sunlight you can get 8.3 AMPS at full output in direct sunlight. You are suggesting that WITHOUT adusting the panels for the angle of the sun that you can get the equivilent of between 10 and 12 hours a day of direct sunlight on the panels (setting aside wiring losses). That is complete BS. 
The solar stick may be a good solution for some to get their panels out of the shade and get more output by tending to their angle frequently but I don't recall them claiming to have repealed the Ohms law. First post here...could you have some commercial interest in solar stick?

The owner of "solar stick" says: *"Let's take a look at the Solar Stik power production... It produces about 6 amps per hour "*
You wanna explain how you're getting 80-100 AH out of that?? Maybe you live on a different planet that gets 16 hours of direct sunlight a day???


----------



## sailingdog

Cam-

I'd also question ConchyJoe's authenticity, as both of his two first posts are advocating SolarStiks oddly enough. I would also ask how he knows they're expanding into the EU if he has nothing to do with the company.


----------



## LaLeLu

mikeedmo said:


> We've been looking at the solarstik system which we can mount on a vestigial radar mount on our stern. The system has two solar panels and a mount for a wind generator. We've checked the units out over the last year and have heard nothing negative about them so we're getting ready to pull the trigger and install a system. Hope this is of interest for your given application and if anyone has any good or bad to say about solarstik I'd appreciate hearing from you before we write the check!


I can highly recommend the SolarStik. We just installed one on our boat a few weeks ago. As mentioned above, the system consists of two 50 watt panels, combined with a BlueSky "smart" charge controller. We consistantly get 80 - 100 amp hours per day out of these panels. (Our fridge is the biggest power consumer @ 40 amps, so we have plenty juice to spare). Last weekend we were already making 7.5 amps from 9am to 10am - after that through 4p, we were making 8+ amps per hour (then 7.5 amps and tapers off until sun goes down). The secret is you "pitch" them to the sun 3 times per day. Pitching them just means tilting them so that they are facing the sun - it takes about 3 seconds.

Another issue we faced with deciding which solar panels to go with was that we needed something that was easily removable. The Panels on the SolarStik easily come off and on, and if you choose, the entire mast part of the stick is removable. A few years ago we had to remove our fixed panels three times in preparation for hurricanes - what a pain that was. If you are making an ocean crossing, or had really big following seas, you might opt to remove the panels and the stick. They do have a lock that holds the panels in the down position though, so it would have to be pretty serious conditions that would necessitate removing them.

The SolarStik is built very well - I can stand on the arms of ours and it doesn't even flinch. The materials are high quality, marine proof. The components have pre-built in plugs. The latches have safety lines already attached so the can't be lost. Seriously, I can not say enough good things about this system.

Installation is a bit intimadating at first, but once you understand the process it is really not bad at all. The instructions are written very well. After you have the bottom foot cut and set, it's just a matter of finding the correct angle for the arms. (With a speed square, this is a breeze). We found a local metal fab shop to bend the arms. It took him about 10 minutes and cost $10 each. (Or hire someone to do it - I can't imagine it would cost very much). Installing the wiring is simple - especially since the unit is already pre-wired with plugs. All you need to do is run the wires from the charge controller, to the batteries.

Definately pm me if you have any questions on this system. I am totally sold on it.


----------



## LaLeLu

camaraderie said:


> tookewl...with a 100 watt solar panel at 12V the physics dictates that in direct sunlight you can get 8.3 AMPS at full output in direct sunlight. You are suggesting that WITHOUT adusting the panels for the angle of the sun that you can get the equivilent of between 10 and 12 hours a day of direct sunlight on the panels (setting aside wiring losses). That is complete BS.
> The solar stick may be a good solution for some to get their panels out of the shade and get more output by tending to their angle frequently but I don't recall them claiming to have repealed the Ohms law. First post here...could you have some commercial interest in solar stick?


How can you make that claim - what are you basing that on? Do you have any personal knowledge or experience with this product? I own a solarstik and I have personal, first hand knowledge of getting 8+ amps per hour out of it. I have been at anchor for several days at a time, using only the solarstik and have kept my batteries at *full* charge - running our fridge (that makes ice), using the stereo, running anchor and cabin lights, (and we even use the microwave to make several bags of microwave popcorn  As a post note, I have no affiliation with SolarStik (but I would buy their stock if they went public


----------



## camaraderie

Conchy Joe...*you run a commercial equipment review website with the owner of solar stik as a contributor and as one of your TWO advertisers. Do you think you might have mentioned that in your post??

While you may feel free to contribute here as you see fit. Please adjust your signature to reflect your commercial interest in the success of different products.* Note also that as a commercial poster, you may feel free to contribute answers to questions asked but may not introduce products here or direct people to your site except in answer to their specific questions. Thanks.


----------



## conchyjoe

camaraderie said:


> tookewl...with a 100 watt solar panel at 12V the physics dictates that in direct sunlight you can get 8.3 AMPS at full output in direct sunlight. You are suggesting that WITHOUT adusting the panels for the angle of the sun that you can get the equivilent of between 10 and 12 hours a day of direct sunlight on the panels (setting aside wiring losses). That is complete BS.
> The solar stick may be a good solution for some to get their panels out of the shade and get more output by tending to their angle frequently but I don't recall them claiming to have repealed the Ohms law. First post here...could you have some commercial interest in solar stick?
> 
> The owner of "solar stick" says: *"Let's take a look at the Solar Stik power production... It produces about 6 amps per hour "*
> You wanna explain how you're getting 80-100 AH out of that?? Maybe you live on a different planet that gets 16 hours of direct sunlight a day???


I guess you didn't read my post. I'll make it simple for you.

If you take to 100 watt panels and lay them flat on the earth, they will almost never get direct sunlight. I think you can agree to that.

If you take the same 100 watt panels, and place them where you will get direct sunlight for a few hours during the day, kinda like being in a slip, like LaLeLu is, you will get full rated output of the panels for those few hours. You will also get the indirect sunlight you get from laying them flat on the earth as I explained above.

Therefore, the ability to point them is a gain over the inability to point them. Not to mention keeping them out ot the shade, not having them mounted on your Bimini, or cabin roof, or even hanging of the side, etc, etc.

Also quite a few people simply hook their solar panels and wind generators to their batteries, and then wonder why their batteries fail.

As far as your other comments are concerned, I do know the owners of Solarstik, and I did review it. I am not compensated in any way. I also review many others products from many other owners, speak at sailboat shows, and am respected in the community. You, obviously, are some young whipper snapper, that thinks post count means brains. That IS complete BS.

What I am trying to say is don't knock something, until you have tried it. The truth is, solar panels DO NOT put out 12 volts as you suggested, they put out anywhere from 15V to 20V in some cases. So you need a reliable solar charge controller to tie the whole thing together. A good MPPT charge controller will accentuate those hours of direct sunlight on the panels, increasing your charging capability once again.


----------



## camaraderie

LeLaLu...
*I own a solarstik and I have personal, first hand knowledge of getting 8+ amps per hour out of it.*
Since the owner of solar stick says it puts out 6 amps and you claim 8 I think you might need to adjust your measuring devices. I am NOT disparaging the product only claiming that CONTINOUS output of greater than 8.3 amps is impossible for a 100 watt panel. (100 watts= 12V x 8.3amps!!) and that therefore claims of 80-100 amp hours a day are ridiculous...especially since there are losses in the system and the owner says 6 amps is the average output INTO the batteries after regulation. 
Sorry... I'm glad you are happy with the product but again...the laws of the universe don't get altered just cause somebody mounts a couple of panels on a rotating adjustable mount.


----------



## conchyjoe

camaraderie said:


> LeLaLu...
> *I own a solarstik and I have personal, first hand knowledge of getting 8+ amps per hour out of it.*
> Since the owner of solar stick says it puts out 6 amps and you claim 8 I think you might need to adjust your measuring devices. I am NOT disparaging the product only claiming that CONTINOUS output of greater than 8.3 amps is impossible for a 100 watt panel. (100 watts= 12V x 8.3amps!!) and that therefore claims of 80-100 amp hours a day are ridiculous...especially since there are losses in the system and the owner says 6 amps is the average output INTO the batteries after regulation.
> Sorry... I'm glad you are happy with the product but again...the laws of the universe don't get altered just cause somebody mounts a couple of panels on a rotating adjustable mount.


Sorry, but I am going to believe my eyes, and the eyes of LaLeLu over what folks who have not even seen the product say, no matter what the website says.

Once again, solar panels don't put out 12V. I would consider checking out the BP website for specs, as well as the Blue Sky website, and redo your math.

I don't produce reviews about products unless I see them in action, and research all the components.

I'll debate price with you all day, but the product does at least what it says it does on the website.


----------



## camaraderie

Conchy...Please read MY post. I was responding to TOOKEWL...not you. Too kewl said that WITHOUT ADJUSTMENT they were getting 80-100ah out of their solar stick. I said that was BS. 
I agree the ability to adjust will get you more amps. The point is that the owner and your friend said that 6 amps was maximum in direct sunlight. That means with the ability to adjust you can get a maximum of 6 amps out of the panels while the sun is out if you adjust. 10 hours of sunlight then would give you 60 AMPS. 
As for the MPPT controller and your claim...100 watts is 100 watts...a funtion of design. At 17V output that = 5.88 amps....at 12V output that = 8.33 amps. The MPPT controller makes sure you don't lose too much of the available power in direct sunlight but does not change the maximum theoretical output of 8.33A at 12V and losses in the wiring and charging/regulation /acceptance process probably account for Brian's very realistic 6amp specification. 
I think I'll await the practical sailor test rather than rely on you or your site for my data. 
EDIT: JUST saw your latest post.* I'll debate price with you all day, but the product does at least what it says it does on the website. *Yes it does and the website says 6amps....and makes no outrageous claims. I think they are honest and simply market their product as a unique turn-key solution which it is (at a hefty price premium but with payback in performance over time.) I am objecting to outrageous claims by others.

As for the personal attack...stuff it or I'll pull my moderator button out. We don't allow that here.


----------



## LaLeLu

camaraderie said:


> LeLaLu...
> *I own a solarstik and I have personal, first hand knowledge of getting 8+ amps per hour out of it.*
> Since the owner of solar stick says it puts out 6 amps and you claim 8 I think you might need to adjust your measuring devices. I am NOT disparaging the product only claiming that CONTINOUS output of greater than 8.3 amps is impossible for a 100 watt panel. (100 watts= 12V x 8.3amps!!) and that therefore claims of 80-100 amp hours a day are ridiculous...especially since there are losses in the system and the owner says 6 amps is the average output INTO the batteries after regulation.
> Sorry... I'm glad you are happy with the product but again...the laws of the universe don't get altered just cause somebody mounts a couple of panels on a rotating adjustable mount.


I think that you are not factoring in the "smart" charge controller into your calculations. The charge controller has three displays: battery level, solar panel output and charge controller output. The charge controller output is generally higher than the solar panel output. It has something to do with the controller converting the power so that your batteries can accept it. (This was explained to me, but went in one ear and out the other). Anyway, I don't want to argue with you - my point was that I have personally, consistantly (in the short time we have had it installed) generated 80 - 100 amps per day. If it pleases you, I will take a picture of my charge controller as it hits 8 or above and post that for you. By the way, the charge controller is made by Blue Sky, which, as far as I know, has no affiliation with SolarStik.

For anyone else who is reading this post, if you are interested in the product, talk to someone who has one. I think that there is going to be an article coming up in Practical Sailor on it in the near future. (That's what the SolarStik people said at the boat show - I don't know what month it will be out, so watch for it.)


----------



## tomaz_423

I thought Conchy and Tookewl are one person anyway.

And Cam: TOOKEWL never said WITHOUT ADJUSTMENT - just without adjustment each hour. 
As I read it I understood it like "few times a day would be good enough". 
Simple math: sinus value of the sun attack angle to the paness is one of the the factors reducing the output. This means (look at sin curve values) that adjusting few times a day will give you 80 to 95 percent of what you could get if you would be adjusting all the time.
Sin(90)=1 this means 100% of sun rays hits the solar panel
sin(80)=0.99 this means 99% of sun rays hits the solar panel
sin(70)=0.94 this means 94% of sun rays hits the solar panel
sin(60)=0.87 
sin(50)=0.76 would be 76%, but at this angle the protective glass starts mirroring some rays away 
sin(40)=0.54 
sin(30)=0.5 
sin(20)=0.34 
sin(10)=0.17 this means only 17% would hit the surface, but most is refleced away ba the glass.

So, 30 degree off sun (which is 2 hours) is not a big loss. If you adjust to get 90 degrees in two hours than you must adjust every 4 hours and get more than 95% theorethical gain. 
But please: this in math, not real life. Real life includes: clouds, boat swinging at anchor, shaddows from masts, booms, trees etc, forgeting to adjust, dust on panels, ....


----------



## camaraderie

Susan...you obviously don't understand OHM's law very well and that is NOT a slam.Here's the deal.... As I said...the MAXIMUM output at 12V for a 100Watt solar panel is 8.33amps. This can't happen on your panels since they are rated at 17V so their maximum amp output is 5.88 amps at THAT voltage in direct sunlight. 
The Bluesky is a great device that makes sure their is a good interface between your 17V panels and your 12V battery so that the MAXIMUM amperage is not lost. This means that the blue sky has the potential to get you CLOSE to the theoretical maximum of 8.33amps at 12V being delivered into your batteries. So...I don't doubt that you CAN see 8amps input on your panel at PEAK. 
The other problem with maintaining this even if you could somehow maintain 8AMPS being delivered to your batteries is that your batteries will not accept 8 amps as they begin to edge over 80% charged. But that is a whole nother discussion. The point is that even IF you are able to get 8 amp instantaneous readings...you'd have to maintain that reading for 10 hours a day to get 80 amp/hours into your batteries. That is patently ridiculous unless you are near the equator in a cloudless sky with someone constantly tweaking the panels from 8AM to tropical sunset at 6PM. 
So...hopefully that explains why you are TRUTHFUL when you say you see 8 amps and I am truthful when I say you cant get 80 a/h into your batteries per day. I am prepared to eat my words here if Practical Sailor says anything different.


----------



## tomaz_423

Ohh, forgot to say: It is hart for me to believe such high output for stik.
Even if you point it to the sun it is hard to get max output morning and late afternoon as the sun rays hit atmosphere at low angle so they travel long way (and looses lots of power) before they reach your stik  
As I did not test it I will not calim it is all wrong. I will just take certain claims with some reservation.


----------



## camaraderie

Thomas...thanks for the input. I read the tookewl post differently but as you say...it does not seem possible in any case. I do not think tookewl the same person as Conchyjoe as they have different IP addresses. I assume tookewl has some interest in the product since they provide no user info and have made only one post.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Is it possible that the 100W panels are indeed NOT 100W panels? What if they were 130's? This is going to sound like I am slamming their product... and I am not in any way (or accusing them of being dishonest)... but it would be a pretty slick idea to make your product look better than what it is if you say it has 100W panels but they actualy put in 130W panels. Also, very cold weather will allow a panel to put out more than rated. However, I doubt that is the temps in merrit Island, FL, as I beleive it may require something at or close to zero F. 

Cam, you were in the sound business as I recall. Isn't that a little trick Alpine & Blaupunct?(sp??) used many years ago in the shows so their amps were rated to get into a low amp sound class but were in fact higher rated amps??? I don't know. My memory gets fuzzy.


----------



## LaLeLu

We did an hour by hour amp reading at anchor on Sunday March 11. It was a clear, sunny, typical Florida day. Started readings at 7:30 am and last reading was done at 6:30 pm. During that time period we calculated we got 84.9 amp hours. I have the actual chicken scratch, hour by hour notes on my boat. And that's in March - I expect it will only improve as the days get longer.


----------



## camaraderie

CD...no...these are not proprietary panels. They are standard 50 watters.

Oh yeah...I almost forgot...one thing not mentioned yet is AT ANCHOR where these things are designed to be used, the boat is gonna be swinging all over the place with wind/tide and current. Seems like one would have to be a slave to the panels to get anything close to max out of them.


----------



## LaLeLu

camaraderie said:


> Susan...you obviously don't understand OHM's law very well and that is NOT a slam.Here's the deal.... As I said...the MAXIMUM output at 12V for a 100Watt solar panel is 8.33amps. This can't happen on your panels since they are rated at 17V so their maximum amp output is 5.88 amps at THAT voltage in direct sunlight.
> The Bluesky is a great device that makes sure their is a good interface between your 17V panels and your 12V battery so that the MAXIMUM amperage is not lost. This means that the blue sky has the potential to get you CLOSE to the theoretical maximum of 8.33amps at 12V being delivered into your batteries. So...I don't doubt that you CAN see 8amps input on your panel at PEAK.


I have personally seen it read 8.1 - with my own eyes!!!! I don't know where you are getting your numbers above (5.88) - and that is NOT a slam on you. I think your math and or logic are wrong. We get at least 6 hours of consistant readings of 8 amps. It is already reading 7.5 amps by 10am. I am not making that up - I have no reason to lie about the results I am getting. It really is just a great product, and frankly, it bothers me when I read your unfounded critisisms. I would ask you to reserve your judgment until they are tested by Practical Sailor. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that they will meet or exceed the manufacturers claims.


----------



## sailingdog

CD-

Unless they have a radically new photocell technology, they are 50 W panels. I've looked at the dimensions, and it is unlikely that they could generate 65W per panel. I have two 130W panels on my boat btw, so I have a pretty good idea of what solar panels are capable of. I've also installed a few panels, both amorphous and poly/monocrystalline types on several boats. Also, from a manufacturing viewpoint, it wouldn't pay to advertise the panels as being only 50W panels if they were actually 65W panels. The price difference between the panels is significant, and anyone who prices them would opt to buy the ones labeled 65W panels, since I seriously doubt that they could sell 65W panels at the price of 50W panels. 

LaleLu-

A smart controller makes the use of the electricity coming out of the panels more efficient...but you still lose a goodly portion of what the MPPT controller reports as heat. Battery charging tends to have significant thermal losses.


----------



## LaLeLu

camaraderie said:


> CD...no...these are not proprietary panels. They are standard 50 watters.
> 
> Oh yeah...I almost forgot...one thing not mentioned yet is AT ANCHOR where these things are designed to be used, the boat is gonna be swinging all over the place with wind/tide and current. Seems like one would have to be a slave to the panels to get anything close to max out of them.


Comaraderie, why are you so insistant on critisizing this product? We tilt our panels 3 times a day when the sun is up and once again before we go to bed (so they are facing east to catch the first sun). If your boat is swinging that bad at anchor to warrant changing any more than that, than I would guess that you must be anchored in the middle of a shipping channel - and you should probably move. The procedure for changing the panels is this: push each panel up or down with your finger (takes 2 seconds each) - occasionally, you will also need to rotate the mast (takes up to 3 seconds). If you can't tilt your panels b/c you are off your boat, then point them where they will get the most exposure for the time period you anticipate you will be gone (and yes, it is true you don't get near as much power when you leave them in a fixed position - but isn't that the point of the whole system?)


----------



## Cruisingdad

According to their web site:

*Why were BP solar panels chosen to be used on the Solar Stik™?

The primary reason BP panels were chosen is because of their power output. Routinely, the BP panels power output exceeded their 50 watt power rating as the panels were pitched into direct sunlight. In addition, the clear anodized aluminum frame is the strongest available on the market. As a result, the BP solar panels are ideally suited for manual adjustment when aiming The Solar Stik™ toward the sun.*

I reviwed independent testing (I think by the state of California). Here is that web site:

http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/cgi-bin/eligible_pvmodules.cgi

Though the BP panels exceeded many of the other panels in CEC rating (%), they do not show them exceeding their stated value.


----------



## LaLeLu

sailingdog said:


> CD-
> 
> Unless they have a radically new photocell technology, they are 50 W panels. I've looked at the dimensions, and it is unlikely that they could generate 65W per panel. I have two 130W panels on my boat btw, so I have a pretty good idea of what solar panels are capable of. I've also installed a few panels, both amorphous and poly/monocrystalline types on several boats. Also, from a manufacturing viewpoint, it wouldn't pay to advertise the panels as being only 50W panels if they were actually 65W panels. The price difference between the panels is significant, and anyone who prices them would opt to buy the ones labeled 65W panels, since I seriously doubt that they could sell 65W panels at the price of 50W panels.
> 
> LaleLu-
> 
> A smart controller makes the use of the electricity coming out of the panels more efficient...but you still lose a goodly portion of what the MPPT controller reports as heat. Battery charging tends to have significant thermal losses.


You don't get it - your fixed panels are only efficiant 1/3 of the time the sun is up. My 50 watt panels are 100% efficient as long as I have them pitched to maximum sun. So, I can get 3 x the power from my panels than you can. That makes my 50 watt panels the same out put as a 150 watt panel***.

**** Edit - I should have said same efficiency as a 150 watt FIXED panel!!!


----------



## camaraderie

LeLaLu...I am not criticizing. I am skeptical. You clearly don't understand what 100 watts means. I've tried to explain it but you still don't get it. Of course you see more amps at 12V than the panels put out at 17 VOLTS.

Watts EQUALS VOLTS times AMPS.
If you have 100 watts of panels rated at 17Volts then 5.88 is how many amps they put out at 17 VOLTS. 
If you have 12V batteries they can't take MORE than about 14.4 Volts in bulk charging stage (run down to 50%)...so without an MPPT regulator you would lose some significant amps. 
The MPPT regulator insures that the conversion from a 17V panel to a 12V battery charge is efiicient and does not waste available amperage like normal regulators would. This is good...it insures you can get close the the MAXIMUM 12V AMPS FROM 100 WATT PANELS WHICH IS GOVRERNED BY OHMS LAW!! AND IS 8.33AMPS. Reality of amp hours delivered into your battery will be less due to CLOUDY DAYS,CLOUDS on sunny days, SWINGING AT ANCHOR, FAILURE TO ADJUST THE PANELS FREQUENTLY, WIRE LOSSES, CONVERSION LOSSES AND BATTERY CURRENT ACCEPTANCE LIM"ITATIONS "IN THE FLOAT STAGE

It's nice that it is only 10:30 and you are seeing 7.5 amps. That's three hours of sunlight at less amps than you claimed already and you'll have the same on the other end as the sun goes down. PLUS this is AT THE DOCK.

Sorry...AGAIN...NOT CRITICIZING THE PRODUCT...just unrealistic expectations that you would have others believe which are physically impossible in actual use. My original comment is that *at anchor in daily use one would be lucky to get 50a/h's a day out of them*. I stand by that comment will not change it until and unless Practical Sailor proves me wrong.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Well, all I can say is this is what happened when I unplugged my 520 Watt panels the other evening:










Unfortunately, I can only put out 176 amps/day - even with my Outback MPPT and brand new clean panels. I am getting screwed. Where can I buy my Solar Pik??

- CD


----------



## sailingdog

LaLeLu said:


> You don't get it - your fixed panels are only efficiant 1/3 of the time the sun is up. My 50 watt panels are 100% efficient as long as I have them pitched to maximum sun. So, I can get 3 x the power from my panels than you can. That makes my 50 watt panels the same out put as a 150 watt panel***.
> 
> **** Edit - I should have said same efficiency as a 150 watt FIXED panel!!!


Susan-
*
Nice of you to make more assumptions not in evidence. *Hmm... I don't recall saying my panels were fixed... Hmmm... I don't see it said in my previous post that they were fixed... I've used both fixed and trackable panels.

BTW... Actually, I doubt you get the output of a 150 fixed panel from your 50 watt panel. If it is setup to get maximum efficiency during the mid-part of the day,* it is losing efficiency when the sun is weaker to begin with... so the actual energy lost is lower.*.. Nice try though. A properly mounted fixed 150W panel probably gets at least 50% of the power of a tracking 150W panel adjusted three times a day-or approximately the equivalent of a 75W tracking panel...._which is more than what a 50W tracking panel can possibly generate._


----------



## camaraderie

Lelalu...just saw your latest post. You are wrong. Fixed panels still charge even when not in direct line with the sun AND due to losses through the atmosphere at lower angles you cannot triple the average fixed 50 watt panels output even with frequent adjustment. I had FIXED 160watt panels unshaded on my boat and I WOULD expect that with FREQUENT adjustment your 100 watt panels could meet or beat what I got out of those...see I DO think it is nice to be able to adjust....but it isn't anywhere close to triple since theoretical maximum for your panels is well less than double my actual maximums and you will fall well short of theory in actual use.
Stop trying to make outlandish claims based on little or no knowledge of basic electrical principles for an otherwise good product and then I'll shut up about the output issues.


----------



## LaLeLu

Camaraderie, I think that you should stop making claims against something w/o any first hand knowledge. Fixed panels only produce 100% of their rated watts when they are pointed at the sun. The claims I made are not in anyway "outlandish" - they are completely backed up by my personal observations. Your claims, on the other hand, are completely bull crap. You have absolutely no first hand knowledge of the product, yet you feel compelled to slam it. (and you are the moderator here???? - Bizarrre! to say the least.) Obviously, you will not agree with me, but will you beleive it when you see it in print in Practical Sailor? Probably not - you will probably argue with them as well.


----------



## LaLeLu

sailingdog said:


> Susan-
> *
> Nice of you to make more assumptions not in evidence. *Hmm... I don't recall saying my panels were fixed... Hmmm... I don't see it said in my previous post that they were fixed... I've used both fixed and trackable panels.
> 
> BTW... Actually, I doubt you get the output of a 150 fixed panel from your 50 watt panel. If it is setup to get maximum efficiency during the mid-part of the day,* it is losing efficiency when the sun is weaker to begin with... so the actual energy lost is lower.*.. Nice try though. A properly mounted fixed 150W panel probably gets at least 50% of the power of a tracking 150W panel adjusted three times a day-or approximately the equivalent of a 75W tracking panel...._which is more than what a 50W tracking panel can possibly generate._


Really, so your 130 watt panels are not fixed??? Please post a photo of them. I am curious to see the contraption that you could mount 2 130 watt panels on that would allow you to pitch it.


----------



## LaLeLu

camaraderie said:


> It's nice that it is only 10:30 and you are seeing 7.5 amps. That's three hours of sunlight at less amps than you claimed already and you'll have the same on the other end as the sun goes down. PLUS this is AT THE DOCK.
> 
> Sorry...AGAIN...NOT CRITICIZING THE PRODUCT...just unrealistic expectations that you would have others believe which are physically impossible in actual use. My original comment is that *at anchor in daily use one would be lucky to get 50a/h's a day out of them*. I stand by that comment will not change it until and unless Practical Sailor proves me wrong.


Again, I have made hourly amp readings and personally seen my panels produce 84.9 amps from 7:30 am to 6:30 pm.


----------



## camaraderie

Lelalu...you again are wrong...panels do NOT put out their full rated output when pointed at the sun. Only when the sun's ANGLE TO THE ATMOSHERE is sufficient to panels get the full power of the sun do they put out their full output so that is why you were in your own words:
ONLY GETTING *7.5AMPS* at 10:30 this morning AND
Getting at least *6* hours a day of 8 AMPS

If your panels were pointed at the sun you should be getting 10 hours a day at 8 amps so you are wrong. 
Fixed panels do not give 100% of their output when off axis either put they don't shut off like you "triple the power" comment would have us believe. You may own them and be happy with them but you don't know what the hell you are talking about and you just keep digging the hole deeper. I don't have to own a product to determine that it can't violate the laws of nature!


----------



## sailingdog

LaLeLu-

* Again... making assumptions not in evidence.*.. the panels are mounted separately on an 18' wide trimaran. Each panel is totally independent of the other... I can deploy the port, the starboard or both panels as needed.
*
I also find it very interesting that you try to throw the discussion towards the way my panels are mounted and away from your argument that the 50W panel you have can generate as much electricity as an 150W fixed mount panel. *


----------



## TrueBlue

I'm not getting into this futile debate, but one reason I no longer frequent the Lats & Atts site is because of this same attitude, from regulars who hang in "The Bilge" forum. 

Looks like the tag team of conchyjoe & LaLeLu have migrated over here to Sailnet.


----------



## camaraderie

LelaLu...you are once again wrong. Full output is only achieved when both the panels are pointed at the sun AND the sun is high enough over the horizon to generate a full output. This is why YOU only get 7.5 amps at 10:30 AM and see 8 amps for 6 hours a day rather than the 12 hours a day that the sun is availlable to be pointed at with your panels. 
Furthermore...fixed panels don't put out their full output except for the 4 hours a day or so that the sun is overhead BUT they still provide usable output for several hours on either side of that making your "triple the output" claim simply laughable. 
Interestingly you claim that I am slamming the product which I have not done...NOR do they make any of YOUR claims on their website. So just who is trying to pull the wool over anyone else's eyes. 
As a moderater I have NO DUTY to curtail my personal opinions and I am not in the employ of sailnet. I simply am asked to remove spam and limit offensive posts. I make no claim to special expertise and indeed there are others here that know more about batteries and electricity than I do. I do KNOW a lot more than you about it apparently and won't allow ridiculous assertions that even the manufacturer of your product doesn't make to go unchallenged.


----------



## LaLeLu

While I am really enjoying the dog pile over here - I see that it is quite futile to argue with you folks who, while you have no personal experience with the product, feel compelled to give your derrogatory opinions. I am not new to this bb - but I did stop posting here for just this reason - I'm not into the dog pile. (btw, did you know that the earth is not flat?) 

To anyone else that has read this thread and is interested in the product, my personal experience is that it meets or exceeds all the manufacturers claims. I would extend an invite to anyone who's in the area to show you how it works and how we installed ours. The boat's in Harbor Town marina in Merritt Island, Fla. I'll even show you my 10 hour amp reading record - if you promise not to show it to Comaraderie 

Later!


----------



## camaraderie

Gee Susan ...that is very polite of you. Unlike your post over at Lats and atts...
* Hi all, I am getting my butt whooped over on the Sailnet Board. Dog piled by a bunch of ****. Just needed to come over here for a little comforting.

Hmmm...two faced maybe?? Too much for a girl like you to actually have to deal with facts?? Awww....too bad. Maybe someday you'll take that big sailboat out of the slip and actually go somewhere gain some real experience instead of drinking the kool-aid from product brochures. That's right...go get some lats and atts hugs. **
*


----------



## conchyjoe

Cam and all,

Let me be the voice of reason here for a moment.

I apologize if my post sounded like a personal attack. "young whipper snapper" was a term my grandfather used when I was being a little smart aleck. And I think this thread has a little of that from everyone. I expect apologies all around.

I am only reflecting on personal, non-compensated, first hand knowledge of a show demo, and an actual install of the product on LeLaLu.

I already know what the PS test has determined, and you will be shocked and amazed.

Let me just point out that everything is arbitrary. 12V is arbitrary. Batteries operate around 13.8 actually. Solar panels are different. The sun shines differently in different parts of the world, etc.

I just know what I saw, and call it FM if you wish, but I saw it with my own two eyes, twice. That is all I am saying.

And if you don't subscribe to PS for their non-compensated, first hand knowledge of products, you need to have your head checked. Just click the little link over there on the left, save a few trees, and order the online version.

PS, no I am not TooKewl, Cam can verify that easily.


----------



## Freesail99

> [I am only reflecting on personal, non-compensated, first hand knowledge of a show demo, and an actual install of the product on LeLaLu.
> /QUOTE]
> 
> Conchy Joe, don't you have a web site and isn't this product being advertized on it ? So how are you "non-compensated" ? This post isn't all that different then was posted on SSCA.


----------



## Cruisingdad

That was a nice reply Conchy.

I am not bringing up a sore point and I sure do not want another heated debate, but are you saying you have seen a 100W panel put out close to 100amps in 10-11 hours?

Also, others have asked for pics of my arch and panels, so I will replicate them here:

Here are the panels. 4- Kyocera 130's. They are wired in series to an Outback MX60.










Here is the arch, 2 inch aluminum.


----------



## conchyjoe

Freesail99 said:


> [I am only reflecting on personal, non-compensated, first hand knowledge of a show demo, and an actual install of the product on LeLaLu.
> 
> 
> 
> Conchy Joe, don't you have a web site and isn't this product being advertized on it ? So how are you "non-compensated" ? This post isn't all that different then was posted on SSCA.
Click to expand...

FreeSail99, Conchyjoe.com cost me about $300 to put together. $100 for the site, $150 for the logo, and $50 misc. cost.

I put the site together to give people a place to ask "technical" questions, and get an unbiased opinion. In a way that was accomplished. Just read some of the posts. There are some good questions answered. And not just by me.

I'm independently wealthy, so I don't need the advertising dollars.  T-shirt, khaki shorts, flipflops, and a Rolex.


----------



## Valiente

Wow. I go to put my head down for a few hours, and this thread goes nuts.

Wake me when the great leap forward is complete.


----------



## camaraderie

Conchy...thanks for the post. I will await the results and the test conditions and will be happy to retract anything that I said publically if found not to be true.
I don't want to argue about what 100 watts means anymore...so I will not get into voltage and amps again. In my opinion everyone with panels should be using an MPTT controller so we agree on that....but that is not an exclusive benefit of the solar stick. Nor are 100 watt solar panels. The "exclusives" of the solar stik are: 
1. An innovative and veratile mounting system.
2. Adjustable panels to make maximizing A/H's delivered WHILE ON BOARD quite easy.
3. A turn key solar panel solution.

And...I did and DO verify that you are not Tookewl AND I know you and your personality from Lats/Atts where I hang out as well and rarely post. You would not do that. 
I also don't have any issue with your claims as all you have said is that they produce their *rated output* and that being pointed at the sun lets you get that rated output longer than a fixed panel. All of this I agree with.
My point is that in cruising and at anchor you WILL get far less than rated output over time due to all the factors listed above+ absence from the boat. 
LaLeLu said very different stuff. Anyway...that's enough for me on this subject till the test report comes out.


----------



## conchyjoe

Cruisingdad said:


> That was a nice reply Conchy.
> 
> I am not bringing up a sore point and I sure do not want another heated debate, but are you saying you have seen a 100W panel put out close to 100amps in 10-11 hours?
> 
> Also, others have asked for pics of my arch and panels, so I will replicate them here:
> 
> Here are the panels. 4- Kyocera 130's. They are wired in series to an Outback MX60.
> Here is the arch, 2 inch aluminum.


CD, Thanks.

I think you have a way cool installation! The arch is great, I bet you're happy with the output of you panels and MX60. I wanted to review a bunch of controllers and post the results, but life got in the way, and I really don't have the time right now.

I do have to say that I have seen the two BP-50 Blue sky combo on a SolarStik moved 3-4 times on a sunny cloudless day produce power approaching 80AH. I think 79.9 was the most.

If you take a look at this article on the Blue Sky products from PS, it spells out the MPPT technology.

http://www.blueskyenergyinc.com/pdf/Practical Sailor PDF - Blue Sky Energy.pdf

The bottom line, as you have shown, is that the Solarstik is not for everyone. The arch works for you. What burns my behind is when people say derogatory or misleading things about about a product, when they have never laid hands on it.


----------



## conchyjoe

camaraderie said:


> Conchy...thanks for the post.


Thanks Cam. I am your opposite. I mainly lurk here, I have been around since May 2006, and rape and pillage there.

PS. Nice sailboat.


----------



## soul searcher

Conchy you saw two fifty watt panels put 80 amps into a battery?
I can't get the math to work.
50 watts at 12 volts equals 4.16 amps times two( for two panels) is 8.32 amps.12 volts is useless to a battery unless it has a voltage of less than twelve. as voltage increases current falls that same fify watts at 17 volts only gives 2.9amps times two is 6 amps this agrees with Bps open circuit current max. rating on a bp 350, 50 watt panel. so you can asume at charge voltage say 14.2 on my boat you would see 3.52amps times two 7.04 amps times twelve hours a day is 84.43 amps that is what they will do in a perfect world for twelve hours straight. 0 line loss, 0 controller loss and batts that will store 100% of the amps given to them at any voltage. in other words if you are able to store 84 amps a day from 100 watts worth of power you have achieved electrical perfection plus some for a twelve hour period and you really need to apply for a patent for those batteries you cant talk about amps with out knowing at what voltage the amps are coming in at. The only way to detemine what was put into the batteries would be to put a continualy recording amp meter between the controler and the batteries.
Mppt controler are 30 % more efficeant than regular controlers they don't increse panel capacity they cut losses of rated panel capacity by 30% at X temp over non mppt controlers as temp increases they loose some of their benefit. 
There is no doubt that aiming panels will yield more amps at the end of the day than fixed panels will. dont think anyone is argueing that at all. just can't get the math to make sense
all the above is +\-3% according to BP.
Matt


----------



## sailingdog

Well said Matt... the math just doesn't work out, regardless of what Susan on LaLeLu or ConchyJoe say.


----------



## tomaz_423

What about this:
Mount a motor (like on a satellite dish receiver for multiple satellites) and a "sun sensor" on a solar stik and let the electronics follow the sun while you are away (drinking on a neighbour's boat) and your boat swings on anchor and the sun moves over the sky. 
The power draw of such device would be minimal and you would have yet another electronics which could fail or another intelligent piece of gear able to tangle all by itself - isn't that great. Then you could fix it and be even more happy.
Wait - I should be manufacturing and selling this device!
I will have two versions:
1) follow the sun 1 - turning in one dimension)
2) Follow the sun de luxe - moving around and also up and down for max result
Ask me to disclose how "Sun sensor device" is build.
P.S. employing a bow thruster to move the boat if the mast shadows the cells is out of question - more power loss than power gain (safety is ignored by purpose - no-one is allowed to swim close to my boat)


----------



## sailingdog

Tomaz-

On two 50 Watt panels, you're going to spend more juice running the sensor and motors than you'll probably get in return. It also adds a lot of complexity and expense to the system. Much better to keep it as simple and minimize what can go wrong.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Well,

I have stayed out of this for the most part. Conchy and Susan do not strike me as people that would lie. In fact, I would say they are likely telling us exactly what they saw. Thus, what determinations can be deduced (assuming the laws of physics are not broken):

1) The panels put out exponentially more power than they are rated at. THis seems unlikely to me, especially at that size. The temperature in Florida as I recall is close to STC at 25 degrees Celcius, but in order for them to put out full lab measurements, they would have to stay at about 78F even during charging, not a single cloud, and no haze. Even so, this is impossible throughout the day as the sun set on the horizon. Thus, I rate this as extremely unlikely.

2) The BS Charger is missreading its output. I rate this as quite possible. It is not entirely uncommon, I have come to undersatand from Northern Arizona & Wind (an awesome company for outfitting and questions, by the way). If such, that is not good on the batts.

3) The BS Charger is charging at a low voltage. This seems possible too. As Conch said, he has seen it twice approaching 80 amps. What was the voltage used? At what point did it bring it up to 14.4 (bulk), 13.3. (float), etc???

Anyways, if my 100W panel was showing that it was putting out 80-100amps/day, I would be alarmed, not eccstatic. Something would seem amiss to me. Also, with a outside temp of 78 degrees F, what is the batt temps? Are they in the 60's? If so, the voltage should be set higher to compensate... or am I wrong in these assumptions??

(PS, at 60 F, I think the offset is only .2 V... so not much).

I guess what I am saying is lets assume conch and Susan actually saw these (I am assuming they did not hook up their own independent VM and measure it all independent and am assuming they just looked on the BS panel and used its figures). Thus, why are they seeing these numbers??


----------



## tomaz_423

SD. 
Sure. My post was a joke I thied to move attention from whos dik is bigger/better" or was that stik - English is not my language. 
Not for the draw - a small 10w motor could be used and only activated when more than 30 degrees off optimum - perhaps limmited to few movement per hour. It is the complexity that would kill it. I know I would be nervous knowing something is moving on my boat without my control. If it goes wrong can break the panels...


----------



## sailingdog

Tomaz-

I see... Then CD and I win... we have 130 W panels...not the wimpy 50W panels they're using...  Simple is much better. Harder to break. Easier to fix. Good all around.


----------



## LaLeLu

camaraderie said:


> Gee Susan ...that is very polite of you. Unlike your post over at Lats and atts...
> * Hi all, I am getting my butt whooped over on the Sailnet Board. Dog piled by a bunch of ****. Just needed to come over here for a little comforting.
> 
> Hmmm...two faced maybe?? Too much for a girl like you to actually have to deal with facts?? Awww....too bad. Maybe someday you'll take that big sailboat out of the slip and actually go somewhere gain some real experience instead of drinking the kool-aid from product brochures. That's right...go get some lats and atts hugs. **
> *


Oh so I see that you do read Lats and Atts after all? You are funny.


----------



## xort

I started this thread. It was going along pretty darn good until the solar dick people started butting in with exagerations.

"Dog-piled by a bunch of ****???"
That dumb *ss dyke can kiss my keel! I'll be looking out for la de da


----------



## LaLeLu

camaraderie said:


> My point is that in cruising and at anchor you WILL get far less than rated output over time due to all the factors listed above+ absence from the boat.
> LaLeLu said very different stuff. Anyway...that's enough for me on this subject till the test report comes out.


Quite consistant arent you? As usual, you were not reading the posts. My results of 84.9 amp hour day was acheived at anchor - not on the dock.


----------



## soul searcher

Sorry Xort,


> I'm planning on a little over 100 amps per day and was expecting to get most of that from 2 large panels and a wind gen. Not practical?


 Boats as a whole are not practical, and watt for watt neither are solar and wind power, but it beats the alternative. I like it it because it reduces my dependace on others. as long as they hold up and god keeps feeding them the raw materials to make the power.
I have two 85 watt panel and an air x they handle my boat OK at anchor and little better than that underway. the only electric draw we have that amounts to much is the refer and the auto pilot having the solar and wind elimanates two big draws in two different ways as long as my panels keep up with the refer and the wind machine can run the pilot Ill eat the rest in fuel.
a person out and about shouldn't be on their boat using power anyway
Matt.


----------



## camaraderie

That's it Susan...it is all about me. Change the subject from ****. 
And you didn't get 84 amps at anchor at the dock or anywhere on earth from a 100 watt panel. If you are not lying (and I don't believe you are) then something is wrong with your measurement system.

*And when did I ever say I didn't read Latts and Atts.?*..*I had TWO articles published by them in 2005 ....and got paid for them* and have been reading the mag since issue #1 which I still have. I just don't post too much on that board but you can see me going back to the re-start of the board. I just think it is funny that you go running back complaining about **** here when it is YOU have never cruised beyond a weekend or a week or so in protected waters. You don't know what it means to live on the hook or what to expect from your systems when you do. 
* And what have you got against ****?? Not a nice word Susan and shows what kind of a person you really are.*


----------



## tigerregis

Geez, gentleman, did I speak too soon on this informative panel, oops I mean discussion?


----------



## sailaway21

Ah the vernal equinox is showing her wiles again. Every year the inmates get restless over a simple transitory exercise in equality. Rest easy, nature will restore things to a state of imbalance by morning.

I am amazed at the amount of energy expended on what really amounts to a very trivial amount of energy. Of course, for some, it is the only route. Lotta money for not such-a-much.

But, in the interest of shedding light and not heat on the subject, I would caution all that electrical measurements are to be taken with a large grain of salt. One of the negative, and I'm trying to remember the positive, aspects of digital meters is that people believe they are actually getting 14.534 volts. Analog meters are better in that they make no pretense of being accurate to a level they are not. A result of this is that people start arguing over numbers. In the case in question, the numbers are irrelevant as we are trying to adjust the panel to maximize what is there. You can't make any more "is" because is is what it is.(got that?) Instantaneous amp readings are highly suspect, especially from a variable supply source, the sun. Even with a constant supply source, if you go down to a fine enough scale, you will see fluctuations in the amp meter. Changes in ambient temperature alone are sufficient to cause minor changes. No one here has the level of equipment to accurately measure what is captured over the course of a day. My company sells thermostats, for homes, that can be adjusted in the temp. displayed. You can set the stat for 68F and the display will show 72F, and grandma is happy. I suspect that Susan's meter is off a bit, but who cares? She's happy with the product, if a little weak on electrical theory. I wish I could describe Al Gore in such kind terms.

As far as panel ratings go. Contrary to what previous posters have said, it is quite common to construct the same product and have different outputs. Most obviously, manufacturers all rate their products in slightly different ways. More to the point, it is not uncommon for a manufacturer to use a 1/2hp motor on a pump and call it a 1/3hp pump. They never talk about this, but it does simplify production, and they end up with a 1/3hp pump that seems to out perform. I commonly see 10gpm pumps that produce more water than 12gpm pumps. There are alot of rational reasons for this, none found in the manufacturers literature, and in the end, 'who cares?', you're pumping water and can now take a shower! If we have stumbled upon a 100watt panel that is cranking out more than spec. I would say, with further confirmation, it's a good thing(Martha goes to sea, if you will).

All electrical appliances are designed to operate across a spectrum of voltage because we can't regulate voltage that accurately, and still supply the quantities needed for varying loads. You get 112 volts at home and your neighbor is getting 115volts-so what?-Laverne and Shirley still look the same on the tube. I was never on a ship that I could get a regular electric clock to keep time; sometimes it would be fast and sometimes slow. That's juice.

a note to Susan,
Most of the people here are quite decent, and I think you have been treated decently. The problem lies in that there are some well educated people here, and if you present something that, for instance contradicts Ohm's law, they are going to jump all over it. If this occurred in a verbal conversation it wouldn't seem at all inappropo. But here, at the speed of an electron, offense can appear to have been intended. This applies also if someone mis-words something. Instantly they feel like the screws of the 'Iron Maiden' are turning in on them. We've all been there and done that, the T-shirts are on back order. This does not mean you are wrong; it just means you either have to bring more facts to the table, or explain the ones you have better. I was particularly pained to hear the reference to dog's; I'm having a minor personal crisis on that front right now! Dogs, poofters, and bare knuckle 'tell me what you really think of me' discussions are welcome over on "off topic" under the sobriquet "I'm an ass and full of crap". (yes it really does exist. but it's sorta like the Hotel California) Thank you, and I'm glad you're happy with your array.

Personally, I think the Honda gen-set, strapped to the foredeck and painted up to look like an anchor windlass, is alot more attractive than those SkyLab units you guys are bolting up. and at 45db it's quieter than most 16 year old girls.


----------



## sailingdog

Sailaway-

Exactly what is wrong with dogs??


----------



## Valiente

sailaway21 said:


> Personally, I think the Honda gen-set, strapped to the foredeck and painted up to look like an anchor windlass, is alot more attractive than those SkyLab units you guys are bolting up. and at 45db it's quieter than most 16 year old girls.


Or you could keep it in an identical deck box as the two bottles of propane, which lends a nice symmetry. Thanks for being the voice of sanity and good humour. 

I don't care if the thing produces ambrosia on tap...it would interfere with my future wind vane and I don't want the weight and windage back there. I don't have the reverse transom, either.

I have no doubt it will find a market, however, because it's easy to understand and you can stick a TV antenna on it. The web site's animations and music got tired fast, however, and I still don't know how much it costs.

Did someone mention Practical Sailor tests? Which issue?


----------



## sailingdog

Valiente-

The PS test hasn't been published yet IIRC. I prefer the way I have mine mounted as the stern is still clear and I can get a wind vane still.


----------



## hedglin

Can we talk about wind? All sailors love wind!

I'd like to hear some experiences with the current technology. There are some new developments I read about recently that sound interesting.

http://news.com.com/Micro+wind+turbines+are+coming+to+town/2100-11398_3-6037539.html
http://www.aerotecture.com/
http://www.windside.com/


----------



## camaraderie

hedglin...interesting links but I don't think there's much there for us boaters yet. We are having a bit of a discussion on wind on another thread...ketch mount windvane...if you want to join in. 
From you last link I thought the most interesting thing was the chart showing average wind speed on the Finnish coast over 6 months. Essentially if you convert m/s into knots by doubling...you see that it is critical for windvanes used in anchorages to make good juice at and around 8-12 knots...15+ knots gets good output from most vanes but you don't get enough of those days in most anchorages and there is huge variability in amperage in the <10Kt. range between brands and models. 
In particular..the small multi-bladed fans seem to be generally poor relative to their big bladed rivals in the lower ranges...but there are differences in the big bladed units as well. 
Now if you could find a small blade unit that comes on a stick that might change everything...<lol>


----------



## Cruisingdad

Funny cam. Very funny.


----------



## sailingdog

But would the wind generator on a stick be more efficient than its stated watts rating???


----------



## LaLeLu

I am troubled by the way I left this thread, so I am back here to try to clean it up. My initial posts were made in an attempt to give my support for a system that I really believe in. Somewhere along the line I got caught up in fielding and delivering insults. The plain fact is that, while I may not have a degree in nuclear physics, I can count and I can read a charge controller display. My SolarStik is really producing 80+ amp hours per day. I went back and re-read the thread. I read the SolarStik and BlueSky literature. I also did some Google research on solar energy to try to figure out why the system appears to defy basic math. Here are some things that I think were left out or not appreciated in the thread above.

With fixed panels, the sun is almost never directly overhead – save for maybe a couple weeks during the vernal equinox. Therefore, a fixed panel is almost never going to operate at its rated output. The SolarStik moves so that it can always be in a position to achieve its rated output – as long as there is direct sun available. 

The SolarStik information states that it is designed to operate at 200 – 300% of its operating efficiency. So, it is a 100 watt system that has the capability to operate with the same efficiency as a 300 watt fixed system.

The panels used are 17 volt panels, but combined with the BlueSky charge controller, the voltage is manipulated. BlueSky states that you will get 30% more power with the smart charge controller. Also, without a charge controller, you loose solar power because your batteries cannot keep up with the power that is being generated at peak output. By manipulating the output voltage, the BlueSky charge controller also allows you to charge your batteries to a fuller capacity. 

The posts above assume a 10 hour day is the max for generating solar power – that’s fixed panel thinking. Of course it varies depending on the time of the year. Generally, you can expect the SolarStik to operate at 100% of rated output from 2 hours after sunrise to 2 hours before sunset. That doesn’t mean that you aren’t producing power before and after that, it’s just not at 100% of the rated output because you don’t have the ability for direct exposure until that time. In the summer months, when there is daylight for about 14 hours (6:30 am to 8:30 pm) you will have about 10 hours of direct sun (ie 8:30 am to 6:30 pm). The key is that the panels pitch so that they can be in direct sun, even when the sun is not at its highest. 

Hope this doesn’t incite another riot


----------



## sailingdog

Susan-

I hope you can understand this is not an attack on you but a clarification.

First, the *SolarStik panels can move, but do not move, unless you move them.* So their positioning is really user dependent. This is not a set it and forget it system, it requires some user intervention. While this may be fine for some users, the additional slight increases in efficiency aren't really worth it for some users, so a moveable mount system isn't worth the additional cost.

Saying that a panel is designed to operate at *200-300% efficiency is marketing hogwash.*.._ It is physically impossible for a panel to work at anything better than 100% efficiency as a general rule and usually that is only theoretical._ A 100W system can not operate with the same efficiency as a 300W system, however, under very specific circumstances, like shadowed panels, inefficient mounting angles, etc, it may produce as much power as one. However, it seems to me that it would be very unlikely to do so on a constant basis.

* Almost all larger panels are 17 VDC or a bit more.* The ones I have actually output 18.5 VDC on most days. Any MPPT charge controller has the possibility of increasing efficient use of the current coming out of the panels, but they will not increase the power than the panels are capable of generating-only using it more efficiently. BTW, most MPPT charge controllers also use some of the energy, and the less efficient ones can actually cost you available power.

Also, the MPPT charge controller really doesn't let you charge you batteries any more completely than they would normally. *What they really do is prevent the higher voltages generated by the panels from damaging your batteries... *17VDC will boil off the electrolyte in wet cells and AGM batteries, dry the gel out in Gel cells. They also increase efficiency a bit by lowering the voltage to the bulk charging rate and increasing the amperage a bit in the process. If your batteries are at 12.8 VDC or essentially topped off, the MPPT isn't magically going to make them able to go up to 13.0VDC... just doesn't happen. In that case, the best you can hope for is that the MPPT doesn't boil off the batteries..

Also, batteries can only accept power a given rate, regardless of what charging controller you're using. It's simply due to the limitations of the batteries design and construction. AGM batteries have a higher acceptance rate than wet cells, due to the limitations of the design. If you really want to get an efficient DC electrical system that can maximize use of solar panels... get AGM batteries.

The atmosphere really limits the amount of the day that is usable for solar power. The 10-hour day is the max, you've even said as much in your own post. *BTW, this is not really the case... the longer the day is, the farther from the equator you have to be and the weaker the sun is, due to travelling through more atmosphere, so it's really a wash in many ways. *At the equator, you'd have only about eight hours (12-(2+2)) but it would be far stronger than if you're up by say Boston. In the summertime a day in Boston may well be 15 hours... but the sun isn't as strong and has much more atmospheric attenuation.

It also seems to me that the SolarStiks would be better suited to people in more temperate latitudes, rather than those in the tropics, where a larger fixed mount solar panel would make far more sense, since the sun is more directly overhead, and that the larger size of the panel would make more efficient use of the time/light factors involved. A longer day would seem to benefit the SolarStiks more, since they are "moveable".

Finally, just because the panel is directly facing the sun-doesn't mean that it is getting the same amount of light as it does at other times. Sun at 8:00 am, two hours after a 6:00 am sunrise is not the same as the sun at the same location at 12:00. It just isn't. Hold your hand up to the sun in the morning... and feel the heat from it... and do the same thing at noon... there's a significant difference... turning the panels doesn't change that fact.

Unfortunately, you've taken a lot of the marketing language and believed it.

One last point I'd like to make. *Most people installing solar power on boats are doing so due to the low post-installation maintenance and user intervention requirements. * For the majority of these people, and I include myself among them, futzing with a solar panel to get a slight increase in the power it gives me really isn't worth the time or effort. That's why I have two 130W panels... which give me far more power than my boat can generally use in a day... even up here in Boston.


----------



## Valiente

Perhaps we can agree that Susan really, really likes her SolarStik and that others do not see it as a universal panacea to keeping one's banks topped up.

For me, the windage and price and the fact they have to be moved (there are, or were, clockwork equinoctal mount motors that kept telescopes moving to keep stars in the visual field, so why not for this thing, I wonder?) are disincentives. Also, with a pilothouse and a lot of room for batteries, I have the incentive and the room to mount a number of 130 W fixed panels, which might only get me the same number of amps as a "sun tracking" system, but is essentially install and forget, save for the monitoring of the output and subsequent state of charge.

Hey, whatever works and keeps the diesels and gensets off the most is good by me.


----------



## Boasun

The one thing about this site is that we have information that will help us make more informed decisions when the time comes to invest in either 'solar', 'wind mills' or both. 
So please keep the data flowing on this subject.
I work on commerical boats in the oil patch and our generators are running 24/7. Two Gensets and swap them off daily, so we can do maintenance on the one not in service. 
I am looking for a live-aboard Sail boat mainly because the keeps going up and I now have a bit of retirement income and may want to go cruising on my own time and not on the company's time.
I am now teaching the 100/200 mate/master Course here in Lafayette LA. FYI. But have sailed and once owned a Catalina 30. But didn't get to much use out of it do to being at sea on ships all the time.


----------



## camaraderie

Thanks SD...I started to reply again but realized that it hurts to keep banging my head against the wall.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Susan,

With all tempers back down, and everyone taking a deep breath, here goes:

The solarstik is not some revolutionary idea that produces space age, jules verne kind of results. I have no doubt you have been seeing 80 something amps on your charger... but for the life of me, we cannot figure out why as it seems to violate physics.

Solarstik is just a moveable mounting system. If you took those panels off of solarstik and stuck them on a cardboard box and held it at the sun, it would produce the same results. Solarstik does not produce its own panels (BP) and sure does not produce its own charger (BlueSky). It costs what, about $5,000 or so?? I am not sure that is installed. Pretending it is, you could sure buy a lot of fixed panels for that which would yield many more amps.

I AM NOT AGAINST THE STIK. I think it is a great idea that will work for many people... but it is only a mounting system. That is all. The rest of the stuff they bought from other people and are readily available on the market outside of SolarStik. They also are not the first to put out a tracking solar array. There are many companies that do that (in fact, some of them are constant trackers, especially the land based, which are more efficient than a SS). Their technology is nothing more than a moveable mount with a packaged, third party system.

I personally spoke with BlueSky, you should know. They said that kind of output was close to impossible. They said a moveable mount (A solarstik) should expect about a 20% increase over fixed panels. They said a constant tracking system (usually land based) only realizes about a 30% increase. That should be your baseline. Anything beyond that is suspect for a problem.

*SOMEONE HELP ME HERE IF MY ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING IS OFF*

Here is what I would do if I were you. You should disconnect your batteries from all (REPEAT ALL) load, including charger and solar (esp solar). Let it sit at rest for at least 5 minutes (at least) to allow your Voltage to equal out. Take a Voltmeter and read your rest voltage across you battery terminals. If they are topped off batts, as would be suggested, you should be reading in the upper 12's. Then, you need to divde 100 (which is your watts) by the voltage you have read. That is your current charge point. If you charge at a voltage less than that, the current is flowing backwards, understand? Whatever that number is, that is the maximum, in the laboratory, theoretical output that you should be realizing by your solars - assuming they are in fact two 50W panels. The state of California rates BP panels at 93% efficient, as I recall, versus the STC of 50W at 25 degrees C. The only time a panel excced its STC is when it is very cold and in full sun. You will not reach that in Florida, short of another ice age. Thus, the real number you should divide into is probably more like 93 (at best, even that is suspect) and not 100, which would reduce your theoretical output.

Here is an example. At rest voltage is 12.5. 93/12.5 is 7.44 A. THat should be your output, max. If it is higher than that, it is because your voltage is lower, your watts are higher, or your reader is off. If the Voltage is lower, you are actually pulling juice OUT of your batts, as the current is flowing backwards. If your watts are higher... then they have misslabeled your panels (I highly, highly doubt). If your reader is off (what I suspect), you need to know so you can use that as a baseline for determining what the acutal output is. You may be able to put a Voltmeter across the leads of your solar and take a reading that way too for something more accurate. Will that work with a MPPT charger... I do not know.

I suggest you call Bluesky. Ask for Rick, he is the technical manager. His number is 760.597.1642 ext. 102. Tell him you are getting close to 100 amps/day from two 50w panels and defying all physics and ohms law with his charger and see what he says. I personally think you have a bad reader/charger, but as I have said many times before, I am not an electrical engineer.

At any rate, I would be concerned about that kind of output. Something is amiss, somewhere. You are a cruiser and liveaboard so you need to find out what. You sure don't want to find out halfway across the pond that the charger has either been missreading and you are not getting what you need - or worse, it is cooking your batts. That may already be too late.

Hope that helps. I am not in any way trying to offend, only help. Hope you see that.

- CD


----------



## LaLeLu

sailingdog said:


> Saying that a panel is designed to operate at *200-300% efficiency is marketing hogwash.*.._ It is physically impossible for a panel to work at anything better than 100% efficiency as a general rule and usually that is only theoretical._ A 100W system can not operate with the same efficiency as a 300W system, however, under very specific circumstances, like shadowed panels, inefficient mounting angles, etc, it may produce as much power as one. However, it seems to me that it would be very unlikely to do so on a constant basis.
> 
> 
> sailingdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said above, I am no expert on solar power. However, I think you are confusing "efficiency" with rated output. As I read it, no solar panel operates at 100% efficiency. (I misspoke above when I said efficiency). I believe most operate at about 20-30 percent efficiency. Again, you are thinking in terms of fixed panels - which are only reaching their rated output when the sun is directly overhead. Moving the panels on the solarstik allows them to achieve their max rated output whenever there is direct sun - and not just at the height of the day.
> 
> 
> 
> sailingdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Almost all larger panels are 17 VDC or a bit more.* The ones I have actually output 18.5 VDC on most days. Any MPPT charge controller has the possibility of increasing efficient use of the current coming out of the panels, but they will not increase the power than the panels are capable of generating-only using it more efficiently.
> 
> 
> sailingdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> The BlueSky charge controller changes the voltage on the output.
> 
> 
> 
> sailingdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, the MPPT charge controller really doesn't let you charge you batteries any more completely than they would normally.
> 
> 
> sailingdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they do - by changing the voltage it allows more power into your batteries that would otherwise be lost.
> 
> 
> 
> sailingdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your batteries are at 12.8 VDC or essentially topped off, the MPPT isn't magically going to make them able to go up to 13.0VDC... just doesn't happen.
> 
> 
> sailingdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you select the proper voltage on the back of the charge controller. For our AGMs, it is 14.5 volts that we set to.
> 
> 
> 
> sailingdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> The atmosphere really limits the amount of the day that is usable for solar power. The 10-hour day is the max, you've even said as much in your own post. *BTW, this is not really the case... the longer the day is, the farther from the equator you have to be and the weaker the sun is, due to travelling through more atmosphere, so it's really a wash in many ways. *At the equator, you'd have only about eight hours (12-(2+2)) but it would be far stronger than if you're up by say Boston. In the summertime a day in Boston may well be 15 hours... but the sun isn't as strong and has much more atmospheric attenuation.
> 
> 
> sailingdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is "fixed panel" thinking. I can get max rated output on my panels starting at 9:30am right now.
> 
> 
> 
> sailingdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> It also seems to me that the SolarStiks would be better suited to people in more temperate latitudes, rather than those in the tropics, where a larger fixed mount solar panel would make far more sense, since the sun is more directly overhead, and that the larger size of the panel would make more efficient use of the time/light factors involved. A longer day would seem to benefit the SolarStiks more, since they are "moveable".
> 
> 
> sailingdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fixed panel thinking again - sun doesn't have to be overhead b/c the panels move. Sun is almost never overhead anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> sailingdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, you've taken a lot of the marketing language and believed it.
> 
> 
> sailingdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that I didn't really believe their claim for 80-100 amp hours, UNTIL I bought it. Like you, I doubted it - thought it had to be exaggerated. The proof is in the results. My boat has been unplugged from shore power for three weeks now.
> 
> People hated roller furling when it first came out too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## LaLeLu

Cruisingdad said:


> It costs what, about $5,000 or so?? - CD


When we bought ours the cost was $3500 with the panels and charge controller. We installed it ourselves.

I don't know why you want me to trouble shoot something that works fine. I hope that the Practical Sailing article does a better job at explaining it than I am able to do.

We are not power misers - we run everything on our 40' boat on just panels. When we are not on the boat the only thing running is the compressor for the fridge - less than 40 amps day. We are not turning the panels either when we are not there so output is not very good, but it is able to keep up with the fridge requirements w/o turning the panels. We have been unplugged from shorepower for 3 weeks.

For the record, we do intend to add wind genny for days when there is little or no sun. I am not saying I think one is better than the other - I think having both is the best way to go. I am also not saying that the SolarStik is the right solution for everyone.

Susan


----------



## Cruisingdad

Susan,

Read my thread above please. Thanks. And if your AGM set point is 14.3 (I thinkg that is the Lifeline bulk max), assuming no temp offset, you should be dividing 93 by 14.3 when you achieve bulk move to aboption... that means 6.5 amps possible theoretical.

Also, the rating for solar panels is such: lab environment, light directly overhead, no haze, 25 c temp with no variation. The watt on a panel is not based upon daily output, fixed mount, or moveable. It is a only a rating system used to compare various panels. It is not real world conditions, as they will tell you. They call that rating STC (Stand test conditions) as I recall.

- CD


----------



## Cruisingdad

Susan,

I even called Northern Arizona and Wind, maybe one of the TOP solar companies in the country. They said that was impossible. They sell BP panels and Bluesky chargers. Why would they lie? 

I AM NOT SAYING YOU ARE LYING!!! I AM SAYING SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH YOUR SYSTEM!

Something is wrong. I am not against their product. It is a great product and a great idea. I paid $3500 just for my arch!!! I am not shooting down their product. By if you are getting anything over a theoretical, possible, lab-setting, no haze, no clouds, perfectly clean panels - 8 amps (and that is probably too high), something is wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are charging at the wrong voltage or your reader is off or both!

I am not being judgemental, I am not taking a shot at you or Solarstik, I am not being mean... I am trying to be nice. 

The only possible exception to this is if your panels are not 50w panels. However, moving the panels to point at the sun does not increase their theoretcial output, that is constant. What it does do is give you more time to approach (approach being the key word) that theoretical, STC, laboratory setting output.

If I am wrong in any of this, I apologize. I was a chemistry and Biology major in school... not physics. That was not my focus, and i yield the floor to anyone that knows better than I.

- CD


----------



## conchyjoe

Let me try and clear this up.

Are you all confusing Amps With Amp Hours?

The system Susan has puts out 8 AMPS maximum for a total of 80 AMP HOURS per day.

Does that make a little more sense? Let's remove all words that deal with a manufacturer.

Scenario 1:
Take a solar panel, hook it to a charge controller, hook that to a battery at 40% charge. Lay the panel on the ground before sunrise and walk away.

When you come back at night, the panel/controller generated 28 amp hours in one day.

Scenario 2
Take the same solar panel, hook it to the same charge controller, hook that to the same battery at 40% charge. Prop the panel up with a stick so that it faces the sun as it come up over the horizion and walk away. Come back in 2 hours, reposition the panel so it faces the sun, and walk away. Come back in 2 hours, reposition the panel so it faces the sun, and walk away. Come back in 2 hours, reposition the panel so it faces the sun, and walk away.

When you come back at night, the panel/controller generated *87* amp hours in one day.

The SolarStik is not FM.


----------



## conchyjoe

LaLeLu said:


> People hated roller furling when it first came out too.


Don't even get me started on roller furlers. Sorry gotta run, I am having my POS dacron sails redone in canvas....


----------



## Cruisingdad

Conchy Joe,

Hello again. I hope I am not coming across mean or irritating to anyone, especially you or Susan. That is not my way, or my intent. I am easy going. Thus let me ask you, using your example:

Walk me through, hour by hour, your Voltage and amps on the above example. How many hours are you charging. Show me when you are bulk charging, absorption, float. 

Thanks.

- CD


----------



## conchyjoe

Cruisingdad said:


> Conchy Joe,
> 
> Hello again. I hope I am not coming across mean or irritating to anyone, especially you or Susan. That is not my way, or my intent. I am easy going. Thus let me ask you, using your example:
> 
> Walk me through, hour by hour, your Voltage and amps on the above example. How many hours are you charging. Show me when you are bulk charging, absorption, float.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> - CD


No problem CD, I meant what I said over there.

You have to take the items you are referring to out of the equation. They are meaningless. The reason is that they are all variables that constantly change, and change from boat to boat, and system to system, and day to day. The main variable in this is the T effect. If you take a solar panel, weld an upside down T to the edge, and use the T to sight the sun all day, it will make the panel more efficient than if it were laying flat on the ground all day.

Panels produce the most output when *directly* facing the sun. That is all Susan and I are saying.

Forget the SolarStik for a minute. Take a panel and lay it flat on the ground 2 hours before sundown on a clear sunny day. Now take a solar panel and hold it above your head facing the sun.

Which one will work better?


----------



## sailingdog

Susan-

You obviously have no idea about how batteries charge. If a battery is fully charged, at 12.8 volts... it will accept very little current...and if you are float charging your batteries at 14.3 Volts, you are going to damage them by boiling off the electrolyte...

Please, please, read Nigel Calder's Boatowner's Mechanical and Electrical Manual's section on charging batteries. You currently have your head someplace that you need a window in your stomach to see out of...

If you pour electricity into a fully charged battery, it will turn in to heat... not more stored energy. Continuing to do so will generally result in boiling off the electrolyte, eventually damaging the batteries.


----------



## conchyjoe

Maybe this will help. This is un-scientific and not supported by any testing I have done, but should give you a better idea.









The pink line would be a flat panel that is not moved. The dark line is the same panel moved 3 times on one day.


----------



## Cruisingdad

CJ,

Thanks.

Well, I don't think there is anyone on this board that would dissagree with that, at all. But using BlueSky's own numbers, given to me personally, the increase by tracking the sun is averaged at 20% for a manual system and 30% max for a full time tracking system. That would put the total output for a system, given 12 hours of charging, MAYBE in the 60 amp hours/day. I guess the 70's could in theory be possible, but unlikely... do the numbers.

Susan said she gets full power out of her solars at 930 am. Let's pretend it is not her charger and that is correct. What voltage is the charger charging at? If you divide a theoretical, no loss (impossible) 100w by 12 volts (assuming they are that depleted), you get a theoretical 8.3 amps/hour. 930-330, that is 49.8, assuming no rise in voltage because the batts are junk and totally depleted. Where is the other 40-50 amps coming from??? That only leaves 6 hours (assuming the panels are charging at 100% before the sun even breaks the horizon). 89-49.8 is 39.2 amps to make up. Divide that by the # of hours left (6), and that is 6.5 amps/hour she has to produce each hour, including before the sun fully breaks the horizon, also assuming no voltage increase in any of that time (which makes you wonder what the charger had been doing in the first place).

See my point?? This is not against Susan, Solarstik, and it sure is not against you... it is impossible... so go find out WHY you are defying physics. On a cruising boat, when something seems highly improbable, you better be pessimistic and go find why... especially something directly connected to your lifeline (batts).

Just my opinion though. 

- CD


----------



## Cruisingdad

The only problem with that graph, CJ, is that for X hours/day both panels face the sun and would show the same output... unless the flat panel was not facing upwards. I approach theoretical (not get it, mind you) with my flats from about 1130 to about 230 or so. By pointing the panels, you can increase that number and approach theoretical (approach being the operative word) for a longer period of time. Except in very cold conditions, no panel exceeds STC, and few even get close. The average expected output is somewhere in the 80%s. THe BP's Solarstik uses are more efficient. I think they may be in the 90's, according to independent testing. Good panels, but even they say their own panels do not get STC.

Thoughts?

- CD


----------



## conchyjoe

I'm hearing you CD.

Ok, try this:

Divide 100w by 17.5(as rated by BP), and figure your 25% increase from Blue Sky. Then figure the rest, and see what you get.

Frankly, 30% is a stretch to me, but I always average a range anyway. They say 20%-30%, I say go with 25%.

Let me also say this. BP has the most consistent, properly rated panels on the market. Bar none.


----------



## hellosailor

Folks, when everyone knows that "their" reality is correct and true, but the realities just don't agree...

...It almost inevitably means we have three blind men encountering the same elephant. Surely, we all know that parable?

And in looking this thread over, I'm convinced that is why so many well-intentioned people are disagreeing so vehemently.

First, let me tell you that I went to school with Georg Simon Ohm in Bavaria, so I know Ohm's Law very clearly. On the other hand, there are reasons why I am not allowed to professionally practice mathematics across interstate borders.<G>

For DC circuits, and in the absense of an Amp Faery, Ohm's Law ALWAYS APPLIES. It is, quite literally, impossible to get the number of amp hours out of the panel that Susan is getting.

Now, assuming that Susan is not getting rich off kickbacks and payolla by shilling for this product (hey, my spies can't be everywhere!<G>) what are the other possible reasons for the discrepancy?

The first, could be that the solar panel makers are being very old-school about their ratings and their 100W panel set really produces 150W. But that ain't gonna happen in today's market, where everyone else says "100W" meaning "100W at peak sunlight at peak voltage" and the reality is that you will see half of that on a typical day, averaging out the 8-14 hours of sunlight and everything else.

The second, is that Susan is seeing a measurement error. Bingo! The Blue Skies charge controller is a pulse-width-modulation controller. It does not produce a DC output, it produces a modulated pulse, which is effectively an AC SIGNAL that plain DC ammeters CANNOT PROPERLY READ. They will do some rough peak-averaging-reading of what is coming out, and that means they are no longer accurate at all.

And that's all it takes to explain why Susan "knows" she's getting more amps than the panels can physically put out. Measurement error, plain and simple. With a more advanced measuring system, she'd probably see 5-6 amps coming out of her panels, not 8.

The bottom line is that a "100 Watt" rating on a solar panel means "maximum output at about 17.5 volts" and when that's knocked down to 13.8 volts (the minimum to fully charge a lead battery) you're only going to get some 7.2 amps out of the panel. Do that for one hour, and you get 7.2 AmpHours out of it--and we measure stored power in AmpHours, not Amps.

My own back-of-the-envelope experience with solar panels, confirmed by many other posters, is that in the best of circumstances in the real world, where "day" varies from 8-14 hours and "bright" varies too, is that you will see the rated output for 4-8 hours per day, no more, no matter where or how you use the panels. Split that and average six hours per day at a 7-amp rate, and the SolarStik is only going to put out 42 AmpHours per day for a typical installation.

The claims of 80+ on their web site are unsubstantiated and, in my opinion, they fall somewhere between "puffery" (which the FTC allows) and outright fantasy. I'll believe they can exceed 60AH only when they cite a specific day and location and supply measurement logs to substantiate it.
Some deep cycling of battery banks, measuring what has actually been stored in them and can be sucked back out of them, would do. Which is what I hope we'll see from PS if they are indeed testing them.

Now, please, let's all pretend this gives us a way to agree we're seeing different parts of the same elephant, and step up to the clubhouse for a round of drinks on me. Even the Amp Faery, if we can find him. Or her, whatver the gender might be.

And if BS or SS can come up with a better reason, let them offer it. Along with an explanation of why a pulse-width-modulated (PWM) charge controller (which is generally a GOOD idea) should be "trusted" with a conventional DC ammeter, in any system.


----------



## conchyjoe

Cruisingdad said:


> The only problem with that graph, CJ, is that for X hours/day both panels face the sun and would show the same output... unless the flat panel was not facing upwards. I approach theoretical (not get it, mind you) with my flats from about 1130 to about 230 or so. By pointing the panels, you can increase that number and approach theoretical (approach being the operative word) for a longer period of time. Except in very cold conditions, no panel exceeds STC, and few even get close. The average expected output is somewhere in the 80%s. THe BP's Solarstik uses are more efficient. I think they may be in the 90's, according to independent testing. Good panels, but even they say their own panels do not get STC.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> - CD


Now you are starting to get it. The sun passing directly over head every day would be a perfect world. But think of the tan we would have!

Six months out of the year, the Sun is always in the southern hemisphere. So sure, the Sun may pass directly overhead 2 months out of the year, and my graph is wrong. But the other 10 months, boy wouldn't that stick be nice to have to prop up the panel facing south, and then north. There are all kinds of variables for sure CD, that is why a multi dimensional axis works best for solar panels. It just makes them more efficient. Unless of course there is no sun, then they don't work very well.


----------



## sailingdog

Conchy Joe-

It is difficult to talk about solar panel efficiency without at least partially discussing battery charging, since the batteries are what the panels are charging. Without the batteries, there is really little point in having solar panels on a boat. If you use less electricity than your boat can generate, then yes, you can have fully charged batteries... Only a moron would not know that.

While this is unusual for most boats.. it happens to be the case for my boat, which has a small Engel 12VDC refrigerator on it.

However, Susan is claiming that the SolarStik can increase battery capacity and increase the amount of power in the batteries, which is clearly false...



> Yes they do - by changing the voltage it allows more power into your batteries that would otherwise be lost.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Thank you for the reply Hello. Is the error measurement localized to BS, or would a Outback also produce the same error? 

- CD


----------



## conchyjoe

> Yes they do - by changing the voltage it allows more power into your batteries that would otherwise be lost.


What Susan is talking about here is the actual charge controller. It takes the 17 or so volts a solar panel puts out, and through the use of electronics(MPPT is what most call it, maybe Hellosailor can explain it), drops that down to the voltage the controller is set for, and increases the amperage output. So if the panel is 100w divided by 17V is 5.9 amps, increase that by 25%, that gives you 7.5 amps give or take(I am sure there is heat loss in there somewhere). That would be your batteries charging at 7.5 amps rather than 5.9. Just what Susan said, more power.

Where is Tim "The Tool Man" Taylor when you need him?


----------



## sailingdog

Conchyjoe--

If you actually read what I wrote above... I said:



> They also increase efficiency a bit by lowering the voltage to the bulk charging rate and increasing the amperage a bit in the process.


Exactly how is this any different from what you are saying. That isn't more power, it may be a more efficient use of the power the panels are generating.

The definition of watts from the website here.



> A measure of power or the rate of energy consumption by an electrical device when it is in operation, calculated by multiplying the voltage at which an appliance operates by the current it draws (Watts = Volts X Amperes).


The definition of electrical power is a watt. 1 W = 1V x 1A. The MPPT is not changing the amount of power.... Now you are trying to say that 7.5A @ 13.333V is more power than 5.9 A @ 17 V, which is clearly ridiculous...

Yes, the batteries would be charging at a higher rate... *but the total power has not changed one bit. If anything, the output power will be slightly less due to the thermal conversion heat losses incurred.*

You might do well to study the electrical theory behind what is going on, before opening your mouth. You also might want to really read what someone has written before saying that they don't know what is going on.

One last point: Any electricity fed into a battery that is fully charged is generally lost as heat. *It is not stored as additional potential useful energy.* If you don't believe this... try taking the temperature of fully charged batteries on a float charger... and then of those same batteries not being float charged. *Batteries have a definite limited finite amount of energy that each can store, and using a SolarStik isn't going to change that... regardless of what you and Susan say.*


----------



## hellosailor

CJoe-
"What Susan is talking about here is the actual charge controller. It takes the 17 or so volts a solar panel puts out, and through the use of electronics(MPPT is what most call it, maybe Hellosailor can explain it), drops that down to the voltage the controller is set for, and increases the amperage output."
A good idea, but fallacious logic. As sd says "but the total power has not changed one bit. "

Watts of output is watts of output, they do not change because you are measuring or converting at one voltage level or another. In fact, since the 100 watts of output really ARE measured at the 17 or 19 or whatever maximum voltage for the panel, and conventional charge controllers always lower that voltage, this is all the more reason that in any conventional system you will _never _see the rated output.

It's all Ohm's Law, in this case:
Watts = Volts x Amps

And while you can trade volts for amps, the Watts side always stays the same. Panels are, right or wrong, always measured at their maximum voltage output, since brighter lamp and cooler temps provide higher voltage. Let's say this one is measured at 17.5V, although some measure up to 20.

100 Watts = 17.5 Volts x 5.71 Amps. That's all it can provide, and with a conventional regulator or charge controller, you'll never see more than 5.7 amps coming out of that panel unless it is being struck by lightning.

Now, if you have a "controller" that is capable of converting the power:

100 Watts = 13.8 volts x 7.24 amps. So yes, you can get more amps if you have a controller that also is going "power conversion" and instead of dumping the excess voltage, converting it into amperage. (Engineers please forgive me, that's a very wrong way to simplify things.)

You'd still have a situation where those panels, under the most ideal conditions, could not put out more than 7.2 Amps at an effecitve charging voltage. A conventional lead battery is fully charged around 12.6 volts, but requires a higher voltage in order to _take a charge_, and that is usually considered to be 14.4 volts for optimal charging, 13.8 volts for minimal charging, although those numbers will vary somewhat and the differences are important in real workd specific situations.

But again--that's 7.2A at 13.8V on a cool day with bright tropical noon sunlight and the panels aimed dead at the sun. Can't be expected for more than a 4-hour-ish window on the best of days, and likely to average out to half of that with the feebler sunlight from dawn till 11AM and then after 3PM.

This is one of the big myths that stand between USING solar power, and being SOLD solar myth. Solar power is very reliable--for an unreliably short time slot. If you could get the rated power for six, or eight, hours per day? You'd cut the real world costs in half. Ain't happened yet.


----------



## sailingdog

Funny thing how once we started quoting Ohm's Law and the definition of electrical power they disappear...


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*Solar Stik*

Here is an article I found about the Solar Stik and the operating principles. This is a partial article that I just cut and pasted in:

The Solar Stik™ system is a 100-watt solar system that is as effective as a fixed mounted 200 to 300 watt solar system. To achieve such effectiveness, a triple-axis mounting system is employed on the Solar Stik™ . Usually three to four panel adjustments per day will enable the Solar Stik™ to produce 80 to 100 amp-hours of energy in a day. This effective increase in power output depends the time of year it is utilized, or more specifically, the location of the sun and the length of the day. Taking advantage of basic principles of physics, the Solar Stik™ enhances the performance of its solar panel system.

There is one universal reality about ALL solar panels, be it amorphous silicon, CIGS (thin film), Mono/Multi(Poly) crystalline and others not listed here. This reality is that they ALL will operate at their rated capacity ONLY in direct sunlight.

Sunlight has photons, and these photons are the key ingredient to making electrons flow from the positive field of a solar panel to the negative field (the flow is also known as "Amperage"). Photons can be reflected away if the panel surface is not perpendicular to their direction of flow. It is preferable to have these photons pass THROUGH the panel and into the cell structure. This achieves its maximum when the sun's rays hit the panels at a 90 degree angle. The amount of photons passing through a solar panel is directly linked to the solar panel's output current.

Thus, by maintaining the panels to and angle as close as possible to said 90 degree angle, the amount of photons passing through a solar panel are maximized.

During the course of a calendar year, the sun rarely passes directly overhead during the day. This means that most solar panels mounted in a fixed position will operate at a reduced capacity even during the noon hour. The problem with most single-pitch solar systems is that they can only rotate around a single axis, so the ability to truly follow the sun is greatly diminished, especially if the system is used in the northern or southern latitudes where the sun rarely passes overhead at a 90 degree angle to the surface of a fixed or single-axis solar system.

For example, let's examine a typical day in Florida during the month of March and its effect on a "fixed" 300 watt solar system.

The sun in March will never pass directly overhead during the course of a day, therefore the user may only see a maximum output of around 70% during peak sunlight periods. (Hence, at maximum output the user may only see 15 amps for 3-4 hours per day.) This often means that the vessel owner must install a larger than necessary fixed solar system aboard in order to produce a large amount of power in a short time window.

The daily total output for this fixed system may yield only 80-90 amp-hours, or a little more depending on whether the system has the ability to pitch or tilt. As the sun is more directly overhead in the summer months, the performance gap between the fixed system and the Solar Stik™ output narrows, but the Solar Stik™ still can out-perform it based on the amount of time, during the course of day, that it may be optimally aimed at the sun.

The Solar Stik™, because of its three axes of movement, will work at or near100% of rated output in direct sunlight and for longer daily periods than a fixed or single-pitch system, with little to no seasonal effect (output loss due to indirect overhead passing of the sun).

Five years of marine experience plus two years of field-testing proved that from about two hours after sunrise until about two hours before sunset, the Solar Stik™ should operate at a minimum of 95% of "Rated Output" with direct sunlight. The average amount of "pitches" per day on all of the test vessels was three to four.

"Rated Output" is defined by the user by setting the supplied MPPT charge control output for their particular batteries. For example, someone using AGM batteries will set the charge control output voltage higher than someone who is using flooded cell batteries.

Since amperage is determined by a function of solar panel wattage divided by voltage, the result is a varying Solar Stik™ output that usually ranges from 7 to 8 amps. Regardless of the settings, the supplied Solar Boost™ 2000E charge control will allow the Solar Stik™ solar panels to operate at their rated voltage instead of the battery voltage and results in a 25% increase in power supplied to the battery bank. (Please consult the Solar Boost 2000E manufacturer's literature for details, or visit their website.)


----------



## sailaway21

Hello Lord,
I believe you remember me. I was talking with you a week ago about a little problem with dog owners. And, Lord, I have to say you really came through for me on that one. I was really grateful, although Father Costello is apparently not impressed with the spar varnish on the baptismal. I thought it was the least I could do. I freely acknowledge that I will never be able to repay you for striking the dog thread mute, and I am a little chagrined that I find the need to implore of you again so soon. But my faith has been much bolstered by your response to the malicious dog threaders and I once again come to you in supplication.

Please God,
Repeal Ohm's law. The guy's long dead and no one's reputation lasts forever. I'm sure Thomas Jefferson would back me on that. He's there, right? Anyway, if you could just fiddle with Ohm's law a little bit, so that anyone who started out reading this thread in search of enlightenment could find full and wonderous delight in the power of your sun, I would be grateful. Also, Lord, I would beseech you, if anyone continues to defy your original version of Ohm's law in this thread, could you supply them with a local apparent noon of a magnitude of roughly a solar flare? You remember the Edmund Scientific catalog of my youth, where they were melting steel with a Fresnel lens? That's the general effect I was looking for, although just concentrated on a few relatively small pieces of fiberglas.
If this does not seem like a charitable request on my part, I am willing to accept a pox of osmotic blistering on the hulls of anyone who ever even considered buying a solar panel. (please give me about a week to return mine for a refund, on that one)
Lord, I trust that if I am acting heathenly in my request to you, you will arrange a three week eclipse of the sun over the south of Florida and thereby prove to your undeserving servant that Ohm's law never did exist and that Solar Stix are capable of turning nothing into nuclear fusion. Personally Lord, I would rather you did the Fresnel Lens number as I was never able to afford one and thought it was cool.


----------



## sailingdog

ROFLMAO..... Sailaway... I hope that God is listening... That would drive the astronomers nuts... 

Amy-

Welcome to sailnet.com's forums on sailing. I am just rather curious as to how you came to find this lovely place on the web? I am also rather curious as to how you ended up with this article and on this particular thread?

*If you have a source page for the quoted text, please post a link to it.* The reason I would like to see the source of this article is that it sounds rather like a press release or marketing materials from SolarStik, more than an independent article. As such, it may constitute an advertisement, which is clearly not kosher under Sailnet's terms of use and would make you a spammer.

While I hate to accuse a fellow sailnet user of being a spammer, the fact that you've appeared-out of nowhere-and have such a glowing article regarding a commercial product that was under critical scrutiny, and do not cite the source for said glowing review, makes it seem awfully unlikely that you are an unbiased, uninvolved person. If you are not involved with SolarStik in anyway, I am sincerely sorry for the confusion, but it would be but an honest mistake.

This behavior upon a first post is especially suspicious, given Conchy Joe's attack on myself earlier, as well as LaLeLu's somewhat irrational belief in the product. Yet, neither of them has responded to the questions raised about the power generation capabilities they have claimed for the product, and how it can apparently, violate a basic law of physics. Any factual discussion of a products benefits is more than welcome. Mindless marketing propaganda is somewhat frowned upon, at least by myself and other like-minded individuals.

I would welcome a reasoned and rational response from either yourself, Conchy Joe or LaLeLu, regarding the SolarStik. I've heard enough of the marketing BS, so please, don't come back here with that.

* The facts are that two 50W panels are not capable of generating 80 AMP-Hours of electricity on a 12 VDC electrical system in a single day. *

100 Watts of solar panels, at 100% efficiency are going to deliver about 7.46 Amps @ 13.4 Volts. _This is assuming that the batteries are relatively heavily discharged, and capable of accepting charge at this voltage and amperage. _

*Assuming a twelve hour day, that gives us eight hours of usable sunlight, which is based on the sunrise plus two hours until two hours from sunset that you have mentioned in your article. *That gives us a total of 8 hours * 7.46 Amps, or *59.70 Amp-hours.* Now, physics dictates that the sunlight at the hours of the day outside of the ± two hours from noon are generally weaker due to greater atmospheric attenuation... so this is a best case estimate of the power delivered by a SolarStik on a 12-hour day.

* Let us change that to a 14-hour day, which is not all that uncommon in the middle of the summer in the more temperate latitudes. *That woud leave give us 7.46 Amps * 10 hours, using the same assumptions above, or *74.6 Amp-Hours.* Now, this includes two more hours outside of the peak ± two hours of noon generation time, which will be even more attenuated by atmospheric interference.

* So the 74.6 Amp-hours is really a overestimate* of the capabilities of the possible power provided by the SolarStik, _since they will not be generating as much power at 7:30 am or 4:30 pm as they are at 12:00 noon, regardless of how the panels are aimed. _

* Finally, we come to the issue of battery charging*.* The batteries used on all boats are inefficient when it comes to being charged. _They tend to convert a fairly large percentage of the energy being used to charge them into waste heat._ I would doubt than any commercially available battery system on sailboat today is more than 80% efficient at converting available power into stored power. That means, given a fourteen-hour day, of the 74.6 Amp-hours best case estimate, we get a total of 59.86 Amp-hours of usable energy. This is far from the 80 Amp-hours of usable energy that Conchy Joe and LaLeLu have been reporting.

If you can explain this anomaly, in plain language, with the math, physics, and chemistry principles to support your explanation, provided as needed, I would dearly appreciate it. 
*
If all you're going to do is spout what is clearly SolarStik's marketing BS... heard it all already...
*
BTW, LaLeLu paid $3500 for her SolarStik setup. I bought my two 130W panels, charge controller and mounting system for less than $2000. Even if my panels are running at 50% of the efficiency of hers, that gives me 130W vs. 100W for less than 60% of the cost. That would make my panels $15.38 per watt, vs. $35 per watt... I like my numbers better. _

* Conchy Joe had told me that we weren't discussing battery charging previously, but I don't see how we can talk solar panels and not discuss battery charging. He considered it irrelevant. _


----------



## mikeedmo

Wow - I've been off-thread since I first inquired about the Solar Stik and I return to some tough name calling using words that would get you kicked out of elementary school or kindergarten. Thanks for the education and my apologies to all for the gutter this has turned in to! I hope the Solar Stik people aren't responsible...


----------



## sailingdog

Mikeedmo-

* I don't know whether the solarstik people are responsible. I doubt it, since even they don't claim to get 80 Amp-hours out of their own product.* However, Conchy Joe has a clearly commercial website that is partially sponsored by them, and who knows what the real story is with LaLeLu and AmyJohnson really is.

However, LaLeLu, Conchy Joe, and AmyJohnson all appear to be advocating a product and making claims about 200-300% efficiency that is clearly marketing hype. I do not see how it is physically possible for an 100W solar panel system to produce 80-100 amp-hours.

The claim from the article that AmyJohnson posted is clearly nonsense. Electrical power is defined by watts... and 1 W = 1 V * 1 A... and a MPPT charge controller can't increase the power supplied to the battery bank without breaking the law of thermodynamics. If anything, it would reduce the power delivered to the battery bank slightly, as it will incur a heat loss.



> Since amperage is determined by a function of solar panel wattage divided by voltage, the result is a varying Solar Stik™ output that usually ranges from 7 to 8 amps. Regardless of the settings, the supplied Solar Boost™ 2000E charge control will allow the Solar Stik™ solar panels to operate at their rated voltage instead of the battery voltage and results in a 25% increase in power supplied to the battery bank. (Please consult the Solar Boost 2000E manufacturer's literature for details, or visit their website.)


I would hesitate to buy a product that appears to be vastly over-priced, when compared to other, more traditional solutions on the market. *It is somewhat worrisome that the people advocating the product are resorting to lies and hype, rather than citing real-world numbers and following the laws of physics and chemistry. *As I pointed out in my previous post, my two 130W panels, a charge controller and mounting system cost less than 40% of what Susan, aka LaLeLu, claims to have paid for her SolarStik system, and even if it only operates at 50% efficiency, it would still yield more usable amp-hours in the battery bank for me.

I would like to hear from Conchy Joe, LaLeLu, AmyJohnson or the makers of the SolarStik to find out what their response to my previous post is. _ I am using the basic assumptions that they have outlined in their own articles...and can't seem to make the math work to give me any more than 75 amp-hours as a best case, 100% efficiency solution.

_This number of 74.6 Amp-Hours is obviously far higher than the real-world numbers would be for several reasons: First, the battery charging process on a sailboat is far less efficient than 100% conversion of charging energy to stored energy; Second, it assumes that you will get the full power of the panel over the course of the entire 10-hour day; Third, it assumes a fourteen hour day, which is typical only during the summer in mid-to-higher latitudes; Fourth, it assumes the user will be able to precisely adjust the panels to maximize their efficiency for the time range surrounding the panel move.

The battery charging efficiency is as low as 70% from this website. They state:



> The coulometric charging efficiency of flooded lead acid batteries is typically 70%, meaning that you must put 142 amp hours into the battery for every 100 amp hours you get out. This varies somewhat depending on the temperature, speed of charge, and battery type.
> 
> ​ Sealed lead acid batteries are higher in charge efficiency, depending on the bulk charge voltage it can be higher than 95%.​


Most boats I know of don't use AGM/VRLA or Gel batteries for their house bank due to the increased cost of the batteries. *If the boat is equipped with a wet-cell house bank, then even my numbers are overly generous estimates, as I am using an efficiency factor of 80%, which makes the numbers 14.3% higher. *This also neglects any losses incurred by the use of a MPPT charge controller, which must use some of the energy passing through it to operate.​
The sunlight is attenuated significantly outside of the four hours in the middle of the day due to the planet's atmosphere. This is an unavoidable fact of physics... the light is travelling through more of the atmosphere before it hits the panel-even if it hits the panel perfectly perpendicularly, it is still weaker than during the four mid-day hours. This means that the panels can't work at 100% of output for 60% of the time they are operating.

Fourteen hour days occur only during a short part of the year. During the rest of the year, the available daylight hours are significantly fewer. During the winter-time, at the same latitudes where you have 14-hour days in the summertime, you may only have an eight-hour day, leaving you only four hours of avaiable charging time. So on average, as a year-round total, the effective output of the SolarStiks will be lower than possible during a 14-hour day. *The best case scenario for this is being on or near the equator, where the days will have the least variance in length. However, the usefullness of a SolarStik is less necessary in the tropics, as the sun is generally more directly overhead, and will make fixed-mount panels more efficient in comparison.*

Finally, the assumption that the user will be able to adjust the panels so that the sunlight hits them as close to perpendicular for the maximum period of time is a fallacy. This is not possible when the platform the panels are mounted on has a tendency to roll and swing... as most sailboats do at anchor. While a sailboat, under sail, may be a bit more steady in some aspects, most sailors won't be taking time out to adjust their solar panels while underway.

The marketing literature and articles quoted seem to take and choose facts and figures and use them without placing them in context. Yes, you can get ten hours of power from a SolarStik, but it says nothing about having to be in a more temperate latitude and that it only happens during a short part of the year. Yes, they may be more efficient than fixed mount panels, but that is also affected by your location, and that the increased efficiency in higher latitudes is at least partially offset by the reduced efficiency caused by the additional atmospheric attenuation. And so on...

What is quite revealing is that neither Conchy Joe or LaLeLu are willing to respond with anything other than marketing hype and numbers that are physically impossible to support. *In fact, once the basic definition of electrical power was brought out... they disappeared from the thread entirely. *As a journalist I know often says, "Sunshine is a great disinfectant... the light of day and cold hard facts are often very hard to refute."


----------



## conchyjoe

Sorry Sailingdog,

I had you on my ignore lists, and you ARE in inflammitory individual and I simply turned you off. You have taken things that Susan, A paralegal, not an EE major, have explained incorrectly, and used them to turn this thread into a big flaming session.

CruisingDad and I were having a civil conversation, and here you come again attempting to pick apart my comments.

You're position on this thread is to take everything that Susan and I say, and make it about the SolarStik and charging a battery.

You can quote Ohm's law all day long, and that is fine. But there is a MULTI BILLION DOLLAR Solar business out there, and I can't for the life if me figure out whey they are wrong, and you are right.

And no matter what I present, you shoot it down. Everybody is wrong, and their products don't work. BlueSky, BP, etc. Sorry, I don't subscribe to that. If so, where is the FTC hauling all these liars in?

I CHOOSE to ignore you.

As far as the SolarStik is concerned, you can also say what you please, as I don't give a damn about your opinion, And I will defend fine till the end. And yes I do have my own website, and I can promise you that you will NEVER be a member. And don't try to defend that or I will post the emails you have been sending me.

Have a nice life. Back to ignore.


----------



## sailingdog

*Why in the world would I want to be a member of your website???

Also, I haven't sent you any e-mails, as you're really not worth the effort.
* 
I asked a simple set of questions, and all you do is ignore the questions I ask...and attack, trying to obsfucate the matter behind quotes about MPPT controllers being able to increase power output and things like that...

Even if the BP solar panels used in the Solarstik are more powerful than their specification would suggest, are you honestly trying to tell me that they are 25-66%* more efficient than other brands???

* Panels will actually give 80-100 Amp-hours per day, rather than the approximately 60 I estimated in a previous post with 80% charging efficiency.


----------



## conchyjoe

hellosailor said:


> 100 Watts = 17.5 Volts x 5.71 Amps. That's all it can provide, and with a conventional regulator or charge controller, you'll never see more than 5.7 amps coming out of that panel unless it is being struck by lightning.
> 
> Now, if you have a "controller" that is capable of converting the power:
> 
> 100 Watts = 13.8 volts x 7.24 amps. So yes, you can get more amps if you have a controller that also is going "power conversion" and instead of dumping the excess voltage, converting it into amperage. (Engineers please forgive me, that's a very wrong way to simplify things.)


I understand what you are saying Hello. I'm not an EE major, but I get ohms law.

What I don't understand is why the FTC is not out there suing all these companies the take 17.5 at 5.7 and turn it into 13.8 at 7.1 with their MPPT technology. So the ability to get a 20-25% increase in amperage is at least possible?


----------



## sailingdog

Conchy Joe-

* I was never arguing that a MPPT charge controller didn't increase the amperage. I never stated that their (Blue Sky, BP, etc) products didn't work-you're putting words in my mouth. *The companies that make MPPT charge controllers aren't being sued by the FTC because, for the most part, their product does what it claims... it increases the efficiency of the charging system by altering the voltage and amperage of the output from solar panels. However, none of them, AFAIK, claim to increase the power output of solar panels. If you can find one that says it does, I'd like to see a link to it.

I even said so several times... over and over again... What I was pointing out is that regardless of the amperage, it doesn't increase the power available. You do get an increase in amperage, at a decrease in voltage... that follows Ohm's law.

However, that wasn't what you or LaLeLu were saying earlier. You said that you got an increase in POWER... which is clearly false. *While you can ignore my messages, it doesn't change what you were saying about increases in power earlier from being anything other than out and out lie. *MPPT controllers do not and can not increase the power coming from a Solar Panel. I have even stated that an MPPT controller will generally increase the efficiency of the charging process, by increasing the amperage and reducing the voltage, and thereby reducing the losses to heat. *The fact that you don't understand the difference between Watts (POWER) and Amperage (CURRENT) is obvious.

*The real problem is that you are too ignorant of the theory and facts and are not willing to learn what they are. IMHO, you would better help your site's members if you could intelligently explain the advantages of a MPPT charge controller. How can you possibly give a proper evaluation and review of something you don't understand?

I am not attacking as a general rule, I am asking you to explain how this product can break the laws of nature.


----------



## tomaz_423

SD: You are so angry on Solar Stik that you are not fair and you are doing some wrong assuptions.

Just to make it clear: I also do not believe the 80 Ah at 12 V per day of Solar stik, but if you are doing some calculations you have to do it right:

1) You compleately left out the equasion the first and last 2 hours of the day. On a fix cell you probably get nothing, but on a cell facing the weak morning or evening sun you might actually get something. Not 100% or 95%. But mybe 50% (I am really overoptimistic here). So 4 hours at 50% aquals to 2 hours at 100%. Perhaps this is where the difference is. 

2) You bring charging the betteries in the picture. That is of course an intergral part of the system and must be included in the design, but I do nor remember (and have no desire to read again all thread) anyone of stik lowers mentioned, that Solar stick actualy delivers and stores that enery in the battery. They were just reading the output. What happened with it was never really explained. Perhaps large portion was used to heat up the betteries and producing O2 and 2H2 from water in the batteries. But to try to be fair consder this:

What is better:
4 hours of 300w (that is 1,2KWh or 100 Ah at 12 V)
or
2 hours of 50W, 8h of 100W and 2h of 50W (that is 1Kwh or 83Ah at 12V)

I AM NOT CLAIMING ANY PARTICULAR SYSTEM IS CAPABLE OF DELIVERING THE ABOVE MENTIONED NUMBERS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is just for making my explanation easier. 

I would opt for the second (even if it is less energy) for two reasons:

1) you get first energy earlier in the morning, so you can start charging your almost empty betteries. The computer was running all night long to read sailnet, a lot of beer neede to be replaced in the fridge and (just maybee) we even had the anchor light on . This way you are charging already for several hours before fix system starts at all. When you produce more energy and V rises on a bettery your fridge starts (I have mine set up in a way it can only operate if the V is really high - fridge is the first thing shutting off as V drops and a last one to start. So, you can now already run your fridge. After a while you decide to start a watermaker (and if it is a small one, so you can run it from betteries, but it takes hours to make enough water. At this time the cells are not really charging the betteries - energy is spent on the fly. 
And you can charge late as well. so the current to your battery is not very high. If there is a cloud passing by at midday you stil have some energy out of your solar.
Another reason is max current your betteries can take. It is better to fill more hours with less current than short time more current.

So smaller cells and longer time is better system than larger cells and short time (if all others would be the same, which is not.). 

I can be very smart - not owning a single cell. My expertise is based on my education (studied electronics) and on lots of reading about solar, but no practical experience.

I will most likely install fix pannels on my boat when time comes for more than one reson (unattended operation, I am lazy to adjust cells, easier mount, ...) 

Now I would just like to repeat: I do not believe all marketing claims of Solar Stik, but it may be interesting system for some.


----------



## sailingdog

Tomaz-

Yes, I did leave out the first two and last two hours of the day, since the atmospheric attenuation is strongest then. I doubt that you get much amperage, even 25% would be optimistic, during those hours. Also, those are the hours where long shadows, haze, mist and fog are most common-all of which would affect output.

The main dispute I've had is with the claim that both Conchy Joe and LaLeLu were making-that the SolarStik was able to produce more power, not amperage, because of the MPPT charge controller. This is not true. The total power hasn't changed, even if the efficiency of the battery charging situation has.

I have never said that the MPPT charge controllers aren't more efficient, or that they don't increase the amperage going to the batteries. What I said is that the MPPT CC doesn't increase the power going to the batteries. This is a small but significant difference. You have to understand that there is a difference between power and amperage-which LaLeLu and Conchy Joe clearly do not.

While I agree that the second may be more useful in some situations, it will vary depending on the details of the particular installation.

However, if the battery bank has relatively large loads, then four hours at 300W may be a better way to charge the batteries, since the total charge accepted is going to be higher-since it is far more likely to be in the bulk charging stage.

If the battery bank is relatively small or the bank is large with relatively light loads, then the second method, with the longer charging period may make more sense, since you'll either waste much of the charging energy as heat, in the case of the smaller battery bank, or be in the later stages of charging, where the current acceptance is lower and a longer charging period would be beneficial.

I have solar panels on my boat, and majored in EE many years ago. I've worked in the telecom/network industry for over 20 years.

BTW, even with the most favorable of estimates... based on the assumptions in the literature provided by Conchy Joe, AmyJohnson and LaLeLu, I don't see it being possible get 80-100 Amp-hours that Conchy Joe and LaLeLu are claiming to get out of the 100W SolarStik.

Assume a 14-hour day, with the first and last two hours eliminated as per SolarStik. Charging for 10 Hours at 7.46 Amps @ 13.4 Volts...gives you 74.6 Amp-hours. Any output voltage higher than this will reduce the overal amperage and total number of amp-hours, and any voltage lower than this will likely not charge the batteries.

This assumes you had 100% conversion into stored energy, which is really not even close to the reality.

However, I'm still 7.23% shy of the 80 Amp-hour mark, and a whopping 34% short of the 100 Amp-hour mark.

*Say we add those four hours in at 25% efficiency... that gives us an additional 7.46 Amp-hours, bringing the total to 82 Amp-hours. Fine, we've somehow managed to break the 80 Amp-hour barrier, but are still 25% short of the top end of their claim of 100 Amp-hours and have no possible way of every getting there*. And this is using the most idealistic assumptions possible.

CD has contacted several major Solar Panel vendors, and the data that he got doesn't agree with the data that SolarStik, Conchy Joe, et al are providing or quoting. The data that the SolarStik crowd also doesn't mesh with the research I did last year, before getting my two 130W panels and MPPT charge controller. *Yet, they haven't addressed CD's concerns or my basic questions at all. *


----------



## conchyjoe

tomaz_423 said:


> Just to make it clear: I also do not believe the 80 Ah at 12 V per day of Solar stik, but if you are doing some calculations you have to do it right:


Tomaz, Thanks you for the fair and clear post, I am happy to debate this with you.

My background is a little different as well. I came from the RF industry. But I am not an EE major, I am a Computer Science Major

When we tested radios, we had what was called a dummy load. You plugged the VHF/UHF radio into the dummy load, and you measured the output with a wattmeter. We did that because antenna's were different, and SWR, cable length, and mounting location of antenna's were different. And they all affected the final output of the system.

If you have to heat a battery to get it to absorb energy, fine. I can agree with that. But you still have to be able to produce the energy to heat the battery to get it to absorb energy.

I also agree that I would rather have option 2 than option 1. It just makes sense to me. I don't care if it does to anyone else. It makes sense to me. Why not put solar panels where they are most effective? Cost to much? Fine. Go somewhere else. Buiild your own.

People are on here saying how can 100w solar panels generate 80 Amps. They can't. But they can generate 80 amp hours a day. I have seen it. Practical Sailor will bear that out. Then everybody can call them liars instead of Susan and I liars.

And other people are splitting comments like they are hairs. Once again Susan and I may have mispoken, and used the work watt instead of amp, or amperage instead if amp hours. Neither of us are Electrical experts. But I appreciate the courtesy of correcting people, like you have and Hellosailor, instead of the retoric that sailordog has displayed. Sailordog, I mispoke, and I apologize, now go pester someone else. Please.

And I am positive Susan and I are completely and totally off our rocker. But I know this:

I can point 2 BP 100w solar panels at the sun once it has cleared the horizon, and the display panel on the Blue Sky 2000E solar charge controller says it is putting out 5 amps. And I can lay the the 2 BP solar panels on the ground, with no obstructions, at the exact same time, and the display panel on the Blue Sky 2000E solar charge controller says it is putting out 1 amps.

Now if you want to debate the validity of the panel or the charge controller, I am down with that. Cool, great, let's go get a beer and debate.

But don't tell me(them not you Tomaz) I didn't see what I saw. Now someone is calling me a liar, and I kick people's ass for less.

Thanks again Tomaz.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*Solar Stik investigation*

Good morning, all.

Well I've never done a forum before, but I am considering a Solar Stik for my boat (Hunter 27) and of course doing research on the web. (So please take it easy on me until I get a little experience at this!) There are several forums active about this thing, but this one seems to be the most active, hence my subsequent joining and participation.

The article I posted came from a disk I got with their info packet (picked it up at the boat show in MD). I only posted a portion of it because the rest was certainly an "advertisement" but I thought the "physics lesson" was worth the read. Having seen it first-hand on a boat (deck mounting version) and discussing it with him, here is what he told me: The numbers are actually close to what they preach, but "real world conditions" in Mexico were more favorable than here in the states. He cruised his Morgan down to Panama and back over the last 7 months.

What he did with his stik was mount a small wind gen on the top (didn't get the make/model) as well as several antennas.

So far I am inclined to buy it. I have seen several prices (as little as $3225 with boat show pricing to as much as $4,700 on some websites) so I guess it pays to shop around. They don't seem to sell it directly except at boat shows. I hope it is not an infringement to say this, but there is another "forum site" that has a chandlery listing for the Solar Stik at $3,450.

My biggest problem installing a solar system is that I am still stuck on mounting. I own a Hunter 27 and don't have much canvas room or transom space (arch) for a more traditional mounting system, so it APPEARS as though this will at least save me some space. I would like to have a solar resolution on my boat by May.

Sorry! I am sounding like an Ad myself. I'll go now...

Thanks for all the great info, everybody!


----------



## sailingdog

Saying something can increase power, when it can't isn't splitting hairs in my opinion. It is either lying or being too ignorant to speak the truth. At least now, you've at least admitting, in a backwards fashion, that an MPPT charge controller doesn't affect the power output of the solar panels. That's a place to start.



> I can point 2 BP 100w solar panels at the sun once it has cleared the horizon, and the display panel on the Blue Sky 2000E solar charge controller says it is putting out 5 amps. And I can lay the the 2 BP solar panels on the ground, with no obstructions, at the exact same time, and the display panel on the Blue Sky 2000E solar charge controller says it is putting out 1 amps.


 However, without the context of charging batteries-the whole purpose of the solar panels in the first place, amperage means very little. If I put a small enough load on the output of the charge controller, of course, I can get it to read whatever I want. When you are getting those 5 amps on the SolarStik, what kind of batteries are they charging, and what state of charge are the batteries in?? Also, aren't the panels on the SolarStik 50W panels for a total of 100 Watts?

Amy- Thanks for the update and clarification.

Conchy Joe- By any chance can you post the article and supporting documentation on the web, or point us to a link where we can find it?


----------



## conchyjoe

sailingdog said:


> *Say we add those four hours in at 25% efficiency... that gives us an additional 7.46 Amp-hours, bringing the total to 82 Amp-hours. Fine, we've somehow managed to break the 80 Amp-hour barrier, but are still 25% short of the top end of their claim of 100 Amp-hours and have no possible way of every getting there*. And this is using the most idealistic assumptions possible.


Be careful sailordog, you are starting to come over to the dark side.

Let me correct a few things. I *NEVER* said 80-100 amp hours. I said 79.9AH were the best I saw in my testing.

I have *NEVER* seen the Blue Sky 2000E charge controller give a 30% increase, but I did see 25%, and that is what I base my findings on.

If you have not tested your panels by pointing them at the sun when it comes up, and moving them 3 more times in the day, and recording what you get, I challange you to do so. And record your results here in this thread.


----------



## sailingdog

Conchy Joe-

I never said 30% for MPPT controllers, regardless of brand or model.

Actually, though the figures 80-100 Amp-hours were mentioned, including in SolarStik's own article, you didn't say it yourself.. my apologies... However, by my calculations, 80 Amp-hours is very optimistic.

I still would like links to research data/articles from SolarStik, as my own research from a year ago did not bear out your claims of being 200-300% more efficient than fixed panels. Also, you haven't said what the testing loads were for when you saw the 5 amps at just after sunrise " at the sun once it has cleared the horizon".

You still got a lot of convincing to do... and I honestly hope that you learn the basic differences between power and amperage..._ that was big sticking point and a major part of the dispute I have held about the SolarStiks and what you and LaLeLu said. _


----------



## conchyjoe

sailingdog said:


> Saying something can increase power, when it can't isn't splitting hairs in my opinion.


Like I said, it should have been amperage at a given voltage.

When I say 5 amps, I am assuming the charge controller is in the maximum charging state it can be in. Not float, or absorption, or whatever. Whatever the MAXIMUM charging state is. It doesn't matter what the battery is, what kind, wet/dry, whatever. A battery is a big capacitor anyway. I am also not saying that I am going to boil my bateries or ruin them in some way shape or form by pumping them full of 5 amps from sun up to sun down. I am not an idiot, I realize my charge controller is only going to charge the batteries based on need.

Having said that, IF my charge controller outputs the MAXIMUM charging state it can from sun up until sun down on a cloudless, sunny day, I can get 80 amp hours. That is what I have been saying all along.

And see, I never mentioned that product....


----------



## hellosailor

CJoe?
"If so, where is the FTC hauling all these liars in?"
First of all, the FTC openly allows what the courts call "puffery". If I own the Campbell's Soup Company and I claim to make the _best _soup in the world, I don't have to prove it, the FTC will allow me to "inflate" my claims a bit. If there are a half dozen better soups out there, my claim will still be allowed.

Second, the FTC only gets involved as their budget and politics allow. That means unless they get mass complaints--you can get away with anything. If a hundred buyers wrote in and documented express false claims, they might take interest. But since there are no(?) express claims citing specific performance of the Solar Stik under lab conditions...there are no details to quibble over, either.

If I buy a Sears DieHard car battery because it advertised "great starts all winter long" and my car was a bit sluggish in the second or third spring, odds are I wouldn't call the FTC on it. Same thing with most people and most products.

Is the Solar Stik being overhyped? Dunno. Personally I suspect the error--or game--is the in the ammeter and it might be accidental.

But heck, how long did GM's OnStar division advertise OnStar in the BatMobile? And the FTC never went after them for that lie! (A lie, because you can only buy OnStar with a new GM vehicle, not in custom cars.)

The problem here, is that if you ask any prime maker of solar cells on this planet, they will tell you that you can't get the full rating of their panels out of the panels all day long. The numbers being claimed by various parties for these panels are simply out of the ballpark--which requires either error, new technology, magic, or fraud. Pick any one of the four except the new technology, because we know these folks aren't using that.


----------



## conchyjoe

sailingdog said:


> my apologies...


 Accepted. Forget it.



sailingdog said:


> However, by my calculations, 80 Amp-hours is very optimistic.


I am cool with that too dog.



sailingdog said:


> You still got a lot of convincing to do


Sincerely, I am not trying to convince anyone. I stand by my signature. I don't need nor want advertising dollars. I made all the money I need during the breakup of AT&T in the 80's.

The owner of SolarStik is a super person, and a great friend. It is a compelling product that capitalizes on a simple concept.

The owner of Snowbirders Guide South, is another. So is Beth Leonard, and Nigel Calder, and Richard Kollmann. None of them have sent me any money either. Free books to review maybe, but no money.


----------



## Freesail99

Let's say I don't want to move the solar panels mounted on my davit. So to get the most amp hours out of them, should I buy the largest watt panels that will fit ?


----------



## conchyjoe

hellosailor said:


> CJoe?
> "If so, where is the FTC hauling all these liars in?"
> First of all, the FTC openly allows what the courts call "puffery". If I own the Campbell's Soup Company and I claim to make the _best _soup in the world, I don't have to prove it, the FTC will allow me to "inflate" my claims a bit. If there are a half dozen better soups out there, my claim will still be allowed.
> 
> Second, the FTC only gets involved as their budget and politics allow. That means unless they get mass complaints--you can get away with anything. If a hundred buyers wrote in and documented express false claims, they might take interest. But since there are no(?) express claims citing specific performance of the Solar Stik under lab conditions...there are no details to quibble over, either.
> 
> If I buy a Sears DieHard car battery because it advertised "great starts all winter long" and my car was a bit sluggish in the second or third spring, odds are I wouldn't call the FTC on it. Same thing with most people and most products.
> 
> Is the Solar Stik being overhyped? Dunno. Personally I suspect the error--or game--is the in the ammeter and it might be accidental.
> 
> But heck, how long did GM's OnStar division advertise OnStar in the BatMobile? And the FTC never went after them for that lie! (A lie, because you can only buy OnStar with a new GM vehicle, not in custom cars.)
> 
> The problem here, is that if you ask any prime maker of solar cells on this planet, they will tell you that you can't get the full rating of their panels out of the panels all day long. The numbers being claimed by various parties for these panels are simply out of the ballpark--which requires either error, new technology, magic, or fraud. Pick any one of the four except the new technology, because we know these folks aren't using that.


Hello, That was kinda tongue in cheek, sorry.

I agree with you on the claimed numbers. The research I was privy to showed that the BP panels operated much closer to their claims than any of the other manufacturers tested. And they are made in the good old USA.

BP said 2.9 at 17.5, and my goodness the majority of the panels actually put out 2.9 at 17.5. Not 1 or 2, but about 45 out of 50 panels. And the other 5 were within 5%.

Just don't get people started on the notion that batteries don't last, but solar panels last forever.......


----------



## conchyjoe

Sailingdog,

Sorry, Two 3 month old Trojan T105's connected together to get 12V. All cells tested around 1.150 - 11.80 not corrected. I did not check the temp of the batteries because I was simply looking for maximum output as recorded by the controller.


----------



## hellosailor

Cjoe-
Solar panels last forever? I thought they lost significant output by 20+ years, no?

But since the owner of SolarStik is a friend, why not ask him a friendly question? We all want to know about "better stuff". The only question is, what's really better.

If he would do some real homework, do some testing that showed how many amp-hours the SS actually put into a battery bank (by capacity and load measurement, not a questionable ammeter), and provide some hard numbers of the kind that couldn't be questioned...

Odds are it would sell a lot of product--if the claims were substantiated. And of course, if the problem is simply one of an error (using a DC multimeter on PCW current) then I'd equally sure he'd want to correct it.

It's a win-win situation for your friend, if he can back up and quantify those claims.


----------



## conchyjoe

hellosailor said:


> Cjoe-
> Solar panels last forever? I thought they lost significant output by 20+ years, no?


Dangit! Did I forget the smilie face again. The last debate I had with someone about power was that solar panels lasted forever. The truth is 20 years is a good number, 15 is more reasonable.

The owner of SolarStik is a pretty modest guy. The SolarStik part is very young. The owner is well known in St. Augustine and Key West, and has an unquestionable reputation. they are waiting for the PS issue to come out, and he will stand by their findings. No I don't own PS, but if you don't subscribe, three hole punch in bind every issue, as well as download the pdf to store on CD, you should have your head examined.

My testing was completely un-scientific, and I did not have the luxury of any precision equipment, nor does Susan. Only what the panel on the controller reads.

The product is already selling in many vertical markets, not just sailing.

You have to remember, he makes the stick, not the panels or controller. I don't know what testing they have done beyond what I have. That is still being worked on.

Take a look at this review of another Bluesky product, and let me know what you think. What anyone thinks for that matter.
http://www.conchyjoe.com/SB50review.pdf

Besides the ability to point the panels, this is one important piece that ties it all together. The Blue Sky controller was the best performing controller at the time, and is why it is used in the SolarStik.


----------



## soul searcher

H.S. look at Bps warranty 90% for 12 years. 80% for twentyfive.
Should give a good indication of life expectancy.
Ill leave Y'all to it. Personally I'm on a mission to declutter the back of my boat.
so Im not interested in puting anything else back there for the pelicans to sit on.
Matt


----------



## camaraderie

AMY JOHNSON...welcome aboard! 
I am not going to get into responding to the others on this thread again but since you seem to be sincere in wondering whether the SolarStik system is right for you...based on what you have said and the boat you own, I would say...YES...if you can afford it. 
What I would also say to you is not to believe the marketing hype and to have realistic expectations about just how many amp hours will be able to be delivered and stored in your batteries each day. 
The output claims being made here for the solar stik rely on 100% conversio n of available sunlight, constant adjustment to make that so, a 100% efficient charge controller and betteries that can accept the converted output fully. Even with all this...the calculations defy the laws of the universe. Furthermore, as a practical matter...when you are out cruising, you don't sit on your boat all day, the tide goes in and out, the wind shifts direction and the sun goes behind clouds. I would be most surprised if you got than 40 A/H into your batteries on average sunny days...even making several adjustments daily while at anchor. Obviously on cloudy days you won't get much at all with these or other solar panels. I would also say that the 40 amps I quote above is 50% more than I would expect out of fixed panel solars of the same wattage rating and the same charge contorller. There is no doubt that adjusting the panels can get you more amp hours. 

So...the real question for you assuming you get the stik is "will it provide enough power for my needs". Only you can answer that but I would suggest that a wind power solution may be useful to supplement whatever solar system you end up with since you can't rely on endless sunny days and wind power will work 24x7 when you have a breeze. IMHO...unless you are able to install a massive solar array AND couple it to a massive battery bank (as cruisingdad has done) you can't rely on solar alone for your electrical needs. 
Again...welcome aboard and good luck with your decision making.


----------



## conchyjoe

AmyJohnson said:


> Good morning, all.
> 
> Well I've never done a forum before, but I am considering a Solar Stik for my boat (Hunter 27) and of course doing research on the web. (So please take it easy on me until I get a little experience at this!) There are several forums active about this thing, but this one seems to be the most active, hence my subsequent joining and participation.
> 
> The article I posted came from a disk I got with their info packet (picked it up at the boat show in MD). I only posted a portion of it because the rest was certainly an "advertisement" but I thought the "physics lesson" was worth the read. Having seen it first-hand on a boat (deck mounting version) and discussing it with him, here is what he told me: The numbers are actually close to what they preach, but "real world conditions" in Mexico were more favorable than here in the states. He cruised his Morgan down to Panama and back over the last 7 months.
> 
> What he did with his stik was mount a small wind gen on the top (didn't get the make/model) as well as several antennas.
> 
> So far I am inclined to buy it. I have seen several prices (as little as $3225 with boat show pricing to as much as $4,700 on some websites) so I guess it pays to shop around. They don't seem to sell it directly except at boat shows. I hope it is not an infringement to say this, but there is another "forum site" that has a chandlery listing for the Solar Stik at $3,450.
> 
> My biggest problem installing a solar system is that I am still stuck on mounting. I own a Hunter 27 and don't have much canvas room or transom space (arch) for a more traditional mounting system, so it APPEARS as though this will at least save me some space. I would like to have a solar resolution on my boat by May.
> 
> Sorry! I am sounding like an Ad myself. I'll go now...
> 
> Thanks for all the great info, everybody!


Welcome aboard Amy,

I would say do whatever works best for your particular situation and budget.

My H23.5 at the lake has a small Sunsei panel that sits in the cockpit and a Sunsei controller. But that is all it needs for it's two 12V batteries.

I have also seen boats that do not have a spot to even mount a SolarStik.

Whatever you do needs to work best for you. Best of luck.


----------



## conchyjoe

sailingdog said:


> Actually, though the figures 80-100 Amp-hours were mentioned, including in SolarStik's own article


Sailingdog, I did verify and can mention that around 100AH has been achieved by the Military. However that was in the Kuwait Desert when they had about 16 hour days.

Just an FYI.


----------



## tomaz_423

Ohhh, Conchy Joe - please give me a break. 

You said. "I did verify and can mention that around 100AH has been achieved by the Military. However that was in the Kuwait Desert when they had about 16 hour days."

Look:
Kuwait lattitude is is below 28 degrees North. On that lattitude you get max of 14 hours between sun rise and sun set. Well perhaps 14 hours and 3 or 4 min a few longest days in Jun (but only if you are really north). 
Not 16 hours !!!

To get 16 hours you should either be 50 deg. North or elevated very high. I am too lazy to calculate this now, but we are not talking mast hight, we are talking Everest hight ...

I know of a simpler and cheaper way to get 100 Ah in a day from 100w solar than going to Kuwait and elevate it to stratosphere:

Rent one of those tennis courts (or golf or futball..) where they have good lights for playing at night. Place the solar close to the reflectors and start your measure. If it is a sunny day it does not hurt either. Do not forget to turn on the lights !


----------



## hellosailor

CJoe, I don't doubt that using PWM can make the charge controller more efficient. That milestone was accomplished by the folks at Delco when they made their "Delcotron" alternator/generators in the 70's.

But that review makes me wonder. It says "A fully depleted 12 volt battery will have a voltage of about 12.5 VDC while under charge. A fully recharged battery will be about 15 VDC while under charge." And that's not at all right.

A fully depleted battery will show about 11.6 volts under a small load, a fully charged battery about 12.6 volts under a small load. A freshly charged "hot" battery 13.6-8 volts while the chemistry hasn't equalized yet. And the voltage they will show "under charge" has got little to do with the battery condition--but rather that's the voltage shown by the charging circuit! The charger itself.

I've got a kilowatt power supply here that makes a nice dandy 12V battery charger, and I can assure you that if I set it for 14.4 volts, I can hook up a useless battery and still measure 14.4 volts across the battery--because that's what the CHARGER is programmed for and capable of supporting.

Is the BS charge controller better than a typical "generator heatsink dump" type controller? I'll bet it is. Is the PWM system a better way of matching and using the power from a PV array? Again, I'll bet it is.

And, the concept of "open this box, bolt it on, plug it in, unfold it and you've got power" is a very nice concept, too.

But I can also show you how to use a plain AC/DC multimeter, set for the 20VDC scale, and have it "show" there is AC voltage coming out of a 12VDC charging system--where there is no fault and no actual AC voltage. Reverse the leads, and the AC goes away. Huh? Yeah, unless you have a good meter like a Fluke, AC and DC aren't quite what they're marked up to be.

So, the claims about the output from the Solar Stik? I'll still do my figuring based on a panel's rated output being twice the useable power from it on an average day. And no way that I'll believe it can exceed the ratings by so large a percent--unless I see it documented.

Me and Harry Truman, we both say "Show Me".

Meanwhile...My sunrise/sunset program "Sol!" tells me that even in Hawaii (21North) the day only goes from 11-ish to 13-ish hours long. No 16 hours of sunlight there either. Unless perhaps, we're following the traditional definition of Western religions and motor vehicle regulations, and counting "from when a white thread can be told apart from a black one."<G>


----------



## sailingdog

conchyjoe said:


> Sailingdog,
> 
> Sorry, Two 3 month old Trojan T105's connected together to get 12V. All cells tested around 1.150 - 11.80 not corrected. I did not check the temp of the batteries because I was simply looking for maximum output as recorded by the controller.


Well, that's interesting... that's the same setup of batteries, sans age, that I am using for the tests I've done with my two 130W solar panels. The numbers you get sound somewhat unrealistic for an 100W effective panel bank.

What really worries me is how much of the factual information, like Kuwait having 16 hour days, that you've gotten wrong. If you can't get the basic facts correct, or the basic electrical theory correct, what are you missing in your analysis.

This is not meant as an insult, but as a question for you to consider.


----------



## conchyjoe

tomaz_423 said:


> Ohhh, Conchy Joe - please give me a break.
> 
> You said. "I did verify and can mention that around 100AH has been achieved by the Military. However that was in the Kuwait Desert when they had about 16 hour days."


Tomaz,

They may have said 14 hours, it was a quick conversation. When I think about it, 16 hours sounds long to me too.


----------



## xort

conchyjoe said:


> Tomaz,
> When I think about it, 16 hours sounds long to me too.


That's OK, as a "commercial product reviewer" you can shoot from the hip all you want.

You can fool some of the people all of the time and you can fool all the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*16 hours?*

This looks pretty close to me...

Salamanca, Spain

Astronomy for June 24, 2006:
Rise: Set: 
Actual Time: 6:50 AM CEST 9:57 PM CEST 
Civil Twilight: 6:17 AM CEST 10:31 PM CEST 
Nautical Twilight: 5:34 AM CEST 11:14 PM CEST 
Astronomical Twilight: 4:43 AM CEST 12:05 AM CEST 
Moon: 5:14 AM CEST 9:27 PM CEST 
Length Of Visible Light: 16h 14m 
Length of Day: 15h 07m


----------



## mikeedmo

Here's an e:mail I got from Solar-Stik when I made an inquiry as to whether they maintain a list of installers in our area. It addresses the price Amy's asked about.

Solar Stik does not maintain a list of people or firms that can install the Solar Stik. We typically recommend that boat owners ask around in the local marinas and locate a well trained installer by word of mouth. The system is not hard to install but it does require knowing how to drill, possibly bend aluminum and potentially running wiring from the Solar Stik to your battery bank. You are in a great part of the world and locating qualified installers should not be difficult. We look forward to hearing from you soon and please let us know if we can offer any additional assistance. We have just reduced pricing so that the complete transom mount package including an MPPT charge controller is $ 3850.00 and a complete deck mount system with controller is $ 3425.00.

Lastly, we will be showing the Solar Stik in the Cruisers Pavilion at the Strictly Sail Miami Boat show between Feb. 15-19. If you are in the area, would like additional information, and would like to see the Solar Stik in action if you have not already, please come by and see us.

Have a great weekend,
The Solar Stik Team


----------



## sailingdog

Ummm... have you looked at a globe Amy?

Salamanca, Spain is considerably farther north than all of Kuwait. Ergo... the day in Kuwait will be shorter than the days in Salamanca... thus proving a 16-hour day is not possible in Kuwait... and a fourteen-hour day is going to be very rare there as well.

See this google earth page... and see for yourself.


----------



## hellosailor

Amy-
Salamanca is a more temperate 40d N. similar to New York in the US. ConchyJoe's comment about Kuwait was because it is MUCH closer to the equator (20N) and as such is a "sunnier" place with brighter stronger sunlight, similar to Florida or Texas.
And indeed yes, part of the point is that the longer amounts of daylight are NOT going to happen near the equator where the sunlight is "strongest", those longer days happen as you get closer to the poles (for half the year anyway<G>) where you may get more hours--but you'll also get weaker sunlight ALL day long.

As to the numbers themselves, calculating "hours of daylight" is a shell game. The software I'm running shows 14:34 for the same date that yours shows 15+, and you'll notice there are three "starts" and three "ends" for each day, take your pick of them when you calculate "day".

For motor vehicle laws, "daylight" is often defined as "when it is bright enough to read the classified section of the newspaper" which is set in 5-1/2 point (aka "agate") type in fairly uniform printing. That's quite different from the definition in the Koran, of "enough light to tell a black thread from a white one".

You think any solar panel is going to give you enough power to wind a watch at the start and end of that 15-hour day? So do I, but that's about it. Don't expect it to light a bulb though.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*Thanks, Cameraderie and Joe!*

Watching you all is great! I truly appreciate all of the input. This is certainly helpful in making that "$" decision. I have crewed on many boats over in Europe and I have to say that the days there are MUCH longer than here, but I doubt seriously that I will be sailing my little Hunter across the Atlantic!!

The way that I see it so far, the people at Solar Stik (via their website) gave me enough information to determine how much power I will achieve and how to use it. I read their "Solar School" (sorry, don't know how to hyperlink it yet) and as best I can figure, if I got about 70 AH each day for my cruising around FL, that would suffice. That would be enough for us as we have refrigeration, lights, laptop, and other basic amenities aboard. I am just not sure that I, personally, could install it... THAT is my problem at this point.


----------



## hellosailor

Amy, if you get more than 50AH out of a Solar Stik during a midsummer day in Florida, please do let us know. Not ten hours at 5 amps on an ammeter--but an actual 50AH out of it, measured by something that can accurately measure pulsed DC, or the storage in your batteries. A plain DC ammeter will *not* be accurate for this purpose.

From their own "Solar School" pages:
"We find that the Solar Stik panels produce 5.8 amps, or about 3 amps per solar panel. On average, one can expect to be able to get 10 hours per day of direct sunlight, providing the user with about 60 amp-hours of recharging ability at 18 volts."
They're saying 60AH, based on 10 hours of direct sunlight. But, "direct" sunlight will not be the same as "noon" sunlight, which is where the 5.8A rating happens. That's the first problem here, I'd bet you'll only have 4-5 hours, tops, at full rated output. Not ten. The other five hours, you'll average about 1/2 rated capacity--no matter how often you re-aim the panels.

"The Solar Stik has the ability to be aimed at the sun from dawn to dusk, maximizing the solar panel's power production. Now you can see why the Solar Stik revolutionizes the solar industry. "
not really, since commercial and private solar arrays have had that ability since they were first put on the market. Solar Stik requires you to track the sun manually, and that's not revolutionary at all. Other systems will automatically track the sun and keep the panels aligned all day long. They're not revolutionary either--they're simply more expensive. And terribly "old hat" by now.<G>

But since they are promising you 60AH of power (I don't see how you extrapolate 70), do this. Ask them for a written guarantee that they will give you a full refund in 30 days, if you are not getting a consistant 60AH out of the Solar Stik every day that is not overcast. They should have no problem doing that, right?


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*Stik*

Yes, there are variables in the light intensity I am sure. I have sailed over there in Europe quite a bit and actually have a good friend who lives in Salamanca which is why I chose it as a point of reference.

Thank you, again everybody. I'll be checking back in late tonight!


----------



## soul searcher

Amy, What choices do you have on a hunter 27.
Wind, if you sail alot and doent mind alittle noise you could have wind for about 1200.00 for a airx and pole.
bigger alternator with regulator. and bigger house bank(add a batt) probably 1200.00
fixed solar, I have two 85 watt pannels with an old trace controler.
that I could replace mounts and all for less than 1200 dollars. It keeps up with my frig pretty well (Longer than I can go with out running the engine)for 
the trips we make.
You may see where this is going. so I'll get it over with.
If I had 3450.00 to spend on my electric system I would get all of the above.
or at least two out of three. may not be razoowhoopdedo. but it would cover more bases. I think if your batts and alternator are sufficiant I would get wind and solar. they compliment each other.
If you do get wind you can come on here and tell every one that it make 100amps a day in 2 knots of wind and sit back and watch the fur and feathers fly 

watts divided by volts equals ample stacks of cash.
Sorry Sailaway, I will whip this no more
And lord please be with the starving pigmies in new Guinie who dont have a amp or a batt. to put it in. but still sail their dug outs.
Matt


----------



## hellosailor

"watch the fur and feathers fly"
Nah, you need a wind generator with spinning blades to do that.<G>

Or, as the folks at NASA were said to have told the folks at BOAC "You did defrost the chickens before firing them, didn't you?"


----------



## camaraderie

AMY...I am concerned that you are reading Brian's stuff on solar basics and believing it when clearly Mr. Auspicious gives him an electronics lesson right on that thread. So why should you believe me that you won't get 70 amp hours a day out of your solar stick?? Well...you've read my posts and yet you still believe Solar-stik marketing. So...lets try another tack. Let's go to the Blue Sky Controller website...and find the instruction manual for their wonderful controller that solar stik uses...aaaah.here it is:
http://www.blueskyenergyinc.com/pdf/ManualRVPPSB2KErevE.pdf

Now before we open our manual can we agree that the charge controller sits between the solar panels and the batteries and that whatever amps come out of the charge controller is the most amps the batteries will be getting?? Good...easy so far. 
Now..lets turn to page 7 and look at the chart midway down the page. You can see they are measuring typical performance with four 75 watt panels or 300 watts. That is THREE times the solar stik panel output at peak right???...Good. 
Now notice that in the four scenarios they give...the BEST output they can give is 18.5 amps. Now if you divide that by THREE you can figure that *the best output you can get with 100 watts is 6.17 amps* into your batteries IF you meet those ideal conditions. And IF you meet those ideal conditions for each and every minute 12 HOURS A DAY...then you will get 72 amp hours being delivered to your battery. Not gonna happen. Look at the same chart and divide each of the other outputs by 3 to *see what happens when things are less than PERFECT*. 
Now lets turn further in the manual where we see a warning on page 9 at the bottom which reads:
*IMPORTANT: The front panel serves as a heat sink for power control devices and requires free air circulation for cooling. Do not enclose the front panel behind a tight fitting door or otherwise substantially restrict air flow.

*What? The charge controller gets hot? *Where does the energy come from to make it hot?*? Lets see...could it be the batteries?? Nope...it is putting energy INTO the batteries. What is putting energy into the charge controller...aaah got it...THE SOLAR PANELS...*and so they are making HEAT as WELL as ELECTRICITY*. So some of that 100 Watts is producing HEAT instead of volts and amps for your battery...Hmmmm. 
Guess that means even if you HAD perfect conditions for 12 hours a day you couldn't get that 72 AMPS cause some wattage is going to go away as heat. 
Remember...none of this is MY marketing hype. It is right from the manual of the blue-sky controller and if anything, they have an incentive to exaggerate but they don't which speaks highly of them. 
Again...the solar stik may be a good option for you but you can't get more out of a device than you put in.

As an aside...you can buy the 2 BP solar panels for $698 and the charge controller for $236 so you are paying about $2500 for the stik alone. Do you think it is worth that?


----------



## rexy

camaraderie said:


> So some of that 100 Watts is producing HEAT instead of volts and amps for your battery...


technically, isn't that a powerloss incurred due to transformations(loss incurred in the loader)?


----------



## sailingdog

rexy said:


> technically, isn't that a powerloss incurred due to transformations(loss incurred in the loader)?


well, yes, but the SolarStik unit includes the MPPT charge controller as part of it... so the heat losses due to the voltage conversion process really should be considered a part of the over all system's efficiency.

BTW, I'd imagine you can get an awful nice custom mount built for $2500.


----------



## rexy

sailingdog said:


> well, yes, but the SolarStik unit includes the MPPT charge controller as part of it... so the heat losses due to the voltage conversion process really should be considered a part of the over all system's efficiency.
> 
> BTW, I'd imagine you can get an awful nice custom mount built for $2500.


ah yes, but so there's a difference in measuring the power(as in Watt) output of the panels or measuring whats left of it after transforming it for battery use. which doesnt help the numbers debate


----------



## camaraderie

Rexy...you're absolutely right...it is a transformational power loss...and it is MINIMAL in the BlueSky converter compared to many units.But solar stik is sold as a system including the charge controller so the point was that even at 100 watts output (17V*5.8 amps) from the panels and NO loss throught the wiring to the charge controller...there is also loss in the charge controller itself and it can't produce the 100% efficiency required to justify a claim of 70 amp hours delivered TO the batteries Amy thinks she will get let alone the 80-100A/H's some others claim. I am also not considering that the battery itself will not ACCEPT this amount of current once it gets nearly full further degrading the amp hours actually accepted on board in 12 hour PERFECT full output conditions further reducing the actual A/H's usable to run boat systems. Setting aside the real world conditions that make perfect conditions impossible at anchor I am just trying to show Amy that if she NEEDS 70 a/h's a day to run her boat systems...she needs either more panels or wind generation to meet her needs.


----------



## rexy

ah yes, someone said earlier in the thread that you need to put in twice as much power in batteries as you get out, depending how full they are, the temperature etc. so your reasoning seems perfectly logical. 

however i do wonder how often when everything is on you will reach a full load on the battery's

in any case assuming such perfect conditions is probably a bad idea unless you have a backup power source, since you wont always get the best possible performance everyday. so if the panels are barely enough for her power needs she'd needs something extra in any case to compensate for those cloudy days


----------



## sailingdog

rexy said:


> ah yes, but so there's a difference in measuring the power(as in Watt) output of the panels or measuring whats left of it after transforming it for battery use. which doesnt help the numbers debate


As Cam has pointed out, the losses due to the BlueSky MPPT controllers is generally quite minimal.. However, the 100W capacity of the SolarStik is not capable of providing the claimed 80-100 Amp-hours, regardless of the arguments used by its various proponents. In places where there would be enough hours in the day, the sunlight is weakened through greater atmospheric attenuation... Also, the losses due to the inefficiencies of a 12VDC electrical system aren't being considered... once you factor those in, even 60 Amp-hours would be optimistic at best. Might want to read my previous post, #185... where I've laid the numbers out pretty clearly. AFAIK, no one has disputed the math or logic of what I've written in that post with any supporting evidence outside the marketing materials from the vendor.

Also, you can reach a full-charge on the batteries, if you have more generation capacity than you do usage... that's basically it. I generally am wasting watts from my panels, as I have a very light electrical load on my boat most of the time, and two rather large 130W solar panels to support it...


----------



## rexy

well i never take marketing value's as a given anyway. as they ussually are the best theoretically feasible performance.something which is unattaineable. Is it possible that the discrepancy in amperage is due to the fact the panels are putting out a lower voltage?( and thus at the same power output a higher amperage?) 

because that's what we are dealing with here right, power, wich is just a function of Volts, Amps and time.


----------



## sailingdog

Rexy-

Lowering the output voltage to get higher amperage is purely a numbers game... I could modify an MPPT charge controller to have it output 20 amps @ 5 volts... but that would be useless in the context of charging a 12 VDC battery storage system.

In the earlier posts, Conchy Joe and LaLeLu were making the argument that the MPPT charge controller could output more power... by lowering the voltage and increasing the amperage... *they were confusing amperage and power. * The output of an MPPT charge controller is essentially the same power as the input, minus the heat losses due to the conversion. What it does do is allow the batteries to use the power more efficiently.

However, to charge a 12V wet-cell battery, a certain minimum voltage is necessary, and at that voltage level, _in my previous posts I was using 13.4 VDC-the float charge voltage as a reference level,_ the panels are capable of putting out no more than 7.46 Amps... and that is given perfect lighting conditions, no clouds and aiming the panels precisely at the sun.

Also, keep in mind that as a battery becomes more fully charged, the level of current it will accept drops dramatically. Putting more amperage into a fully charged battery requires a higher driving voltage, and will generally only result in boiling off the electrolyte, damaging the battery and reducing its charge carrying capacity and lifespan.


----------



## rexy

ah yes i understand all that , what i was wondering is if the voltage levels from panels can vary while outputting a corresponding higher or lower amperage, if so, one could measure higher amps at the panel connectors (not after it's transformed by the MPPT) and thus arrive at the conclusion that the panels are working really well, while the voltage is lower.

and i agree 2500$ for a custom mount which improves efficiency of 100W panels by 20% is not worth the money. it's not worth it even if it would improve it by 50%(look for the math in previous posts or just compare efficiency gain to the cost of more panels). however you will need to factor in the mounting costs at some place on the boat. personally i find the mounts very ugly, and i wonder how well the panels stay on in heavy winds and waves. I'd much prefer to mount them fixed on top of a pilot house or on the side of the boat so they work via indirect lighting. but i'm not sure how effective they will be in such a configuration.


----------



## rschaedel

*Solar panel and wind gerator*

We have one 75W Siemens solar panel and an Ampair wind generator. (Would like to have a second panel but do not have adequate space.)
Batteries: three 4d AGMS for house = about 620amp hours. one group 31 AGM for engine reserve starting in case house bank is too low.
Heart Interface/ Link monitor and regulator with 210amp Balmar charger. 
We find that the above system meets our needs adequately if we are careful.
When at dock or anchor for more than one day we relocate the solar panel to position to receive unobstructed sun by clamping on to lifeline rail or the foredeck. We observe the Link monitor carefully and never run the batteries to more than 300 amphours. The Lifeline batteries were installed when the boat was commissioned in 2001 and are still healthy.
Our electrical use requirements are everything that most cruisers want but we do not have a TV and our refrigerator is a low energy requirement 12v without freezer. We place a thermometer in it and never set the thermostat so that it is any lower than 42 degrees. Ice cubes are made with a vertical ice cube tray placed against the evaporater plate. We are usually able to stay at anchor without running the engine for 3-5 days between Maine and the Carib. Our highest electric demand which pushes us to the brink is sailing at night with radar, running lights, instruments, computer for nav. charts, etc. Frequently we would turn off the refrigerator until morning or whenever the engine is again required. This works well enough for us and if we were to ever to buy another boat we would probably do a similar set up but would investigate other types of wind generators.


----------



## camaraderie

Rexy...IMHO..you have a perfect understanding of the situation. In answer to your question...at full output the solar panels themselves put out 5.8 amps at 17 volts before any wiring or charge controller conversion. (17*5.8=100W). 

In response to your question about fixed mount panel expectations...my own experience for UNSHADED fixed mount panels is that in tropical conditions I got about 1/3 of the maximum rated power in real world at anchor real weather conditions ON AVERAGE OVER TIME. So...100 watts fixed would actually get about 33 watts into your batteries per day in a cruising situation. Obviously, this will vary with the hours of daylight and the general weather conditions in your part of the world compared to the tropics but it may provide a useful ratio for your planning purposes. Even in the tropics and in relatively sheltered anchoring conditions, I got about double the power as a daily average out of my 4Winds wind generator than my 160W panels. 
Hope this helps and BTW...welcome to the board!


----------



## cardiacpaul

y'all need to hike up your big girl panties, stop this theory BS and go sailin'.

"the difference between a theory and a hunch is a 40k MBA"


----------



## camaraderie

http://www.fourwinds-ii.com/v2/?c=library&i=cruiseConsid

Good article on solar vs. wind from a company that sells both. Note increase in output predicted for fixed vs. adjustable panels in "real world".


----------



## Valiente

rschaedel said:


> We have one 75W Siemens solar panel and an Ampair wind generator. (Would like to have a second panel but do not have adequate space.)


Thanks for that real-life example. Our energy usage pattern will be similar (pretty low by today's standards) but we do wish to extend our "anchored without running the alternator" time frame, and so will have more panels and more amp-hour capacity.

I can restrict myself to a dozen ice cubes a day, I think, if I have the seamanship to erect a flippin' awning...why the Pardeys have a DVD on that very topic...oh, wait...not enough amps to light up the plasma screen...darn!


----------



## hellosailor

Rexy-
"if so, one could measure higher amps at the panel connectors (not after it's transformed by the MPPT) and thus arrive at the conclusion that the panels are working really well, while the voltage is lower."
A good question, but the whole point of the MPPT is supposed to be that it takes the higher voltage and "lower" amperage of the panel, and then transforms it into lower voltage and *higher* amperage.
The batteries need a nominal 14.4 volts (more or less) for optimal charging. Anything above voltage, is wasted and just boils off electrolyte. Anything under that, and they don't charge optimally. A traditional regulator or charge controller only "chops" voltage down to 14.4 and leaves the amperage alone. In theory, the MPPT is acting as an electronic transformer, taking whatever power the panels put out, and converting it efficiently to 14.4volts at maximum amperage. 
From what I read on their web site, I can't tell if the MPPT controller boosts low voltage from the panels, or just transforms high voltage at low current, into lower (14.4) voltage at higher current.

Either way, the total rated output _power _of the array will be power, measured in watts, and there's no way to increase the total power output of the array. You can trade volts for amps, and vice versa, and make the regulator and charging relatively more or less efficient, but that will never increase the maximum wattage the panel can put out.

That's the crux of this whole argument. Solar Stik's fans seem certain they can get more total power than the solar panel's actual makers claim can be squeezed out of the panels--under the best conditions.


----------



## Cruisingdad

AmyJohnson,

As has been mentioned, I would urge you to look at all your options for $4,000 (the price of a Solar Stik). I like the SS because it is adjustable (maximizing your potential to use your 100w panels), the "arch" is already built, and is effectively plug-and-play (from what I can tell in their marketing material). However, that is a lot of money for "100w of power". The SS is NOTHING but a mount system. As I said before, you could mount the same panels & chrgr on a cardboard box, point it toward the sun, and get exactly the same results. Their product is neat, don't get me wrong, but you are paying a LOT of money for a 100w mount. THe rest of the stuff can be purchased from other outfitters. It is not theirs.

If you go with a small arrray (say, 100W-150W), you may be better served gettin creative and making your own arch out of SS rods and connectors (basically, what your bimini is made out of). Most of (all of probably) these materials can be purchased from a marine outfitter, like a West Marine. If you negotiate with them, you can drive down the costs they portray as retail. If you are putting up a large array (anything larger than 150W+), it will probably be too heavy for that type of setup and will require custom fabrication. My arch cost almost as much as the Solar Stik (without anything else attached). However, a large arch also has the benefit of being used for: lighting, hoisting the dink, stowage of lines and a potential mount point for a wind generator, etc. However, the cost of this is high and may be an overkill for your use.

If I had to rank how I would outfit a boat of your size, in order or priority, here is how I would rank it and use those funds:

1) A seperate, independent, start battery for the main. Mine is outside the loop of the house bank charging (as this is the only time I have lost my batteries - when the charger failed and in turn cooked the batteries). I hooked up a totally seperate charger and system... but you can use an echocharge to save money. This should be a priority.

2) Additional house bank. I would add another house battery, and I would trash my wet cells in place of AGM's. THere is a cost to this, of course, but I find the benefits of AGM's (in addition to acepting a charge quicker) a much better choice for sailors and cruisers. Make sure your house charger will support AGM's if that is your decision. Remember that any batteries you put into this system must be of smiliair make (AGM's only or wet's only). They charge differently and your charger must be able to be set for that type of battery. If I already had wets and my chgr did not support agms, I might opt for just another wet cell to add to the house bank to save $$.

3) A Multistage charger on your alternator, assuming you do not have a generator.

4) A high-output alternator, maybe, depending on your bank and output of current alternator.

5) Wind generator. Wind is still probably the cheapest amp-$ solution for the cruiser (that is green). I believe both Tom Neale and Nigel Calder advocate this. I personally would prioritize the wind over solar, because of the cost-amp.

6) Solar set-up. If 4k is your budget, I doubt you will have any money left over after you set the first five steps above. If you do, invest the money in "lifeline-hanging" panels or create your own mounts on your davits (if you have them). An MPPT charger is about the only way to go anymore. The small cost difference is worth it. If you DO still have a bunch of money left over that you want to spend on solar, you could consider the SolarStik. I like it for reasons listed above, but without regurgitating all the "comments" beforehand, I doubt it will suffice in keping you topped off. You need a large array for that. The best you can hope for at 4k is to prolong the time between charging - thus budget accordingly.

Fair winds. Let me know if you have any specifics. Take care.

- CD


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Here is another real world example. My wife and I are returning to NC from Florida and found the following while in Florida.

We have two 120 watt panels that are run through a MPPT Solar Boost 2000E into the house bank of 420AH (will increase to 630 next season). 

I rarely adjusted the panels more than twice daily. On sunny days we can generate approx. 70-75 AH back into the batteries. We found that if we turn off the refrig/freezer for 8 hours each night, we only needed to run our Honda 2000 every 4th day for about 1.5 hours.

We also have a 100 amp balmar, but never run the engine at anchor....we love the Honda 2000. Our largest drain of energy is sailing with the auto pilot and radar both on. On overnight pasages, we turn off the frig for 8 hours and motor sail for about an hour. This is enough to keep the batts happy.

Hope this helps in some manner.

Roger


----------



## camaraderie

Stoutwench...now those numbers I believe! Thanks for a good real world example! The little Hondas are a great invention too.


----------



## Giulietta

*If You Guys Don't Stop This Thread I Will Photoshop Everyone Here...

So....be Warned...this Is My Last Warning....*


----------



## hellosailor

Giu, if you don't stop using those huge fonts, I'm going to call your clients and tell them to book you on Continental again.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

I want to add one additional thought. I was really surprised how much the two solar panels generated on partly cloudy days. Whe could usually get at least 60AH daily, unless there was a complete cloud cover and even on those days, we did get some charge (but I never monitored on cloudy days).

The MPPT controller advertises that it increases the total output of the panel when a portion of the cells are shaded. They do seem to do just that.

Roger


----------



## conchyjoe

Personal attacks. Deleted.Cam


----------



## Guest

*Power Requirements to Support CD's Panel Shields?*



CD, Nice array. Does your heart begin to flutter when a big thunderstorm with hail potential is headed your way? Any idea how durable those arrays might be in the face of significant hailstones?


----------



## sailingdog

Personal attack. Deleted. Cam


----------



## xort

*oh, excuse me I didn't realize who you are*

Personal Attack. Deleted.Cam


----------



## camaraderie

*Guys...I have just deleted 3 posts that were personal (if civil) attacks. Those wishing to continue this thread should confine themselves to the subject and factual information regarding solar and wind power. *


----------



## Cruisingdad

Whapoa,

Good question about the durability. Mine are brand new, so the informnation I am giving is direct-second hand.

The boat whose system I fashioned after weathered a very large hail strom 12-24 months ago. He did sustain damage on some parts of his boat, but the panels did not show any damage. The are pretty stiff across the top. I cannot attest for all panels, but the Kyoceras are pretty tough. They have to be. I cannot install anything without droping it a few times in the process. Luckily for me, this time, it was never dropped over the water!!!!

As far as the electrical storms, you just do not understand physics (smile). See, when the big storms come, I pull the lead wire off my panels and connect it to grounding system on my boat. It creates a such a positive field that most of Texas is protected, including many of the lower 48 states. Here, I will post a picture for you. Here is what happens when I connect my panels to the grounding system (and the power that is realeased):


----------



## Guest

CD, Thanks for clearing that up for me...  

Thanks for your posts on this topic. Regards, John


----------



## Cruisingdad

Not a problem Whapoa. Thought a little humor might be appreciated too!!!

- CD


----------



## Guest

CD, not to be picky but would you mind checking your "m" key it seems to be intermittent. Pls note there is an "m" in the name of my boat....Not that I'm superstitious or anything! The humor was in fact needed and welcomed.

Have a great day sailing today.

Regards, John


----------



## Cruisingdad

Sorry WhaMpoa!!! It isn't the keys, it is y fingers not working y ... oh crap, there I go again!! Sorry about that!!

- CD


----------



## Cruisingdad

Come on Lucky 27!! I can feel it. Just a few posts away!!


----------



## Valiente

stoutwench said:


> Hope this helps in some manner.
> 
> Roger


Yes, it does. It supports my impression that a decent solar array plus substantial battery banks can keep you from running your diesel just to turn the alternator (I would prefer a couple of hours of Honda 2000 by far on occasion), but also that if I am doing night and/or radar passages, that I should definitely choose to motorsail at that point.

I don't want to give the impression that I am against running the diesel: given the fact that I have a motorsailer, that position would be a wee bit counter-intuitive. But I don't like running a diesel to turn an alternator to charge batteries so I can have ice cubes. It seems wasteful, noisy, polluting and hard on the engine. If, on the other hand, I am *moving*, then I don't mind running the engine at 1800 rpm for a few hours to get an extra knot under sail and to enjoy the "gravy" of an efficient alternator charging.

May I ask how you arrived at the "eight hours off" idea? Did you actually test the temperature inside the refrigerator to determine that it stayed within a safe zone of coldness, or do you have a standing rule of "don't open the lid when the fridge is off"?

I have the impression that the insulation of my fridge is quite good, but making it superb is a lot cheaper in the long run than burning amps to keep $50 of food cold. I am considering the logic where possible of using a bucket of ice in the bottom of the fridge and keeping it off entirely on the hook when we are in anchorages that would encourage food shopping every second day or so.

On passage is a different story, but I would rather see the fridge as a necessary, if optimized, evil than an absolute necessity.


----------



## conchyjoe

camaraderie said:


> *Guys...I have just deleted 3 posts that were personal (if civil) attacks. Those wishing to continue this thread should confine themselves to the subject and factual information regarding solar and wind power. *


I will confine myself to the subject if SailingDog will confine himself to "Factual" information.

Factual information:

1. I AM NOT compensated by anyone for my opinion.

2. I tested 2 100W BP solar panels with a BlueSky 2000E controller in a moveable configuration and witnessed a maximum of 79.9AH during testing. I average 75AH a day during my testing with full sun from sunrise to sunset .

If you wish to witness the testing again as well as the results, Please PM me. I live in Metro Atlanta.


----------



## rexy

how is your test setup, what and where did you measure it, do you have alink to a writeup on this setup, the measurements and how the measurements were conducted?

_2. I tested 2 100W BP solar panels with a BlueSky 2000E controller in a moveable configuration and witnessed a maximum of 79.9AH during testing. I average 75AH a day during my testing with full sun from sunrise to sunset .
_

that's totally different from a stik setup,the stik site specifies 2x50 watt panels. do they deliver heavier panels? or is this your custom modification?


----------



## hellosailor

CJoe-
I say this with malice towards none and no axe to grind, so please don't misperceive one. Let's try to keep it objective:

You say you "witnessed a maximum of 79.9AH during testing." Okay, for those of us who think amphours are not visible to the naked eye, exactly what did you witness. How did you see or measure amp hours? What type of equipment was used for this measurement?

My own good Pyrex only measures pints and liters, not amp-hours. And my only totalizing wattmeter measures AC only, not DC or pulsed DC. How did you see or measure amp hours? What type of equipment was used for this measurement?


----------



## Cruisingdad

I thought it was 1.21 Jigawatts (_Back to the Future_... which is what we are living on this thread).


----------



## sailingdog

conchyjoe said:


> I will confine myself to the subject if SailingDog will confine himself to "Factual" information.
> 
> Factual information:
> 
> 1. I AM NOT compensated by anyone for my opinion.
> 
> 2. I tested 2 100W BP solar panels with a BlueSky 2000E controller in a moveable configuration and witnessed a maximum of 79.9AH during testing. I average 75AH a day during my testing with full sun from sunrise to sunset .
> 
> If you wish to witness the testing again as well as the results, Please PM me. I live in Metro Atlanta.


I thought the SolarStik was *two 50W BP *solar panels, for a total of 100 W for the system.

If you are testing with two 100W panels, of course your output is going to be higher. 200W = 13.89A @ 14.4 V. Given even a 6-hour window, you should be able to make 80 Amp-hours.


----------



## hellosailor

SD- 
"I thought the SolarStik was two 50W BP solar panels, for a total of 100 W for the system. "
That's what they say: "The Solar Stik™ has two 50 watt solar panels" on their web site at http://www.solarstik.com/html/solarstik.php


----------



## Cruisingdad

It is 2 50's... I think that is what he meant. 2 50's for a total of 100W.


----------



## sailingdog

hellosailor said:


> SD-
> "I thought the SolarStik was two 50W BP solar panels, for a total of 100 W for the system. "
> That's what they say: "The Solar Stik™ has two 50 watt solar panels" on their web site at http://www.solarstik.com/html/solarstik.php


I know... I am just wondering why he said he is testing two 100 W panels... once again his facts and the facts provided by SolarStik don't agree... *It is relatively easy to make 80 Amp-hours with two 100W panels... pretty much impossible to do so with two 50 W panels..*


----------



## sailingdog

Cruisingdad said:


> It is 2 50's... I think that is what he meant. 2 50's for a total of 100W.


*
I can't guess what he means.. I have to go by what he says... *and he said earlier that an MPPT charge controller increases the power output from the solar panels. He also just said that his testing was with two 100 W panels. Yet, he accuses me of lying and attacking him. All I've been doing is trying to get some facts down correctly and get some clarification on his testing methods.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Valiente wrote: Yes, it does. It supports my impression that a decent solar array plus substantial battery banks can keep you from running your diesel just to turn the alternator (I would prefer a couple of hours of Honda 2000 by far on occasion), but also that if I am doing night and/or radar passages, that I should definitely choose to motorsail at that point.

*My thoughts exactly. The Honda cost $1000, while the engine is 10 times that. At night we found that motor sailing for an about an 1.5 hours charged the batteries sufficiently to maintain the autopilot and radar on passages of approx. 30 hours (the radar was only used at night*

May I ask how you arrived at the "eight hours off" idea? Did you actually test the temperature inside the refrigerator to determine that it stayed within a safe zone of coldness, or do you have a standing rule of "don't open the lid when the fridge is off"? 
*
Test???? Well.....not exactly. I just turned it off when we go to bed and I can't make it more than 8 hours without getting up to use the head. Then I turn it back on. The ice is still frozen and on the refrig side, everything is still cold. We keep a heavy towel over the lid at all times after reading that the lid is where the most thermal loss takes place. *

On passage is a different story, but I would rather see the fridge as a necessary, if optimized, evil than an absolute necessity.

*If you motor sail on passages, don't you generate enough amps to keep the frig running*

*Roger
StoutWench
'83 Brewer 42*


----------



## EscapadeCaliber40LRC

*a little heresay*

What is so wrong with running the diesel ?? I need to run the diesel on our boat to heat the water in the hot water heater occasionally. I have no bone to pick with solar or wind or gas gens. In fact I have all of these now after finding a cheap gen at Pep boys last summer and installing a six blade ugly looking but quiet as a mouse wind gen then as well. To take the basic question further, how long should my diesel last before major surgery will be required ? Its a Yanmar 4 banger, can't remember the model number. Currently has about 4000 hours on the Hobbs meter. As far as solar, the boat carries 4 each 40W Kyocera panels on an arch much like CD's arch and two 32W flexible panels on the hard dodger.


----------



## sailingdog

Escapade-

The real problem with running the diesel engine on a boat to charge the batteries, is that you'll be effectively running a diesel under a fairly light load, which is not really all that good for the engine. It also puts wear and tear on the engine... and increases the maintenance costs for it... and finally, it does use fuel.


----------



## xort

Conky Joe
How much did you pay for your solar stik setup?


----------



## hellosailor

CJoe, where'd you go?! I woke up bright and bushy eyed this morning and couldn't wait to find out if you'd tested 2x 100W panels, or one Solar Stik (2x50) to get that 80AH. Here I sit, feeling all disconsolate and abandoned, drowning my sorrows in coffee. Save me! <G>

SD-
Last time I heard the "idling is bad for diesel engines" argument, someone pointed out that Ford(?) has some new diesel pickup trucks with AC outlets installed in the bed for use at work sites. And, their official policy is that running the engine under light load for extended times to use it as a generator that way will not harm the engine.
I couldn't find out anything more (OK, I could if I really wanted to<G>) but I'm wondering if perhaps the new computer-controlled FI systems are part of that difference, maybe our "antique" marine diesels are simply outdated by the new toys now?
Not that I disagree with you, wrt boat engines.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

EscapadeCaliber40LRC said:


> What is so wrong with running the diesel ??


I am certainly no expert in diesel engines, so my opinion is worth exactly what you're paying me for it.

I took a diesel maintenance class from Mac Boring that was taught by a Yanmar technician. He stated that running the diesel while not under load is not good for the motor. I didn't argue.

Also, I would much rather put hours on a $1000 Honda generator than on an engine that will cost me $12,000 to replace. And as Sailingdog pointed out, the increased maintenance cost on the diesel. With the Honda, I just add oil.

Roger


----------



## hellosailor

Roger, I agree with you, like I said. The only questions are:
1-Would a car maker lie, in writing?
2-Or does this just mean Yanmars and all are simply outdated dinosaurs using Elizabethean technology? (Like the Nautilus herself.<G>)

Electricity, like indoor plumbing, is vastly overrated.<G>


----------



## EscapadeCaliber40LRC

How many hours of motor sailing can I expect before I need to do serious maintenance on a Yanmar 4 cylinder engine, given that I change the oil every 200 hours of engine life or so ? Ours is at less than 4000 hours currently. I was under the impression that diesels could run for ten of thousands of hours when properly maintained.


----------



## Valiente

stoutwench said:


> *If you motor sail on passages, don't you generate enough amps to keep the frig running*
> 
> *Roger
> StoutWench
> '83 Brewer 42*


I don't always motorsail on passage. I would motorsail if I had a deadline to make (which is exactly the sort of thinking I'll want to discourage!) or because I can justify motorsailing as a way to charge the batteries underway, as opposed to the more general cruiser habit of running the diesel at anchor for a couple of hours just to keep the batteries up for the benefit of the fridge. This is bad for others in the anchorage (like being stuck in a traffic jam with idling cars!) and is bad for the diesel (which wants a load) and is quite inefficient. Sticking an alternator on a foldaway exercise bike to make a couple of hundred watts would be better, non-polluting and would increase crew fitness!

The Brewer 42 you have, is that the centerboard cutter? Like this:
http://www.yachtshare.com/cgi-bin/displayaboatsmall?bid=2370

That's a nice boat not unlike my own, save that mine's a full keeler with a cutaway forefoot...and in steel. Actually, mine's like a Goderich 40, which was penned by Bob Wallstrom, Brewer's partner in the '70s, but some of the same ideas are common throughout most of Brewer's work.


----------



## Valiente

stoutwench said:


> Also, I would much rather put hours on a $1000 Honda generator than on an engine that will cost me $12,000 to replace. And as Sailingdog pointed out, the increased maintenance cost on the diesel. With the Honda, I just add oil.
> 
> Roger


The Honda becomes "the cost of doing business", and even if I abuse it, I can "haul it out" with one arm and get a lawnmower repair guy to service it.

Or I can do it myself, likely: it probably isn't much more complex than the Honda outboard I service myself already. The diesel...not so easily. I might diagnose it correctly, but if I have to take the head off, I don't have the torque wrench big enough to dog it down again, nor would I warrant my own work on such a job.


----------



## Giulietta

I used to run the diesel one hour a day when we cruise and are anchored in places..the Yanmar engineer told me not to do it, due to unloaded engine runing..doesn't kill the engine but its not good due to poor water circulation, uneven piston sleeve wear and mainly oil pressure if I understood correctly...

He said DON't I don't...simple...so this year...I'm getting a gas generator, to keep the family happy...I'll run it inside one of my lockers, that has air inlets, and run exhaust out thru a hole...

That seems the best solution for me as I have very small batteries.


----------



## Valiente

EscapadeCaliber40LRC said:


> How many hours of motor sailing can I expect before I need to do serious maintenance on a Yanmar 4 cylinder engine, given that I change the oil every 200 hours of engine life or so ? Ours is at less than 4000 hours currently. I was under the impression that diesels could run for ten of thousands of hours when properly maintained.


Yes, a static diesel or a "terrestrial" diesel, properly serviced and run at a constant speed for long periods, is good for ten of thousands of worry-free hours.

A marine diesel in a corrosive, damp environment, cooled in some fashion by seawater, subject to shearing stresses at sea, and operated at a variety of speeds on a highly intermittant and/or variable basis, not so much. Boaters simply don't keep them on long enough. I have an 18 year old boat that only has 1,260 hours on it, which is probably the worst, most wearing thing that could happen to it: being run for 15 minutes to get head to wind, then off, then 15 minutes to drop sail and to head back to the dock. That's gas engine-friendly, not diesel. Before we go around the world in '09, I expect to haul for a full inspection and a top-end rebuild of valves and rings, minimum, because I can see corrosion in the valve chamber just due to damp air.

If you had a heat-exchanger equipped boat you ran in a warm air environment with a dry bilge and plenty of fresh air transfer through the boat, and you ran the engine for eight hours once every four days or so for, say, 2,000 hours/year, I would suspect you would want a top end inspection and possible rebuild at 5,000-6,000 hours or every three years (plus a paint job and hose replacement), and a full rebuild at 10,000-12,000 hours or at the five- to six-year point.

Am I overly cautious? We'll see. It's not that marine diesel are wimpy or ill-made, but it's the manner in which we use them as sailors is almost directly opposite to "best practices", which is why a hot, stinky bus engine can run for 20 years with a single (full) rebuild and regular oil/seals/filter changes, but why a recreational sailboat's weakest link is usually the engine.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Valiente

Check you PMs


----------



## staceyneil

We've got 3 x 8D's on our 39-footer... had to give up some tankage to find the space but it was worth it. We designed the electrical system for off-the-grid cruising. We added two 55 solar panels and hoped it would keep up with the refer at least. In the US, it did. In the tropics (where the compressor on our new 12v fridge ran nearly constantly) it did not. We don't have a lot of energy-hogs on board, but we still founf we needed to run the engine to charge the batts every day and a half or so. We have twin 150 amp alternators on the diesel. However, we never ran our AGMs down to 50%; we usually recharged at about 75% I think (when the Link 10 showed 3 bars). But we were being conservative with the batts since they'd been touch in the beginning before we realized the inverter was wired in before the shunt and we weren't accounting for its drain on the Link 10. We were babying them.

We're planning a 5-year cruise and this time we'll stick with the AGMs and our bank size, but add a wind gen and a little more solar.

Stacey
www.sailzora.com


----------



## craigjohnston

*Solar & wind gen help but don't do it all*

We have 4 - 55W panels, 2 on each rail on tilting racks, and a KISS wind generator. After 13,000 nm crossing the Southn Pacific, here is our experience: Our boat, with a 12V glacier Bay freezer/refrigerator, uses about 120-170 A-Hrs/day in the tropics. We get 50-70 from the panels, no muss, no fuss. Windy passages will drive the KISS to get the rest, but there is a relatively narrow band between enough wind (20 kn apparant) and too much(27kn apparant), above which the wind gen overheats and must be shut down. It also knocked out one incautious booby and one incautious fisherman's lines. You can see pictures of our boat and trip at www.svsequoia.com.

So, in protected anchorages, we had to run the engine about two hours every other day. A diesel 12v generator would have been quieter, cheaper to run, and saved low-load hours on the main engine, but we have never been able to justify the added weight, expense, complexity, and lost storage space.

I would add more solar panels before investing in the gen-set. They work silently and require almost no maintenance. If I had this boat built again for offshore, I would have a stern arch and put a couple of panels up there, where they are rarely shaded.


----------



## Cruisingdad

staceyneil,

I just looked at your homepage and realized you have a kiddo!!!! When are you heading back out? Destination? We have two boys, 6&3. I will drop you a PM.

- CD


----------



## TSOJOURNER

craigjohnston said:


> We have 4 - 55W panels, 2 on each rail on tilting racks, and a KISS wind generator. After 13,000 nm crossing the Southn Pacific, here is our experience: Our boat, with a 12V glacier Bay freezer/refrigerator, uses about 120-170 A-Hrs/day in the tropics.


Your AH daily usage seem to be on the high end. Do you have any idea what the largest energy consumers are......hugh/poorly insulated refer, watermaker, etc???

Roger


----------



## Cruisingdad

Stoutwench,

You think 120-170 is high? I averaged mine out some time back about 130-150 with no watermaker. I think Cam burns 180 with WM. I will burn an EASY 50 a day just off of refrigeration.

What do you burn?

- CD


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Cruisingdad

I guess that sailing with kids is a different world than just my wife and I. We have a A-B 12V freezer that spils over into the refrig. I'm guessing about 60-70 AH per day when we stay aboard and use it (less if we are ashore all day). Our total daily while at anchor is only about 100-120AH max. We use some lights, fresh water pump, solar anchor lights, bilge pump ocassionally, and that is about all. What are you guys doing? <g>

Roger


----------



## Cruisingdad

Hell, I was burning more than that when it was just me, wife and dogs!!!!!!!!!!! I think the dogs kept turning on the lights, because I KNOW I didn't do it (and the wife always swore it wasn't her). Just another reason not to cruise with dogs, I guess.

I cannot remember the exact writeup, it is on the boat right now. 50-60 ah fridge. 20 on radio. 40 on lights. 20 pumps. 10-20 on tv.

I think that is REALLLLLLL ballpark. I am missing some stuff and over simplifying others. But, that is the ballpark as this memory holds true. Underway (passage) nowhere near that. We would hit an easy 160-180. In a storm over 24 hours, we would break 200 due to the autopilot fighting the seas and we would keep the radar on fulltime.

How did you break yours down?


----------



## TSOJOURNER

I have never attempted to break down our usage except on the refer. If we are aboard and use it a lot, the numbers are much higher than when we spend the day ashore and the lid never comes off. On days that we are shore, I bet we use well under 100AH total.

We rarely stay up past 21:00 and will only burn 3-4 lights after dark. Since we are very careful to conserve our water, the pump doesn't get used that much and we don't use the TV unless we are at a marina. We just don't use that much power, but I have been aboard other cruisers' boats where every light was on, the radio blasting, the gps and the vhf left on and several fans running. Everyone's experience is different.

To make a long story short, our 240 watts of solar keep use above 50% for 3-4 days depending on time spend aboard. When needed, we start the Honda and run it for about 1.5 hours. That gets us up to around 85-90%, beyond that, I don't feel it is economical to run the Honda to try to force in the last 10-15%.

As with you, these are ballpark numbers. I would suggest to anyone trying to determine what they need, that they *don't* over analyze the process. Start with as large a battery bank as possible, install at least a 110 alternator and either wind or solar. Getting a small portable gas generator or running the engine for charging is a personal call....we chose the Honda for the discussed earlier in the thread.

Roger


----------



## Freesail99

Let me ask this, is it better if one could fit it, to have 4 or 5, 50 watt panels, or 2 130 watt panels ? I just got my engel 45 fridge today. They claim in fridge mode, .7 amps per hour or 16.8 per day.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Well, my reccomendation is whatever you budget, add 20%!!!! But, veryone is different. I would not consider us poor energy managers. We are conscious. However, we also enjoy taking a shower or staying up on a book deep in the night. Many cruisers shun TV. Truth be told, I watch NO "TV", only movies... and have not for many, many years. 

I noticed you did not mention wind... you do not run a wind gen?

- CD


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Cruisingdad said:


> I noticed you did not mention wind... you do not run a wind gen?
> - CD


No wind only 240watts total solar, Honda and the alternator.

I am curious to see the answers to _"Let me ask this, is it better if one could fit it, to have 4 or 5, 50 watt panels, or 2 130 watt panels ? I just got my engel 45 fridge today. They claim in fridge mode, .7 amps per hour or 16.8 per day."_

I've always thought that watts are watts; 4-50s or 1-200 would be the same. As for the refrig compressor.....16.8 per day????????? If true, it is certainly a break through in marine refrigeration!!!!

Roger


----------



## EscapadeCaliber40LRC

Agreement about that refrig. My refrig compressor pulls between 2.9 and 3.5 amps constantly. That sets the floor of my load at 84 amp hours per day, unless I shut it down at night which I've done now and again. I'd love to be able to cut this in half.

My 4 each 40W Kyocera and two each 32W flexible panels usually generate something like 30 - 40 Watts a day. The wind generator can pick up the rest if the anchorage gets good winds over night. I bought the Pep Boys gas generator with at least the passing thought that it would make a reasonable extra anchor some day. I don't like carrying extra gas on the boat. The Balmar puts a decent load on the diesel when I need to top up the batt bank and I get the hot water for free ignoring future maintenance and current diesel costs. Hey the fuel is already in the tanks and its getting older by the day, why not burn a little off.


----------



## Freesail99

This is from the engel web site : Power consumption: 0.7 Amps in refrigeration mode; 2.5 Amps in freezer mode

That is where I was getting my information from


----------



## sailingdog

Kind of curious that we haven't heard from Conchy Joe regarding his testing...


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*SOlar Stik*

Thank you for the advice, Cruisingdad. I unfortunately don't have much time to follow this thread every day, but I do appreciate the input.

I downloaded the technical drawings for the Solar Stik from their site, and am frankly, still thinking about doing it. I contacted them about their claims to find out what they had to say about the 80 Amp.Hr. day claim. Here is what I was told:

There is no guarantee that I will receive 80 Amp.hr in the course of a day. The testing that they did yielded about 80 amp hours in the summer months only and of course only under best conditions. In the winter, they only got around 60 amp hours again under best conditions. They also informed me that they had tested the amp hour rating with a multi-function DC control designed to measure amp hours with something called a shont(?) attached between the solarboost control and the battery. Does this sound right? All official tests were done in Florida, but they had several boats with the system roaming the water for several years and they also used that data.

I only carry 23 gallons of fuel and don't want to depend on running my engine for power. I've done the math and I need to produce abour 70 amp hours a day, but I don't have the necessary room for mounting a couple hundred watts of solar. At the same time, the Stik will fit my boat with relative ease, but it will certainly take a bite out of my budget.

Oh, what to do!!


----------



## EscapadeCaliber40LRC

Amy - That is a small fuel tank. Do you also carry gerry jugs ? Since you already know you need 70 amp hours replaced daily. The SolarStik won't be up to the job, by the company's own testing. You won't get better than their test results. So come the winter, you will need to add additional solar, or add a wind generator, or add a portable generator or run the diesel engine driving your alternator. So you should evaluate your situation and budget accordingly. 

To my jaundiced eye with the Solar Stik, you will be paying quite a bit for an optimized panel mounting device, I would wonder if you can extend its capacity in the near term (to deal with your perceived shortfall). When you find the reality of your true usage, its my guess that your needs will be even greater than you currently think. Good luck in ferreting out the issues.

The reason I bought the Pep Boys genset was basically to save money. While I knew that the Honda was the preferred and recommended genset, I could buy 3 Pep Boys gensets for the price of the cheapest Honda model and still have $100 bucks left in my pocket. Plus a heavier anchor when it dies.


----------



## conchyjoe

sailingdog said:


> Kind of curious that we haven't heard from Conchy Joe regarding his testing...


Some people have better things to do.......

What testing are you talking about. I have posted all the info I have from testing. The info stands on it's own.

And yes I did mean 2 50w panels, not 2 100w panels.

To answer someone elses question. I do not own a SolarStik. I merely tested it. I personally do not currently have a requirement for one.


----------



## conchyjoe

hellosailor said:


> CJoe, where'd you go?! I woke up bright and bushy eyed this morning and couldn't wait to find out if you'd tested 2x 100W panels, or one Solar Stik (2x50) to get that 80AH. Here I sit, feeling all disconsolate and abandoned, drowning my sorrows in coffee. Save me! <G>


Thank you for your humor. Yes I did mean 2X50w.


----------



## hellosailor

Roger-
"I've always thought that watts are watts; 4-50s or 1-200 would be the same." Correct, watts are watts. However, solar panels, like most other gizmos, have been known to just up and die at the least convenient moment from water intrusion, meteorite damage, and other surprises. Having only one panel--and needing the power it produced--could be inconvenient if it did the usual "wee nasty silicon creature" thing and went belly-up at the least convenient moment.

ConchyJoe-
Could you tell me how you measured the amphours, now that we know it was from 100W of panels? What kind of instrument or setup?


----------



## EscapadeCaliber40LRC

Freesail99 - I just looked at that Engel 45 and I understand it better. It has the capacity to chill 5 cases of beer when fully loaded. That probably wouldn't be sufficient for the way our boat is provisioned. If I remember right, my box is something like 22 cu feet capacity.


----------



## Freesail99

5 cases of beer would last me a long time and there is something to be said for having a very cold drink ........ I've been to Europe......

Escapade, is that pep boy genset the one I saw in this Sundays's paper for $149.00 ?


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*Gerry cans*

Yes, we can carry them (usually only as an emergency supply 13 Gal), but we still hate to sit at anchor running the engine. There's nothing more irritating for us than the peacefulness of a remote anchorage being broken by a 'blat,blat,blat' by running the engine for a couple hours a day.

If I augment the stik with a windgenerator, that would probably get us over the hump. It's either that or a flexible panel for the bimini. A windgen would probably be better due to the sun/cloud scenarios we have become familiar with. (You know, 'wind' on cloudy days and 'solar' on sunny days.)

We already have a substantial battery system aboard (two 4-D AGMs for the house band and separate bank for the backup/engine start).

The total of 70 ah daily was derived as an absolute maximum draw. We have a Frigoboat that consumes about 35 ah daily, and our electronics use 15-20 daily. Beyond that the rest is only as needed or as available (laptop, TV, lighting, etc.)

As best I can tell, and I have re-read many posts from the previous, there is no magic fix to get what I need, save for running a genset (which is our last resort). At this point (despite all the fussing  ) I think we are headed down the stik and windgen path. Our little Hunter unfortunately doesn't have much room for much to be added to the deckspace area. At least with the stik, it would be on the stern and the free-standing aspect is a big attraction for us. Our bimini is too short to add much solar to the top of it (due to boom-swing) so I've got room for a flex panel there if needed.

Most of what we do is coastal cruising (Bahamas, Florida, Gulf o' Mexico). The cost is a bit steep, but it might be worth it if we can use it for other things like a wind-mount.

Our budget for this is about $4,500 total (at least for this year). I know we can purchase alot of equipment for that, but we just don't have the room to mount it all, short of buying a bigger boat! 

Anyway, I'll keep you posted. We should have a plan as early as mid April as to how we are going to outfit the boat. Assuming this forum will last that long  which I am sure it will.

Thanks again everybody!


----------



## Freesail99

Amy, you could add a pair of davits off your stern and hang a lot more watts ( solar panels ) then with the stik and still be a head of the game $$$$$ wise.


----------



## EscapadeCaliber40LRC

Freesail, I am afraid I misquoted the Engel 45 tech specs. It was not 5 cases of beer but rather 5 half cases that it holds. Perhaps I am beginning to fade a bit in old age but anymore a short case is a case to me. In any case the capacity was stated as 60 twelve ounce cans just to be clear.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Amy,

THat is one of the benefits of the stick as I see it: The option for how it mounts. It may not ba a bad decision at ALL for your use. THat is what I have been saying (and others, if you can get through the irritations) that it is a mount system that will work well for many people... and will not work for others.

As far as your budgeting (electrical), budget about 50-60 out of that thing max. If somehow it exceeds that, you can thank your lucky stars. You should add a wind gen too. I would add a wind gen BEFORE i added the solar, honestly. I think you will be happier with it. Most people will average between 35-75 off of the wind gen. It is also considerably less money. Now. if you can stick that wind gen on top of the Solar Stick, that would be nice. 

Forget all the hype and negative comments here... the Solar Stick is a nice mounting system (albeit expensive) that will work well for many applications. If you are realistic on what it will put out, and you are ok with that, GO FOR IT!! 

Take care. Let me know if I can answer any other questions. All the best...

- CD

Freesail,

You will spend more money in mounting and wiring for more panels. However they will be easier to install and will give you some redundancy. THe only negative of More panels versus less panels (other than the cost of wiring, etc... which gets expensive) is the V loss you will incure in the wiring. But that will likely be so small, who cares. Which way is less expensive??

- CD


----------



## EscapadeCaliber40LRC

Amy, Well I think you have already solved this one. With $4500, you will be able to buy the Stic and have enough left over for one of those quiet little Hondas to deal with the shortfall. Then you'll only have to deal with the packing of a bunch of volatile gasoline in those quiet little anchorages. How do you heat your hot water ?


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*Solar/propane*

Actually, we use a propane water heater aboard (instantaneous Rinnai heater). Propane powers the stove, water heater, and barbQ. 

Here is our mindset: after talking with many other cruisers out there, we've come to the conclusion that successful cruising is largely dependent on the gear that is employed aboard.

We have a small boat, but have decided that we like it alot (too much to replace it with a 'bigger' boat which will cost us more to operate anyway) so it becomes an even greater challenge when choosing to cruise on a small vessel such as ours. Hence, sometimes the trade-off seems to be spending a little more for the right equipment ('right' as it applies to us) as opposed to spending that money on a larger boat and not having the same equipment.

The stern of our 27' is small. We really don't have room for a davit system and larger solar array. Our dinghy is a rollup and actually travels below deck when we are underway.

The website says and shows (pictures) they say that you can place a wind-generator onto the top of the stik without problem. That is my next problem: which wind-gen to use if we go the 'stik' route and how to mount it.

I really like this concept, but the problems remains that it is a 'new' system and there's just not many pictures on the web of boats with the system installed. To take it from 'concept' to 'reality' I would really like to see more.(Sum total of boats that I have seen with the stik: about 6!)

Aside from my neighbor that has one and multiple discussions with him, I have been cruising the forums so that I can get better idea of how to make it work to the maximum for us.

Sorry to drag this out... just wanting to be sure before spending! 

Thanks again!


----------



## conchyjoe

hellosailor said:


> ConchyJoe-
> Could you tell me how you measured the amphours, now that we know it was from 100W of panels? What kind of instrument or setup?


Hello,

I did not use anything other than the current readings from the BlueSky controller. If I had a shunted system like a link 10 or something, I would have used it.

I understand your comments about PWM. My feeling is that most if not all cruisers do not have specialized equipment to do these measurements, so if a system says(THIS IS AN EXAMPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!) 3 amps of current in, and 5 amps of current out, I an inclined to accept that, given conditions, the reading is representative of what is really moving through the device. I agree that there are an unbelievable amount of variables involved.

Yes wire size makes a difference, yes float modes come into play, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

I only know what I witnessed with my own two eyes.

I think you will find the PS folks will do more testing with more accurate equipment and such.

The PS folks did look at BlueSky and the article is here:
http://www.blueskyenergyinc.com/pdf/Practical Sailor PDF - Blue Sky Energy.pdf

My testing was simply setting the equipment up, moving the unit 3 times, and observing the output current of the controller every hour.


----------



## Freesail99

Freesail,

You will spend more money in mounting and wiring for more panels. However they will be easier to install and will give you some redundancy. THe only negative of More panels versus less panels (other than the cost of wiring, etc... which gets expensive) is the V loss you will incure in the wiring. But that will likely be so small, who cares. Which way is less expensive??

- CD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps I don't understand how a davit mounted panel and a stick mounted panel mounted on the same stern is different in voltage loss ? The wiring would travel within inches the same distance, no ? and fairly cheap mounting hardware can be found here


----------



## Valiente

AmyJohnson said:


> Sorry to drag this out... just wanting to be sure before spending!
> 
> Thanks again!


You may wish to look up a commercial stainless steel fabricator...even a (oh, no!) marine one, like the sort of person who will weld up a pulpit or a custom bimini or bow roller. As far as I can see, there is nothing particularly spectacular about the Solar Stik beyond its fearsomely persuasive marketing. It's just a short braced mast with a simple pivoting rack...the panels are 15% or less of the cost and the other gear isn't wildly expensive, either.

You may also consider that for a Hunter 27, while the idea is a good one to put panels on a T shaped short mast, the Solar Stik is possibly overkill in terms of beefiness and size. A custom-built knockoff, if properly spec'd and finished, could do the same at a fraction of the cost and yet perhaps be better suited for your smallish stern. If the general idea is that you would dissemble the system or at least take the panels off in a bad blow due to windage, then perhaps this isn't such a crazy idea.

I speak as someone who has had a custom bow roller made, and will have a custom "pushpit" made to replace a collision-damaged one for my old boat, and who is designing a 11 foot wide, pivoting bimini/arch in SS for the passagemaker that will carry panels, some canvas for shade and some communications/navigation elements, like an emergency VHF whip, a GPS antenna, a fluxgate compass and a place to hang my beverage and my jacket  I find a well-planned custom SS job, while not cheap, is very competitive with "assembled" stock tube framing. The same may well apply to comparatively simple things like the Solar Stik, which looks very like a two-armed Fresnel 1 KW light stand to this former film and TV guy.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Freesail,

I guess I missunderstood your post. I thought the questions was which was better, multiple 50w panels or 2 130w panels. If they were equal wattage, they in theory they would be the same. However, as you must tie all the panels together in series (some people do parallel, I did series), that is a fair amount of wire runs and some V loss between the panels (due to the wiring)... however very small in reality. However, you will have to by more wire and lugs, which becomes expensive. The multi-panels provide more redundancy and easier mount (due to size), the 2 single panels are less redundant. Each of the panels you put on will require bracing. I used a L-barr, custom designed, to surround and support each panel. Thay have to be supported. Thus, you will have a lot more L-Bar on multi panels than on 2 single panels. 

Did that make sense? Did I missunderstand you?

- CD


----------



## Cruisingdad

Amy,

You can also use aluminum at a smaller cost, but it will need to be beefed up some (compared to stainless).

- CD


----------



## hellosailor

Cjoe, I still get the feeling we just aren't talking about the same things. Even the BlueSky review page says "Under these [normal] conditions, 60 watts
(12.2 volts x 4.5 amps) is the maximum charging power the batteries
will ever receive from the 80-watt solar panel." and that using the BS controller will simply allow the full 80-watt rated power of the panels to be used.

Applying BS's own statements to the Solar Stik, and remembering not to confuse watts and amps, this means that since the Solar Stik is using a 100-watt array, the BS controller will allow a full 100 watts to be gotten from that array. Watts, not amp hours.

In order to get amp-hours at the normal battery charging voltage around 14VDC, we still have to divide 100/14 and we get about 7.14 amps _per hour of full sunlight._ In order to get 70Amp-hours of power out of the solar stik, it would need to get almost ten hours of full power (full sunlight) in a given day.

Ain't possible, on this planet. Something is not adding up. If you observed a BS controller putting out 7 amps _at 14 volts _ rather than at some useless number like 10 volts (which is possible, and would be deceptive to you if you were just reading the "amps" of output)...

The alternative is that all the solar panel companies are wrong when they say they can't get full output for ten hours on any given day, on this planet.


----------



## Freesail99

CD,
I had posted the question a few days ago about multiple panels vs. 2 130w panels. I myself have ordered 2 130w panels which will mount on my MarTek davit. I also purchased bracing from MarTek built for the davit I have. My total cost for davit, panels, controller, wire for doing this is around $2850.00. I think you you may have replied to different post, at the same time.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Ah, sorry Freesail. This thread is wild and I cannot keep up with it. What panels did you buy?


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*That, we will do!*

Thanks, V! 

Overlooking the obvious I guess. I'll keep you posted as to what we find out. Luckily enough there are a few good fabricators around here that I will be checking with.

Anything to worry about as far as it being 'an internationally patented' item (according to their site), or is that more 'marketing' speak?

Thanks for the recommendation!


----------



## Freesail99

No Problem CD.

I bought 2 Kyocea 130 watts. They seem to be the best deal and have a very good rep. I was also looking at the MaTrix panels. They seem to claim a higher amp per panel, but I know no one who knew anything about them.


----------



## TrueBlue

Actually Giu, flexible solar panels are currently available - more design potential for all the sail designers out there.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Freesail,

I have exactly the same panels. Very good product. On install, make sure you do not connect to the diode side. I think they are the inside screws. Only connect to the outside.

- CD


----------



## hellosailor

Amy, if they supply a patent *number* that means they actually have one. If they say "patent pending" that means they have applied for one--and may not be issued one. In either case, patent protects them from competition, not from people who want to build one for their own personal consumption.

Patents are issued for all sorts of bad reasons (i.e. a classic from the 60's, someone patented the wheel barrel. It was later un-granted.<G>) and while they might patent "a portable pre-erected combined...whatever" that would not stop anyone from installing a solar panel on a steel stick, a well-known and pre-existing use.<G>

Patentable novelty would come into play with having three click-stops to adjust the panels, and rubber snaps and latches to unfold/fold the whole thing, and with overall niceties like that. For _most _folks, designing a mount that included multiple angle positions, etc., would be more than they could do, and a stainless fabricator would either charge dearly for that work, or perhaps just not do it at all. (Design and fabrication being two different skills.)


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*Solar Stik*

Hellosailor,

the only fear I have is that there is a mechanical function on the arms (not quite sure how it works, will go over to Trace's boat later to see if I can figure it out) and that may be a cost issue for reproduction. I've already called one fabricator today to come and give me a price on duplication. He should be here tomorrow or Monday.

Thanks, and I'll let you know more as I can.

Gotta go to work now. Play time for me is over 

Take care, all!


----------



## conchyjoe

hellosailor said:


> Ain't possible, on this planet. Something is not adding up. If you observed a BS controller putting out 7 amps _at 14 volts _ rather than at some useless number like 10 volts (which is possible, and would be deceptive to you if you were just reading the "amps" of output)...


Hello,

Consider these comments from the guy that developed the BlueSky controllers:

"Others have asked me about this but here was way too much unrelated ancillary text for me to wade through. Thank you for distilling it to a simple question. I simply do not have the time to go into great detail, but try this...

PV modules are rated at what is termed Standard Operating Conditions (STC). STC is basically 1000W per square meter of insolation, a 25degC PV cell temperature, and some other detail. In real life current, voltage and power will be higher or lower than these published numbers. Using the 100W number to perform calculations with is of limited value because operating conditions move all over the place. A description of MPPT and how PV performance changes with temperature is attached. One of the things this document shows is that under a fixed amount of light a PV module can produce more power when it is cooler than when it is hotter, but it takes an MPPT charge controller to access the extra power.

What I can say is that for my personal system on an RV with 4 BP275's and a SB3024i (300W total, [email protected]) is that I produce something on the order of ~120AH+ or so in a day, and this number is quite variable. So for 100W simple ratioing would yield 120/3= 36AH. But there is so much more to it than this. My panels are flat without much air circulation. The Solar Stik has two big advantages in that 1) The modules point more directly at the sun for the whole day, and 2) They are up in the air and breeze cools them which increases power.

While my simple ratioing yields ~36AH, doubling or more this number does seem out of line since PV cell temperatures are likely lower, and pointing the modules directly at the sun for many more hours can produce a huge increase over my modules laying flat.

Also if we ignore for the moment the increased power provided by an MPPT controller, a side effect of MPPT is that when the battery is discharged and the controller is "MPPTing", output to the battery becomes "constant power". This means that if the battery was at say 12.5V rather than 14V in your example, current (and AH) would be further increased by the ratio of the voltages or 14V/12.5V=1.12, or another 12% increase in AH delivered...

Trying to pin down these numbers in absolutes is very difficult because operating conditions are so variable. Having said all this, the 70 or so amp-hours seems reasonable at times, but are not going to see it all the time..."

*ConchyJoe note: This was sent to someone on this board who I will not name. It seems odd to me that it has not surfaced yet. Especially since it tends to support what I have been saying all along.*

If you go back to my previous comments, I said that the MAXIMUM I witnessed was 79.9AH in one day. I didn't get that everyday, but I can tell you that in general, I got 30-35AH out of the same panels, same wire, same controller, same batteries, pretty much same sunny day, when I laid them flat on the face of the earth.

That my friend, is over a 200% increase in whatever you want to call it. I am sure I am pissing off Ohm, Watt, Volt, and his buddy Amperage. And that is ok. It's cool, I'm down with that.

I *NEVER* got 30-35AH a day when mounted and pointed. The least I got was 60AH a day. That is still around 100% increase.....

If people want to paper their boat with BP275's and get 120AH out of it. I'm cool with that.

Susan's original point was: "I am no longer plugged into shore power" That is a powerful statement.

My point is people don't always have the space for a bunch of panels, so if you are going to use small ones, why not mount them where they can be directional and maximize the output you get from them?

One other thing I will say, then I gotta bounce. One thing I appreciate about the SolarStik folks, is that they tested hundreds of combinations of panels and controllers.

The BlueSky product was chosen because it performed the best. The same with the BP Panels. And no company paid me to say that.

Have a great weekend everyone.


----------



## Freesail99

Amy,
Instead of trying to re invent the wheel and spending a lot of money doing it. Look here for solor panel POLE mounts....


----------



## hellosailor

Well, I'm told that a rep at Blue Sky thinks the difference may be from the panels being conservatively (my word not his) rated in the first place. That having them up in the air, rather than bolted to a hot deck, and other issues may allow them to produce a great deal more power than their ratings reflect. (No pun intended.)

I guess those of us who are Honorary Missourians will just have to wait and see what the PS field tests show, since the SolarStik isn't available at the local WalMart yet.


----------



## EscapadeCaliber40LRC

Freestyle - I missed your earlier question about the Pep Boy unit. It is probably about the same. So you can now get them for $149! That is an impressive savings. I paid $299 with no sales tax last summer. They probably laughed all the way to Banco Popular. Gensets this cheap make the $1000 and $2000 Hondas look pricey.


----------



## conchyjoe

EscapadeCaliber40LRC said:


> So you can now get them for $149! That is an impressive savings. I paid $299 with no sales tax last summer.


There is no doubt everyone should carry one of these if they can. Even if just for an emergency.


----------



## Giulietta

EscapadeCaliber40LRC said:


> So you can now get them for $149! That is an impressive savings.


Can you show me a link, please??


----------



## Valiente

AmyJohnson said:


> Anything to worry about as far as it being 'an internationally patented' item (according to their site), or is that more 'marketing' speak?


Not unless you slap a Solar Stik label on it and try to sell it, I would guess. Besides, it's hard to make a case that a stick with a crosspiece is unique, or they'd be sued by the Christians for infringement. Figure out the dimensions of your chosen panels, then get the fabricator to measure your stern to locate where the base should go and what bracings are needed and to make sure it clears the backstay at all angles.

It occurs to me that if you were in a Northern Hemisphere anchorage and the wind was coming from the south east in the morning, the panels would have to be rotated so that they faced forward toward the bow and you would inevitably have shade from mast and boom. So you'd have to allow enough slack in the wires to let that much rotation proceed.


----------



## EscapadeCaliber40LRC

Giu - Freestyle99 has the line on $149 gensets. The one I bought last year at a Pep Boys in Puerto Rico cost $299. It was an import from China (duh!) Not sure of its pedigree. It is noisy and fairly heavy and puts out enough current to charge the house bank reasonable well when the need arises. Even though I don't like carrying gasoline on the boat, I keep it as an alternative to the diesel, and the green sources. My unit looks a lot like the one in the center of this webpage but was red in color not blue and was rated as a 3000W unit:

Welcome to Pep Boys.com your services headquarters


----------



## Freesail99

This is from the most current pep boys flyer. UST 2300 Watt $199.99, UST 3500 Watt $299.98, UST 5500 WAtt $399.98 The store that is near to me is "sold out" of the $149.99 model. I did not remember to ask about the watts.


----------



## conchyjoe

Freesail99 said:


> This is from the most current pep boys flyer. UST 2300 Watt $199.99, UST 3500 Watt $299.98, UST 5500 WAtt $399.98 The store that is near to me is "sold out" of the $149.99 model. I did not remember to ask about the watts.


I remember ALDI selling them as well.... If you have one around.


----------



## LaLeLu

Interesting reply from the BlueSky guy. I didn't think about air circulation being a factor. Below is a cut and paste from the SolarStik info. I may not be able to explain why it works, but one thing I do know, is that this system works for me. As I mentioned above, we bought this system not believing it would produce the claimed 80-100 amp hour day. We would have been happy with it producing 60 a/h/d. The main thing that attracted us to this system was that it was light weight, easily removable and doesn't take up deck space. On our boat we have a 120 amp alternator and are putting a wind genny on next, so we have other ways of keeping the batteries up so we are not completely reliant on solar. We were very surprised to see that the SolarStik was able to meet the manufacturer's claim. Certainly it is not going to do that everyday - not on cloudy days for sure. On the other hand, I don't doubt that at the height of summer here in Florida, the system can produce 100 ahd. 

********************************************************
EDITED BY CAM...I AM NOT GOING TO PERMIT WHAT AMOUNTS TO A COMMERCIAL ADVERTISEMENT HERE SUSAN. YOU MAY LINK TO AN OUTSIDE SITE IF YOU WISH PEOPLE TO READ THIS AD. I HAVE NOT EDITED YOUR OPINIONS ONLY THE LONG COMMERCIAL POST.


----------



## sailingdog

Susan-

Again, it is not possible for the SolarStik to output 100 Amp-Hours. There isn't enough daylight to do so... the numbers just don't add up... do the math. Anyone can parrot the SolarStik marketing materials.* EDITED BY CAM...I SAID FACTS ONLY NOT PERSONAL ATTACKS. *


----------



## conchyjoe

*EDITED BY CAM...RESPONSE TO A PERSONAL ATTACK. IN FUTURE...JUST PM ME INSTEAD OF RESPONDING. THIS GOES FOR ALL!!*
Now back to the regularly scheduled programming.

I did receive some information from the work the Military is doing with the SolarStik.

Once again, you can remove the SolarStik part of the equation, and you will get similar results. But this was accomplished with the use of the SolarStik:

TEST FOR SINGULAR SOLAR STIK AND POWER PAK 100 WITH COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMMENT LOAD.

forecast: clear/sun - 95 degrees 5:17 / 6:41 location: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

TOTAL AMP-HOURS PRODUCTION FOR JULY 25, 2006: 96.6ah actual

From Welcome to The Weather Underground : Weather Underground almanac for Riyadh, Saudi Arabia:

Astronomy for July 25, 2006:
Rise: Set: 
Actual Time: 5:17 AM AST 6:41 PM AST 
Civil Twilight: 4:52 AM AST 7:06 PM AST 
Nautical Twilight: 4:23 AM AST 7:35 PM AST 
Astronomical Twilight: 3:52 AM AST 8:06 PM AST 
Moon: 5:12 AM AST (7/25) 7:09 PM AST (7/25) 
Length Of Visible Light: 14h 13m 
Length of Day: 13h 23m

I did not see this with my own two eyes, but it certainly makes sense considering what BlueSky, a company recognized and accepted as one of the leaders in PV controller technology, has said here in this thread.


----------



## LaLeLu

sailingdog said:


> Susan-
> 
> Again, it is not possible for the SolarStik to output 100 Amp-Hours. There isn't enough daylight to do so... the numbers just don't add up... do the math. Anyone can parrot the SolarStik marketing materials. *EDTED BY CAM*


I am fine with letting the Practical Sailor review determine who is correct.


----------



## EscapadeCaliber40LRC

CJoe - Working backwards from your results yields some interesting results.
Given approx 14.25 hours of visible sunlight (your number was actually 14h 13m) one gets an average current over that time of roughly 6.78 amps per hour. This is a balance of early/late hours with the more intense hours so not to be used as a max or min at any one point in time during the test. Then assuming 100 watts of available power with this averaged current flow, one gets an average voltage of 14.75 Volts. This is the interesting to me number. It sounds high to me. I don't have an AGM bank so I am not really familiar with their operating characteristics, but my impression is that this level would cook my Gels. And of course I admit total ignorance of the controller that was involved. Just trying to play with the data that you presented. I will defer to others to improve or extend on this interpretation.


----------



## conchyjoe

EscapadeCaliber40LRC said:


> CJoe - Working backwards from your results yields some interesting results.
> Given approx 14.25 hours of visible sunlight (your number was actually 14h 13m) one gets an average current over that time of roughly 6.78 amps per hour. This is a balance of early/late hours with the more intense hours so not to be used as a max or min at any one point in time during the test. Then assuming 100 watts of available power with this averaged current flow, one gets an average voltage of 14.75 Volts. This is the interesting to me number. It sounds high to me. I don't have an AGM bank so I am not really familiar with their operating characteristics, but my impression is that this level would cook my Gels. And of course I admit total ignorance of the controller that was involved. Just trying to play with the data that you presented. I will defer to others to improve or extend on this interpretation.


I understand what you are saying S. You have to remember that your batteries are simply big capacitors. You may be charging them, but there is also a load on them. If the load exceeds the charge rate, then your battery is actually just a capacitor. One that is slowly draining, but a capacitor non the less.

Certainly if yoiu have no continous loads, the point is moot.

It seems to me the Military may have communication equipment that has a needed load. They can accomplish it with lots of batteries, or fewer batteries, and something that can satisfy that load during daylight hours, and is failry compact and lightweight.

To answer your question, yes, if I feed that to your batteries, it would cook them. The controller handles not cooking your batteries.


----------



## camaraderie

Escape...Would cook AGM's as well and the MPPT controller would not allow it. Who knows what the military test conditions were really like and what type of batteries they were using. The "theoretical" arguments are kinda ridiculous anyway as unless you are gonna sit on your boat and adjust constantly, the wind and the tide and the currents are gonna make getting anything close to theory quite problematic in actual use. 
Claims of 200-300% A/H increase simply don't add up. 
-ELECTRONIC tracking solar panel arrays give a maximum 30% increase in overall panel power output. (Neglecting for the power expended in tracking!). 
-Blue sky claims a maximum of 30% overall increase in usable power delivered to batteries compared to regulators. 
-The math thus says a 40% increase in delivered power (30% + (30% of 30%)) is what is theoretically possible. 

We all seem to agree that FIXED 100 watt panels with a regulator will give a max of 30-35 A/H's a day. That works out to 50 A/H's a day for the solar stik array. You'd have to be getting 57 A/H's a day out of fixed panels to get 80 a/h's out of solar stik.


----------



## xort

Conky Joe
You have come back and answered several questions but I guess you missed mine...

How much did you pay for your Solar stik setup?


----------



## conchyjoe

xort said:


> Conky Joe
> You have come back and answered several questions but I guess you missed mine...
> 
> How much did you pay for your Solar stik setup?


Sir,

I did answer your question already.

I did not buy one nor do I own one.


----------



## conchyjoe

camaraderie said:


> Escape...Would cook AGM's as well and the MPPT controller would not allow it. Who knows what the military test conditions were really like and what type of batteries they were using. The claims remain outrageous and neither me spouting formulas or CJoe saying "i saw it" again will resolve the issue. The "theoretical" arguments are kinda ridiculous anyway as unless you are gonna sit on your boat and adjust constantly, the wind and the tide and the currents are gonna make getting anything close to theory quite problematic in actual use.
> Claims of 200-300% A/H increase simply don't add up.
> -ELECTRONIC tracking solar panel arrays give a maximum 30% increase in overall panel power output. (Neglecting for the power expended in tracking!).
> -Blue sky claims a maximum of 30% overall increase in usable power delivered to batteries compared to regulators.
> -The math thus says a 40% increase in delivered power (30% + (30% of 30%)) is what is theoretically possible.
> 
> We all seem to agree that FIXED 100 watt panels with a regulator will give a max of 30-35 A/H's a day. That works out to 50 A/H's a day for the solar stik array. You'd have to be getting 57 A/H's a day out of fixed panels to get 80 a/h's out of solar stik.


Unfortunately there is nobody to delete your personal attacks.

You are unfortunately wrong, you will *ALWAYS* be wrong, and you have done nothing to support the evidence I have.

When you have tried the product, and know what it is capable of doing, then I will consider your dribble.

You are a hypocrite. If not, prove me wrong.


----------



## camaraderie

Will you point out my personal attack to me and I will delete it.


----------



## conchyjoe

camaraderie said:


> Will you point out my personal attack to me and I will delete it.EDITED BY CAM TO REMOVE SENTENCE DELETED ABOVE


Sir,

The claim is not outrageous, and has been supported by the people at BlueSky, HelloSailor, the Military, and Susan. Not to mention myself.

If you do not want to believe it, then say so, but don't attack me by saying "The claims remain outrageous". It *IS NOT* outrageous. it does work.

I am sorry that your installation does not generate the numbers you wish it had. Just don't take it out on me.


----------



## camaraderie

Saying a claim is outrageous is not a personal attack. Numerous others on this thread have disputed your claims including the Blue Sky people you cite. 
I have nothing to delete but I will take out that sentence to make you happy. On the other hand ...*your personal attack on me above will be deleted and if there is a repeat of it you will be banned from the site. I hope THAT is clear. *


----------



## Cruisingdad

Gentlemen,

You will remember the rules of engagement. Now, choose your weapon, backs turned, then 15 paces.


----------



## Valiente

I don't give a toss about a miraculous tent pole, but I do know the energy generated by this thread would allow me to cool a small keg of the finest lager.

Which is more relevant to most skippers, I'll wager.


----------



## TrueBlue

Now that set of dueling pistols is a feast for the eyes . . . beautiful weaponry from the long-lost age of honor and chivalry.


----------



## conchyjoe

camaraderie said:


> Saying a claim is outrageous is not a personal attack. Numerous others on this thread have disputed your claims including the Blue Sky people you cite.
> I have nothing to delete but I will take out that sentence to make you happy. On the other hand ...*your personal attack on me above will be deleted and if there is a repeat of it you will be banned from the site. I hope THAT is clear. *


Ban me, I don't care, I only came here to defend yours and sailingdogs outrageous and untrue comments. I don't like this site anyway.

But saying claims buy me is outrageous, is *CALLING ME A LIAR*. And you still have shown zero proof.

That Sir, is a personal attack.


----------



## Cruisingdad

I was going to use them on the Portugese, but since he knows I cheat, it might not work. I am not sure he could count anyways, which would screw up the whole point. 

I think I have finally decided to officially hijack this thread to save all parties involved from strokes and being banned.


----------



## conchyjoe

Valiente said:


> I don't give a toss about a miraculous tent pole, but I do know the energy generated by this thread would allow me to cool a small keg of the finest lager.
> Which is more relevant to most skippers, I'll wager.


Thanks for interjecting a little humor guys. I think it is funny too.


----------



## conchyjoe

Cruisingdad said:


> I was going to use them on the Portugese, but since he knows I cheat, it might not work. I am not sure he could count anyways, which would screw up the whole point.
> 
> I think I have finally decided to officially hijack this thread to save all parties involved from strokes and being banned.


Other than the personal attacks and people speaking mathmatics about which they do not know, and change to suit themselves, I kinda enjoy this stuff.


----------



## TrueBlue

Cruisingdad said:


> I was going to use them on the Portugese, but since he knows I cheat, it might not work. I am not sure he could count anyways, which would screw up the whole point.
> 
> I think I have finally decided to officially hijack this thread to save all parties involved from strokes and being banned.


The Portugese edge is being able to shoot backwards from between his legs - unnoticably by his opponent. You'd have a lead ball through the back of your head on the 5th count . . .


----------



## Cruisingdad

I know TB, but the problem is he will be counting... 1, 2, 43, 99, 15.. SHOOT! THen he will come out and justify it all, like it was a French made pistol, freak accident of nature that caused him to do it and broke his concentration and count, slipped on a water hose, etc. When the whole time, the truth was that he just wanted to cheat so I did not beat him in any more races with my Catalina (the one with the boom).

- CD


----------



## bestfriend

CD do you wear those holstered across your chest when you do your upwind grilling?


----------



## Cruisingdad

No, when I am trying to get a bit of shut-eye and the Sea Rays buzz by on half-plane in a no-wake.


----------



## bestfriend

Hey blondie...


----------



## Cruisingdad

Damn, that looks a lot like Giu and me. Why is he holding the gun? Told you he did not know how to count.


----------



## Giulietta

CD...knowing how and what use you make of your SAIL boat..I must tell you I feel quite safe with you holding a gun....

You will probably shoot yourself in the eye whilst looking down the barrel to see if its loaded !!!!!  

And just like what you do with your boat...you will end up doing something completely different from what the gun was designed to do!!!


----------



## Cruisingdad

Need some help here, guys: Identify this for me:


----------



## ReverendMike

Since this thread has gone nuclear/nucular can we discuss the possibility of using a small fusion plant to generate electricity? Would the Portugese Navy impound it to use for uranium enrichment? Would the UN then impose sanctions on Giu, et al, leading to invasion by the French? (oh, wait, skip that last bit, too ridiculous! )

CD- that's a canoe with the ends cut off, suspended over the cockpit and used to store sails, small dogs, and childrens toys


----------



## TSOJOURNER

CD, kinda hard to see it at that resolution, it's either a boom cozy or sail cover that is under the lazy jacks


----------



## Idiens

Cruisingdad said:


> Need some help here, guys: Identify this for me:
> 
> http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s174/bmistrot/boom.jpg


Something to take to a head-basher's ball?

Sorreeeee! Thread drift. It's a specially prepared mount for solar panels, to swing them into wind, so that they work better, like wind generators. Now there's an idea. How about tilting those panals on the swizzle-stik so that they also work in the wind. Solar propellor blades. (Quick, write patent, open web-site, sell at huge profit).


----------



## Cruisingdad

Thanks reverend. Someone told me it was a carbon boom, but I was not sure. The ones I have seen bend in the middle and this one is straight.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Where is my Portugese friend? THis is not a much fun unless he is around.


----------



## ReverendMike

*oh a boom, i thought you said a boom*

"bend in the middle"

ohh boy, now it's gonna get fun . To quote one of my favorite posters:

*Fasten your seat belts*

G has too much time on his hands, i don't know that it was wise to provoke him.... (he may be naping to build up strength while you dig yourself in deeper, CD)

In all seriousness, there is some good info on this thread. Too bad it's buried under so much slime. Thanks to those who've posted details of their real-world set-ups and results.


----------



## Valiente

TrueBlue said:


> Now that set of dueling pistols is a feast for the eyes . . . beautiful weaponry from the long-lost age of honor and chivalry.


Not to mention the age of sepsis and gangrene, but hey....


----------



## xort

Conky Joe posted earlier in this thread...
"I also review many others products from many other owners, speak at sailboat shows, and am respected in the community"

Could you provide some examples of all the other products you have 'reviewed'? I visited your website and did not see reviews of other products.

Can you list some of the sailboat shows you've spoken at?

Just who 'respects you in the community'? Solar Stik?

The fact is that as a product reviewer you maintain quite a bit of mystery about yourself. You could be anybody, perhaps an investor in solarstik. The only thread on this forum you've participated in is this one on the solar stik. It seems to me that you quite possibly are a shill for solar stik. if you would be more up front about yourself and your credentials perhaps that will change the scepticism many of us have about you and your claims. Yes, I too remain annon but I'm not claiming to be some sort of expert product reviewer and I think that makes a big difference. Why are you hiding your expert identity?

This apparent shilling for solar stik makes me extra uneasy about solar stik. I hope the folks from solar stik are reading this and learn they are loosing potential customers becouse something doesn't smell right with all this. I definately will not buy a solar stik as long as this mystery product reviewer keeps this going.
The guys at Practical Sailor, Lats & Atts, Cruising World, et al do not hide their identity like the mystery man from solar stik.

Am I the only one who smells something fishy?


----------



## Giulietta

nope.....but I woulnd't buy that either...to heavy eheheheh


----------



## bestfriend

Doesn't Conchy Joe have a column in a sail magazine or an online site?


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*wow $$$*

Good evening all!

Well we got our estimate today for a solarstik reproduction; it's a $3000 quote job (not including panels/other stuff). There is alot more to it than just a few poles and clamps.  There are several internal mechanical components that escaped me and Tom (fabricator) at first until he looked at it closer and figured it out. The devil is in the details.

So much for reproduction. 

on a different note, he did give it high marks for construction which made me feel a bit better about spending the $$. I gave him the drawings and if we get one he will install it for us.

We went to a linked website to look for mounting kits, but didn't find what we felt is a good substitute there, but we will keep looking in the meantime.

Aside from everyone's opinion, and in the spirit of independent thought, I think we will probably end up purchasing one at this point, but it won't be until next month, so we've got some time. As soon as we get close I'll let you all know and try to get pictures (before and after).

I'll be continuing to research about this until then. There has been some talk in some 'other' forums as well, although none as lively as here! 

Thank you to all of you for the info and lively debate.

Amy Johnson


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*and Thank you, Valiente*

for the patent info.

I appreciate your candor about it, although it looks like it may be too costly to 'infringe' on the patent (if there really is one) for the Stik.


----------



## hellosailor

Amy, if you can buy the Solar Stik with a return guarantee on it, I will be glad to tell you how to inexpensively ($5-10) do an actual load test on it, so you (and the rest of us!) can be certain of how much power it is giving you.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*good thought*

that's a good idea, HS. I've got some more to do before buying, and that will be on the list. 
Thanks!


----------



## sailingdog

HS-

What a good idea...and then we can get some non-marketing BS numbers for the thing... 80-100 Amp-hours per day... Yeah, right... Got a bridge and some nice waterfront property in Florida to sell ya.


----------



## CosmosMariner

My son spent 6 months cruising from NC to George Town, Exuma, Bahamas and back last year on his 27' sailboat 'Walkabout'. He had 3 panels rated at 75 watts each (12v) hooked in parallel for a total of 225 watts. They were fixed mounted over the cockpit. He had 4 105 ah (12v) Seafit lead acid batteries with flush mounted non vented caps. He ran an Engle MT35 freezer in freezer mode 24 x 7. He had a laptop with wi-fi which he also used to watch DVDs, Raymarine electronic autopilot (which crapped out on him so many times he stopped rebuilding it and finally threw it in the dumpster in Charleston when he returned), nav lights, cabin lights, DC marine CD/stereo, 700 watt inverter, electric drill and other electric and electronic gear. His experience was that in George Town he had to disconnect one of the panels on the sunnier days so that the batteries would not overcharge (he later added a charge controler). I don't know what these other folks are doing wrong but solar is great. He did say that he is considering a wind generator in addition to his solar array for his next trip but that's going to be a circumnavigation and he wants a backup. 

By the way I am posting this from my off-grid solar powered 3br ranch house in the mountains of NC. We live here full time and my wife works a full 40 hr work week using this computer to T/P to her office and a cordless phone several hours a day for conference calls and we have all the electronics that we had when we were 'on-grid'. I agree that the ratings of solar panels are higher than actual output but when multiplied by an 8 - 10 hour day even when overcast you get alot of amps/watts. I take multiple readings of our battery bank every day and we have even registered .02 v increase in charge at night during a full moon. When stored in a properly configured and managed battery bank and with something less than 'wretched excess' electrical use solar works just fine.


----------



## camaraderie

Cosmos...Good post with a real world example. I don't think that ANYONE is suggesting solar doesn't work. Only that you can't get more than the rated power out of a panel no matter what you mount it on. 
225 watts of fixed panels should be capable of generating an average of 50-60 amps a day which is plenty to run a modest cruising boat. The Bahamas give a lot more sun than a lot of other locales so adding the wind vane is a good idea for his future plans. My own experience was that a wind vane in the Bahamas actually gave me more amps than my 160W solar array...but that was in winter so in summer I might not have gotten much from the wind. 
Is he planning on a Cat27 circumnavigation??? What is he going to do to beef her up?


----------



## sailingdog

I agree cam, no one said that solar panels don't work, and many of us on the board who were commenting have solar panels ourselves. Most of us were questioning the results and measurement methods that Conchy Joe and LaLeLu were using. Unfortunately, Conchy Joe seems to take any criticism or questioning of his measurements as a "personal insult and attack" and never really answered the question about how he was doing things in a straightforward and honest way. 

Furthermore, Conchy Joe and LaLeLu were also confusing power and amperage.... which didn't help their position much. Yet we are the ones that are accused of attacking and insulting him, as well as changing our stories and numbers. 

PS. Cam means a Wind Gen, not a Wind Vane...


----------



## Valiente

AmyJohnson said:


> Aside from everyone's opinion, and in the spirit of independent thought, I think we will probably end up purchasing one at this point, but it won't be until next month, so we've got some time. As soon as we get close I'll let you all know and try to get pictures (before and after).


You know, I have absolutely no problem acknowledging that something like a Solar Stik would enable a smaller boat to field a fairly impressive pair of panels that would otherwise be a PITA to attach to the tiny cabintop, and a smaller boat will likely have a smaller energy bill, thus making the panels do "more" in a relative sense.

But this whole argument has been predicated on the Solar Stik, like it made the power or something. The panels make the power. The crew turn the panels. No crew panel turning...less power. The "stik" is completely ancillary to the output, although it's a convenient, if pricy, way to deploy panels. The price is probably worth it if it means you can watch DVDs on the hook at night in your 27 footer because you charged a pair of 4Ds in the sunshine all day.

But bringing the "stik" into the power debate is like a rock band crediting the stage they stand on for their performance, and forgetting to acknowledge the stage hands who moved their gear...


----------



## sailingdog

Actually, Valiente, the point about the stick was relevant, as the SS supporters were arguing that the SS allowed the panels to create 100-200% more power than the same panels without the stick, provided the user moved the panels three or four times a day.

However, the SS supporters were saying that you could get 80-100 Amp-hours from the SS setup with only 100 Watts of solar panels. Doing the math... 100W = 7.14 amps @ 14 Volts.... and assuming an exceptionally clear and long day that yields 10 hours of full power, you'd get *71.4 amp-hours.*.. and that is a top end best-case estimate.

* However, here is where their argument starts to fall apart even more. *

First, most places that have 14+ hour long days, are far enough north or south that the sunlight is significantly attenuated by the atmosphere the whole day, except for a short period of about four hours in the middle of the day. Even tilting the panels can't change the fact that the sunlight is passing through too much atmosphere.

Second, any location that has sunlight that is not significantly attenuated for more than four hours in the middle of the day is going to be much closer to the equator and have a much shorter day... you can't get both... physically impossible... long summer days give you more hours with weaker sunlight-shorter summer days give you more sunlight but fewer hours... Kuwait has great light... but doesn't ever give you 10 usable full-power hours of it.

Third, no battery charging system is 100% efficient. They are far less efficient, and lose anywhere from 10-50% to heat and other losses, depending on what type of battery is used. Assuming a minimal loss of only 10% from our ideal day of 10 full-power, cloudless, hazeless, perfectly aimed panel hours result of 71.4 Amp-hours, and you get *64.26 amp-hours*... and these are the best case scenarios... no shaded panels, no clouds, panels don't overheat, panels aimed perfectly, no voltage drop in the wiring to the batteries, etc... so you can see how overly optimistic this is...

Now, I just don't see how you can increase that by 24.5-55.6% to get the 80-100 amp-hours that have been claimed by the SS supporters. Unless you're doing something really whacked with the measuring, there isn't any way to get those kinds of numbers.


----------



## tigerregis

E=MCxC. Enough boys, surfesq has gone. This thread beats the Florida recount hands down. How many amperes can dance on the head of a Solar Stik?


----------



## wind_magic

tigerregis said:


> E=MCxC. Enough boys, surfesq has gone.


Oh come on tigerregis, one more post won't hurt.

My thought is that you can really learn a lot about all of this by using solar panels at home too. What I mean is that if you aren't on your boat all the time, rig up a quick and dirty electrical system at home for your office. You can inexpensively mount a single solar panel, it doesn't have to be anything fancy, and run some cable down to a charger and a battery or two wired in parallel. Then experiment with that. Besides giving you experience using solar and a charger, checking your batteries, etc, it also has another practical application and that is that it will act as the ultimate UPS for your computer and allow to to keep working even when the electricity goes out at your house. The practical experience gained transfers directly to your boat when you feel like moving the panels over to your boat, you can use the same everything - same charger, same panels, etc, maybe even the same cables if you are lucky, it's all the same thing whether on your boat or at home. Except at home you can mess around with it until it works right, whereas on your boat it's going to be a lot harder to get parts and things.


----------



## sailaway21

Sailing Dog,
While I understand the point you are making, "the too much atmosphere" is incorrect. I would refer you to Bowditch, article 1419 'the ecliptic'. Regards.


----------



## conchyjoe

sailingdog said:


> HS-
> What a good idea...and then we can get some non-marketing BS numbers for the thing... 80-100 Amp-hours per day... Yeah, right... Got a bridge and some nice waterfront property in Florida to sell ya.


Here is the problem I have with you SailingDog.

You said in this thread:



sailingdog said:


> Say we add those four hours in at 25% efficiency... that gives us an additional 7.46 Amp-hours, bringing the total to 82 Amp-hours. Fine, we've somehow managed to break the 80 Amp-hour barrier, but are still 25% short of the top end of their claim of 100 Amp-hours and have no possible way of every getting there. And this is using the most idealistic assumptions possible.


Now let me point out that you have made MANY comments. Are you taking back what you said above? I have NEVER moved from my comment of 79.9AH is the MAXIMUM I witnessed with my own two eyes.

Let me also point out that *NONE OF YOU HAVE EVER EVEN SEEN THE PRODUCT*

So you and the rest can say what you wish, but once again, you are ones that will eat your words when PS comes out.

As far as Amy's comments are concerned, the construction of the SolarStik is very solid, and will operate well beyond what it is rated for. And it is not inexpensive to build, and is priced properly for the value it brings.

Once again the output rating has nothing to do with the SolarStik product. I could prop the panels up with a stick and get the same thing. And it has nothing to do with *your* mathmatics either. You are attempting to use a finite equation with something that has infinite possibilities.

I am not saying the math is wrong, I am saying you would have to do that calculation every second to arrive at my conclusion, not just once.

A good example of that would be Cam comment about moving the panel every minute as well as Rick's comment about airflow around the panel and battery drain. The day I first hooked up the unit, it was about 11AM and my batteries were drained more than when I started testing. At that point I was getting 8.53AH according to the output meter of the controller. But that is unscientific because I have no idea of the SG of the betteries.

In conclusion, you can all say what you wish, but I better get PROFUSE APOLOGIES from each and every one of you naysayers when the PS article comes out. Unless you wish to pipe up now and say they are full of it too, and were paid off like you say I was.


----------



## conchyjoe

xort said:


> Am I the only one who smells something fishy?


Obviously nobody else smells anything fishy, but I am happy to tell you about myself.

I was born and raised in Palm Beach and Juno Beach. My parents were certified NAUI SCUBA instructors in 1969, my mom one of the first females certified. My Mom was also the Aquatic Director at the YWCA for some 25 years and has taught possibly hundred of thousands of kids how to swim, as well as thousands of people to SCUBA dive.

I learned to dive when I was 7, certified when I was 13. My first boat was when I was 8, and was a 14ft aluminum skiff with a 12hp engine.

My parents did SCUBA charters to the Bahamas as well as Cayman. We have owned from a 16ft Formula to a 54ft Bertram custom fitted for diving. I managed and captained all of them. We kept them at the dock behind our house on the Intracoastal Waterway in Juno, FL. I did the majority of work on them, with the exception major stuff. Mainly break/fix, improvements, and customization.

I am NAUI/PADI certified, OUPV near coastal since I was 18, and have 35years of experience in the Bahamas and Caribbean on power and sail boats. I spent most of my summers in the Bahamas as well as TCI, and 4 weeks here and there in Cayman, Roatan, and ABC.

I have thousand of hours on and in the water.

I have spoken at Strictly Sail shows on first time sailboat chartering.

I am by no means Rocket Scientist in any specialty, but a jack of all trades.

The website is very young and I am working on many projects at this time, but the are not all "Electrical" I am reading 6 different books, evaluating 5 different cost-effective chartplotters, as well as many other marine items. I am doing this all from a "real world" perspective. Not from a dark room with grow lamps on 24 hours a day.

The website ConchyJoe - Serious Answers For Serious Cruisers is a hobby, not a money making venture. I also own License To Chill.

I met the SolarStik people at a trade show through Bob Bitchin (I also write a Cruzin' Tunes piece in Lattitudes and Attitudes) The product is fresh, and interesting technology, as is Zarcor, Technautics, and others I am talking to about reviews.

I do not claim to always be correct, as SailingDog continues to use to prop up his story, but I correct my mistakes, restate them, and move on.

I believe in the SolarStik and the technology put into it as well. I DO NOT believe it is for everyone, nor do the SolarStik folks. Frankly, I suspect more will be sold to the Military than anyone else.

Even if you agree or disagree, you have to admit it is an interesting departure to making your sailboat look like you are about to enter a solar powered race like other pictures I have seen around the Internet.

I also think that as PV technology get's better, you can simply replace the panels with newer/better, and still not look like this:


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*who are you??*

Cjoe, the problem that we (I'm starting to feel the same way) have with you is that you are going over the top in defending the Solar Stik. As I see it, after reviewing your site, there is one of two scenarios that apply:

Are you defending it so much because you are a new product reviewer and your business (as a product reviewer) potentially has alot riding on this? As it is only one of a few products listed on your site, I can see how you would want to defend it because IF you are proven correct (jury's still out) then you gain much by association with the Stik.

OR

Are you a surreptitiously compensated representative for the Stik?

That is how I see it.

Let the Solar Stik stand on it's own merits, and if it does, then you will look all the better for it. I have contacted them several times about some of the points made on this thread and have been satisfied with their answers so far. But with the constant "nit-picking" here, honestly it is getting confusing! Obviously, you have a close relationship with them as you seem to be privy to some info that no-one else has (military testing).

You have made your points, now please let it go. I do all of my own research and make my own decisions about anything that goes onto our boat, after all it is MY boat and I know WHERE I sail, and I can do the math.

I love the advice (CAM, VAL, SD, and you CJ included) and that is what I was after.

Thank you, all. Now back to more important matters -


----------



## conchyjoe

AmyJohnson said:


> Cjoe, the problem that we (I'm starting to feel the same way) have with you is that you are going over the top in defending the Solar Stik. As I see it, after reviewing your site, there is one of two scenarios that apply:
> 
> Are you defending it so much because you are a new product reviewer and your business (as a product reviewer) potentially has alot riding on this? As it is only one of a few products listed on your site, I can see how you would want to defend it because IF you are proven correct (jury's still out) then you gain much by association with the Stik.


It is really more personal than that. Don;t call me a liar, and I will happily debate you all day, as I have exhibted in this thread. Only 40 posts! fine. Don't know who you are. Cool. Give me some background. Ok, can do.

Call me a liar, and I will defend myself all day and all night.

Quite simply, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck! I take great personal offense to being called a liar, either directly or indirectly, and no matter if Mr. Ohm got on here and proclaimed what the technology behind the product CAN and WILL do given the circumstances, they would call him a liar too. I know what I saw. Nobody here other than Susan has been in the same room with the product, you maybe the exception.

I am simply defending my reputation, and you are quite right, I am having a considerable amount of fun with this, because when the PS article comes out about the SolarStik there will be a bunch of people here eating duck, errrr crow.

Frankly, I wish you the best, no matter what you do, because you will have made the decision that is BEST FOR YOU AMY.


----------



## camaraderie

Cjoe:
*Once again the output rating has nothing to do with the SolarStik product. I could prop the panels up with a stick and get the same thing. And it has nothing to do with your mathmatics either. You are attempting to use a finite equation with something that has infinite possibilities.

I am not saying the math is wrong, I am saying you would have to do that calculation every second to arrive at my conclusion, not just once.

A good example of that would be Cam comment about moving the panel every minute...

*Once again your limited understanding of electricity leads you to a false conclusion. You talk about measurements every second being needed to arrive at your conclusion. The reality is that OHM's law covers every nanosecond and your claims don't hold water under ohm's law under the most idealized situation possible. That is NOT saying you are lying by the way...it is saying that you don't know how to evaluate and test a product like a solar panel system accurately. 
Forget the stik issue. Put the same panels on an electronically controlled rotating assembly that automatically tracks the sun and you STILL can't get 80-100 amps a day out of 2x 50 watt solar panels. That is my issue...not the solar stik.

BTW.. you might want to re-think the name of your site and what you call yourself given the derogatory implications that name has in the Bahamas.


----------



## hellosailor

Cjoe, soe of us haven't accused you (or anyone else) of being paid off. Personally I've just said the numbers being quoted from several sources dno't jibe with my understanding of physics and solar panel ratings, but indicate some other factor--like measurement errors. Or, yes, sales puffery from the maker. As to "Let me also point out that NONE OF YOU HAVE EVER EVEN SEEN THE PRODUCT" well yeah, since they are not in wide distribution and their site doesn't seem to offer direct sales (it suggests people look on the web) that's gonna happen.

I'm actually in Florida this week (and thanks, SD, but I've already got a bridge<G>) and I'd love to carry one home on the plane with me and take a week to reality test it, but anything that can be used as a "cudgel" isn't allowed in the cabin anymore, I'd have to tag it as baggage.

Still, if you can tell me how to become an unpaid product reviewer and get one shipped up to me for a free evaluation--I'll be glad to do exactly that, and to load test it to prove there's no measurement error or misconception about the numbers. (Disclaimer: I CAN be bought, but I suspect my price is way too high for those folks, offers below five figures will be laughed at.)

On the other hand, when one of us expressly asks how you measured the power output, and you don't offer a specific clear answer...That leads other to ask why you don't, or can't. SO maybe we could detour back into some objective questions, without name calling or accusations, and just ask:

How did you measure the output of the panels? If you read it on a meter or other display, what type of display was that? Or did you load test it, to confirm that the measurements were correct?

Making no slurs or accusations, I must point out that manufacturers HAVE been known to provide misleading benchmarks and test protocols for all sorts of goods on this planet, and the best of folks can be sucked in by that, too.


----------



## cardiacpaul

_"I am simply defending my reputation"_

Joe,

for you to defend your reputation, you've got to have one. 
For me, you don't... yet...

Give me photos of the meter readings, give me real-time data, graphs, stick figures, crayon drawings... something I can hang my hat on!!!
As of this point, I don't see diddly squat...other than _I'm tellin'ya_ and a vague reference to an upcoming PS test that solar stik will not confirm or deny and lots of marketing. 
I'm not saying your figures are wrong, but I'm a very firm believer in "show me".
Until then, its just marketing ok?
I don't care if your compensated directly, indirectly, get a free hat & mittens, cookies or a bottle of cheap beer from anyone, but until I see real verified data, its 
*"All hat and no cattle"*


----------



## conchyjoe

hellosailor said:


> Cjoe, soe of us haven't accused you (or anyone else) of being paid off. Personally I've just said the numbers being quoted from several sources dno't jibe with my understanding of physics and solar panel ratings, but indicate some other factor--like measurement errors. Or, yes, sales puffery from the maker. As to "Let me also point out that NONE OF YOU HAVE EVER EVEN SEEN THE PRODUCT" well yeah, since they are not in wide distribution and their site doesn't seem to offer direct sales (it suggests people look on the web) that's gonna happen.
> 
> I'm actually in Florida this week (and thanks, SD, but I've already got a bridge<G>) and I'd love to carry one home on the plane with me and take a week to reality test it, but anything that can be used as a "cudgel" isn't allowed in the cabin anymore, I'd have to tag it as baggage.
> 
> Still, if you can tell me how to become an unpaid product reviewer and get one shipped up to me for a free evaluation--I'll be glad to do exactly that, and to load test it to prove there's no measurement error or misconception about the numbers. (Disclaimer: I CAN be bought, but I suspect my price is way too high for those folks, offers below five figures will be laughed at.)
> 
> On the other hand, when one of us expressly asks how you measured the power output, and you don't offer a specific clear answer...That leads other to ask why you don't, or can't. SO maybe we could detour back into some objective questions, without name calling or accusations, and just ask:
> 
> How did you measure the output of the panels? If you read it on a meter or other display, what type of display was that? Or did you load test it, to confirm that the measurements were correct?
> 
> Making no slurs or accusations, I must point out that manufacturers HAVE been known to provide misleading benchmarks and test protocols for all sorts of goods on this planet, and the best of folks can be sucked in by that, too.


Hello,

You have been more than reasonable, and I appreciate it.

Simple answers that I have already given:



hellosailor said:


> How did you measure the output of the panels?


I measured the output of the panels AND the output of the charge controller buy observing the digital meter ON the charge controller.
Form the BlueSky website:
"A built in LCD digital display monitors solar charge performance.The display shows battery voltage, *solar panel current and output charge current*. You can actually see current boost working by knowing the difference between solar panel current and output charge current. A charge status LED indicates the present charge mode, and shows when the battery has become fully charged."

I used as my load 2 Trojan T105 batteries connected in a manner to make them 12V. They were approximately 40% charged give or take. I was not worried that I would overload the batteries with a charge, but I was impressed when I could point the panels at the sun as it set, and still get 2-3AH on the output display.

To be specific, my testing was "real world". I simulated loads by using inverters, and plugging them into fans, and fridges, and computers, as well as DC powered items like a Lowrance 337C-DF, and a few different AM/FM/CD/DVD radio units. LED strips and masthead lights. All kinds of stuff.

I had fun doing it.

As far as sending you the product, you would have to talk to them. I did have to agree to "publish" my findings, and did so pronto.


----------



## conchyjoe

camaraderie said:


> BTW.. you might want to re-think the name of your site and what you call yourself given the derogatory implications that name has in the Bahamas.


ConchyJoe is NOT derogatory. It is simply what they call a "White Bahamian". I was called that when I was a kid, and spent summers there.

I suspect the People that own ConchyJoe's along the east coast of Florida feel the same way.


----------



## cardiacpaul

_"I measured the output of the panels AND the output of the charge controller buy observing the digital meter ON the charge controller."_

thats nice, got any photos?

_Form the BlueSky website:
"A built in LCD digital display monitors solar charge performance.The display shows battery voltage, solar panel current and output charge current. You can actually see current boost working by knowing the difference between solar panel current and output charge current. A charge status LED indicates the present charge mode, and shows when the battery has become fully charged."_

Joe, buddy, sparky, pal... until I see something OTHER than copy/paste from others websites... *you ain't even got a hat.*


----------



## camaraderie

*It is simply what they call a "White Bahamian".*
OK...Joe...do you want a web link that says something different or should I just drop it?


----------



## cardiacpaul

I wonder why I'm not being responded to... I bathed, put on my best aftershave...promised the cuban I'd poli-glow this afternoon


----------



## conchyjoe

cardiacpaul said:


> I wonder why I'm not being responded to... I bathed, put on my best aftershave...promised the cuban I'd poli-glow this afternoon


I am happy to respond tue/wed when I get back from the lake. I have no data here.


----------



## conchyjoe

camaraderie said:


> *It is simply what they call a "White Bahamian".*
> OK...Joe...do you want a web link that says something different or should I just drop it?


Cam,

I know what it says on the web. What *I KNOW*, is that when I was a kid and spent summers in the Bahamas, I was called that by belongers in West End, Walkers, and around DB. They invite me in their homes for lunch when I was playing with the kids my age, and they used the term, in my opinion, as a term of endearment.

I was also called Conchy Joe in the Keys as well. Not many Bahamians there...

You already established numerous time that you live in a box, and are on this board to simply argue with people, which is fine with me, so post away, the links are meaningless to me.


----------



## conchyjoe

cardiacpaul said:


> _"I measured the output of the panels AND the output of the charge controller buy observing the digital meter ON the charge controller."_
> 
> thats nice, got any photos?
> 
> _Form the BlueSky website:
> "A built in LCD digital display monitors solar charge performance.The display shows battery voltage, solar panel current and output charge current. You can actually see current boost working by knowing the difference between solar panel current and output charge current. A charge status LED indicates the present charge mode, and shows when the battery has become fully charged."_
> 
> Joe, buddy, sparky, pal... until I see something OTHER than copy/paste from others websites... *you ain't even got a hat.*


Paul,

Buddy, Pal. You SAY you are a Marine Surveyer. Where are the pictures?

Did you survey all these boats?
*EDITED BY CAM...PICTURE MONTAGE TOO LARGE...SCREWS UP THREAD DISPLAY
* 
What are their names? Do you have any reference accounts? Where did you acquire your certifications? How long have you been in business?

Do you have anything other than a free one page website?

Patiently awaiting your response,


----------



## PBzeer

Now there's an intelligent rebuttal. First of all joe, paul isn't making any claims about anything. You are the only one doing that. So your bona fides are relevant. Paul, as have others, is merely asking your methodology for the test results you claim, and some evidence of the results. Seems like a fairly simple request, considering the results you are touting are far beyond what anyone would believe. If the product were that good, they'd be selling like hotcakes.


----------



## PBzeer

This may have already been asked and answered, but since I'm not going back through 39 pages to find out, I'll ask it now.

Joe? Do you have a link to Solar Stik as a free link, or a paid advertisment? Of course, whichever it is, shows a distinct bias, that is probably impervious to any contradiction. Kinda like Algore and global warming.


----------



## tigerregis

Cam, what is the pejorative meaning of "conchy joe"? Thanks.


----------



## xort

hang out in the 'hood and you'll hear the N word slung around by N to N. So a particular perjorative can be the opposite depending on the user.


----------



## camaraderie

*You already established numerous time that you live in a box, and are on this board to simply argue with people, which is fine with me, so post away, the links are meaningless to me.

*Right...fire away Joe...Actually I asked if you WANTED the link because I didn't know if you KNEW the "other" meaning of the words. This link was NOT posted or referenced by me so as to avoid any embarassment to you. 
Now that you have said you already know the other meaning...I have no need to post the link. So much for trying to be civil.

As to C Paul's credentials... I agree that they are irrelevant to the discussion but ABYC and Sam's certification is a lot more meaningful to understanding boat systems than Scuba certification wouldn't you agree?


----------



## cardiacpaul

as an attorney that I had disbarred said... the best offense is to make attack, and never respond to the questions. 

A) my website isn't "free" I pay for it as I do my toll free telephone number. 
I'll be more than happy to provide you with my bona fides if you'll tell me which boat you'd like surveyed. 

I did not personally attack you, but i will wait for the photos and empirical data. 

thank you for playing.


----------



## conchyjoe

cardiacpaul said:


> as an attorney that I had disbarred said... the best offense is to make attack, and never respond to the questions.
> A) my website isn't "free" I pay for it as I do my toll free telephone number.
> I'll be more than happy to provide you with my bona fides if you'll tell me which boat you'd like surveyed.
> I did not personally attack you, but i will wait for the photos and empirical data.
> thank you for playing.


I'm not personally attacking you either. If you are going to come on here 40 pages into the thread and and start talking about things before you read the thread, then yes I am going to question your credentials.

Precedent has already been established here that if you want to play the game, you better be something other than NAUI certified.

So if you are a surveyor, what kind of ABYC and SAMS credentials do you carry?

Or did you get on on here to join in the attempts to discredit my findings.

It's fine either way with me.


----------



## PBzeer

Again, it has to be asked joe, what difference do paul's credentials have to do with responding to the questions he raised? Methodology used is of primary importance to evaluating any data. Or are people just supposed to take your word for it?


----------



## conchyjoe

PBzeer said:


> Again, it has to be asked joe, what difference do paul's credentials have to do with responding to the questions he raised? Methodology used is of primary importance to evaluating any data. Or are people just supposed to take your word for it?


John,

If you read through the post, you will see that I *HAVE NOT* asked anyone to take my word, and if what PS reports is acceptable, we will wait for that.

I don't care what anyone thinks about my credentials. I have been boating, sailing, and working on boats from a DIY perspective since I was 7-8 years old.

Take it or leave it. Either way is fine with me.

So I ask, what are your credentials and you criticize me? Sounds like some people don't have the real life experience I have had.

I don't questions Cam's experience, because it is abundantly clear on his website.

I don't see that on the newcomers site. He could have taken a course for all I know, got certified, and never even looked at a boat. Happens all the time in my industry.


----------



## PBzeer

Joe, you are unresponsive to the question, and have made it into something it isn't.

You "claim" certain results, yet you seem unable, or unwilling to do anything in the way of verifying those results, which are highly positive of a product you advertise on your web site. The methodology you used in your "independent testing" is thus, highly germaine to evaluating your claims.

In the three posts I have made, I do not once, question your credentials, seek to discredit you, nor in any way criticized you. I do though, one last time, mention that the credentials of no one else are relevant, because they are not the ones making claims about the performance of a product.


----------



## conchyjoe

Fair enough John,

i have not posted more findings for two reasons that you can see if you read through the posts:

1. Despite the fact that Susan and I reported info we believe is correct, volts/ohms/amps misinterpretations accepted, nobody with the exception of Sailingdog, has admitted that it is "possible" to 80-100AH out of the technology used in the SolarStik. I will once again submit that I saw a maximum of 79.9AH out of the SolarStik I tested.

I also reported what a sample Military finding was of 96.6AH in one day as their Maximum. I do not know any other details than what I reported.

The owner and chief engineer at BlueSky has also reported that it is possible, and even explains theory on PV technology that *NOBODY ON THIS WEBSITE EVEN KNOWS*. Including the only two people(Cam and Hello, sincerely) I respect in this thread with opposing views to mine and Susan's. For the record, it was pretty cool when I did my testing, and I think around 5 knts. give or take.

2. I posted previously that PS will publish an article that will 100% completely exonerate Susan and Myself. Until then, I will continue to fight the fight, and not let go of the bone until that happens.

So I ask you John, sincerely, why should I bother to post the data I have at home (I am at the Lake)?

So that everyone cen tell me I am nuts anyway? And I don't know ohms law, and this and that? No thanks. Besides, Sailingdog has already reported that 84.X is possible. Anybody calling him crazy? Quoting math and such. It's personal. Your damn right it's personal.

I stand by what I have reported all along. 79.9AH maximum in one day. 0AH after the sun went down.


----------



## cardiacpaul

He can question all he wants, still didn't answer the question.

I have read with great pain, all 40 pages of this thread, from the beginning. My choice to remain silent until now is mine, and mine alone. I have enjoyed the comments and opinion theory and fact. Its up to the individual reader as to how to form thier own opinions. All I did is ask for empirical data, and somebody gets all froggy and decides to jump up. So be it. It really doesn't bother me if the darn thing works or not. doesn't bother me at all if it works as described or not. Otherwise, the poster looks rather foolish. 
I've got no dog in this hunt, but now I really wanna know. 

Holder of 2 degrees, Comp.Sci and Math. 
Member of a team that won the SME/CASA Lead award in Mfg for FORTRAN 6 axis NC Code. 
Member of the ANSI FORTRAN 77 standards commitee. 

I've been a member of the ABYC since 1983. 
SAMS cert. in 1996
Over the past 24 months, I've surveyed 81 boats, power and sail. (not including the 60 in the aftermath of the gulf storms)
Approved by boatus, chubb and at least 4 other ins. companies for surveys. 
On 3 nationwide finance companys approved list for valuations (and more local ones than I care to be involved with). 

I don't need to do it full time, I have other revenue streams. I turn away more business than I take, simple reason? My health prevents me from crawling all over the darn things like I used to. 

I am one cranky, opinionated SOB. I can also be a persons best friend, or the one bast*** they wish never walked the earth, and I don't care which side of the fence anyone falls on. 

I've held a six-pack (up for renewal in 2 yrs) since 1989, I won't be able to keep it due to health reasons. Oh well, thems the breaks. 

None of that amounts to a tinkers dam. 

While I maybe a newcomer to this thread, I'm not one when it comes to boating, or sailing. Started getting wet on a hobie cat before puberty.

I don't have to prove myself to anyone, and I think this sums it up.

My self worth is not contingent upon your opinion of me. 

You either can deliver the goods, or you can't and my meal isn't going to taste any different either way. 

See, my "giveash*tefactor" is really low. 
now, if y'all will excuse me, I'm going back to a boat to finish up some poli-glow. If the 13 year old can find the darn camera, I'll take some pictures.


----------



## conchyjoe

cardiacpaul said:


> He can question all he wants, still didn't answer the question.
> 
> I have read with great pain, all 40 pages of this thread, from the beginning. My choice to remain silent until now is mine, and mine alone. I have enjoyed the comments and opinion theory and fact. Its up to the individual reader as to how to form thier own opinions. All I did is ask for empirical data, and somebody gets all froggy and decides to jump up. So be it. It really doesn't bother me if the darn thing works or not. doesn't bother me at all if it works as described or not. Otherwise, the poster looks rather foolish.
> I've got no dog in this hunt, but now I really wanna know.
> 
> Holder of 2 degrees, Comp.Sci and Math.
> Member of a team that won the SME/CASA Lead award in Mfg for FORTRAN 6 axis NC Code.
> Member of the ANSI FORTRAN 77 standards commitee.
> 
> I've been a member of the ABYC since 1983.
> SAMS cert. in 1996
> Over the past 24 months, I've surveyed 81 boats, power and sail. (not including the 60 in the aftermath of the gulf storms)
> Approved by boatus, chubb and at least 4 other ins. companies for surveys.
> On 3 nationwide finance companys approved list for valuations (and more local ones than I care to be involved with).
> 
> I don't need to do it full time, I have other revenue streams. I turn away more business than I take, simple reason? My health prevents me from crawling all over the darn things like I used to.
> 
> I am one cranky, opinionated SOB. I can also be a persons best friend, or the one bast*** they wish never walked the earth, and I don't care which side of the fence anyone falls on.
> 
> I've held a six-pack (up for renewal in 2 yrs) since 1989, I won't be able to keep it due to health reasons. Oh well, thems the breaks.
> 
> None of that amounts to a tinkers dam.
> 
> While I maybe a newcomer to this thread, I'm not one when it comes to boating, or sailing. Started getting wet on a hobie cat before puberty.
> 
> I don't have to prove myself to anyone, and I think this sums it up.
> 
> My self worth is not contingent upon your opinion of me.
> 
> You either can deliver the goods, or you can't and my meal isn't going to taste any different either way.
> 
> See, my "giveash*tefactor" is really low.
> now, if y'all will excuse me, I'm going back to a boat to finish up some poli-glow. If the 13 year old can find the darn camera, I'll take some pictures.


Impressive. You should post all that on your site.

Gotta go take my bride to dinner, Good night all.


----------



## PBzeer

Well, joe, you certainly don't have to post ANYTHING at all. Much less anything that would show the accuracy of your claims. All in all, after your last post, it would seem that you have NOTHING more to say.

As Paul said so aptly, I don't have a dog in this hunt, and I don't really give a tinker's dam if you're right or not. I do though, object to people who don't properly respond to honest questions, and then try to redirect the conversation to irrelevant topics.

So, now that we have determined, that you have NOTHING more to say, I look forward to seeing your expertise in some other post that doesn't involve a product you advertise on your website.


----------



## sailingdog

Conchy Joe-

One major difference between you and just about everyone that you're disagreeing with on this thread... they have past posts unrelated to the subject of the SolarStik and have been here and have a certain reputation to their posts. Cam, CardiacPaul, CruisingDad, TrueBlue, et al. have posted on many other topics, outside of the Solar panel one... and have at least some credibility on this forum. None of them lash out with personal attacks or accusations of such when they are criticized or questioned as a general rule.

However, as far as I can tell, almost all of your posts are either attacks on people who are asking valid questions about the SolarStik and questioning the performance numbers that seem highly unlikely given basic physics and the conditions in the real world, or they are promoting a product with somewhat misleading or outright false information.

For instance, your earliest posts said that the MPPT charge controller would give you more power from the panels... *that is a false statement*. A true statement would be that the MPPT charge controller would allow you to use the power generated by the panels more efficiently.

PBzeer and TrueBlue have a good point about the way you respond without giving any credible solid answers... evasiveness and misdirection are generally looked at with much suspicion.

Also, as an "uncompensated product reviewer" what are your qualifications to make these reviews.. Product reviews by an unqualified person generally are worth the paper they're printed on... or the time it takes to read them. At best they are marketing propaganda for the product... at worst they are misleading and deceptive. Please note, I did not say that your reviews wer deceptive or misleading. I am just asking you to point out what your qualifications to review a solar panel charging system are, given that you have already said that you don't know electrical engineering theory, and have already proven you don' t understand the difference between AMPERAGE and POWER.


----------



## conchyjoe

sailingdog said:


> For instance, your earliest posts said that the MPPT charge controller would give you more power from the panels... *that is a false statement*. A true statement would be that the MPPT charge controller would allow you to use the power generated by the panels more efficiently.


Dude, you need to get over yourself.

Let me make a statement and then ask you a direct question to which i demand a direct answer.

My statement:
MPPT charge controller would allow you to use the power generated by the panels more efficiently. Please disregard anything I have previously stated. It was FALSE and I misrepresented myself. I apologize.

Now, Mr Sailingdog, Please answer to me how and why you could make the statement:



sailingdog said:


> Say we add those four hours in at 25% efficiency... that gives us an additional 7.46 Amp-hours, bringing the total to 82 Amp-hours. Fine, we've somehow managed to break the 80 Amp-hour barrier, but are still 25% short of the top end of their claim of 100 Amp-hours and have no possible way of every getting there. And this is using the most idealistic assumptions possible.


Without a shred of evidence as to how the combination that is talked about in this thread can *ACTUALLY* produce 82AH.

I would like some kind of response to your accusation. Otherwise what little credibility you have with me and this board will be gone.

I am not dodging anything, but I await your response to see what you are dodging.

A direct question:

Why 82AH and how did you arrive at that without possessing and testing any of the product?

Why?


----------



## conchyjoe

PBzeer said:


> Well, joe, you certainly don't have to post ANYTHING at all. Much less anything that would show the accuracy of your claims. All in all, after your last post, it would seem that you have NOTHING more to say.
> 
> As Paul said so aptly, I don't have a dog in this hunt, and I don't really give a tinker's dam if you're right or not. I do though, object to people who don't properly respond to honest questions, and then try to redirect the conversation to irrelevant topics.
> 
> So, now that we have determined, that you have NOTHING more to say, I look forward to seeing your expertise in some other post that doesn't involve a product you advertise on your website.


Sorry, what question did I not answer? If you are going to take shots at me, you really need to try harder. What question of yours did I not answer?

Which one?


----------



## sailingdog

conchyjoe said:


> Without a shred of evidence as to how the combination that is talked about in this thread can *ACTUALLY* produce 82AH.
> 
> I would like some kind of response to your accusation. Otherwise what little credibility you have with me and this board will be gone.
> 
> I am not dodging anything, but I await your response to see what you are dodging.
> 
> A direct question:
> 
> Why 82AH and how did you arrive at that without possessing and testing any of the product?
> 
> Why?


It is really kind of you to take a hypothetical best-case estimate, where I was accounting for the four missing hours, which was pointed out by someone else's post, and turn it into a question of testing. 

*My scenario was purely hypothetical, and the numbers in it were based on the assumptions I posted when I made said hypothetical best-case estimate. *As it is an ideal estimate, it is probably very unlikely to be achievable in the real world.

If you don't understand what a hypothetical best-case estimate is, or why one would be applicable in this situation, you might want to rethink trying to review anything beyond toys for toddlers.....

Now, please answer my previous post's request:



> ...as an "uncompensated product reviewer" *what are your qualifications to make these reviews*...


----------



## PBzeer

The main question ..... what was your methodology for arriving at your stated results. The secondary one concerned your website link to Solar Stik. 

I'm not taking shots at you, nor at anyone. If you percieve it as such, I can't help that. As I said, I don't really care if you are right, wrong, or anywhere inbetween. My interest is in seeing the discussion brought to a convincing conclusion, whatever that might be.

You were asked to verify your claims, which to many,with long years of experience, not to mention knowledge, found to be, shall we say, a tad implausible. Rather than respond with something verifiable, you called in to question the credentials of the poster. And then say that Practical Sailor will bear you out. If you are that privy to the information, it certainly calls into question, your stake in the matter. As well as, give pause as to your purpose.

Please note, I am not accusing you of anything, merely pointing out certain coincidences, that can certainly lead to making some basic assumptions. Which in the course of pointing them out, you seem to think I am, by implication, "taking shots" at you.


----------



## sailingdog

I really have to question what you mean by uncompensated product reviewer... especially given that your website says the following:



> Advertising on ConchyJoe.com
> 
> ConchyJoe.com is a young and upcoming presence in the cruising community. Our focus is on individuals that own and cruise on sailboats, power cruisers, and passage makers.
> 
> They come to ConchyJoe.com to learn from other cruisers, and get information on the latest products, and how to use them. They also come to ConchyJoe.com for advice.
> 
> Every month, our Web site is on track to get 25,000+ visits and all information on ConchyJoe.com is free to users. We are pushing our message out to the community via email blasts, and booth presence at industry trade shows like Strictly SailOur next step is to publish a magazine that will have broad appeal to cruisers, and contain stories that blend what our users submit with reviews on products, and tips and advice.
> 
> Opportunities for Advertisers
> 
> Display ads throughout the forums - target based.
> 
> Your ad is seen in the forum that is related to your product. It includes a click through to the target website of your choice. This target automatically opens in a new window when clicked, or can integrate into ConchyJoe.com.
> 
> Contents ads - overall based.
> 
> Your ad displays on a rotating basis in the contents menu on the left. It includes a click through to the target website of your choice. This target automatically opens in a new window when clicked, or can integrate into ConchyJoe.com.
> 
> Banner ads - overall based.
> 
> Your ad displays on a rotating basis in the banner at the top. It includes a click through to the target website of your choice. This target automatically opens in a new window when clicked, or can integrate into ConchyJoe.com.
> 
> New products - forum based.
> 
> Your new and innovative product is featured in the New Products forum. We will test your product, and work with you to understand it's features, and then write a review.
> 
> Product marketing and representation
> 
> Let ConchyJoe.com help you enhance the presence of your company. We will help you by promoting your product on ConchyJoe.com, representing you at trade shows in our booth and developing promotional materials for distribution through ConchyJoe.com, and at trade shows. ConchyJoe.com can also provide high quality products utilizing our world renowned staff photographer Terry Wawro.


_*It would seem to me that SolarStik appears to be an ad on your site... if it isn't an ad, the appearance of it being one is very strong. *_ If they are an advertiser, from what I've posted above, *I seriously doubt that they are getting the advertising space for free... and if they are paying for an ad...you are being compensated... at least by any normal definition of the word. *

Also of interest is the fact that you have this thread on the SolarStik on your website, which features LaLeLu and yourself as the two main posters. The first post on that thread reads much like a SolarStik press release, and says:



> The Solar Stik is an engineering marvel. It is a complete solar system that can be mounted on or near the stern of your sailboat, in usually less than three to four hours. The Solar Stik has a patented three-joint system that supports two 50-watt solar panels. No matter the location of the sun in the sky, the solar panels can be aimed at the sun for maximum exposure, resulting in a tremendous increase in charging capability throughout the day. Average daily power production is 80-100 amp- hours.


Exactly, how is this a product review??? it sounds just like what you find on the SolarStik website, regurgitated a bit...

Also, given that your website gets 25,000+ hits a month, why does your forum only have 325 articles in the forums and 118 users... Sounds like the number of hits is a bit over inflated... you can't even get more than .5% of the visitors to stick on your site... Of course, that would be for only one month's worth of visitors...

*EDITED CAM...PERSONAL ATTACK...DOG THIS IS YOUR SECOND WARNING!!You are not immune from being banned.*


----------



## conchyjoe

sailingdog said:


> It is really kind of you to take a hypothetical best-case estimate, where I was accounting for the four missing hours, which was pointed out by someone else's post, and turn it into a question of testing.
> 
> *My scenario was purely hypothetical, and the numbers in it were based on the assumptions I posted when I made said hypothetical best-case estimate. *As it is an ideal estimate, it is probably very unlikely to be achievable in the real world.
> 
> If you don't understand what a hypothetical best-case estimate is, or why one would be applicable in this situation, you might want to rethink trying to review anything beyond toys for toddlers.....
> 
> Now, please answer my previous post's request:


Here is the link to your answer:
http://www.sailnet.com/forums/129636-post384.html

I was born and raised in Palm Beach and Juno Beach. My parents were certified NAUI SCUBA instructors in 1969, my mom one of the first females certified. My Mom was also the Aquatic Director at the YWCA for some 25 years and has taught possibly hundred of thousands of kids how to swim, as well as thousands of people to SCUBA dive.

I learned to dive when I was 7, certified when I was 13. My first boat was when I was 8, and was a 14ft aluminum skiff with a 12hp engine.

My parents did SCUBA charters to the Bahamas as well as Cayman. We have owned from a 16ft Formula to a 54ft Bertram custom fitted for diving. I managed and captained all of them. We kept them at the dock behind our house on the Intracoastal Waterway in Juno, FL. I did the majority of work on them, with the exception major stuff. Mainly break/fix, improvements, and customization.

I am NAUI/PADI certified, OUPV near coastal since I was 18, and have 35years of experience in the Bahamas and Caribbean on power and sail boats. I spent most of my summers in the Bahamas as well as TCI, and 4 weeks here and there in Cayman, Roatan, and ABC.

I have thousand of hours on and in the water.

I have spoken at Strictly Sail shows on first time sailboat chartering.

I am by no means Rocket Scientist in any specialty, but a jack of all trades.

The website is very young and I am working on many projects at this time, but the are not all "Electrical" I am reading 6 different books, evaluating 5 different cost-effective chartplotters, as well as many other marine items. I am doing this all from a "real world" perspective. Not from a dark room with grow lamps on 24 hours a day.

The website ConchyJoe - Serious Answers For Serious Cruisers is a hobby, not a money making venture. I also own License To Chill.

I met the SolarStik people at a trade show through Bob Bitchin (I also write a Cruzin' Tunes piece in Lattitudes and Attitudes) The product is fresh, and interesting technology, as is Zarcor, Technautics, and others I am talking to about reviews.

This is certainly a capsule. I am in the computer business. I tinker with boats and sailboats and boat and sailboat related equipment.

As a sidebar, I met with a company last week in Orlando that package a MRE type product that is actually self heating. It seems they claim that the product is dual contained with a hollow outside with lime in it. you fill the hollow outside with water, and it actually heats the meal. I thought it make an interesting ditch bag item, and they gave me a case to try. look like the Chicken Pasta may be pretty good....

To continue, I *NEVER* said that I got more than 79.9AH out of the technology in SolarStik. You said 82AH.

So my next question for you Sailingdog is simple:

If 82AH according to you is the hypothetically best case scenario, is 79.9AH possible? I'll even give you +- 5% for my obviously inexperience in the ways of electron flow.

Is it possible? Sailingdog?


----------



## conchyjoe

PBzeer said:


> The main question ..... what was your methodology for arriving at your stated results. The secondary one concerned your website link to Solar Stik.


Dude, I am really sorry but I have answered both of those questions numerous times. I sincerely mean it when I tell you that you will just have to go back and read through everything.

I have already answered those questions.

Sorry man.


----------



## sailingdog

Conchy Joe-

No, it really isn't because the hypothetical case I suggest doesn't take in to account the losses that are inevitable in any small boat electrical system. You will have losses to the charging system of well over 10%. If we assume a best case loss of only 10%, it would bring the 82 AH to 73.8 AH... and that is assuming that the panels are perfectly aimed, that the sky is perfectly clear, with no dust, haze or clouds, that the day is really fourteen hours long, and that the panels are never shadowed... which is a total crock of BS... and would never happen in real world conditions. 

A sailboat at anchor is going to move constantly, if in only small amounts... these movements will throw off the "perfect aim" of the panels. A sailboat has a significant number of things that are likely to shadow the panels, unless the wind and sun cooperate. It is highly unlikely that the wind and sun would cooperate for any significant period of time.

Evaluating a complex solar panel-based charging system, and giving accurate and honest information about it may well be beyond your current capabilities... It certainly seems so from many of the statements you made on this thread. 

You may be qualified to talk about SCUBA gear, and general sailing/boating gear, but right now, it seems to most of the people on this thread that all you're really doing is parroting the SolarStik marketing materials, instead of doing a genuine, independent review of the product. 

I also notice that again, you've dodged some pertinent points raised in my previous posts:

Does ConchyJoe charge for advertising? 

If so, how can you claim to be uncompensated when reviewing the product of one of your advertisers?? 

Is the SolarStik a paid banner ad? It certainly appears to be... and only one of two on your site. 

Why don't you take the product and really write an independent review of it... and publish it with facts, data, photos, and testing methodologies? That would gain you a lot more credibility as a product reviewer. But, I would recommend that you at least learn a bit of the basics when it comes to electricity, and the physics and terminology used when discussing it. Your earlier confusion really damaged any possible credibility you had in terms of a useful, relevant reviewer of this product. The fact that what you've said directly contradicts what BlueSky even says about thier own product, which is a major component of the SolarStik makes you look like an idiot.


----------



## sailingdog

conchyjoe said:


> PERSONAL ATTACK- DELETED QUOTE


Ummm. I guess that proves my point... 

and no, I'm not a Brit.. EDITED
And who was whining about personal attacks earlier...


----------



## LaLeLu

sailingdog said:


> Ummm. I guess that proves my point...
> 
> EDITED. and no, I'm not a Brit.. EDITED
> And who was whining about personal attacks earlier...


Sailing Dog - I believe that only you fail to see that this thread is an ego thing with you. How about we let Sailing Dog win? You certainly have more tenacity than any other poster on this thread. Get over yourself already.


----------



## LaLeLu

camaraderie said:


> *You already established numerous time that you live in a box, and are on this board to simply argue with people, which is fine with me, so post away, the links are meaningless to me.
> *


*

YOU, CAMARADERIE, are arguing about something you have no personal, first hand knowledge of, so fire away, your posts are meaningless to me.*


----------



## camaraderie

*Maybe A Break In The Mystery????*

_
CJoe...reading your "technical summary" post above it occurred to me that there may be an alternate explanation for our disagreement. Let me highlight in bold the section of that post which I refer to AND a segment of the BlueSky controller description you posted yesterday and a couple of other quotes you made in the last 24 hours that got me thinking:
_*CJ-"I will once again submit that I saw a maximum of 79.9AH out of the SolarStik"
"I stand by what I have reported all along. 79.9AH maximum in one day. 0AH after the sun went down"
"I measured the output of the panels AND the output of the charge controller buy observing the digital meter ON the charge controller."*
*
BlueSky-"The display shows battery voltage, solar panel current and output charge current" 
********************************************************
**Here is the new possibility:*
Since you have stated that your measurement was only done with the charge controller display...you simply READ the display wrong at some point on that sunny day and momentarily were reading 7.99 AMPS rather than 79.9 AMP HOURS.*

THE BLUE SKY DISPLAY DOES NOT AND CANNOT MEASURE AMP HOURS...It only measures output charge current which is AMPS!! 

Tell me I am right and we can forget the last gazillion posts. If I am wrong then we...
*1. Need to know how YOU measured AMP HOURS since you stated the charge controller was the only device used and that is where you got your reading.

2. Need to give you 30 lashes for once again confusing electrical terms.
*



*


----------



## sailingdog

Susan-

I was actually interested in finding out whether Conchy Joe is really an "uncompensated" product reviewer, and what his qualifications are. His basic errors with the fundamentals of electrical theory had me wondering about whether he was at all qualified to write a review about a product. The fact that almost all of what he wrote *was either cribbed from the SolarStik marketing materials or factually questionable made me wonder what is really going on. 
*
It didn't help his case that whenever anyone had a pertinent and relevant criticism, he accused them of attacking him personally.

Finally, he said that the military was able to get 100 AH out of one in Kuwait during a 16-hour day.


conchyjoe said:


> Sailingdog, I did verify and can mention that around 100AH has been achieved by the Military. However that was in the Kuwait Desert when they had about 16 hour days.
> 
> Just an FYI.


However, due to Kuwait's geographic location, unless the Earth stopped spinning for a bit, it isn't possible for Kuwait to have a 16-hour day-ever.

So either he is lying through his teeth or exxagerating to the point where there is no real difference, which seems to be the more plausible option, or the Earth miraculously stopped so that the military could get 16 hours of sunlight in Kuwait...

Or, finally, he read the display on the BlueSky controller as Cam has pointed out and is too ignorant to realize the difference between Amps and Amp-hours... which is quite similar to a mistake he has already admitted to.

BTW, I am not attacking Conchy Joe, even though I am using words that are less than glowing to describe him... but describing the situation as I see it, accurately.


----------



## conchyjoe

sailingdog said:


> Blah blah blah blah


What are your credentials dog?

Hello?

Answer my question.

I already answered yours. My site was paid for be me. Nobody has paid to advertise on it. Nobody.

Now answer mine. What are your credentials? Dog? Own a boat? Sailboat?

Come on now, we are waiting.......


----------



## sailingdog

Conchy Joe-

I've already answered those questions, and most of the people on this site know my credentials, and I've posted on a wide range of subjects on these forums.


----------



## camaraderie

LeLaLu...LOL...THOSE AREN'T MY WORDS YOU QUOTED...the post you attributed quoted from me was actually a quote from your buddy CJOE in several posts above mine. Are you turning on your friends now!!??

By the way...I don't have any experience directly with time machines either but I know they don't work as claimed by some either.


----------



## sailingdog

Cam-

I'd also point out that CJ did clearly attack me...he called me British... damn.. that's almost as bad as being called French... or Portugese...


----------



## camaraderie

SailingDog...you are wrong about Cjoes website stats. It is entirely possible to have 25000 hits and very little traffic. Many people mistakenly associate hits to mean VISITS to the Site by individuals OR Page views. Neither is true and NO ADVERTISER pays for HITS. 
A hit is a download of a specific element on a single web page!! Looking at this web page just once by one person would generate perhaps 100 or more hits. 
So...I think you need to withdraw your charges about CJoe being a compensated commercial poster. He has said he is not AND I can tell you that NO advertiser is going to pay for space on a site with 100 registered users and 400 posts. As he said...it is a young site so that is not a slam. Just the fact.


----------



## sailingdog

No problem with that... but the wording seemed awfully commercial to me... 

Most good websites I know get that many hits in a day, if not more.... 

However, the website is quite dated in some ways... Frames are so 1990s as a website design technique. I prefer CSS-based layout and websites.


----------



## wind_magic

*Fight Club Redux*

Hey, what are we fighting about ? I don't feel like reading the last 43 pages to find out.

But I enjoy a good fight and don't want to miss out on the fun.


----------



## camaraderie

Wind_Magic...Welcome to Solar_Magic!! <g>


----------



## PBzeer

Fight? Heck, I'm just trying to figure out if this is really the best thing since sliced bread. Though, I must admit, I don't do much sailing in the Kuwaiti desert, nor the Saudi Arabian capital, so I obviously don't have much experience with using solar in those areas. In the meantime, I guess I'll just watch my wind generator spin around. Can't tell you what it actually outputs, but it works for me. And that's all that matters.


----------



## conchyjoe

sailingdog said:


> No problem with that... but the wording seemed awfully commercial to me...
> 
> Most good websites I know get that many hits in a day, if not more....
> 
> However, the website is quite dated in some ways... Frames are so 1990s as a website design technique. I prefer CSS-based layout and websites.


Still waiting on your credentials dog......

Where is your website exactly?


----------



## conchyjoe

camaraderie said:


> SailingDog...you are wrong about Cjoes website stats. It is entirely possible to have 25000 hits and very little traffic. Many people mistakenly associate hits to mean VISITS to the Site by individuals OR Page views. Neither is true and NO ADVERTISER pays for HITS.
> A hit is a download of a specific element on a single web page!! Looking at this web page just once by one person would generate perhaps 100 or more hits.
> So...I think you need to withdraw your charges about CJoe being a compensated commercial poster. He has said he is not AND I can tell you that NO advertiser is going to pay for space on a site with 100 registered users and 400 posts. As he said...it is a young site so that is not a slam. Just the fact.


See, that wasn't so bad Cam, I can deal with that. I think it is the other way around though, not sure myself.

I don't have anything to hide. It is a young site, and more of an experiment if you will.
but obviously Mr. Sailingdog does not have anything other than the mostly off subject comments about style sheets and such, but I still can't find a shred of evidence in a considerable amount of 5000 some odd blah blah blah blowhard posts Mr Sailingdog has made.

I'll ask the question again:

Mr. Sailingdog, please list your credentials, website, or something that shows you are more than just a web troll.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## xort

On Conky Joes site..."We are pushing our message out to the community"
Mr. Bob Stuke certainly has that right.


----------



## Giulietta

sailingdog said:


> Cam-
> 
> I'd also point out that CJ did clearly attack me...he called me British... damn.. that's almost as bad as being called French... or Portugese...


Hey...I'm staying away from this thread on purpose...I don't use any of that solar stuff, or any stuff that makes the boat heavy....so its not intersting to me, other than the educational purpose I get...I have learnt how to offend people by reading this....I'm just learning... 

HOWEVER....being called Portuguese is not offensive...it's an honour!!!


----------



## conchyjoe

xort said:


> On Conky Joes site..."We are pushing our message out to the community"
> Mr. Bob Stuke certainly has that right.


Yep, That's me.

Who are you?

I have nothing to hide.

What about you?


----------



## conchyjoe

Giulietta said:


> Hey...I'm staying away from this thread on purpose...I don't use any of that solar stuff, or any stuff that makes the boat heavy....so its not intersting to me, other than the educational purpose I get...I have learnt how to offend people by reading this....I'm just learning...
> 
> HOWEVER....being called Portuguese is not offensive...it's an honour!!!


Especially considering the coastline you have. Sailors all around..... Pretty country.


----------



## Giulietta

conchyjoe said:


> Especially considering the coastline you have. Sailors all around..... Pretty country.


Ufffff what a relief....   Safe.....

I thought you (or someone else) was going to ask if I had a web page, or if I had to show my "credentials"....  

I have none...wait...I have a blog that Cam made for me...but no one goes there....its about sailing   

And its true...we are very very very good extraordinaire sailors....my son can prove that


----------



## xort

conchyjoe said:


> Yep, That's me.
> 
> Who are you?
> 
> I have nothing to hide.
> 
> What about you?


I am a skeptic.

I asked you to identify yourself a million posts ago and you ignored that but now you state you have nothing to hide.


----------



## conchyjoe

Giulietta said:


> Ufffff what a relief....   Safe.....
> 
> I thought you (or someone else) was going to ask if I had a web page, or if I had to show my "credentials"....
> 
> I have none...wait...I have a blog that Cam made for me...but no one goes there....its about sailing
> 
> And its true...we are very very very good extraordinaire sailors....my son can prove that


Yes, you are correct on all fronts. but unlike Xort and Sailingdog, who direct, misdirect, can't read and ask the same question over and over and over, you are level headed and come off as intelligent.

Xort, and Sailingdog you win. I'm nobody too you two, and I thank the good lord for that.

PS. Pretty boat Gui.


----------



## conchyjoe

xort said:


> I am a skeptic.
> 
> I asked you to identify yourself a million posts ago and you ignored that but now you state you have nothing to hide.


Read through the posts, it's in there. Twice.

Illiterate is no way to go through life.


----------



## xort

I did read through the thread and your name is not mentioned.

You did post in your bio here that you have had an OUPV since you were 18. But on your Licence to Chill site you post the following...

4/16/05 - 4/24/05

I start my Captains License program. Laurie got this for me as a Birthday present and it is the best Birthday present I have ever got. The class is 54 hours spread over 10 days.

It turns out that one of the guys in the class, Jeff Winters, grew up near me, and we know the same people. Small world.

The class and instructor, Captain Joe Richbourg, were a great learning experience. This license, called a OUPV, or Operator of Uninspected Passenger Vessel, gives me Captain privileges on vessels up to 100 tons. I highly recommend SeaSchool if you have a desire to get your captains license, or just learn more about boating. The website is Frm-Home page.


----------



## PBzeer

To illustrate Cam's post on website traffic, here are my numbers for the month of March:

Month 
Mar 2007
Unique Visitors
173
Number of Visits
199
Pages
520
Hits
699

I believe that fully illustrates the point he was making, and should leave no confusion about the subject.


----------



## camaraderie

Cjoe....did you see my post#425 above? Could that be the problem?


----------



## camaraderie

Xort...chankging the subject for a minute. RE: OUPV...in addition to the class and the written tests..is there a practical on water component to the license or sea time requirement? They teach a course around here too and I've been thinking about doing it.


----------



## tomaz_423

Giulietta said:


> Ufffff what a relief....   Safe.....
> 
> I thought you (or someone else) was going to ask if I had a web page, or if I had to show my "credentials"....
> 
> I have none...wait...I have a blog that Cam made for me...but no one goes there....its about sailing
> 
> And its true...we are very very very good extraordinaire sailors....my son can prove that


Giu, 
I must disagree with "no one goes there". I have read your blog. All of it. I always wanted to learn more about your boat. It is a hell of a sailing machine. 
But since you are not American - could you please try to help me understand the difference between:
"Non-compensated commercial product reviewer " and
"Non-competent commercial product reviewer"
I am more and more confused.

Maybee I should take some more English class.


----------



## conchyjoe

xort said:


> I did read through the thread and your name is not mentioned.
> You did post in your bio here that you have had an OUPV since you were 18. But on your Licence to Chill site you post the following...
> 4/16/05 - 4/24/05
> I start my Captains License program. Laurie got this for me as a Birthday present and it is the best Birthday present I have ever got. The class is 54 hours spread over 10 days.
> It turns out that one of the guys in the class, Jeff Winters, grew up near me, and we know the same people. Small world.
> The class and instructor, Captain Joe Richbourg, were a great learning experience. This license, called a OUPV, or Operator of Uninspected Passenger Vessel, gives me Captain privileges on vessels up to 100 tons. I highly recommend SeaSchool if you have a desire to get your captains license, or just learn more about boating. The website is Frm-Home page.


you never asked me my name *EDITED PERSONAL ATTACK* Besides, it is right there on the website. No brain surgery there.

And that was the second time I took the class not the first. I did not have enough days and had to let it lapse for about 10 years. Didn't need it anyway, still don't need it, but it is nice to have.

I would ask you when you gort yours, but you would just dodge it like every direct question I have asked you *EDITED PERSONAL ATTACK*

So tell me?


----------



## soul searcher

Cam, OUPV Operator uinspected passsenger vessel.
Seatime requirement of 360 days underway can be self documented.
no practical test on any license as far as I know.
This license is good for up to six passengers, vessel size has nothing to do with it. you could take out th QE II as long as you have 6 people or less.
If you put 7 passengers on the boat then you have to have a license that reflects the tonnage of the boat. And the boat has to be inspected by the USCG, and meet all the critieria in the CFRs for construction and arangement.
Tonnage is revenue tons and has nothing to do with displacement of the boat. The largest 100 ton boat I was an officer on was 200 feet long 44 feet wide and displaced some were around 850 tons.
the joke around here is that as far as the USCG is conserned its OK to drown 
six people but not ok to drown seven.

Matt


----------



## PBzeer

Joe, joe, joe, why the need for name calling? Especially since you're the one that brought up literacy. Erudite people have no need for gutter talk. But then, by their words, shall ye know them.


----------



## hellosailor

With malice towards none, I remind the group of Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli's famous remark before Parliament. He said (from memory):
"Gentlemen, half the members of this house are asses."
When Parliament later demanded his apology, he gave it saying:
"Gentlemen, I apologize. Half the members of this house are not asses."

Please...may we at least have some shadow of proper restraint and decorum here? The facts and positions, whatever they may be or however they may be lacking, have been brough up solidly enough for any reader to take note of. Whether anyone is/not compensated/associated really doesn't matter. What matters, is what we can't seem to get a good measure on. The performance of the Solar Stik.

But since Sailnet, our host and sponsor, is a chandlery and chandleries should be interested in testing and selling hot new products...Perhaps someone at Sailnet could be asked to obtain a couple of SolarStiks and send them around for some reality testing? One would hope the manufacturer would be willing to lend a few to a chandlery. I'd be glad to give one a place in the sun and load test it for a couple of weeks.


----------



## PBzeer

Excellent idea hello, and as I am embarking upon my cruise in a couple of weeks, I'd volunteer as well.


----------



## Valiente

My ISP stopped carrying Usenet about 18 months ago, probably figuring newsgroups and list-servs were passe. But the turn this thread has taken reminds me of alt.rec.cruising and a couple of buffoons who went by "Capt. Neal" and "JAXAshby".

Man, I don't miss those guys one bit.


----------



## camaraderie

Matt...Thanks for the info on the 6-pack. Well, if I can self document, that requirement will be no problem. Sounds like the class would be interesting and the license might be handy to have.

*All...This thread has indeed turned from an argument about products to unwarranted personal attacks. Again...I warn all that such attacks will not be tolerated and that individuals may expect consequences for their actions. *


----------



## PBzeer

Oh Cam, we just love it when you're forceful!


----------



## sailingdog

Valiente said:


> My ISP stopped carrying Usenet about 18 months ago, probably figuring newsgroups and list-servs were passe. But the turn this thread has taken reminds me of alt.rec.cruising and a couple of buffoons who went by "Capt. Neal" and "JAXAshby".
> 
> Man, I don't miss those guys one bit.


Valiente-

Capt. Neal was one major reason I stopped monitoring the Usenet groups. Unfortunately, he's still alive and well on them...


----------



## sailingdog

soul searcher said:


> Cam, OUPV Operator uinspected passsenger vessel.
> Seatime requirement of 360 days underway can be self documented.
> no practical test on any license as far as I know.
> This license is good for up to six passengers, vessel size has nothing to do with it. you could take out th QE II as long as you have 6 people or less.
> If you put 7 passengers on the boat then you have to have a license that reflects the tonnage of the boat. And the boat has to be inspected by the USCG, and meet all the critieria in the CFRs for construction and arangement.
> Tonnage is revenue tons and has nothing to do with displacement of the boat. The largest 100 ton boat I was an officer on was 200 feet long 44 feet wide and displaced some were around 850 tons.
> the joke around here is that as far as the USCG is conserned its OK to drown
> six people but not ok to drown seven.
> 
> Matt


Matt-

Of course it's okay to drown crew, since they don't count towards the six-pack limit IIRC.


----------



## Giulietta

tomaz_423 said:


> Giu,
> I must disagree with "no one goes there". I have read your blog. All of it. I always wanted to learn more about your boat. It is a hell of a sailing machine.
> But since you are not American - could you please try to help me understand the difference between:
> "Non-compensated commercial product reviewer " and
> "Non-competent commercial product reviewer"
> I am more and more confused.
> 
> Maybee I should take some more English class.


Thanks for seeing my blog...you must have been the only one...  I'm happy you like my boat...it was a lifetime dream come true...thank you.. 

Me too confused....  

I'm keeping a low profile on this one...I am resisting the urge to photoshop.....I trully am.....no photoshop....


----------



## wind_magic

sailingdog said:


> soul searcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> the joke around here is that as far as the USCG is conserned its OK to drown six people but not ok to drown seven.
> 
> 
> 
> Matt-
> 
> Of course it's okay to drown crew, since they don't count towards the six-pack limit IIRC.
Click to expand...

You can drown as many of them as you want, you just can't drown them all at once e.g. if you want to drown 10 then you have to take 6 out, drown them, then go back for the other 4.


----------



## PBzeer

Don't worry Giu, I read the whole blog as well.


----------



## Giulietta

Thank you PB...in that case you have a 4 week NO PHOTOSHOP certificate!!!!


----------



## sailortjk1

Hey I read the original article, I even printed it and gave it for my wife to read. I read it in Portugueese and English so I would not miss anything in the translation.


----------



## Giulietta

Read what??


----------



## sailortjk1

The article in the magazine about your boat.


----------



## Giulietta

Ahhhhhhhh sorry....thought it was the article on the solar things...

Ahhh thank you Sailortjk....I really thank you...I thought no one read it...has no comments...

Anyway, thank you...did you like it?? Cam still has to do the article on the second magazine

Where did you get the Portuguese version??


----------



## sailortjk1

I think your losing it, let me see, I GOT IT FROM YOU.


----------



## Giulietta

ahhh..off course..

In that case...you are also entiteld to a 4 week without PHOTOSHOP courtesy
of Giulietta!!!

ehehehehe


----------



## PBzeer

Giu - not many people seem to comment on the blogs. Don't know why, just seems they don't.


----------



## Giulietta

PBzeer said:


> Giu - not many people seem to comment on the blogs. Don't know why, just seems they don't.


Pffff that's because they either can't read...or can't write


----------



## CosmosMariner

camaraderie said:


> Cosmos...Good post with a real world example. I don't think that ANYONE is suggesting solar doesn't work. Only that you can't get more than the rated power out of a panel no matter what you mount it on.
> 225 watts of fixed panels should be capable of generating an average of 50-60 amps a day which is plenty to run a modest cruising boat. The Bahamas give a lot more sun than a lot of other locales so adding the wind vane is a good idea for his future plans. My own experience was that a wind vane in the Bahamas actually gave me more amps than my 160W solar array...but that was in winter so in summer I might not have gotten much from the wind.
> Is he planning on a Cat27 circumnavigation??? What is he going to do to beef her up?


Thanks for the kind words. I try to stick to the topic at hand and as the Native American Chief said as he was being sworn in to testify before Congress, 'I can not tell you the Truth, I can only tell you what I know.' By the way, I don't question the fact that if you can keep the solar array at right angles to the sun you will 'maximize' the production of power. In my experience though there isn't enough of a difference to make it worth my while to install an auto tracking system or to move the array manually on my boat or my house. I have tracked power production by the hour at my house and calculated the performance %. From sun-up to sun-down there is a hperbolic curve of almost even distribution from 30% to nearly 70% back to 30%. Total for the day is more than I use so I see no need to add an auto tracker. Same is true on my boat 'Wu-Hsin'.

When my son makes the next trip he will be doing it in a different boat. He is currently looking for a seaworthy design in the 32 - 37 ft range. Any structural modifications will necessarily depend on which boat he buys. The 1979 Watkins 27 he made the Bahamas cruise in was a little light in his opinion even though fully loaded she displaced approximately 10,000 lbs. He spent one night off Cape Fear NC in 55mph winds and several days in various places where wind and wave action moved 'Walkabout' around more than he liked. So he wants more design displacement and a little more water line length to add to the 'comfort factor'. While he has grown up on my boats and is a fine sailor I suggested he get some 'in command' time under his keel to determine what he likes/what works 'for him'. This past trip was a great success for many reasons. He not only got to try out his theories and assumptions but gained alot of perspective from the other 450 boat crews in the harbor in George Town Exumas where he anchored for 2 months. The most common non engine driven recharging systems were solar and wind. Types and brands varied and mounting systems varied also. I spoke to him today and he confirmed that he will go again with solar panels probably 3 130 to 150 watt (rated  ) fixed mounted because of their simplicity of design and nearly zero maintenance with no moving parts. He was advised by sailors with both wind and solar that when they were in the doldrums or in windless weather patterns for 7-8 days or in winds too light to generate power, solar was their savior. He himself observed several days in George Town between March and May that the normally constant Trades didn't blow and the boats that only had wind generators had to run engines. So the combination of wind and solar will cover all circumstances he is likely to encounter. He will also replace lights with LED versions because of the low current draw. He will be factoring in the load of a SSB as well.

CosmosMariner


----------



## sailingdog

Cosmosmariner-

Have a couple of good suggestions for boats for your son to look at, which were from a post on another thread:



> If I were you, I'd be looking at the Elizabethan 33, Southern Cross 35, Hallberg Rassy Rasmus 35, or the Alberg 37 (which came in yawl and sloop rigs IIRC).


Note, that these are just a few of the boats that would be good candidates for your son. I'd also add the Contessa 32, which is a rock solid boat.

I'm in the process of converting all the lighting, cabin and nav, over to LEDs right now. The SSB isn't all that much a load, until you start transmitting. In receive mode, most are fairly conservative in their energy use.


----------



## tenuki

Sort of off topic, but just feeling happy that in today's age of long commutes, jet travel and sci-fi extravagance some people are turning off motors.


----------



## CosmosMariner

Sailingdog, Thanks for the leads, all sound good but are out of the price range. Southern Cross 31 and 35 would do fine if he can get a deal on one. Assuming the boat comes with no equipment on it his must have short list starts with solar panels, wind generator, SSB, Sextant, GPS. So he can put most of the money into the boat itself. Contessa is rock solid but too 'wet' basically a folkboat on steroids


----------



## sailingdog

Good description of the Contessa...and accurate too...  What's his budget??? If you give me an idea... I'll make some more suggestions...


----------



## CosmosMariner

tenuki said:


> Sort of off topic, but just feeling happy that in today's age of long commutes, jet travel and sci-fi extravagance some people are turning off motors. [/QUOTE
> 
> Yup! That's why we 'sail' not 'power'. Auxilliary powered Sail boats were the first Hybrid vehicles. However just because I'm out on a sailboat doesn't mean I'm out of the 21st century. I like the modern electrical aids to living but first consideration has to be given to the Sea. 'The Ocean is not inherently malevolent, just very unforgiving.' You cannot negotiate with or Bulls**t the ocean. That's why I go with the simplest systems I can because they will all fail in the marine environment. I could go without any electronics and be happy. In 4 years in the Navy I learned that heat and humidity are the enemy of electronics and where I want to sail there is plenty of both. I also learned that the law of conservation of matter and energy still applies and you cannot get 100% efficient conversion of sunlight to electricity or wind or any other energy source. So i go with the ones that make sense for me and try to keep it simple.


----------



## wind_magic

camaraderie said:


> Cosmos...Good post with a real world example. I don't think that ANYONE is suggesting solar doesn't work. Only that you can't get more than the rated power out of a panel no matter what you mount it on.


Hey cam, just a fun/picky technical point, you can actually get more than the rated power out of a solar panel. One way to do it is to put the panel under a giant magnifier and focus a larger area of sunlight on it.


----------



## CosmosMariner

$20 - 25k.


----------



## CosmosMariner

Wind magic, that's what I mean about the ocean you can't get nitpickey. But a good point...what are the factors in the rating of any product...have to knoe them or its apples and oranges.


----------



## Valiente

wind_magic said:


> Hey cam, just a fun/picky technical point, you can actually get more than the rated power out of a solar panel. One way to do it is to put the panel under a giant magnifier and focus a larger area of sunlight on it.


Hmm...don't get me thinking here. Does that mean you could conceivably put some sort of lensing dome over your fixed panels and thus redirect angled sunlight at an optimum angle?

Or keep 'em in the bilges and use a sun tunnel skylight!

VELUX SUN TUNNEL™ Skylights - Welcome to VELUX America


----------



## CosmosMariner

I think it is the number of photons striking the panel that makes a difference but while solar panels tend to produce better in warmer conditions we might run into trouble with melting parts at some point.


----------



## sailingdog

Cosmos-

Here are a few suggestions in his price range-

Bristol 32 
Westsail 32
Allied Luders 33
Contest 33
Allied Seabreeze 34
Bristol 33 or 34

This list is order of my preference.. hope that helps. BTW, I like the Bristol 32 over the 33 and 34... think it is a bit more comfortable at sea, IMHO. Of these, the Contest 33 is probably going to be the "fastest" of them... but I doubt any of them are speed demons in anyone's opinion. 


BTW, solar panels start to get less efficient at producing electricity as they warm up... keeping them cooler helps... which is why the manufacturers often suggest mounting them on brackets...so air can circulate under them.


----------



## CosmosMariner

I too like the Bristols. I like the Westsail but they are out of the price range. Allied Seabreeze another good one. Now to find one in the price range.

I have my house mounted panels mounted on synthetic 1 x 6 to keep them from getting too hot. They do perform better above freezing though so there must be an optimum temperature range. Again, whatever the details in practical application over the past 8 years I get the performance expected. I believe in the 80/20 rule...you can spend 80%of the cost getting the last 20 % so in all my systems I look for the break even point and if I get that I'm happy.


----------



## sailingdog

Actually, I found most of the boats I just recommended by doing this search.

There was a Westsail on the list of boats returned in that search. The search criteria had a price range of $20-30k, but I figure that the asking price isn't what your son would be paying for the boat... unless he screws up.


----------



## CosmosMariner

Hey that site had alot of boats and 2 Westsails! Well, this old man is calling it quits for tonight. fair winds!


----------



## sailingdog

Glad to help Cosmos..


----------



## tigerregis

Kumbaya, now folks where has all sh*tflinging gone. This is for another area, i.e. 
buying a boat. If you don't have anything nasty to say, go to SA.


----------



## camaraderie

*Cosmos*...sounds llike your son has a good plan. I used to own a Catalina 27 so I was shuddering a bit about the thought of him circumnavigating on one! <g>

Wind...you're being too fun/picky technical!! <g> I tried using one of those lenses...









Just kidding! <g>


----------



## sailingdog

Cam-

Let me guess, you used to torch ants with a magnifying glass as a kid too..  Great...just what we need a solar-powered pyro...


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Hi All,
I've been living on the hook for two years now. I have 400 watts of solar and 100 watts of wind (Ampair 100). Now that the days are sunny and longer, I have ample power, mostly from the solar. I use about 150 to 175v amp-hours each day for computer / fridge / lights / etc. My battery bank is small (total of 300 Ah of which I only like to use the "top" 100 amps) so I have to generate what I use each day. One key to effective solar is being able to tilt/turn panels to track the sun. I take a break from work each hour or so to manually track. 

Hope this helps,

Jeff


----------



## hellosailor

Wind Magic-
Actually, you can't exceed the rated power output of a solar panel by adding magnifiers, or a second sun, or anything like that. If you understand the ratings--they are a rating based on standard conditions, including a standard light source. They simply don't apply to non-standard environments or other clever tricks. 
I've seen reports that with extensive use of reflectors, tracking, etc. you can sometimes exceed the rated output for a limited time each day, and a limited amount. But exceeding it by 80% and doing that from sunrise to sunset stretches my credulity. I'd just LOVE to see some objective and unquestionable numbers backing that up, since it would mean that solar was nearly twice as cheap (cost-effective) for everyone INCLUDING ME!


----------



## sailingdog

Unfortunately, when it comes to solar panels, there is a lot of misinformation out there.


----------



## camaraderie

Yup...that is why the California rating system came out cause they felt the mfr. test conditions were way too optimistic even though the mfr. system is still what is advertised. Under the California "real world" testing the actual performance of ANY panel is almost always significantly less than the mfr. gives. Dog posted the site before but if you want to see how almost any panel performs before you buy...check here...
Eligible Photovoltaic Modules


----------



## sailingdog

Cam-

thanks for the credit, but it was someone else who posted that site 

*EDIT >>>YEP IT WAS CRUISING DAD. Thanks! Cam*


----------



## hellosailor

Cam-
And an interesting note found at 
Solar Electric Panels

"Notice about Sanyo Solar Panels Warranty Issue: As of April 1, 2007, the modified Sanyo warranty states that the warranty will be void if the "average temperature exceeds" -4 degrees or +104 degrees F. Since this applies to about 3/4 of the places where solar panels might be installed in the US, we are no longer recommending the Sanyo panels until we can get some clarification and modification of this. If the current warranty stands as it says, we will no longer sell the Sanyo panels."

And a new technology from Sanyo:

"Power from Both Sides Simultaneously 
Increased power generation compared to our conventional single-sided HIT panels at any angle and any direction. In vertical installations, faced south, power generation is increased 34%. The back side of the panel generates electricity (kWh) from ambient light that has passed through the panel or is reflected off surrounding surfaces.

High Efficiency 
SANYO HIT Double solar panels are a leader in cell and module efficiency. You obtain maximum power within a fixed amount of space. And, depending on your installation design and location albedo, HIT Double panels can capture additional back side ambient light, and can increase your system performance by an additional 10% (or more). You save costs using fewer support materials, wiring, and spend less time installing. These powerful panels are ideal for grid-connected solar systems, areas with performance-based incentives, and renewable energy credits.

Temperature Attributes
As temperatures rise, SANYO HIT Double solar panels produce more electricity than conventional crystalline silicon solar panels at the same temperature. "

(Which probably is not be the one they are talking about in the heat issue.)

And from Real Goods, who have been major vendors of off-the-grid solutions since the 1970's:
http://colorado.realgoodssolar.com/downloads/gaiamrealgoods2004.pdf
"STC or "Name Plate" Ratings: STC stands for Standard Test Conditions. It is the rated output in watts that the manufacturer puts on its photovoltaic (PV) modules under laboratory-perfect conditions."

But let's wait, and see. Does anyone know an email contact at Practical Sailor, to confirm if they are testing the panel, and to ask them about verifying the numbers shown on the controller by another means?


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*FYI*

By Thomas Claburn
InformationWeek

December 6, 2006 02:00 PM

A breakthrough in solar cell technology promises to make solar power a cost-competitive energy option and to reduce U.S. dependence on oil.

With funding from the Department of Energy, Boeing-Spectrolab has managed to create a solar cell with* 40.7% sunlight-to-energy conversion efficiency*, said DoE assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy Alexander Karsner on Tuesday.

The solar cell represents "the highest efficiency level any photovoltaic device has ever achieved," according to David Lillington, president of Spectrolab. That claim has been verified by the DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo.

Most of *today's solar cells are between 12% and 18% efficient*. Some of the ones used to power satellites are around 28% efficient. In 1954, 4% efficiency was state of the art.

High energy prices and environmental concerns are prompting businesses to consider solar power. In October, Google said it planned to install 9,200 solar photovoltaic panels at its Mountain View headquarters in 2007. Google's solar panels, made by Sharp, are 12.8% efficient. It expects to generate 30% of its peak energy usage during the summer from solar power.

Roger


----------



## CosmosMariner

I'd like to know the standard those DOE percentages are based on.


----------



## CosmosMariner

Cam..... the kid has his act together. His Watkins 27 was a very sound choice for the Bahamas cruise but the circumnavigation calls for a different boat. I could tell him or he could get on a forum and get lots of opinions but now he KNOWS from his own experience. And he knows WHY he wants more displacement and why light displacement boats are not for him on the next trip. (now I tie it into this thread) Just like this thread about solar power the discussion of what boats are right for what purposes has many dimensions and opinions. Because of that real life experience he now knows what works (for him) in power generation and he is busy preparing not debating. I love this thread and the info that is being shared and apparently so do alot of other folks or it wouldn't be 50 pages!


----------



## sailingdog

Roger-

Unfortunately, a new breakthrough will take years to get to the commercial marketplace. I doubt we'll see any massive improvement in the solar technology available to us any time soon. 

IIRC, there was another breakthrough announced about five years ago that had made solar photocells that could be put on a cloth substrate, but I've yet to see that come to the marketplace.


----------



## hellosailor

I remember reading about another "exciting new breakthrough" that would revolutionize solar because of new high outputs, vaguely something about research from South Africa. And, curiously enough, investment links.

Not that it was an investment scam...that I know of...but it was supposed to be "imminent" and of course, somehow it just never quite has happened yet.

Reminds me of the spams for hot new petroleum investment opportunities that used to go around.<G>

About DOE ratings? I'm sure you can find those with a web search srilling down through Department of Energy - Homepage.

In the meantime:
From AM Solar - Solar Panels

"How they are rated. 
Panels are rated in Watts of output. This wattage rating is derived by multiplying the panels peak power voltage times its peak power amperage (Watts = Volts x Amps). These ratings are based on standard test conditions (STC) of 1000 watts/square meter of light input, a cell temperature (not air temperature!) of 25 Degrees C (77 Degrees F), and an air mass of 1.5 (slightly above sea level).These standard test conditions are rarely found in "real world" operating conditions. For example: 
_1000 watts/square meter of sunlight would only be reached around solar noon, with the panel squarely facing the sun, just after a rain shower has washed all the dust out of the air. _ [Emphasis mine] "Real world" input is usually around 800 to 850 watts/square meter on a bright day (when you factor in dust and air pollution and consider that the panels are laid flat on the roof and are therefore not square to the sun).

When you consider that solar cells are dark blue to almost black, they soak up sunshine and get quite hot so they are operating at temperatures considerably higher than 25' C (77' F). This increased cell temperature translates into a voltage drop and therefore less output.

The air mass changes as you move from sea level to mountaintop. The atmosphere is thicker at sea level so more sunlight is interrupted by dust and pollution and less gets transformed into solar electricity. Conversely, the same panel operating from a mountaintop will see more intense sunlight and will produce more power. 
This is not to imply that panel manufacturers are purposely trying to deceive you. It is because "real world" operating conditions are so variable that they had to come up with some standard test conditions so that all panel ratings "


----------



## sailingdog

> Panels are rated in Watts of output. This wattage rating is derived by multiplying the panels peak power voltage times its peak power amperage (Watts = Volts x Amps). These ratings are based on standard test conditions (STC) of 1000 watts/square meter of light input, a cell temperature (not air temperature!) of 25 Degrees C (77 Degrees F), and an air mass of 1.5 (slightly above sea level).These standard test conditions are rarely found in "real world" operating conditions. For example:
> _1000 watts/square meter of sunlight would only be reached around solar noon, with the panel squarely facing the sun, just after a rain shower has washed all the dust out of the air. _ [Emphasis mine] "Real world" input is usually around 800 to 850 watts/square meter on a bright day (when you factor in dust and air pollution and consider that the panels are laid flat on the roof and are therefore not square to the sun).
> 
> When you consider that solar cells are dark blue to almost black, they soak up sunshine and get quite hot so they are operating at temperatures considerably higher than 25' C (77' F). This increased cell temperature translates into a voltage drop and therefore less output.
> 
> The air mass changes as you move from sea level to mountaintop. The atmosphere is thicker at sea level so more sunlight is interrupted by dust and pollution and less gets transformed into solar electricity. Conversely, the same panel operating from a mountaintop will see more intense sunlight and will produce more power.
> This is not to imply that panel manufacturers are purposely trying to deceive you. It is because "real world" operating conditions are so variable that they had to come up with some standard test conditions so that all panel ratings "


And some people were wondering why we were scoffing at daily outputs that seemed to require perfect output from the SolarStik panels. I've seen how hot the solar panels can get, and mine run relatively cool, since they have a huge airspace beneath them and around them.

Add in the atmospheric dust, air pollution, imperfections in aiming them... and it isn't any wonder why anyone should doubt any results claiming to get more than 100W output from 100 W solar panels.


----------



## hellosailor

Hey, SD, I've got a "Solar Cup" I can sell you. It consists of a rugged mounting pole with one 50-watt rated solar panel on it, and a ten foot diameter mirrored parabolic array that concentrates sunlight 10x on it, so I can get 500 watts out of it.

Now, you're going to protest that's impossible because the heat would make the panel combust, but we've thought of that too, there's a neat liquid-nitrogen cooling tube array integrated into the bottom of the panel, and you can buy liquid nitrogen refill cartridges from us anytime you need them. <WEG>

Now look what you've done, my Evil Twin Brother has jumped in the thread!


----------



## sailingdog

HS... let me guess.. the solar panel cup powers the compressor for the liquid nitrogen cooling system and only uses 450 Watts of power to do it..


----------



## captainchetco

Real world experience: Two friends of mine have just passed through the Suez Canal after sailing in the Pacific since 1997. They have two fixed mount solar panals on the coach roof, subject to frequent shading... I belive they are 1995 vintage 100w Siemens, but may be Arcos. They also purchased two 40w Unisolar flexible panals. For over 7 years, they actually got more power from the Unisolars, because they would move them to whatever location was unshaded. 
The Unisolars were delaminating (i think both, but maybe just one) and their output was dropping. They wanted 3 more to replace them, but alas, Unisolar had gotten out of the consumer flexible panal business, and were no longer available. They bought a wind generator.


----------



## captainchetco

A question I should have asked before? What is the state of the flexible panal industry & approach now?


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*My complaint*

After reading 51 pages tonight while getting some chores done, i must register my complaint. I've lurked here more than a year, learning a lot, sad to post this.

This site is becoming like sailing anarchy. A newcomer says something that causes a frequent poster to make a personal remark, a fight ensues, and several join the fight to defend their comrade, while other frequent posters try to hijack the thread because everyone is embarrassed.

After a year, i see a trend of more of the above. Tell me that i'm wrong. I still have a lot to learn, and this is still a great place. I hope it stays that way.
I think you can tell someone you think they're a shill with better manners, and certainly less adjectives. How many fights have you been in? Why?

My newbie vote is for higher standards.


----------



## SimonV

I have read this tread more than once.

Could some one tell me should I spend $1200 on a wind generator or $850 each for a 120w solar panel would need 2.


----------



## sailingdog

SimonV-

It depends... most boats are best off with a mix of wind and solar, since sunless days often have wind, and some sunny days have no wind. It also depends on what boat you're on. A smaller boat may be better off with two solar panels, if they can find a reasonable way to mount them. Wind generators need to have clearance so that they don't chop the crew in to chum... A larger boat, which generally has a larger electrical bank and higher electrical demands will usually be best off with both, and you can usually accommodate both on it. 

Is the area you sail in normally sunny, then get the Solar Panels. If not, then go for the wind generator.


----------



## SimonV

SD
I am working on the budget for buying the boat, setting it up and sailing from the US to Australia I will be on the boat most of the time (I hope), my only thought is if there is no wind then I will be on the motor no problem, the wind generator will be on a 10' pole at the stern.


----------



## camaraderie

Simon...I agree that both would be way better but if I were forced to choose, I would get a large blade wind generator...perhaps one that had a tow water-generator option since you will be passagemaking. Don't buy your wind generator on price. Look at the power curves and get something that has the best output in the 8-12K range. Only a very small % of worldwide winds are over 20 knots and if you don't maximize output below 15k you will be disappointed.


----------



## SimonV

Cam ,
The one I looked at is the Rutland 913, claimes to be the most cost effective $'s for Amp's.


----------



## sailingdog

Cam-

On a small boat, solar panels are probably a better choice.. so it may depend on the boat. A large blade wind gen on the smaller boat is a difficult problem, as it can be hard to find a place to mount one safely. Also, most wind gens need to be mounted fairly high up for safety reasons, and that adds a fair bit of weight aloft. On a smaller boat, solar panels may be better since they don't need to be mounted as high up, and don't present a decapitation hazard. 

This isn't to say that Simon would be better off with solar panels, just that it really depends on the boat in a lot of ways.


----------



## camaraderie

Simon...here is the power curve on the 913...look at the 10-15 knot output.
It is a little less than 2 AMPS at 10 knots and about 4 at 15 knots. 








Now here is the output curves of a bunch of vanes. As you can see...you would need two Rutlands to equal the output of a single one of the better large blade units. (NOTE:This curve is from the 4 winds site so there may be some puffery here...BUT look at the other large blade units too.)


----------



## SimonV

RUTLAND 913

This is the link for the unit I would consider.


----------



## camaraderie

Dawg...I just disagree. You can rig a nice stable pole mount off the back of any vessel and the room required for panel mounts on a small monohull is typically excessive and requires solar stik type solutions. If you can pull 4 amps 24 hours a day that is 90+ amps out of one device. I think the chances of 10 knots of wind or better are about equal to a good sunnny day in THIS case. Might differ elsewhere as you point out.


----------



## SimonV

I tried to post that graph but couldnt, thanks. It true what they say "size matters" the Rutland is only 910mm/3' dia and 10.5kg/23lb.


----------



## SimonV

Using a rough estimit 2x 120W solar panels for 7hrs at 50% gives @ 70Amps, and I need to find 
space of 57' x 50' to mount them. all on a 34 to 37' boat


----------



## sailingdog

Cam-

On a CD25, it might tough to fit a Four Winds as the blade diameter is 60" or so IIRC, but you could probably get a couple of smaller panels in easily enough. 

Your boat is big enough to handle Four Winds and a center cockpit design, so that an aft mounted wind gen isn't a constant hazard. 

It might help if SimonV said what kind of boat he was on.


----------



## EscapadeCaliber40LRC

SimonV - Take a look at this realworld experience with a Rutland 913 albeit in 2002:

Ocean Solar

Theirs disintegrated at high wind speed. I don't know these folks just walked through their website which was pretty impressive.

Personnally I have had good experience with the wind gen I bought last summer on ebay. Its ugly but it is quiet and has handled gust in excess of 30knots nicely. My total investment was about $600, including pole, wiring, paint, unit.

Wind turbines generators sustainable 403 energy wind generaters mills wind mill generator power lakota wind power airx generation Wind turbines wind mills wind power wind power generation


----------



## SimonV

Sorry you blokes are too quick for me. Ill try and keep up!!!


----------



## PBzeer

When I made my choice on aux power generation, I went with a wind generator (Air-X). My reasoning was three-fold. One, mounting. Two, cost. Because I bought through Port Supply, in conjunction with some other major items, I essentially saved enough to pay for the wind genny.

The final thought was, if the sails are up, the wind genny is working. If the sails are down, the engine is doing the charging.

So far, this has worked well for me.


----------



## SimonV

Esc

Nice site. I would hope to have the wind generator in or at least turned off with winds like 68mph and it would be the last thing on my mind if out to sea. The unit might not be the most efficient but Im looking at size and lack of noise.


----------



## EscapadeCaliber40LRC

I am not sure what you mean by "to have the wind generator in" but prethinking tactics for gusty winds say at night in the ITCZ should be a part of your sail planning strategy. "turned off" is also a bit tricky with wind gens, I am not sure they come with on/off switches, mine didn't. You will probably need to tie it with some good stout line to turn it off.


----------



## SimonV

ESC
The new ones do come with an electronic brake.


----------



## wind_magic

What do you guys think of the KISS wind generator ? I've been considering getting that one.


----------



## PBzeer

Best I can tell you wind, is that people I know that have them, like them.


----------



## EscapadeCaliber40LRC

The KISS was on my short list before I selected my ugly ducking Hornet. I was motivated by price in both cases. A friend has the KISS and swears by it. They were from Houston and sailed to the Bahamas where I met them and on to Trinidad. Still running it as far as I know.


----------



## captainchetco

One thing to keep in mind is noise. In various ports, there are a variety of wind generators in operation, with widely different noise output. If you want to have peace for yourself and neighbors, don't get the noisy ones.


----------



## trodzen

*KISS wind gen*

I have the KISS wind gen. I did all the research about 3yrs ago and decided the KISS was the best for my situation. IMO, it is top of the line for the Caribbean type winds. After all, it's built in the Carib for the Carib.

It can get noisy but that is when the wind really starts blowing to much. I can simply flick the switch and she shuts right down. Then it's easy to lock it with a safety line over the prop.

It's not so good for low wind.

I highly recommend it for the right situation. 
Todd
s/v Hestia


----------



## camaraderie

Dawg...well the only thing different about a 4 winds vs. say a rutland on the back of the boat is that it has to be mounted 1ft. higher....30" RADIUS vs. 18" Radius. So to say you can't mount one on a cape dory 25 is to say that about any small boat and any wind vane. Of course a vane is safer on a CC boat since it is out of the way...but no matter WHAT size aft cockpit boat you have the vane needs to be mounted at the same height over the cockpit floor. I don't see any constraint with a smaller boat as 20 pounds on a well braced bole pole is no problem. You need over 200watts in panels on the same size boat to generate what you might normally expect out of a windgen. Again...I personally would want BOTH...but if I had to choose it would be wind. 
The KISS gets rave reviews from the SSCA crowd and the 4-winds performed very well for me.


----------



## wind_magic

camaraderie said:


> The KISS gets rave reviews from the SSCA crowd ...


I had heard that somewhere else, and really that's a good enough endorsement for me. I'll probably settle on the KISS. I'm going to get a wind generator and just fool around with it for a while before I actually put it a boat just to see how it does and get some experience with it. One of the things I really liked about the KISS compared with all the other wind generators I read about was that the guy who makes the KISS doesn't seem like a giant wanker. And that can really make the difference when you buy something.


----------



## Tubsmacker

Well shiver me timbers. The local authority here have now installed what look like Rutland 913 wind generators on the 'slow down' road signs. Given that I have recently been, A/ booked for parking, whilst on what I considered to be legitimate business and B/ booked for speeding to boot, I will be taking orders for the 913 shortly. Please forgive the er... 'commercial nature'of the post


----------



## Kernix

okay - I'm sure I'll get ripped for this, but I'm thinking outside the box - hydro-electric is the easiest - of course the Hoover Dam comes to mind - the whole process is using the movement of water to turn one maget aroung another thus generating electricity. 

I thought once about saying the hell with sociaety and building a log cabin and kliving in the woods - I thought that I'd still want power though - at least to charge power tools, for lights, for a radio and for a freezer \ fridge. I figured I just had to build the cabin close to a stream and create a mini water mill with a magnetized cylinder revolving around a magnetized core - of course I'd have to do some homework and get a electrical engineer involved in the design, but that's it - that's hydro-electric.

So why couldn't the same be done on the back of a sailboat - a device that is up or to the sail except when you need to recharge - get underway to max speed - lower the cylinder and blades in the water - bam, the blades turn the outer core and you have power - is it me - am I crazy - or is it so obvious that something like that has been overlooked?

And don't get back with "well how do you this..." or "how do you that..." - I don't have all the deatils, but basically a small magetized cylinder and core moved by the water (not too deep so as to significantly slow the boat), and someone a transference of the power from the cylinder to a line into the batteries - but then again, it would be the same kind of connection as from the alternators to the battery.

Go ahead - keelhaul me!


----------



## Idiens

Kernix said:


> ... Go ahead - keelhaul me!


No chance. It's already a standard way of getting power when underway, and you are right, it is more efficient than wind generation (the sails are good at converting wind into useful energy. Towed generators are quite common). There's even one that converts from towed to wind by changing propellors.


----------



## wind_magic

The only bad thing I ever heard about the drag along generators were that the animals (sharks, etc) like to come up and take bites on them and can damage them to the point they stop working!


----------



## Idiens

Yea, I think the recommendation is to keep a stock of (expensive) spare spinners and lines, just like with the old patent logs. I wonder if the Duo-Gen has the same problem?


----------



## sailingdog

Kernix-

Hydro electric is fine when you're on a long passage...but generally not all that useful in a harbor or protected anchorage. If you've anchored where there's enough of a tidal current to generate any significant electricity, you've probably anchored in the wrong spot. 

The DuoGen is used right alongside the boat, not towed, so it would probably work in an anchorage, and generally doesn't get eaten by sharks like the towed ones tend to. 

Cam-

How much does the KISS weigh, I thought it was significantly heavier than 20 lbs for the unit itself. Also, how noisy is it. That is one aspect of wind gens I find seriously unappealing. Some of them are very noisy. Solar panels are silent.


----------



## camaraderie

SD...the Kiss weighs 23lbs. , my 4-winds weighed 20. The noise from the big blade stuff is not bad at all. The real problems in noise come from poor mounting procedures. Aside from rubberbushings on the mounts to minimize transmission...the pole itself should tension mounted to any braces so it does not rattle around in operation.


----------



## PBzeer

One of the obvious aspects of wind gennys that hasn't been mentioned, they can work day or night.

Here is the height of mine with the standard mounting kit, mounted directly to the deck rather than with the bracket (which would add about 3 more inches)


----------



## sailingdog

Cam-

Thanks, I'll have to investigate wind gens at some point this summer.


----------



## soul searcher

Don't know if will help any one but I put new blades on my Air x last year.
when I got the blades they had a pretty rough finnish. I sanded them down and they were a lot Quiter. You can also get after market blade sets for different conditions.

Matt


----------



## CosmosMariner

I thought I was done with this thread but I was reading back 20 or so pages to see how we got here. I noticed a comment that I may be able to give some recent real life perspective to. In a prior post someone said:

"Given approx 14.25 hours of visible sunlight (your number was actually 14h 13m) one gets an average current over that time of roughly 6.78 amps per hour. This is a balance of early/late hours with the more intense hours so not to be used as a max or min at any one point in time during the test. Then assuming 100 watts of available power with this averaged current flow, one gets an average voltage of 14.75 Volts. This is the interesting to me number. It sounds high to me."

I looked back in my records and on 3/4/07 at 2pm it was sunny, outside temp in shade was 39 F and the voltage reading was 14.28. At noon - 14.05, 1pm - 14.16, 4pm - 14.18. Also the 6.8 amp calculation is pretty close to my actual experience but I don't record amps so have no data for you on that. This was under a light load with the Engle MT35 running in freezer mode. BTW both my son and I have the same Engle each with the optional insulated 'jacket' and in the nearly 2 years we have owned them they have run constantly and the draw has yet to hit 2.5 amps.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

I'm waiting for fuel cells. Should be available right around the time I'm ready to sail off into the blue...


----------



## CosmosMariner

It's probably another of Murphy's Laws = After you've researched thoroughly and found the best price and buy and install 'it' the next day you will find the technology has changed, it is more effective and cheaper!


----------



## wind_magic

sailingdog said:


> Also, how noisy is it. That is one aspect of wind gens I find seriously unappealing. Some of them are very noisy. Solar panels are silent.


I don't know this yet either, but a certain amount of noise would be okay with me. If it's just a whirling kind of wind sound and not a rattle then I think I would even like it. I know that a lot of people see the solar panels, bicycles, wind generators, etc, as unsightly additions to their otherwise sleek boats, but I don't see it that way. To me those sights and sounds are just part of an appealing nomadic culture that I am not yet a part of, like checkered plastic table cloths, sandles, and the sound of sea birds.


----------



## sailingdog

Wind magic-

Some of the Wind gens I've seen sound like banshees... not cool at all for a quiet anchorage where other people are trying to enjoy the peace and quiet.


----------



## PBzeer

Doesn't seem to be a problem with my Air-X. While it's not totally silent, neither is it obtrusively loud either.


----------



## sailortjk1

The Ruland 913 is very quite.


----------



## Kernix

sailingdog said:


> Kernix-
> 
> Hydro electric is fine when you're on a long passage...but generally not all that useful in a harbor or protected anchorage. If you've anchored where there's enough of a tidal current to generate any significant electricity, you've probably anchored in the wrong spot.
> 
> The DuoGen is used right alongside the boat, not towed, so it would probably work in an anchorage, and generally doesn't get eaten by sharks like the towed ones tend to.


Okay - so they are used - I was only thinking of it while cruising - if you are docked you might as well plug in - or if you are using the motor to get to the dock or a mooring, then you're okay - otherwise, the solar and wind gens would pick up any slack.


----------



## xort

Why tow a 'wind gen'? If you are motoring then the motor will charge. If you are sailing then there is wind and the turbine can be powered by that wind. if there's no wind then you aren't moving and the towed generator would put out nothing and possibly get fouled. I would think there's more drag towing one in the water than having one on a post so I don't see any real benefit. Plus it would seem to be a hassle to get it in and out of the water and there'd be the possiblity of salt intrusion. What am I missing?


----------



## Cruisingdad

Xort,

I think the water gen puts out a lot more power.

That being said, I see no benefit to 99% of the cruisers. Unless you are an offshore racer or a long distantce passagemaker, it seems like a real waste of money to me.

- CD


----------



## Idiens

I see while we have been arguing about the power output of solar panels, our favourite Portugese has taken the subject more seriously:-

The biggest solar power plant in the world was inaugurated on 28th March in the south of Portugal. The 11MW installation worth 61 million euros is the result of work by the American companies GE Energy Financial Services, PowerLight Corporation and the Portuguese renewable energy company Catavento. The new plant has to produce enough electricity to meet the needs of 8,000 households and will avoid the emission of 30,000 tonnes of CO2 per year less than fossil fuels.


----------



## ReverendMike

Xort
As CD points out, the advantage for the water generator is on long downwind passages. The apparent wind may not be enough to kick in a wind gen efficiently. There's also probably more force applied to the vanes since water has more mass than air. But if you're anchored....

I like the idea of the flexibility of something that can do both, but if the DuoGen is louder than other wind gens (as other have posted, i think) that maybe more of a factor.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Idiens,

The reason Portugal is running off of solar power is that I sailed my Catalina over there and plugged her in. WHy do you think you have not heard much from Giu??? I am putting him out of business.

- CD


----------



## Giulietta

Idiens said:


> I see while we have been arguing about the power output of solar panels, our favourite Portugese has taken the subject more seriously:-
> 
> The biggest solar power plant in the world was inaugurated on 28th March in the south of Portugal. The 11MW installation worth 61 million euros is the result of work by the American companies GE Energy Financial Services, PowerLight Corporation and the Portuguese renewable energy company Catavento. The new plant has to produce enough electricity to meet the needs of 8,000 households and will avoid the emission of 30,000 tonnes of CO2 per year less than fossil fuels.


Once again...a small Country of 10.5 Million people on the leading edge of technology...once again, size does not matter....  

I am happy you heard of that...was it in the news?

And happily we sail.....


----------



## Giulietta

Cruisingdad said:


> Idiens,
> 
> The reason Portugal is running off of solar power is that I sailed my Catalina over there and plugged her in. WHy do you think you have not heard much from Giu??? I am putting him out of business.
> 
> - CD


CD    funny  

I have no doubt that your floating power plant could supply those 8.000 households....what I have doubts is that your catalina would get to Portugal on its own.....i.e. sailing


----------



## sailingdog

Kernix-

Many long-distance cruisers spend most of their time anchored out, rather than at a marina, as marina slip fees tend to add up over the days. If you're anchored out, shore power isn't an option.


----------



## soul searcher

The thing that bothers me the most about my wind gen is that it plays with your ability to judge wind speed. when my rigging starts makeing noise its usually blowing pretty hard. when the generator ramps up that sound makes you think the wind is really howling when it isn't. It gets on my nerves after a while. It really messes with you when your down below. Id like to see a kiss in person they are supposed to be a lot quiter than the air x. the other bad thing is they put out RF that adds alot of noise on the side band. Thats something people need to be aware of in anchorages . There is a boat on my dock that leaves his on 24/7 I can hear it run up on my radio, and it knocks out weaker signals. that was on 6 megs I havent played with other frequencies to see how many it effects.


----------



## Freesail99

I have no place to put a wind generator on my boat. But if I could, I think I would miss the sound of the water rushing past the hull.


----------



## CosmosMariner

wind_magic said:


> I don't know this yet either, but a certain amount of noise would be okay with me. If it's just a whirling kind of wind sound and not a rattle then I think I would even like it. I know that a lot of people see the solar panels, bicycles, wind generators, etc, as unsightly additions to their otherwise sleek boats, but I don't see it that way. To me those sights and sounds are just part of an appealing nomadic culture that I am not yet a part of, like checkered plastic table cloths, sandles, and the sound of sea birds.


Gear that has a purpose and works well for that purpose is always beautiful. All those romantic tall ships are really 'cluttered up' with rigging and chain and pin rails etc but most folks never think of the functionality that lead to that form. I think it is more important that the solar panels or wind generators are securely mounted. If they are positioned and fastened to perform as needed but withstand gale force winds and breaking seas then they will be attached in such a way that is also pleasing to the eye. A New England boat builder said, 'If it looks right it probably is.' Of course he was talking about a professional eye doing the looking.


----------



## camaraderie

matt...that's funny...I got so I could tell exactly what the wind speed was by the pitch of my generator! It was moderate but I got attuned to it at anchor.


----------



## Idiens

Giulietta said:


> ... I am happy you heard of that...was it in the news?


In Brussels, we get all sorts of EuroNews that are denied to the world by national press selectivity. - It was in the Schumann Newsletter.


----------



## PBzeer

Freesail - while underway, unless I go out from under the bimini, I don't even hear my wind genny, and even then, it isn't so loud as to cover up other sounds. A lot of wind generator noise can be because of poor mounting, especially, vibration.


----------



## xort

seems I remember conky joe was going to get back to us early this week with some new info.

Instead they've moved the 'conversation' to another forum and bash this forum in the process...

The Solar Stik... fact or fiction? ...the debate: - Ask All Sailors Forum


----------



## camaraderie

Nah...that's where they all hang out with their friends xort. Cjoe and I have agreed to wait for the PS reports before posting more pro's and con's here as we've pretty well worn out the subject. Actually Brian over there is the owner of the company so it is good to have him on the record about what it will and will not do. Obviously,I have issues but will await the PS report before starting things up. You may feel free to comment but I was just trying to clarify why neither Cjoe or I have kept at it.


----------



## sailingdog

I checked that forum out... there was an interesting post asking Brian, the OP, to post results from qualified and unbiased testing personnel. I think it'll be interesting to see what he says.


----------



## hellosailor

If it were my product, I'd send a "review copy" to RealGoods, and Mother Earth, and a half dozen other places and let them review it--along with Practical Sailor.

Getting 150% of the rated power out of panels, on a regular basis, is earthshaking news. Could be a great product, and certainly would excite everyone in the field if they could confirm his numbers, since it would mean that _every _solar panel user could also get 150% of their rated power by simply tilting their panels, using a better controller, and making sure there was adequate cooling.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

I think this is the way to go ...

Wind Powered Generators


----------



## sailingdog

Cam-

Thanks for the update. I've been monitoring the other forum, and one of the posters, named Ross said the following:



> *Bill, I went to the almanac and found thatKuwait *   is 30 degrees north, about the same as Jacksonville, FL. From sun rise to sun set on June 21 is 14 hours and 12 minutes. From twilight to twilight would be close to 16 hours so labeling a statement as an "out and out lie" is at the least heavy handed. My feeling concerning your remarks falls into the realm of "if you don't like the product don't but it" but I think that you on coming close to defaming a person whom you do not know.


It is reasoning like this that really makes me laugh. *How effective do you think a solar panel is once the sun goes down???*


----------



## camaraderie

I for one discount Cjoe's explanation of Kuwait and 16 hours as he was relating a second hand explanation and has limited electrical background so I am prepared to just chalk that up to a misunderstanding on his part and not some sort of slam on solae stik. Brians explanation that the Kuwait performance is based on the clarity of the atmosphere at low angles of the sun deserves more scrutiny since it is his first hand account but we have no details of the test other than the claimed output. Again..I will wait for the ps test as at least that will give us a standardized method and results which we then can dissect.


----------



## sailingdog

sounds good to me.  I plan on keeping an eye on the other thread to see if Brian responds directly.


----------



## xort

any clues as to when this PS review is due out? The magazine and website both give listings of upcoming tests and no mention of the stik


----------



## sailingdog

Xort-

Might be a while, as testing something like the SolarStik is probably something that will take a bit of time to do a proper and thorough test.


----------



## camaraderie

No clue...I wrote the editor but no response.


----------



## hellosailor

Cam-
"Brians explanation that the Kuwait performance is based on the clarity of the atmosphere at low angles of the sun "
Clarity of the atmosphere? The standard panel ratings are based on a "perfect" atmospheric clarity. Invoking a better atmosphere is not possible on this planet. "low angles of the sun" ? Again, no. When the sun is at low angles, sunlight has to pass through MORE atmosphere than it does at midday, again, less light falls on the panel than it does under the rating conditions.
So it comes back to a 100-W rated panel producing 100 Watts under optimal conditions. That's 7.24A at 13.8V, the lowest voltage I would call a "charge".
If you could get noon daylight for ten hours, sure, that would produce 72 amp hours of charging power.

Which is forcing me to find out things like "The amount of light received on a sunny day during July and August is about 130 to 160 kilolux". Okay, now we can quantify the amount of light, let's say 150KiloLux (KLux) which means about 150,000 foot-candles of brightness and that morphs into "KiloLux-Hours" when you measure it over time.

So if the noon sun is 150,000 foot-candles in brightness and we can get some similar numbers for other times of the day, we can apply some numbers to this. With extensive searching I came upon "Annual totals were 108, 124 and 122 megalux hours for 1947, 1948 and 1949 respectively with 116 as the mean of the whole series. " referring to Plymouth, England.

So, ignoring global dimming (which has been real) let's say 120 mega-lux-hours in one year, spread on 365 days. That makes a little under 328,800 kilo-lux-hours in any one average day in Plymouth, where the length of the day will vary quite a bit. But--as an average over the year--that's only a bit more than two full "noon hours" of sunlight in a day. Perhaps the total for a summer day is twice as much, i.e. four hours of the noon sunlight rating?

Does any of that sound good enough for some quick late-night back-of-the-envelope sloppy web research? (And I earnestly invite anyone who can, to seek better numbers. Seems like most of the research about sunlight is in scholarly journals that are sold, not simply published on the web.)


----------



## SimonV

If I feed by hamster 50% more grain (food = fuel = energy) he should spin his wheel 25% faster, not 50% because we always lose something through inefficiency. But my hamster wants to just sleep.







</a>[/IMG]


----------



## camaraderie

HS...in theory the Klux stuff is fine but we also need to know what amount of sunlight energy drives full output from these panel cells...if it is LESS than "full direct noon" then you need to calculate how much lower the angle of the sun must be before output begins to drop etc. which I think is a deep hole akin to proving how many angels are on the head of a pin. I think I'll just stick with the basic ohm's law stuff...out of the Kuwaiti dessert and on a sailboat at anchor somewhere below the tropic of cancer for a real world scenario for boaters likely to purchase panels. 
Looks like they're gonna start there own 500 post thread over at SBO ...things are heating up.


----------



## wind_magic

Dude I think there is something wrong with that hamster.


----------



## wind_magic

What happens is that there are these panels that have crystals in them that are dark colors. And see the golden sun shines down on the panels, and those crystals they become happy, and warm from all the sunshine. And then they start to smile a lot and the whole panel starts to pump electricity through the wires that are hooked to it, like a heart you know that is excited about being alive. The more sunlight there is the happier the panel is and the more it wants to spread happiness around so it talks to it's friend Mr. Battery bank through the wires and then the battery bank gets happy too, even though it is hidden down inside the boat and doesn't have any sunshine on it. Just the stories about the sunshine makes it happy, and the solar panels are pumping sunshine down to it through the wires too so the batteries drink it up and gets good feelings. And if you have a wind generator it really gets excited about the wind and it's blades whirl around and sing and it talks to the batteries too and tells them about the wind. Then the batteries get even more happy! It's all very technical.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

wind_magic said:


> Dude I think there is something wrong with that hamster.


I agree... I mean... did somebody step on it or something?


----------



## Giulietta

Nooo..its the sole fish Hamster....they do that to deceive other fish....


----------



## conchyjoe

xort said:


> any clues as to when this PS review is due out? The magazine and website both give listings of upcoming tests and no mention of the stik


Potentially June or July issue.....


----------



## hellosailor

Cam-
Supposedly the panels are rated for "full" noon sunlight. That may not be the 150KLux rating but I'll bet I can turn up the lux figure used for them. Again, the purpose is not to predict exact wattage--only to see if there's any way to get twice the maximum rated output.

Oh, and about the angels dancing on a pinhead? The answer is sixteen, the proof is well known among topologists. Heck, if it keeps them happy it can keep me happy.<G>


----------



## PBzeer

Personally, I was so impressed with wind_magic, I'm reprogramming my monitor to read HAPPY and SAD. That way, when my batteries get happy, I can sing "Happy Days Are Here Again".


----------



## camaraderie

HS...well actually STC test conditions call for 1000 watts/meter squared of solar irradiance and 1300 w/m2 or so is what is available at the top of the atmosphere in space so I don't see any way to do what you are suggesting since there is no way to get double the test rate irradiance. I also don't think anyone is claiming twice the rated output from the panels. Rather the claim is that with the rotating of the panels about 4x a day and with the use of the blue sky controller the input amps into your bateries will be the quivilent of 250 watts of fixed panels using a conventional regulator.
Brian (the CEO) has stated that he regularly gets output exceeding the rated output of the BP panels but at this point it is a statement only as no proof has been offerered nor has he quantified how much more wattage he is getting.


----------



## PBzeer

Of course, this all flys in the face of that one immutable law of nature ....

*Ain't no such thing as a free lunch*


----------



## tigerregis

PB, there is, if you COOK the hamster. BTW, I have several recipes obtained from PS "How to get more calories from your hamster."


----------



## PBzeer

But, if you eat the Hamster, who's gonna spin the wheel?


----------



## xort

PBzeer said:


> But, if you eat the Hamster, who's gonna spin the wheel?


The solar stik, who else?


----------



## PBzeer

But, but ..... I thought that was what the wheel went roundy round on.


----------



## tigerregis

Agreed, it has been a merry-go-round. It was about 500 posts ago that I thought that this was a very informative thread. Although, in retrospect, it has been.


----------



## sailingdog

I find it interesting that Brian, the maker of the SolarStik, even though he knows about this thread, hasn't made an appearance in it. What does he have to fear?


----------



## tigerregis

Sixteen hour days in Kuwait. Proponents of his system(unpaid, of course) and the thoughts? of a bunch of sailors, who by the look of it were all from Missouri.


----------



## hellosailor

Cam-
"HS...well actually STC test conditions call for 1000 watts/meter squared of solar irradiance and 1300 w/m2 or so is what is available at the top of the atmosphere in space so I don't see any way to do what you are suggesting ..."
I don't understand, what do you think I'm suggesting? I'm saying that the ratings are based on the maximum amount of sunlight that's to be had at sea level, under this thick atmosphere. I know that won't get any brighter...unless they're going to install SolarStiks on Mt. Everest?<G>

"Rather the claim is that with the rotating of the panels about 4x a day and with the use of the blue sky controller the input amps into your bateries will be the quivilent of 250 watts of fixed panels using a conventional regulator."
Yeah, but we can remove the BS controller from the equation completely, because all IT does is ensure that the wattage from the panel is optimized for amps-vs-volts. The BS controller has no effect on the _wattage _that is available from the panel, at all.
Which leaves only the question abouti rotating the panels. And since the rated power output is based on perfect alignment of the panel--pointing it directly at the sun--there is no way that aligning the panel from time to time is going to exceed the output from a perfectly aligned panel. Yes, you will get more effective power by aligning the panels from time to time, than you would from a flat panel. But you still won't exceed the panel's ratings, you can only meet them.
And once the sunlight weakens--you won't meet the ratings for the panel at all. Something just doesn't add up, perhaps SolarStik just needs to hire "Bill Nye The Science Guy" to do a show-and-tell for those of us who are mathematically impaired.<G>


----------



## tomaz_423

So, I am going to install one SolarStik on top of Mt. Everest (for less atmosphere) and another in Kuwait desert (for long days). My boat is moored in Antigua. 
1) What size of cables you would recommend for this set-up to avoid voltage to drop too much ?
2) Do I need any permit to pull the cables across several countries?
3) Does someone have 40.000 miles of cable to sell?


----------



## xort

The solar stik thread was removed from SBO. Before it was, the owner of solar stik was stating, from what I understood, that the panels he is using are putting out more than they are rated for. Which could account for the discrepancies between what many here are stating and what Solar Stik is claiming in real world experience. He also stated these were not on the list of panels tested by California.
So I guess the 50 watt panels are actually much higher wattage than labeled?


It would have been nice if that had been brought up a long time back instead of hurling insults by shills.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Much more fun to hurl - well insults anyway - hurling after 112 margaritas is not much fun, mind you it is better than hurling after too much beer...there was a time in the navy when we did the too much beer thing (actually several, no make that numerous, times - aw heck, it was actually flat-out for four years, but I digress) and we were in a little town in Norway, north of the Arctic Circle in June so of course it just won't get dark, and there is nothing that makes you feel like more of a loser than to go to a bar at 14:00, spend a good 12 hours throwing them back, and then come staggering out into bright sunlight - it's just wrong...anyway, there we were, swaying back and forth because we had just gotten in from a lengthy time at sea and hadn't gotten our land legs back, and we were trying to find our way back to the ship, and all of a sudden it was like we all knew that within about 5 seconds we were going to return that rented beer, so what else could we do, we kinda ran, kinda hopped over to the fountain in the town square and hurled in there, and well, let me tell you , it was not appreciated, and there were some nosy local witness who wasted no time ratting on us. Major sh*t with the Captain who sent us back out there in bright sun (so cruel) with bad, bad hangovers and guts that were still churning, to clean the friggin' fountain. And let me tell you it was nasty. I don't know what Bellamy had for breakfsast that morning but it had already started to rot, so we did what anyone would do, caught one whiff of that evil odour and started right up hurling again...good the fountain was there...anyway, took about five hours to carry the sewage out of the fountain and throw it in the ocean, bucket by bucket, but finally we finished and were allowed to go back to the ship and the sleep we were aching for. Make no mistake, we certainly weren't proud of what we'd done, we felt quite bad about it, and so, just to make sure that fountain was squeaky, squeaky clean, we went back there a couple of hours before we sailed and dumped a bucket of T-Pol (the soap we used to clean the decks) into the fountain, then scooted off back to the mothership. Sailed about an hour later, with warm hearts, secure in the knowledge that the people of Tromso (it was either Tromso or Narvik - I know it wassn't Bergen cause that's where we had the other issue..) were certainly going to have the most hygenic fountain in the country


----------



## camaraderie

Xort...who removed the thread? It just disappeared with no comment at all. 
Actually the claim that the panels were somehow putting out more wattage on a regular basis than rated for was an early claim. Unfortunately how much extra power has never been stated nor has any proof for the claim been offered. The state of California tested over 60 different BP panels and found no such excess output even though they did not test the 50 watters used by SS. They did test a number of panels in the same series and of the same construction as the ones SS is using. In fairness, their test conditions are different than the mfr. STC test conditions but one might expect the panels to perform better than most other similar panels tested if they indeed are capable of regular higher output than their STC rating. Absent other data, I guess we'll have to wait till summer and the PS article to resolve the issue. 

BTW...STC test conditions are in full direct overhead sunlight (i.e. with the panels pointed directly at the sun)... at sea level with a slight breeze blowing and an operating surface temperature of 77 degrees...a happy coincidence of near perfect conditions. This prompted California to set their own rating procedure which they feel is more real world and typically results in power ratings that are reduced on average by about 10% from manufacturer STC ratings.


----------



## PBzeer

I think I've finally figured out the "secret" of the solar stik. It is obviously the product of "modern math". 1+1=2, not 3 or 4 or anything else. Since the solar stik is in all actuality, just a mounting device, the most it can do is give the ability to place the solar panels in the optimum position for generating output. Key word here is "give". It doesn't put the panels in position, only gives a diligent, some might say, obsessive, user the chance, hope, prayer, of putting the panels in postition to generate their full output. If said solar panel has the ability to generate x amount of output, it doesn't matter what position it is in, that is the most it is going to generate. How effective that is translated into battery charging capability is NOT the function of the mounting system. And the WHOLE purpose of having a passive charging system is to CHARGE the batteries.

Unless you have a totally mobilized solar array, that completely and absolutely tracks the maximum angle of efficency of the available sunlight, no mounting system will charge your batteries any better than any other. (Of course, you'd probably use up the gain in power loss to the array, but what the hey) Whether it is Solar Stik, or Rube Goldberg, it's still dependent on the operator, not the mounting system.


----------



## sailingdog

The thread is still there... and Conchy Joe is back to saying that people are taking what he says out of context...

How is trying to make sure that people keep amps and amp-hours in the proper units, taking something out of context???


EDITED BY CAM


----------



## sailingdog

John's hit it on the head. The SolarStik is really just a very expensive, and fancy, mounting kit for two relatively small solar panels, which give the opportunity to increase the effectiveness of the solar panels by allowing them to be aimed at the sun.

However, without user intervention, the are no better than fixed mount panels. However, the SolarStik is being sold as a charging system..and Conchy Joe wanting to remove battery charging from the discussion of the effectiveness of the SolarStik makes it a very suspect way of looking at it. To determine how effective a charging system is, *you are kind of required to look at it in the context of actually charging batteries*.


----------



## xort

Another aspect of this whole konky joe & solar stik...

ConchyJoe - Serious Answers For Serious Cruisers


----------



## xort

Well this just keeps getting more interesting...
When I go to the sailboat owners site, I can no longer view the solar stik thread. It's like it's not there at all. I followed the link provided above and there it is!
I guess I've been blocked. 
BTW, I was the "Ted" poster. I respond to comments by CJ and get blocked. So I guess the solar stik Brian, CJ & the board operator over there are all in bed together? Anyone questioning the claims of CJ is banished. CJ & Brian seem to be best buds. Who is the owner of the SBO board?


----------



## sailingdog

Xort-

LOL... Conchy Joe is still being Conchy Joe... 

Brian seemed to be somewhat more reasonable and rational than his staunchest supporter.


----------



## xort

sailingdog said:


> Xort-
> 
> LOL... Conchy Joe is still being Conchy Joe...
> 
> Brian seemed to be somewhat more reasonable and rational than his staunchest supporter.


If Brian wanted CJ to stop he could tell his good friend to stop.


----------



## CosmosMariner

Sailorman - All I can say is about your midnight sun tale is 'Out-****ing-standing!!!  

windmagic - you need to get OUT of the sun and lie down - The Admiral and I are in tears!!!  

hellosailor you said "So, ignoring global dimming (which has been real)" ... not news if you've been following international politics lately!  

The thread participants are showing signs of sleep deprivation, exposure, dehydration (from laughing)


----------



## camaraderie

Guys... it is fine to dredge up Conchy Joe's attacks....but I deleted plenty of your attacks as well. As far as that goes...I think there is plenty of blame to go around and bringing it all up HERE again serves no purpose.

If you want to critique something...critique Brian and his claims on a technical or real world basis as he is the owner and the one making the claims and they are there in writing and don't require any interpertation by Cjoe or anyone else. * I don't want to get into another moderating festival.

I am deleting SD's quote from Ted who is Xort since it amounts to another personal (if civil) attack. 
*


----------



## xort

Cam
Why aren't you banning me from this thread like Phil at SBO? (not that I'm asking you to)

The details of just how much the stik puts out can and has been up for discussion. I am critiquing this whole method of promoting the product. If you look around the SBO site, you'll see that CJ & Brian are best buds. So this 'independent' tester status of CJ's is fishy to me. The only advertiser on CJ's website is Solar Stik. Am I the only one who thinks this is a questionable arrangement?


----------



## PBzeer

xort - it isn't really worth worrying about. Doesn't matter if they're brothers. While CJ may be unpaid, it's obvious he is not unbiased. I think that's evident to everyone.


----------



## sailingdog

From the SBO site thread on SolarStik was a reply from Brian, the inventor, I've combined the two posts into a single one here.



> I welcome this direct debate with you regarding the claims of the power output of the Solar Stik.
> 
> Before I begin, I am extending an invitation for you to perform an independent test of the Solar Stik that would meet your criteria. Practical Sailor (a "qualified, impartial entity with their head on straight") just completed a thorough review of our system in Virginia, and I think you will be surprised at what you will see. I unfortunatley cannot openly discuss the results yet, and we are still waiting to see which issue will have the results. So stay tuned...
> 
> Now, as far as the Solar Stik ratings are concerned, we absolutely stand by the 80 to 100 amp-hour claims. Let me back up for a minute and qualify this:
> 
> When we developed the first Solar Stik in 1998, we didn't re-invent the solar wheel, the solar wheel ultimately ran over us. I am sure that you have read by now about the Genesis of the Solar Stik; three boats initially sailed with Stiks in 1998, but they used a different solar panel than the one we currently use (it is no longer in production). In 2003, we decided to develop the mounting because it had proven itself through the roughest of seas, and allowed for constant aiming of the panels toward the sun and cooler operating temperatures than a "fixed" panel (subsequently providing more power). Our level of "solar understanding" at that time was pretty basic. In 2004, I bought a 3024I MPPT control with a shunt/pro-remote setup for our boat, and "optimized it" according to the manufacturer's recommendation. That is when we first noticed the total amp-hours for the day constantly floating around 80AH (in March). We had to backtrack to find out why we were getting so much power, because with two 50 watt panels, we didn't believe our own math either. For the next two years, we sought the answers and believe me, they were NOT easy to find. Most people (even many in the industry) simply repeat what they have been told... but don't actually perform any "STC" testing. So with no one able to help us decipher the opinions from reality, we performed much of our own testing & research IN ADDITION TO getting answers from qualified industry leaders such as Mr. Cullen from Blue Sky Energy Inc and BP Solar.
> 
> Now about the ratings, "STC" ratings are NOT maximums, despite what you have heard or seen. Solar panel output IS directly affected by the cell operating temperature. Panels are rated at a nominal temperature of 77 degrees Farenheit. The output of a solar panel can be expected to vary by about 2.5% for every 5 degrees variation in temperature from the STC rating. As the temperature increases, the output decreases. We have purchased and tested 14 brands of solar panels to determine which one actually performed the best on the Solar Stik. We also tested the entire system (panels, mounting system, MPPT control) for two years to make sure that these numbers are correct. (The caveats are always "the weather" and the "condition of the battery".) During the summer months you will have the benefit of the long days, and in the winter, you have the benefit of the cooler temps. Most of our testing was done between Virginia and Florida, and the Bahamas. On boats, the average amount of pitches was four (including tide swing.)
> 
> Kuwait and "16 hours" was not my statement, and I suspect that it was a simple miscommunication somewhere. The total hours may have been incorrect, but we have collected data from the military in the Mid East that shows the Stik operating at around 7.5 amps for better than 12 hours, plus the 30 min after sunrise and 30 min before sunset to total more than 90 AH. This is, of course, because of the intensity of the sun over there.
> 
> Susan and Bob are not alone with their "results" reporting, and I tremendously appreciate their spirit and initiative to venture into the forums to discuss the Stik. They do so on their own and they are NOT compensated in ANY way by us. There would probably be more people discussing their experiences with the Solar Stik, but the reality is that most of the people who have bought these systems are out sailing/cruising, and don't have access to forums. We have been selling these systems since early last year, with many sailors regularly contacting us to tell us just how much power they are getting. We just had a boat come back to St. Aug from the Bahamas that never saw a dock for four months. They reported an average of 75-80 AH daily with their system.
> 
> As far as the California site, do we really know what THEIR test conditions were? I could probably "pick apart" their testing just as many have tried to pick apart the Solar Stik... by splitting hairs. And for the record, where is the CA listing for the BP350U? It isn't there that I can find...
> 
> The "Bottom Line" is this:
> 
> The Solar Stik will produce as much as 80 to 100 amp-hours in good conditions and depending on where it is utilized... and we stand by that. Just this evening, I am coming in from yet another "test" where the Solar Stik system output was 5.6 Amps at forty minutes before sunset. Total for today: 63AH (It was cloudy with rain until 10:30 AM).
> 
> Here is another link to a document called the "Synopsis of the Solar Stik".
> 
> I hope that helps. Let me know if I missed anything or can be of further assistance. You can always contact me at the tech support e-mail/phone-line as well.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Brian Bosley
> 
> Just so I am clear, today we were using an "optimized" Solar Boost control with temp sensor, a battery bank with a starting voltage of 11.5, and the temperature outdoors was about 66 degrees.
> 
> ...I am on the road headed to Oakland for the Strictly Sail Show, so any future responses may be a few days away. My apologies in advance for any delays.
> 
> I do have e-mail capability on the road and can be reached here:
> [email protected]


It seems to me that his reply does have some technical information in it, but it seems a bit vague on specifics.

Brian does state that the SolarStik is capable of over 90 Amp-Hours of electrical production but I am still skeptical about that figure, given the specifications of the panels and the lack of solid numbers from him. Most of his reply appears to be marketing fluff.

Brian states that they tested 14 different brands of panels, and that the one that is used in the SolarStik is capable of producing more than 50 Watts of power.


----------



## hellosailor

xort-
Personally, I couldn't care if they were married, brothers, blood brothers, or even one guy using two names to shill himself. (And please note, I am NOT saying any of that applies, I am only saying I wouldn't care if it was.)

The only thing I care about are the objective facts. Can the SS put out what the advocates claim it can?

The fact that none of them have yet been able to explain the performance "versus" normal solar panels and normal estimates of output, or been able to show demonstrable and repeatable independent tests confirming their claims, suggests that the FTC's normal suggestions apply. Specifically, if a product vendor uses "endorsements" and can't cite objective facts and theories, their claims usually are not being substantiated because they can't be substantiated. (A state of affairs sometimes called "sales fraud", other times called "mistaken".)

If PS is going to run tests...we can wait patiently, can't we? No need to call names or question relationships, either SS will substantiate and explain, or they won't.

SD-
Regarding the claim "Brian states that they tested 14 different brands of panels, and that the one that is used in the SolarStik is capable of producing more than 50 Watts of power.". Every product on the market has minimum/nominal/maximum ratings or other figures associated with it.
If I buy a 100-watt light bulb, I can call GE or Phillips and they might tell me "The nominal power draw is 100 watts during normal conditions...but it may range from 95 watts to 107 watts". In the same way, I can buy milspec sorted memory chips, and TI or Motorola or Fujitsu will tell me "the unsorted chips have a nominal speed rating of 100 milliseconds, but they actually range from 60ms to 110ms" and the milspec rated chips are, literally, just chips form the larger run that have been tested and found to be a certain speed.
In the same way, BP and every other solar panel maker know that if they sell a nominal "100W" rated panel, it *must* be able to produce 100W when tested or they will risk fraud charges. They also know--very well--that they may have to build every panel with a goal of 105 or 110 watts in order to ensure that even the weak ones provide the full rated power. So, in any given run of panels, from ANY AND EVERY maker, there may be considerable variation. How much variation will depend on many things including the manufacturing process (inherent to it) and the quality control, etc. And that means the amount of variation also will vary by each maker.
But the point is, every maker can and will tell a commercial supplier "these panels have so may percent of variation". Brian can obtain that information and share it with us, it is normal in the electronics and manufcaturing industries.

Case in point, the new "ultra white" LEDs that are made by using a blue-purple-UV LED with a white phosphor coating in them. Last time I looked, they were available--and the manufacturer openly supplied the specs and ratings--in none categories for "the same" product. If you want consisten LEDs for your deign, you can order ten thousand of them, and you can specify one of three different color sortings, and one of three different brightness sortings in each color group.

"The same" white LEDs are sorted into nine batches, and sold with nine rather different specs, with visibly different brightness and color, due to variations in the manufacturing process. You don't want to buy 10,000 at a time? Then you buy "unsorted" and you'll get a wider range of brightness and color--and some of them will be literally twice as bright as others. If you are building light fixtures that use a dozen LEDs...that means some of your fixtures will be twice as bright as others!

One hopes that solar panel technology isn't quite as sloppy, and that 100W rated panels aren't really "150Watt give or take 50Watts". But, that's possible. Unlikely<G> but possible. I suspect the variation is way less, and nowhere near enough to account for what SS claims. And, over the long run one of there is that much variation--that also means some of the SS panels are going to put out that much LESS power too.

But I'm sure Brian can fill us in on that.


----------



## soul searcher

Cam, H.S.
Back when this deal started out of curiosity I went lookin for the ASTM E1036
wich is the test standard quoted on my solor pannels (BP485,85 watt mono crystilin panels).


> 1. Module Warranty: 25-year limited warranty of 80% power output; 12-year limited warranty of 90% power output; 5-year limited warranty of
> materials and workmanship. See your local representative for full terms of these warranties.
> 2. These data represent the performance of typical BP 485 products, and are based on measurements made in accordance with ASTM E1036
> corrected to SRC (STC.)
> 3*. During the stabilization process that occurs during the first few months of deployment, module power may decrease by up to 3% from
> typical Pmax.*


 I never found the test proceedure but found an application to get a cell tested. I wonder if they are testing a panel or an individual cell and qoating a theoretical output for a pannel based on the number of cells used?

I don't have a mppt controler but I want to get one. And now Y'all have me thinking if the power measurerment cant be read by a typical shunt amp meter or clamp on meter is it also going to throw my energy monitor into a tail spin? 
I highlighted number three above just because I thought it might intrest you guys. yet another loss, Electrons really are lazy


----------



## sailingdog

Soul Searcher-

I have an MPPT charge controller and would say that using one is an excellent idea. It does provide a measurable increase in efficiency in charging capabilities, by lowering the voltage and increasing the amperage. I don't see why the amperage can't be read using a clamp-on type ammeter.


----------



## hellosailor

Matt, SD-
I've been told that the folks at BlueSky say their MPPT controllers are accurately displaying the DC output, and that there is no concern about PWM causing the display to be misleading. So, if the BS controller says "10A" it is putting out 10A, to whatever the resolution limit on the display is.
I'm sure the BP can be contacted for the details. Whatever the contact numbers are on your papers, contact them and tell them you are trying to work up an energy budget, and you need some more technical information. They (very probably) can point you to the ASTM specs, or CC them to you, and tell you specificly what the expected variation in their panels is.
Someone at every company has that information, even if the front desk doesn't always know who it is offhand. They MUST have that information, in order to meet contract specifications that will require it, and to make sure they don't run afoul of the FTC and other regulatory bodies.

Whether they are testing cells or panels shouldn't matter a lot, in the larger scheme of things.

*Hey! http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy01osti/29245.pdf
and
http://www2.fsec.ucf.edu/en/publications/pdf/FSECstd_202-05.pdf*

*Too much for me to read this morning, but this looks like a gold mine.*

Those and much more from searching on "ASTM E1036".

:: EKARAT SOLAR COMPANY LIMITED ::
One manufacturer's technical ratings--which include a "plus or minus 5%" stated for their power ratings.


----------



## soul searcher

Thanks, 
I really dont care about how they get their figures anymore I was just curious if you guys new off hand. I know the mppt will increase my power was really trying to plan out the install in my mind before getting the parts. If It screwed up my energy monitor I would just remove it from that shunt and let the power show up as less draw, if that makes sense. Id rather be able to look at the emon then crawl in the lazz to read amps. And it sounds like I will still be able to do that.
Thanks again
H.S. when I tried that I didnt get any gov sites just one that wanted 34.00 dollars for a hard copy. glad you found it.


----------



## sailingdog

HS- 

I am aware that within any given type of product you'll have some variation. That's why some CPUs withstand overclocking better than others. Some manufacturers also have tighter quality control, and their products are generally more consistent... Corsair's high end RAM comes to mind, but IT products are the ones I'm most familiar with. 

Given the previous calculations I did where 100 W = 6.94 Amps @ 14.4 volts, and a ten-hour window of "full-power", you get 69.4 Amp Hours. Factor in an additional six Amp-hours fudge factor for the two hours after sunrise and two hours before sunset, and that gives you a total of 75.4 Amp-hours. 80-100 Amp-hours would require an addtional 6.1% to 32.6% output from the panel. 

However, I don't see a manufacturer making panels that consistently output 10%+ or even 5% more than their rated specification, as that would probably be an expensive move to make. These companies are in the business to make money... so they're going to design the panel to meet the specification and probably not a bit more. The power rating of the panels is an average of the product... some will give less than 100 W, some more, but overall the product will average an output of 100 W STC. Given that, I don't see how it is reasonable for the SolarStik to be outputting 80-100 Amp-hours per day... 

The figures above don't even take into consideration the losses that are incurred in the charging process, based on how "full" the batteries are, the reduced output caused by higher temperatures, or a multitude of other factors that would negatively affect the output of the panels.

I look forward to reading the PS review on the SolarStik. However, I would be more interested in seeing the results of a long-term test. The output of solar panels tends to drop a bit after an initial break-in period, and then slowly decreases more over time. This is why most solar panel warranties are of XX% for ZZ years.


----------



## camaraderie

Here's some interesting data from NC State University's Solar power center regarding the increase in power you can get from 2 axis tracking vs. a fixed array...and the equivilent HOURS OF FULL PANEL OUTPUT sunlight you can get from an automated 2 axis tracking array. This is all in the context of house solar design but should apply on boats as well.
http://www.p2pays.org/ref/32/31336.pdf
 "In North Carolina, the sun is always in the southern half of the sky and is higher in the summer and lower in the winter. A solar collector or photovoltaic (PV) module gathers the most sunlight when it is perpendicular to the sun. Ideally, your PV array should be tilted to follow the sun's change in elevation during the course of the year, and turn to follow the sun's apparentpath from east to west during the day, called a tracking system. This daily east-west trackingcan produce 20 to 40 percent more electricity, depending on the time of year"

And this one:
http://www.p2pays.org/ref/32/31345.pdf
View attachment solarhourstracking.bmp


This last column abve shows the # of full output hours you can get from an automated two axis tracking system in NC during various months. Note the maximum equivlent full output hours is 8 in June. This means that a 100 watt panel that tracked the sun from dawn till dusk would get the equivilent of 8 hours of full output in direct overhead sunlight. I think this is the first solid academic data we've seen on what tracking can do and what # of hours of full output you can count on from moveable panels. 
Note the first column shows a panel tilted at it's own latitude to face the sun. (i.e. 35.8 degrees for raleigh) and the effect of inceasing or decreasing that tilt by 15 degrees has on output is in the next two columns. 
Finally from the same document here is the readout for a fixed southern facing panel:







Note that the average for the full year is 5.0 for fixed vs. 6.4 for active tracking which represents a 28% increase in energy for the active tracked panels vs. fixed. This jives with the first artivle which reported 20-40% based on time of year. If you add back in Thomazz calculated 15% loss from 2 hour manual tracking that would provide a net gain on the order of 24%. Most interesting!

I've only excerpted small portions of both articles and there is much more to chew on there if you are so inclined.


----------



## sailingdog

Thanks Cam... Looks like I got some reading to do.


----------



## tomaz_423

Cam, 
The tables are very informative. 
However they might be a little misleading if one reads them quickly. 
The "fixed array" should not be mixed with "fix mounted" panels on a sailboat. 
The sailboat panels are mounted flat (IE not tilt), while the panels from the table are angled (tilt facing South). This makes less difference close to equator, but would mean lots of difference in Raleigh. 

One more thing about amount of light available on the watter:
We all know sunlight reflects from the watter surface (even in the shade you can get burned by the reflected light). Maybe some of that reflected light can help improve the power producing process in morning and evening sun. The panel few hours after sunrise facing the sun gets both: the direct sunlight and the reflection from the watter. This may increase the power. I thing it is still far from being close to max rated power, but may be more than on the dry land. 

So these two facts add some more unknown variables to the ratio of fix-flat versus angled-tracked. 
Just to be clear: I am not supporting the claims of CJ os solar stik, just want to make sure we are comparing apples with apples.


----------



## camaraderie

Tomaz...yes...same here...just trying to get at the truth with relevant research since everything else is just claims at this point. Your points are well taken. 
Actually, I would not assume that panels on a boat are flat. Mine were hinged and could be set flat or otherwise...though at caribe lattitudes flat is about best I think. I am assuming that a fixed panel simply means fixed in one position and that on a boat one would fix at at the angle of one's cruising lattitude. 
I would think that water reflection would have an impact on photons received vs. land based but on the other hand, being at anchor and drifting around doesn't happen on land so I would think there is much more downside on the water to collection. No data on that though. What would really be neat would be an on water test at anchor with a fixed and adjustable system side by side hooked up with identical controllers to identically discharged (to 50%...not the 11.5V fully discharged level) batteries. That is my Easter dream! Thanks and have a great holiday.


----------



## sailingdog

Tomaz-

Mine are also not mounted flat. They're on a set of rails and could be tilted fairly easily.


----------



## hellosailor

Okay, if you can stand reasing it, the Sandia lab PDF says enough to say it all. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy01osti/29245.pdf

They used dual-axis mounted photocells, to keep them aligned with the sun in two axis not just one, and the kicker comes around page 43 when they note that the total average daily power output (daily POWER, as in watt-hours) ran about 4.8x the maximum rated power output (plain WATTS) for the panels.

IOW a 100-W rated panel could be expected to produced about 480 watt-hours of power under year-round average conditions. At 14 volts, that would be some 34 amp-hours of power. Regardless of the panel type, and assuming 100% power utilization, i.e. an MPPT controller.

For those of you looked at the PDF and ran away screaming (and I don't blame you) they also tested five "standard" types of days and locations, and there don't appear to be any situations that would allow for getting twice that much power out of a panel during any given day on this planet.

The Florida results seem to echo Sandia very nicely, and additionally confirm that pretty much every panel on the market, regardless of maker or type, varies only a few percent from the rated output, which again is going to be higher than the real world output--any where, any time, any conditions, that the panels will be on this planet.

Cam-
The NC results seem to echo Florida's results, and Sandia's, and California's, very nicely. Tracking increases output, sure. Look at some of the figures for dual-axis panel output versus time of day, and you'll see that even with tracking--outside of the four-hour "noon" slot, output is still going way down, making it simply impossible to get "eight hours" at the panel's rated output, unless it is mounted on an aircraft and chasing the sun.<G>

But...I'm still willing to see if PS, or SS, can demonstrate an error in these ways. Kinda like the guys who proved that with sufficient thrust, even a brick outhouse can be made to fly. Honest.<G>


----------



## sailingdog

hellosailor said:


> Okay, if you can stand reasing it, the Sandia lab PDF says enough to say it all. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy01osti/29245.pdf


Thanks for the link... Just what we needed more to read... 



> They used dual-axis mounted photocells, to keep them aligned with the sun in two axis not just one, and the kicker comes around page 43 when they note that the total average daily power output (daily POWER, as in watt-hours) ran about 4.8x the maximum rated power output (plain WATTS) for the panels.
> 
> IOW a 100-W rated panel could be expected to produced about 480 watt-hours of power under year-round average conditions. At 14 volts, that would be some 34 amp-hours of power. Regardless of the panel type, and assuming 100% power utilization, i.e. an MPPT controller.


To look at a device that is designed to charge batteries, without bringing battery charging into the context of the discussion is pointless, and we all know that charging batteries, even with an MPPT charge controller is going to be considerably less than 100% efficient.

Brian, from SolarStik, indicated that they are using batteries at an 11.5 volt level, which as Cam has pointed out is essentially completely discharged. _Given that completely draining the batteries vastly shortens the lifespan of the batteries, using that as a voltage point for the batteries is somewhat dishonest IMHO._

The testing should have been done with the batteries at the 50% charge level, which is the most that an intelligent user will generally allow their batteries to get down to. As the charge level of the batteries goes up, their ability to accept current goes down drastically. *By using the voltage level of 11.5 Volts for their testing, SolarStik is artificially inflating the amount of energy stored by the batteries as compared to what the actual real-world usage would be. *



> For those of you looked at the PDF and ran away screaming (and I don't blame you) they also tested five "standard" types of days and locations, and there don't appear to be any situations that would allow for getting twice that much power out of a panel during any given day on this planet.


Seriously considered this... but been at it too long to give up now.



> The Florida results seem to echo Sandia very nicely, and additionally confirm that pretty much every panel on the market, regardless of maker or type, varies only a few percent from the rated output, which again is going to be higher than the real world output--any where, any time, any conditions, that the panels will be on this planet.


That makes sense... from a purely economic viewpoint the manufacturer has no incentive to make panels that are rated more than their stated output under the STC conditions. The production run of any given panel should average out to the stated power rating. _This appears to be something the SolarStik people don't understand. _



> Cam-
> The NC results seem to echo Florida's results, and Sandia's, and California's, very nicely. Tracking increases output, sure. Look at some of the figures for dual-axis panel output versus time of day, and you'll see that even with tracking--outside of the four-hour "noon" slot, output is still going way down, making it simply impossible to get "eight hours" at the panel's rated output, unless it is mounted on an aircraft and chasing the sun.


<g>

This also implies that on any day that has more than 12 hours of daylight, you won't get (Length of day-4) hours of full output-*ergo, you won't get 10 hours of full output on a 14-hour day. *This means that most of the best case estimates in this thread are very optimistic and generous.



> But...I'm still willing to see if PS, or SS, can demonstrate an error in these ways. Kinda like the guys who proved that with sufficient thrust, even a brick outhouse can be made to fly. Honest.<g>


Again, we should see when PS publishes their testing results. I would also be interested in having PS do a longer term study, since it is known that solar panels drop output after their initial "break-in" period. BTW, the Space Shuttle proves that every time it goes up and comes back... 
</g></g>


----------



## hellosailor

"Brian, from SolarStik, indicated that they are using batteries at an 11.5 volt level," Did he really?! And I missed that one?

Actually, if he uses batteries that are discharged to 11.5 volts that's a very good thing. Most battery makers will tell you that cycling a battery that low even dozen times can kill it. So, if that's his test parameters? Let him repeat his test three or four dozen times--and he'll "prove" the Solar Stik kills batteries and provides no useful charge at all.<WEG>

"since it is known that solar panels drop output after their initial "break-in" period." Yeah, and some of the PDFs account for that as well, with "break in" cycling before the testing began.

You don't suppose...Someone at PS has invented the whole SolarStik controversy in order to boost subscription sales this spring? <WEG>

Look out, my Evil Twin Brother has gotten to the computer again!


----------



## camaraderie

Let me clarify that last point. Brin said that his most recent days testing produced about 63AH's (due to a partly cloudy day) on an 11.5 volt reading battery. As pointed out...this is not a fair test as no one would do THAT to their battery to get a good A/H result. On the other hand, Brian has not said how ALL his testing has been done or what the other test conditions were so I would be careful about extending what he reported about a single test universally. 
Nevertheless...the tracking data HS reports appears remarkably similar and even if you could get 2X the input hours (clearly ridiculous) from reflections (as Tomaz points out could be a factor) you still come up short of 10 hours of full output. 
HS...thanks for the data and the new reading material.


----------



## hellosailor

xort said:


> seems I remember conky joe was going to get back to us early this week with some new info.
> 
> Instead they've moved the 'conversation' to another forum and bash this forum in the process...
> 
> The Solar Stik... fact or fiction? ...the debate: - Ask All Sailors Forum


xort-
A funny thing:

"Oops! 
The topic you're looking for is not in our active forums. This may be due to... "

Apparently the thread has been moved to their Hunter Owner's Forum *archive* if anyone is looking for it:

http://archives.sailboatowners.com/...7092103838.77&id=461963&ptl=#2007096173139.65

And locked (?) no replies can be added.


----------



## sailingdog

Hmmm. Interesting that they've locked that thread.


----------



## xort

The SBO board administrator admitted to me that the thread was 'pretty much in violation of forum policy to begin with' and when it turned ugly he pulled it. Seems to me to be a fair handed administrator, a tough job.

Practical Sailor told me the test is due in June or July.

As the starter of this thread I'd like to thank you all for the information. It's been very educational although not in exactly the way I envisioned it.
I'd like to ask that lets set aside the solar stik specifically for the time being and discuss the general issue of the effectiveness of solar & wind, especially for eliminating or drastically reducing the need for engine or generator recharging when at anchor for extended periods. My personal needs, hopefully soon, will be while cruising the Bahamas and the east coast US.

Do I get a gold star for the longest thread on sailnet?


----------



## sailingdog

Xort-

I think Fight Club has you beat. That thread is currently almost five times as long as this one... so you're not even a contenda...


----------



## tigerregis

Dat's rite an' we ain't lettin' de soifs tread go dead! Stick dat in yur thurible and smoke it.


----------



## sailingdog

I think someone needs to sedate Tigerregis..


----------



## hellosailor

xort-
A gold star AND Sailnet's power bill for the server.<G> (I'm writing this with a smiley emoticon, but the forum isn't displaying it. BAD SERVER! BAD!)

"discuss the general issue of the effectiveness of solar & wind, "
OK, they are effective. The payback on solar is still about 20 years versus a power socket and extension cord, so "effective" depends on how much power cord you need. Wind power seems to do better but the drawback to both afloat seems to be physical plant size (or space for it) as well as environmental. 
I think there's no question they are both great solutions if you can't buy genset fuel, but if you have access to fuel...You can buy a lot of fuel for the cost of alternate energy sources. Without a very personal and accurate power budget and other info up front, I don't think there's any way to recommend an answer.


----------



## tigerregis

Oh sd, I am sedate, it being Easter and all. If you're going to bring Marlon into the surfesq extravaganza, you will have to learn to roll with the punches.


----------



## camaraderie

Xort..
*As the starter of this thread I'd like to thank you all for the information. It's been very educational although not in exactly the way I envisioned it.
I'd like to ask that lets set aside the solar stik specifically for the time being and discuss the general issue of the effectiveness of solar & wind, especially for eliminating or drastically reducing the need for engine or generator recharging when at anchor for extended periods. My personal needs, hopefully soon, will be while cruising the Bahamas and the east coast US.

*Oh sure...it's all about you!! (G) Seriously though...isn't the answer you are seeking in here already? If not...what do you still need to know?


----------



## xort

sailingdog said:


> Xort-
> 
> I think Fight Club has you beat. That thread is currently almost five times as long as this one... so you're not even a contenda...


Man I gotta lot of work to do! I tried to read a few pages of that thread, wow, I gave up totally.

I understand the cost benefit side of examining things. If you recall way back when, I read a comment by somebody that stated they saw cruisers with solar & wind still running their engine every day to charge up batteries. Seemed like if you have to run the engine or gen anyway what's the point. But if I can get 3 or 4 days of power into my batteries before needing to generate noise from internal combustion then it might be worth it. I suspect I'll be on the high side of consumption, 150 to 200 amps per day. I hope to have about 600 to 800 amps of battery capacity. If I can generate over 100 amps per day from alternative sources then I can go 2 to 4 days depending on a lot of variables. Yes?


----------



## PBzeer

xort - basically, passive energy sources will reduce, not eliminate, the need for engine charging and/or genset.


----------



## Giulietta

This thread is dumber than breaking a boom....


----------



## sailingdog

Giulietta said:


> This thread is dumber than breaking a boom....


You would know...


----------



## Giulietta

yes...that now..... a mast a few years ago, a rudder also, a bow, a shroud, 3 sails, 2 spis and the list goes on and on and on...


----------



## TSOJOURNER

xort said:


> I suspect I'll be on the high side of consumption, 150 to 200 amps per day. I hope to have about 600 to 800 amps of battery capacity. If I can generate over 100 amps per day from alternative sources then I can go 2 to 4 days depending on a lot of variables. Yes?


YES. Get your battery bank as big as possible. An 800 AH bank gives you two days @ 200AH usage assuming no charging. With two days of 100AH charging, you gain a third day.

Putting back in 100AH per day is the challenge. Our two - 120watt panels give us 60-70AH daily, but we rarely adjust their angle more than once daily.

We have a 420AH bank and will increase it to 630AH next season. We have considered adding a third solar panel, but feel that our money is better spent with increased storage capacity. Our logic: while cruising you will find that you motor at least 50% of the time (or more). After two-three hours of motoring, our 420AH bank is full and the alternator turns off. So...if we motor for an additional two hours, we have no place to store the energy that could be produced from the engine/alternator.

Roger


----------



## sailingdog

Xort-

I hope you have a pretty big boat... to support 600-800 *amp-hours* of battery capacity, you'd need about six to eight T105 golf cart batteries at a minimum. BTW, please keep amps and amp-hours straight..


----------



## xort

stoutwench said:


> YES. Get your battery bank as big as possible. An 800 AH bank gives you two days @ 200AH usage assuming no charging. With two days of 100AH charging, you gain a third day.
> 
> Putting back in 100AH per day is the challenge. Our two - 120watt panels give us 60-70AH daily, but we rarely adjust their angle more than once daily.
> 
> We have a 420AH bank and will increase it to 630AH next season. We have considered adding a third solar panel, but feel that our money is better spent with increased storage capacity. Our logic: while cruising you will find that you motor at least 50% of the time (or more). After two-three hours of motoring, our 420AH bank is full and the alternator turns off. So...if we motor for an additional two hours, we have no place to store the energy that could be produced from the engine/alternator.
> 
> Roger


From your numbers, I'm beginning to think solar/wind isn't worth the money. This is what I'm looking for, real world usage to make a judgement from.
Thanks

Amps, Amp hours, amputees, amphenemines, ambulance, I get them confused sometimes. Please don't ban me from the board.


----------



## PBzeer

xort - the passive energy comes in mostly when at anchor for a few days. If you were always on the go, then it wouldn't be as needed. But, if you find a nice little spot to drop the hook for a few days, the extra you get from alternatives, means that much longer till you have to run the engine.


----------



## Guest

SD - Have you looked at or do you have any direct experience with the Northstar AGM batteries? They offer an interesting form factor that some might find helpful. I have recently installed several of the 210 AH units for my house bank. Of course the AGM batts are more expensive but they fit my needs. 4 of these would provide the 800+ AH ...I am not affiliated with SS or Northstar ! Offered here solely as a way to store all this power coming from the SS and participating forum members....

AGM batteries, Marine Batteries, Heavy Duty Batteries, dry cell batteries


----------



## ebs001

XORT passive energy sources are nice but in the real world it's hard for most people to get enough to supply their energy needs. I have 2 x 80 watts of soler and a wind generator. This year while in south Florida with winds howling the wind generator was able to supply our energy needs while away from shore power. But that was unusual and so I have a Honda generator as a back up. When the winds are not in the 20 knot range it's necessary to have a direct energy source. Reality


----------



## sailingdog

Whampoa-

Those are interesting batteries, but I think that the T-105 batteries provide more power for less money. Two T-105 batteries weigh 124 lbs. and provide 225 Amp-Hours, while their AGM battery provides 209 AH at 128 lbs. In most ways their pretty comparable, except on price. I think that T-105's also have longer duty cycles than the AGMs do.


----------



## Guest

SD - You are correct on the cost and AH. Do you know if the T-105s can be mounted on their sides? I had space constraints and didn't want to re-engineer the engine compartment and battery spaces. My batteries are also located in an area where I can not easily check and or add water to wet cells. 

Anyway, didn't mean to hijack the thread here. Thanks for the reply. Be sure to take a look at the dimensions of the batteries in addition to the AH and costs.


----------



## sailingdog

Whampoa-

Wet cells can't be mounted in any orientation but upright...the electrolyte tends to leak out otherwise...  And you don't want 20% acid pour out of the battery...


----------



## Guest

SD - Just fooling with ya! So sometimes we need options for our boats that may cost us more money. But at least we have options for our small boats.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

xort said:


> From your numbers, I'm beginning to think solar/wind isn't worth the money.


Dollar for dollar, IMO the Honda 2000 is the best, but then you have the problem of storing enough gas, the noise, etc. We would never give up our solar........

Roger


----------



## sailingdog

Whampoa said:


> SD - Just fooling with ya! So sometimes we need options for our boats that may cost us more money. But at least we have options for our small boats.


I just like to leave things fairly clear... you never know when some fool will see your post and try it... so it is better to prevent the problem from happening...

Just remember, in the race between man and God, where man makes something fool-proof and God makes a better fool, God is winning...he can upgrade all his existing fools to the new version without having to re-create them...


----------



## arghhh

Say if funds weren't an issue would it be better to get two honda 1000's and the parallel cable? That way you could use the entire output of one to charge your batteries and if you needed more wattage to run a microwave or something you could start the other one. This would also let you alternate sets to make them last longer, and you would have a spare in case one went down.

The down side to this as I could see would be increased stowage space for two gen sets and more fuel consumption if you were using the two 1000's at full capacity vs one 2000.

Looking at it from an efficentcy standpoint once your bank gets too 80% do you really thing you would need the 2000 watts to charge it to 100%.

Of course this is also a good excuse to buy a few more boat units of toys.


----------



## camaraderie

Xort...You can get 100 Amp/hours a day out of a good wind generator and pair of solar panels...but that is going to cost you 3K at least. 100A/H set up and an 800 Amp/hr bank with 200A/h daily usage will let you go for 4 days without running the engine. When you DO run it...figuring a 100Amp alternator you'll need to do it for about 4 hours. So...you can run it every 2 days for 2 hours or every 4 days for 4 hours. That is still a lot of bad time on your engine on a continuous basis. 
A honda 2000 puts out 1600W continuous for about 1K. Of course you have gas costs but I would sacrifice the solar panels for a Honda since that would allow me to avoid destroying my engine over time. 
If the wind vane gave you 80amps daily...the honda would need to make up for 120 a day...about a gallon of gas every two days...or about 10 bucks a week 500 bucks a year...so very cost efficient when compared to cost of running your engine and the damage you would do.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

I would just have the larger one. 
But you have triggered a question. If i had room for two gensets and extra fuel storage, i would rather carry a gas powered high volume water pump for emergencies instead a second generator. Such as this 3" pipe, 300 gallon per minute lifesaver toy.
Honda WT30 Waterpump - Honda Trash Waterpumps

Is anything on the market where the genset motor could be quickly hooked up to a water pump after removing the generator? To me that modularity would be worth a lot more than the Honda 2000, (which is why i dare tread on this thread). Or does anyone have an opinion that a generator running an electric water pump would be as effective, something i have never heard.


----------



## xort

Cam
The boat will have an 8k generator for use at anchor. The engine charging would only come when moving. So the engine wear from battery charging will be nearly zero but running an 8k genset will cost fuel & maintenance plus the noise & smell. 
I'm trying to weigh the various factors.

Solar is quiet but it takes up space and doesn't work at night or much on cloudy days and has a cost.
Wind can be somewhat noisy, takes less space and doesn't gen when the wind is too low or too high.
Generator is noisy & stinky, uses fuel & requires maintenance.
All I want is a perfect solution that doesn't cost anything, is that too much to ask?
I was thinking solar & wind but now I'm leaning to wind & the generator.


----------



## sailingdog

*The Perfect Solution*

Xort-

What you want is a small pebble bed nuclear reactor. This would take up space, but you wouldn't need fuel for it for a long time. It would also be very quiet.  It really is the perfect solution for your needs. It would have to be on a gimballed mount though.


----------



## xort

SD
I have some Persian rugs I could trade for a nuke. sounds like a good idea, thanks


----------



## hellosailor

Whampoa-
Interesting battery company but is this for real?
*"How quickly can I charge my battery bank?*
If you are using equipment with a battery temperature sensing option, and you have the charger power available, then it is possible to recharge in a little over one hour."

If I believe that, and the 500 cycles at 80% discharge, then they've obviously stolen their technology from Area51 and have the best batteries on this planet. (Damn, Monday morning on the first pot of coffee and my skeptic flag is up already!<G>)

SD-
Fool Version 6.554.930.801.902 was recently delivered and the Good Lord is already working furiously on the next model. A general product recall has been issued for all models under 5.9xxx, please return postpaid to the factory for modifications.<G>
"a small pebble bed nuclear reactor. " Not to worry, the Chinese have done incredible things with the technology and installing one vertically in a replacement keel would probably be feasible, a win-win situation for all if we get to China and corner the market first!

Cam-
You make a good point for solar, actually. A pair of 180W modules for maybe $2500 including controller and wiring, maybe good for 150AH per day (300 if they are mounted on Solar Stiks <G>) and they'd pay for themselves in five years versus the price of gasoline for the Honda. Except, that's based on today's gasoline prices and I think we all expect $5/gallon within five years, so the solar panels probably have a 4-year payback.


----------



## sailingdog

HS-

He wanted something that is quiet, reliable, provides electrical power 24x7 in spite of the weather. A pebble bed nuclear reactor fits the bill...  

So when are you being recalled?? Or do I need to put a stamp on you??


----------



## camaraderie

Xort...OK...got the generator thing now. I would recommend the big blade wind gen and however much solar you can fit comfortably on the boat. If money is an issue then I'd skimp on the solar. If you can get 300W of panels on the boat and a good windgen...you will reliably be able to average 200A/H's a day in the Bahamas/Caribe type climates...saving your diesel gen for the air conditioning duties! (G)

HS...from a long term cruising standpoint I agree that a large panel array can be quite cost effective...but you still need to avoid running the diesel somehow. That is why in a cost constrained scenario, or short term cruising plan I recommend the Honda. It is tough to get a solar "payback" if you have to pay 5-6k for a diesel rebuild.


----------



## conchyjoe

xort said:


> I suspect I'll be on the high side of consumption, 150 to 200 amps per day. I hope to have about 600 to 800 amps of battery capacity. If I can generate over 100 amps per day from alternative sources then I can go 2 to 4 days depending on a lot of variables. Yes?


Xort,

I did look at a Catamaran recently that had an interesting setup. The guy had 12V fridge/freezer, as well as 12V A/C. Instead of installing an AC generator, he installed 6-8(not sure) T105's and a Fischer Panda DC generator. He said he didn't require much AC, so why bother.

http://www.fischerpanda.com/marine-pdf/Panda%20AGT4Insert.pdf


----------



## camaraderie

Cjoe...he already has an 8kw diesel generator on board.


----------



## sailingdog

conchyjoe said:


> Xort,
> 
> I did look at a Catamaran recently that had an interesting setup. The guy had 12V fridge/freezer, as well as 12V AC. Instead of installing an AC generator, he installed 6-8(not sure) T105's and a Fischer Panda DC generator. He said he didn't require much AC, so why bother.
> 
> http://www.fischerpanda.com/marine-pdf/Panda%20AGT4Insert.pdf


Who installs 12V AC? What runs on 12V AC???


----------



## Guest

HS-

Your guess is better than mine. I decided to give them a try as I had space ,mounting and service access constraints and wanted to replace the 6 yr old Prevalier Gel cells that made up my start and house batteries. 

I also wanted to increase my house capacity in the process but didn't want to have to rebuild the battery box in the process. These gave me the mounting options and form factor along with the additional AH capacity I was looking for. So I took the chance and we will see how it goes.

I updated the battery charger to a Xantrex 5012 with an Echo Charge to feed the Start battery. I am in the process of upgrading the engine alternator to a Balmer Series 6 120 Amp unit managed by one of their ARS-5 units. 

At the moment I have no solar, wind or diesel/gas generation aboard and I have estimated my daily energy demands to be around 150 AH. I am contemplating possible approaches now.

With respect to the statements in the FAQ section you referred to, I will defer to the more knowledgable skeptics amongst you for comments and opinions. I do not and can not recommend the batteries to anyone else as each of you will have to make your own decisions based on your needs and tolerance for risk with your investments. 

PS: I don't see a Solar Stick on Whampoa's stern, wouldn't go with the patina on the bronze....


----------



## conchyjoe

camaraderie said:


> Cjoe...he already has an 8kw diesel generator on board.


Gotcha, missed that.


----------



## ReverendMike

tigerregis said:


> Sixteen hour days in Kuwait. Proponents of his system(unpaid, of course) and the thoughts? of a bunch of sailors, who by the look of it were all from Missouri.


Youze gotta problem wit Mizzourah?

I'll have you know it's perfect, aside from the lack of deepwater ports, but Al Gore says that'll change.

P.S. Our days are only 24 hours


----------



## camaraderie

sailingdog said:


> Who installs 12V AC? What runs on 12V AC???


Dawg...he means air conditioner running on 12V DC like this:








12 volt air conditioner


----------



## sailingdog

Cam-

Thanks for the clarification... I have usually seen A/C for air conditioning, and AC for alternating current... and he had the AC for A/C next to the AC for AC..... so I was a bit confused... 

*EDIT: *Nice to see Conchy edited his post for clarity...


----------



## conchyjoe

Whampoa said:


> I am in the process of upgrading the engine alternator to a Balmer Series 6 120 Amp unit managed by one of their ARS-5 units.


Whampoa,

It may have been overlooked in your post, but consider the temp sensor for the ARS-5 as well. Your batteries will thank you.

I have also heard that the 100-120 amp units have quite a taste for belts, and something like a high end NAPA or Gates work best, along with precise alignment of the pulleys


----------



## Guest

CJ - Yes sir I have the temp sensors for batteries as well as the alternator and have a dual pulley setup with plans for the Gates belts. I failed to post that level of detail, sorry.


----------



## conchyjoe

Whampoa said:


> CJ - Yes sir I have the temp sensors for batteries as well as the alternator and have a dual pulley setup with plans for the Gates belts. I failed to post that level of detail, sorry.


Yep, there is no doubt temp sensing on the alternator itself is a great idea. Same with dual pulleys.

You should consider photographing everything and posting it as a project.

People would be very interested in seeing that.

Best of luck


----------



## camaraderie

Whampoa...I have been told that dual pulleys are NOT a good idea since the move the angle of bearing stress outward and more readily do damage. This was from Don Casey so it carries some weight with me. I do get fairly rapid belt ware with my 110A Balmar but have kept the single pulley. Putting a new belt on is a 10 minute job so I just carry spares and don't worry about my bearings. ...and yes...the Gates belts are worth the premium!


----------



## Guest

Cam - I have heard that also. The new alternator currently has a single belt pulley on it but I picked up a dual belt pulley while I was sourcing the parts.

The folks at Jack Rabbit were helpful and IIRC they indicated they had few reports of problems with the single pulley arrangement up to the 120 A size but also recommended the Gates or comparable premium belt.

Whampoa has an Isuzu C240P17 marine diesel in her and I am not envisioning any issues with the 120 A alternator in terms of load.

My current house bank is 420 AH from two of the Northstar NSB210FT AGM batteries and a 105 AH Group 31 Northstar AGM for a starter battery.

There is also a battery temp sensor connected to the Xantrex XC5012 for the house batts.

CJ - Thanks for the reply. As far as photos, with so many fiberglass boat owners in the forum, pictures of a wooden boat might be bad for their health and wellness and or morale <G>....


----------



## conchyjoe

Whampoa said:


> CJ - Thanks for the reply. As far as photos, with so many fiberglass boat owners in the forum, pictures of a wooden boat might be bad for their health and wellness and or morale <G>....


Nothing wrong with Old School Whampoa. Bet she is a pretty girl...

And Cam makes a good point. All the more reason to use premium belts like Gates, they might even sell "matched pairs", but certainly belts from the same batch are the best option for dual pulleys.


----------



## Valiente

hellosailor said:


> Not to worry, the Chinese have done incredible things with the technology and installing one vertically in a replacement keel would probably be feasible, a win-win situation for all if we get to China and corner the market first!


They must be using those depleted uranium keels all the kids are wearing this year.


----------



## [email protected]

I too am looking to add solar and wind, I have just completed my radar,dinghylift,solarpanel and wind generator arch but as I look at products I see kyocera has new blue panels on their web site with a better conversion rate, also a new black panel from sunpower which claims to have the higest power rating /ft2 but I cant find a place to buy them also re windgenerators is the newer airx 400 quieter than the old ones??? Ihave room for 2 big panels 24"x60" so I would like the best available can any body help me pleease Ole


----------



## sailingdog

Ole-

With that kind of space, you can probably fit 130W panels. Unfortunately, the actual outputs are a bit wide-ranging, and no one has done any comprehensive testing recently... so which panels to get are a bit of a crapshoot. I've used the BP and the ICP Solar panels... and have been pretty happy with both.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

so, 67 pages later...have we decided anything yet? 
So, what is the best solution to everyone's electrical woes? 
Guys face it, solar is here to stay, wind gens are here to stay, gas generators are here to stay. 

I have met Brian, I have seen the solar stik. It is an incredible device if for nothing other than holding solar panels. The device was created out of a need to add solar charging capabilities to a 25 cruising boat. Yes, I have heard that it is expensive, can't confirm or deny that. It is sturdily built, and it puts an array of panels in places that you could not mount them otherwise. No one can argue that adjusting your solar panels to face sun is not beneficial. This is what the solar stik was designed to do. 

I sail in a 25 Oday. My electrical needs are so meager that I can sail for days on end with power to spare from my single 12v battery. My situation is so different than many of the other posters, I don't need to run my refrigeration unit, laptop, my ssb radio. I just need nav lights and cabin lights and power for the vhf. I would love to have a solar array that would just keep my batteries topped off, so when I need power it's there. 

So, what is my point, I don't know, other than everyone's needs are different. Is solar stik the beat all end all, probably not. But it does have it's place, and hopefully soon, it's place will be on the transom of my 25 footer. 

Thanks for the entertainment guys, it has been a very painful read.

Ross in Tampa
1979 Oday, Lola


----------



## Cruisingdad

Kyocera makes a very good product. Call these guys: Solar Electric Systems & Solar Panels

They are top-notch, you will not pay any tax, and they know their stuff. Ask for Ryan. Tell him Brian/Cruisingdad sent you.

- CD

PS I have NO affiliation with them. Just like them and they have been very fair with me.


----------



## Idiens

OK, so what do I do?

I have just had my 95 Ah wet lead-acid starter battery go toes up. One cell has light water in it. It's over five years old, so I was expecting it. 
The house bank is 4 x 110 Ah, again wet lead-acid, four years old. Immediate solution was to chuck the starter battery and substitute one of the house batteries for starting, leaving me with a 330 Ah house bank.
Since AGM is all the rage, that seems to be the way to go. If I buy them one at a time to substitute the wet batteries as they die, what harm will be done? At the moment they get a mix of charging. 3-stage when on shore power, 14V when on alternator (two half-hour shots a day going in and out of harbour) and a 32 Wp solar panel adds a bit during daylight.


----------



## sailingdog

I wouldn't mix the batteries within a single bank... that's not a good idea... because the wet cells will require charging for longer than the AGM, which has a higher initial charge acceptance capacity, and the higher voltage caused by the still depleted wet-cells will fry the AGM battery. IF you want to get an AGM... buy one and use it as your starting battery... and then later, when you can, upgrade the house bank.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Idiens,

I would pull them all out. I did. You "should" go in with the same batts, at the same time, same mfg date, etc. Lifelines really are good. And if you add up the weight loss (since you are not hauling water around)... ther you go.

Would it rally hurt to keep the wets in the system... I don't think so. You will have increased sulphation I would imagine since you will chane your charge rate to that of agms. But, sine the batteries are the lifeling to your boat, why not pull out Mastercard AND LET HER RIP!!

ANyways, that is my advice. However, I was able to track down Giu's CC# so all my stuff is free.

- CD

PS These are just my thoughts... other may dissagree (but don't believe them).


----------



## Idiens

sailingdog said:


> I wouldn't mix the batteries within a single bank... that's not a good idea... because the wet cells will require charging for longer than the AGM, which has a higher initial charge acceptance capacity, and the higher voltage caused by the still depleted wet-cells will fry the AGM battery. IF you want to get an AGM... buy one and use it as your starting battery... and then later, when you can, upgrade the house bank.


The only 3-stage charger I have is the shore power one, and so far I have never seen it try very hard. If I change the starter battery to an AGM, will not the same issue occur, as I am not using separate chargers?


----------



## Cruisingdad

Idiens,

You have to charge AGM's at a different rate or cook them. Also, before you invest the money in AGM's, make sure your charger has an AGM setting. 14.2-14.4 Bulk, 14.2-14.4 accept, 13.2-13.3 float.

If you do not have that settting on your charger, you will have to buy a new charger too or stay with wets.


----------



## Idiens

Cruisingdad said:


> why not pull out Mastercard AND LET HER RIP!!


Yes, I just did on a new engine, so it's feeling the credit limit strain. 
I would like to let the house batteries run, to test my theory that battery manufacturers actually design a self-distruct into their products. Five to six years is as long as a wet cell lives, no matter how well its treated.
Look at my starter battery, it lived a blessed existence. 95 Ah is almost twice as much as goes into a car for starting a 75 hp diesel. In a car, it would get kicked into life at least twice a day, and has a stupid charging regime. In a boat, it's loved and tendered and hardly used at all. It dies after 5 years anyway.
How long do AGM's actually survive in practice?


----------



## Idiens

Cruisingdad said:


> ...make sure your charger has an AGM setting. 14.2-14.4 Bulk, 14.2-14.4 accept, 13.2-13.3 float.


Thanks, I'll check, it sounds like cache 22.5. Does that mean that the alternator also would need tweeking to serve the AGMs properly?


----------



## Cruisingdad

Depends on the AGM, I guess. WHo knows. Mine are new. I know my wets I have always had were ALWAYS A PIECE OF CRAP. Checking the water, toting along the distilled, have to be flat... blah, blah, blah. Never, never again.

4-d Lifelines are rated at 210ah. Dekas are less expensive, but may not be built as well. Go to Lifeline Marine Batteries - AGM Marine Battery & AGM RV Battery. It will give you a lot of info. They say with good care you will get many, many long years out of them. But... like I said, who really knows?


----------



## Cruisingdad

Alternator:

Maybe. What are you putting out?? My guess is that without a 3 stage reg on that alt, you will just not fully charge the batts. You won't ever float them. But that is true on wets too.


----------



## Idiens

Cruisingdad said:



> Alternator: ... What are you putting out??


The new one is rated at 80 A. The old one fed the two banks via a diode bridge, adjusted to point 14 V at the batteries. It seemed to manage that OK, but was not fast charging. Recommendations for a good DC charging regulator? (Thank for the battery link, not sure if they are available over here).


----------



## hellosailor

Idiens, there are only two things that affect how long a battery will last. The first is construction. True deep-cycle batteries designed for industrial/commercial use are built more robustly [translation: they cost more than you are willing to pay] and last longer.

The second issue is the environment, mainly how you use/charge them. And frankly if you are charging them to only 14.0 volts, you are abusing them. A plain automotive type ("single stage") regulator is designed for replacing the power drawn by a starter motor--and then not overcharging the battery if you drive all day. This also means it is designed "never" to fully charge the battery, and it does not perform equalizations, which wet cells need for optimum life.

So, you can either spend money on a good charger and regulator--or you can spend more money on batteries. The only difference is that some folks would rather spend $200 on batteries every four years, than $500 for the regulator and other parts _plus _new batteries up front at the same time.

AGM batteries generally should never be mixed with wet cells. Even different brands of batteries (any kind) ideally should never be mixed, since different battery chemistries are used and the optimum charging values may vary 0.1-0.3V between brands. And that's enough to be a 30% difference in the charge state.

By all means, replace your starting battery, or use the one you have there for now. But try upgrading the charging system and perform an equalization on the house bank, and an electrolyte specific gravity test, to see if you can bring them back somewhat.

If you ever leave your boat unattended, with no battery charging, for more than 30 days? That will also permanently deplete wet cells--but not AGMs. Wet cells undergo an irreversible chemical reaction and lose some capacity permanently if they are allowed to self-discharge for more than 30 days. AGMs can go for six months and longer without any permanent harm, and a much lesser loss. But, they are about 30% more expensive.


----------



## Valiente

I agree with all the warnings about "no mixing AGMs and wet cells". They both charge in three stages, but the voltage values differ and the AGMs can take somewhat more charge (acceptance) without cooking off like a wet would.

I would say that if you decide to switch, you get a single start battery of the same type as your house banks (a 110 AH, I guess) and baby the house banks for a couple more years. Then switch the lot and get a charger that can deliver accurate AGM charge ranges. In two years, there might well be cheaper prices for AGMs and a wider range of chargers for them.

One advantage of AGMs is the fact that they don't need to be kept vertical. This means that you can build *angled* battery boxes or racks in places that might not occur to you otherwise, such as (in my case) the "dead space" beneath water tankage in my engine compartment. If the AGMs go in at a 20 degree angle, say, I can use leverage and planks to slide even 170 lbs. 8D batteries into racks, which I would afterwards simply lock down with a bar. Getting even an 80 lb. standard battery into its tray vertically (at full extension lying over the engine nearly broke my back...because I didn't want to drop a wet cell even an inch! AGMs, along with their other appealing attributes, may not be lighter, but they offer more flexible mounting options.

Good luck.


----------



## camaraderie

Ross...I assume you are Ross who hangs out on the SBO forum w/ Cjoe and the others since all the data fits. 
If you read carefully...you will see that no one ever said SS wasn't a well, built, well thought out product. Or that using one won't substantially increase amp hours vs. a fixed panel. What we all objected to was unverified claims that were contradicted by all the science we could dredge up about the actual output which has been claimed by Brian to be he equivilent of 200-300 watts of fixed panels and with 80-100 a/h's delivered to the battery per day. 
If you don't have room for fixed panels on your boat...and want to spend $3500 to get a stick with them...no one will stop you. We all spend lots of $$ on the toys we want the most. 
If it were me...I'd get a nice wind vane on a stick that actually works 24 hours a day...puts out more amps and actually works at anchor when the wind and tide and current shift and I'm not on the boat. But some people like solar better...so be it. 
Just remember that the panels and controller are worth about $850 and the rest is the stik & wiring.


----------



## sailingdog

Well said Cam... The rest is the Stik and wiring, but doesn't include the cost of installation. 

BTW, how was your trip..


----------



## Cruisingdad

Hi Idens,

Sorry, I left for the evening. Balmar probably has the market on alt/reg's. I have not heard any negatives except that changing the default set-up on them can be a trial (ie, wet - agm).

I will have to say that you may be better off putting the money in your alternator/regulator than batts. After that, invest in the batts (if you have $$ left over). Lifelines are not cheap. However, they are available all over the world.


----------



## hellosailor

Ross in Tampa-
" My electrical needs are so meager that I can sail for days on end with power to spare from my single 12v battery....Is solar stik the beat all end all, probably not. But it does have it's place, and hopefully soon, it's place will be on the transom of my 25 footer. "

So, let me understand this. You have a 25' boat, that can run for days from a single Group27, but you're about to invest three or four thousand dollars in a solar gizmo that can supposedly put out enough power in one day to FULLY DEEP CYCLE your battery? Five or six times more power than you can possibly use?

I'm glad the robust construction and elegant installation of the Solar Stik impress three grand out of your budget. I think we've all said it is a physically impressive unit. But it seems like your grasp of amps and watt-hours is not part of your decision, and all that anyone has questioned here, is the technical information behind the Solar Stik.

For your needs, one flat panel, one set of rail clamps, and a total expense of about $750 would keep your battery charged all the time. Leaving about three grand less in equipment that someone might just steal off your transom one night. If you want to save two grand by using a simpler conventional product that's all you need--and you can send me half of that as a simple thank-you fee. (Unless the money really means nothing to you, in which case send me the whole two grand, I'll put it to good use.<G>)


----------



## Idiens

Cruisingdad said:


> ...Balmar probably has the market on alt/reg's.


Thanks CD. The installation, as is, was set up by the previous owner, it works well enough with wet batteries. Since I've never heard of a wet battery lasting more than six years in any state of health, I'm not surprised that the oldest has died in one cell after over five years of near neglect.
Valiente - that's a good idea, I was looking at adding some more batteries in an unoccupied space, I hadn't thought of mounting them sloping. Though I wonder about the effect of heeling adding to the angle.
Hello - My batteries only see the alternator input occasionally, compared to shore power charging through a Vectron Pallas 3-stage charger, but the starter battery is only wired to trickle charge (12.6 V). The house bank gets the benefit. So I don't think the alternator's 14V constant setting was doing any harm. 
Yanmar have cleverly delivered the new engine with the alternator set up to only charge the starter battery. - Another sales trap I have fallen into. Costs extra to have them change it. Plus the calorifier pipes require another adaptor kit.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

All of your points are well taken, and no, there are several of us Ross' in the SBO forum. I am Ross in Tampa on that forum.

A small solar panel probably would suffice to keep my battery topped off with my current usage. As we need more self sufficiency, we will add an additional battery to the bank and alleviate our emergent need for daily recharging. 

My issue is space, or lack there of. Our boat was not designed for multi-day cruising with 4 aboard. Granted two of the four are young adults, but four none the less. I see the SS as an excellent solution to our needs, but it will be quite a while before I will be able to hang one off the back of my boat.

Thanks for the responses

Ross


----------



## tigerregis

Cam, re post#694. It was very pleasant to see someone use the conditional, as it appears to have virtually disappeared(as it were).


----------



## camaraderie

Tiger...If I were a good son I would blame my parents for that! (g)


----------



## bestfriend

700 posts, wow. And I see you are getting your second (or third) wind. No pun intended.
Nice to have you back, Cam.


----------



## hellosailor

Idiens-
"Plus the calorifier pipes require another adaptor kit. " Now I KNOW I'm either talking to a foreigner, or someone in Elizabethean England.< G > 
Calorifier, huh?< G >

I agree with you about 5-6 years being the typical limit, but folks who have invested top dollar (ergh, euro?) in three and four stage chargers and controllers, done equalizations, and installed Rolls, Surrette, and other top-dollar "they can't be worth that much" batteries, seem to keep saying they get twice that much routinely. Of course, that also might be partly because the folks who can spend that much are buying more capacity and not deep cycling their battery banks as much or as often--I just don't know. And certainly, there are some practical limits as to just how much weight and space one is willing to give the batteries, as well as a limited budget for them!

Ross-
Consider, for your situation, see what the PS test reviews say this summer. And, regardless of them, a simple vertical pipe (i.e. a dingy davit or stanchion lift of the type used for outboard motors and sold in chanlderies) with a simple solar panel mounted on the top of it, will get you substantial power for $500-1000. Adding in the MPPT controller certainly will get you more--but spending $300? $400? for that kind of controller when you're only charging a single hundred-dollar battery, kinda seems like gilding the lilly to me. And, it can always be added later.


----------



## Alden68

Regarding the discussion of the benefit of the installation angles of AGM's....what happens to wet cells, which are installed flat, on long passages at significant heel angles?


----------



## PBzeer

Alden68 - It would partly depend on where and how they where mounted, and how tight the caps were. Obviously though, when you tilt something with liquid in it, and it has a means of escape, it will come out.


----------



## PBzeer

Ross - just remember, no solar setup is any better than the operator of it. If you don't utilize the ablities of a tilting panel setup, then it will be no better than just a flat panel. How the panels are mounted only gives you the opportunity to increase their efficency. The mounting device doesn't do it by itself.


----------



## Alden68

Maybe spending the extra dough on AGM's would make sense in the long run if you primarily sailed in San Fran Bay, while you could benefit from the lower up front cost of wet cells if you summer daysailed in the Chesapeake. Maybe...


----------



## PBzeer

If you're going to have a bank that you use a lot, I think the AGM's make more sense in the long run. I should know in about 6-10 years.


----------



## SimonV

moved to a new thread, didnt want to hijack this one (like I could)


----------



## camaraderie

RE: AGM's...
IMHO the expense of AGM's vs. life cycle only makes sense if you are full time living aboard or need a sealed battery due to mounting considerations. If you DO live aboard...they make a LOT of sense. Simply haveing AGM's and keeping them plugged in at the dock for weekending/vacation use provides no real benefit other than maintenance.

Simon...you didn't want to hijack *THIS* thread?? (LOL)


----------



## Valiente

camaraderie said:


> RE: AGM's...
> IMHO the expense of AGM's vs. life cycle only makes sense if you are full time living aboard or need a sealed battery due to mounting considerations. If you DO live aboard...they make a LOT of sense. Simply haveing AGM's and keeping them plugged in at the dock for weekending/vacation use provides no real benefit other than maintenance.
> 
> Simon...you didn't want to hijack *THIS* thread?? (LOL)


I agree with this. They are an unnecessary extravagance for most weekend/short-haul boaters, unless you can't handle the very minor task of checking your levels a couple of times a year and carrying a litre of distilled water and a steel wool pad for the contacts, a daub of grease and a rag to wipe down the dust.

It wouldn't surprise me if some folk don't know that this is minimal attention.


----------



## Freesail99

I can buy at Sam's Club goft cart batterys for $60.00. Bring on the distilled water ......


----------



## Idiens

hellosailor said:


> ... Calorifier, huh?< G >


 Yes - I wonder where I picked up the term (Nigel Calder maybe?). Yanmar calls it a boiler, but its actually a heat exchanger.
I was a died in the wool "wet batteries are cheaper and good enough" type, especially because I bet AGMs (or others) actually live no longer for their extra cost and weight. 
Calling all AGM freaks - how long have you had yours working?


----------



## Valiente

Freesail99 said:


> I can buy at Sam's Club goft cart batterys for $60.00. Bring on the distilled water ......


Exactly! Wet cells are fine for the next couple of years, but on passage, I want AGMs. I have my proof already that they are superior at holding a charge.

And, at the price, so they bloody well should be.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*Solar/wind and Golf Cart Batteries*

We've had US battery golf cart batteries on board for almost four years without any problems. I have heard of multiple boats having problems with AGMs out here in tropics, due to over charging, lack of charging, or unknown failures. We haven't had any problems with batteries leaking and we've been healed over pretty good during a 10 day 35+ knot blow on the way to New Zealand. I even use the yellow hydocaps, which have flip up lids for easy watering. If you go with AGM's make sure you have your charging system checked out for compatibility.

We've also been running full solar (460 watts) with a quiet wind generator. The Rutland 913 doesn't put our as much as much as the Air-X but I like my neighbors too much to subject them to the noise of a helicopter landing zone. Lots of people have commented on the quietness of ours, I think the Kiss is good as well, and I really like the concept of the aquagen (raise in a bracket at anchor and tow at sea). Down wind, a cruisers dream, the wind generator doesn't put out much power but our home made towing generator does. The only problem is the tow line gets in the way of fishing.

If you are going with solar panels, make sure you have a good mount that is out of the way. Ours are flat mounted on a rack above the Bimini, which we have never taken down since we left (consider adding hard one with rain gutter and a hard dodger). Be careful of the mounting of the radar and the wind generator as those can cause additional self-inflicted shade problems. I've seen Radar domes mounted (without a pivot) successfully under the solar panels on many long term cruising boats. We originally had 300 watts of solar but had shading problems that reduced the efficiency. I added two more 80 watt panels in Fiji on the side rails and had lot's of shading problems between the Bimini, dodger and rigging. Once I re-arranged everything above the bimini, we've been sitting in Fat City.

We fully run the boat on the solar and wind.. that includes fridge, Engel freezer and water maker. It is so successful that we can comfortably leave the fridge/freezer running while we travel on land for months at a time. We are usually fully charged by noon and I can last through extended cloudy periods (usually more wind) without running the engine. In fact sometimes I have to run the engine just to make sure it still works.

Make sure your wind-gen divert load is a 12 volt hot water heater element so you don't add more heat to the air. I recently added a "wife-bank" which charges off the divert and saves the extra power for a rainy day when KT wants to work on the computer. NC-25 change controllers work great. Make sure your solar/wind-gen fuses are not the round AGC series but the ATC (car like). AGC fuses melt under continual current (but hide the open connection under the silver cap so debugging is a real pain in the @$#).

Also take a long hard look at all the power sucking things you add to your boat and see if you really need them. Our invertor is a only 700 watt non-sinewave WM one that I permanently mounted and we haven't felt like we're missing out on anything. We even bought a blender in Australia.


----------



## CosmosMariner

xort you said you want to sail the Bahamas, and want to know if solar and wind are worth it, what is it worth in dollars to have a half a glass of water in the middle of the dessert? All the cost justification arguements mean nothing if you are stuck at Chubb Cay for 30 days and the winds are against you getting to Nassau for reprovisioning. THIS is real world from February 2006. Boats were planning to buy all that cheap gas for their Honda generators as well as food and water. Guess what? No one knew it until they got there but the facilities at Chubb Cay had been wiped out in the last 2 years storms and were being rebuilt. No gas, diesel, water or food. The trades were blowing steady from the east for going on 4 weeks and the cruisers were running out of everything. What's it worth to YOU to have power? What's it worth to YOU to have water? What's it worth to YOU to have food. As far as cost that is the only algorythm you need to solve. 

As far as efficiency and safety and all the rest, Seafit 105 ah 'wet' batteries don't leak and I have 28 in my home and 4 on my boat and I have sold dozens to people after turning them upside down for 5 minutes while we discussed DC on boats and if your boat is ever turned turtle for 5 minutes , God forbid, you have more to worry about than a few drops of battery acid. Also wet cells are available every where in the world AGM's and Gels are not or have to be ordered and in the Bahamas you have shipping charges and 35% import duty to pay. Everyone is right about NOT mixing technologies or batteries of vastly different age. 2 130w solar panels fixed mounted ANYWHERE on your boat will provide all the power you need including running an Engle MT35 freezer 24 X 7 as well as charge your hand held gps, HH VHF, mounted VHF and run your laptop to watch DVDs and run programs. THAT IS real world and recent. For me that's all that counts.

Debating the rest has been fun but you want the real bottom line...that is real..add a wind generator instead of the solar schtick and 2 more batteries and you can cruise on the rest of the money. Or do as I did on my 25' Watkins and put the rest towards a PUR Power Survivor 40E to make your own water any time any where. 

By the way here in North Carolina in the summer the sun tracks almost directly overhead and I get great charging the rest of the year and my solar array is at about 45 degree angle fixed. Check my post back in page 50 something where I give the readings in volts at 1 hr periods on the best but typical day in March this year. In the Bahamas you will get even better performance as my son found out last year. As the name of my boat 'Wu-Hsin' translates into english, 'just do it'. You can't loose and experience will tell you how to fine tune it later to suit your own preferences. Besides Murphy's law says that after you make your choices and buy and install everything, all the technology will change anyway!


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Someone please define AGM for me......


----------



## sailingdog

AGM- Absorbed Glass Mat. This is a very fine fiber Boron-Silicate glass mat. These type of batteries have all the advantages of gelled, but can take much more abuse. We sell the Concorde (and Lifeline, made by Concorde) AGM batteries. These are also called "starved electrolyte", as the mat is about 95% saturated rather than fully soaked. That also means that they will not leak acid even if broken.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Recognizing that everyone uses this space to justify their own decision, I'll try not to editorialize too much. I've got two 55 watt solar panels and a Kiss wind generator. While I've not been out for a real extended cruise yet, I have had opportunities to test their effectiveness on the hook for several days at a time. On the best of days, the solar panels provide about 35-40 amps. This takes care of my frig on all but the really hot times. The wind generator needs 9-10 knots of wind to work. It spins below that speed, but doesn't produce anything. With winds in the 10-15 range, I'm seeing 5-9 amps per hour. So my plan was to have both to accommodate those days when the wind blows but the clouds are present or the boat's oriented in the wrong direction, so the panels get to little direct sunlight and too much shadowing. I don't think it's realistic for me to expect to take care of all my needs. I just want to do as others have indicated - run the engine less. I'm hoping down south, the breeze will be more consistent than it is up in the Chesapeake.

I also realize that I'm working within a range from 50% to 80% of my battery capacity. The last 20% is hard to get in, and I don't want to run them much below 50%. (I've decided to use golf cart. Hope it was the right decision. Only time will tell.)


----------



## hellosailor

"These type of batteries have all the advantages of gelled, "
And supposedly are better, because there is no gelling agent interfering with the chemical reactions in the elctrolyte.

There's also some small company selling new hybrids that they claim are "AGM topped off with gel" and I can't for the life of me see that accomplishes anything besides giving them a unique patent claim.

*Dean*, to add to the confusion, both AGM and gel are sold under names like "Valve Regulated Sealed Acid", the key words being "valve" and "sealed" in some combination. You don't know which (AGm or GEL) a sealed battery is, unless the maker identifies it.


----------



## navion

*Solar and wind power.*

For what it's worth, I have 160 Watts of solar and and AirX wind generator. I use a adler-Barbeur super cold machine. I figure I am using about 160 amp-hours per day. With the limited sun hours on Lake Superior, I still can keep my batteries charged. Last summer we were out for 2 weeks and still were making ice and had frozen meat in the freezer.

Craig Steinkraus


----------



## camaraderie

Sandranbob...welcome! You made a good choice with the KISS and hopefully you'll see more consistent output from it as you get south. One thing I would say is that you need to get to 100% on your batteries every couple of weeks to keep them from sulfating. Either that or do an EQ charge run once a month or you will see fairly rapid deterioration in charg holding capability. A small honda or similar might be a good choice for this duty or you could plug in to a dock every so often. 
Good luck with the cruise plans.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*my two cents*

Well I use to own a westsail 32 with a Adler Barbour unit in the ice box, a lap top, auto pilot, etc. No separate freezer, no TV. On Gulf of Mexico crossings, from Pensacola no need to run the engine at all and my marine Air, (noise was a pain sometime) wind gen worked well. In 15 knots true, on the wind or beam reaching, I could get by with running the wind gen for only 5 hours a day. In lighter air more time was needed but hardly ever 24 hours a day. More like 12 hours if wind was under 10 knots, but even then if you are making 5 knots you still get lots of juice.

On the hook what few places I stayed on the hook were relatively open. But I am looking at a Kiss system for my boat. It puts out more and makes less noise (much less as one guy had one in my marina and you could hardly hear it) But I also plan at least two solar panels. The wind gen is self regulating which I liked. (so was my last one) So solar will be new to me. But if one can get 5 days or so without running the engine using solar and wind combined, well that works for me. I don't mind cranking the engine on that sort of schedule.

I have a larger boat now, and have not done any offshore or coastal sailing much, no time. But my old boat needed about 75 amps a day to run everything. On my present boat, I don't have anything else to run (I forgot that on both I had an SSB) But I assume 75-100 amps a day will work just fine. (I have an inverter on the new boat and microwave so I wonder) But I would think I would get at least 2 amps and hour at anchor with a wind gen (though likely more) at 10 knots and have not ever been in a place where I did not have at least that much wind 80 percent of the time. Then with the solar giving me 35 to 40 amps and hour, I think cutting back on use when there is not much wind or no sun will work just fine.

terry


----------



## sailingdog

twblaw-

I think you're being overly optimistic on how much power the solar panels will provide, unless you plan on having a bank to rival CD's.


----------



## Giulietta

just brought this thread back to piss Sailaway21 off


----------



## sailingdog

Giu-

Evil, but for a worthy purpose...


----------



## cardiacpaul

I'm thinking of installing a flux capacitor, powered by dilithium crrrrrrrystals. Can I get 80 Ah's out of these if I shove a solar powered hairbrush up my butt, stand on my left leg and shout "hooty-hoo"?

*on a related note, how come they always had to go across the darn galaxy to NonOxynol-9 to get more? How come Scotty didn't keep a spare pair in the Fridge?


----------



## ReverendMike

cardiacpaul said:


> I'm thinking of installing a flux capacitor, powered by dilithium crrrrrrrystals. Can I get 80 Ah's out of these if I shove a solar powered hairbrush up my butt, stand on my left leg and shout "hooty-hoo"?
> 
> *on a related note, how come they always had to go across the darn galaxy to NonOxynol-9 to get more? How come Scotty didn't keep a spare pair in the Fridge?


Cuz' he "canna change the laws of physics, cap'n!" ?

('hooty-hoo'? I'm still laughing MAO)


----------



## sailingdog

cardiacpaul said:


> I'm thinking of installing a flux capacitor, powered by dilithium crrrrrrrystals. *Can I get 80 Ah's out of these if I shove a solar powered hairbrush up my butt, stand on my left leg and shout "hooty-hoo"?*
> 
> *on a related note, how come they always had to go across the darn galaxy to NonOxynol-9 to get more? How come Scotty didn't keep a spare pair in the Fridge?


If that is how you generate power on your boat, I really don't want to know about it... and I thought the guy with the noisy diesel genset was a bad one to have in an anchorage with my boat....


----------



## Valiente

cardiacpaul said:


> I'm thinking of installing a flux capacitor, powered by dilithium crrrrrrrystals. Can I get 80 Ah's out of these if I shove a solar powered hairbrush up my butt, stand on my left leg and shout "hooty-hoo"?
> 
> *on a related note, how come they always had to go across the darn galaxy to NonOxynol-9 to get more? How come Scotty didn't keep a spare pair in the Fridge?


CAPTAIN, SHE CANNA TAKE ANY MORE HUMOUR! SHE'LL COME APARRRRRRTTTT!


----------



## xort

non-oxynol-9, that's some killer sh*t!


----------



## Giulietta

I have lived on the beach most of my life...my question:

If the beach is full of people...... will the sun be cooler???? It has to spread its heat by more people, right???

Then on an empty beach the sun is warmer...less people


----------



## tdw

Giulietta said:


> I have lived on the beach most of my life...my question:
> 
> If the beach is full of people...... will the sun be cooler???? It has to spread its heat by more people, right???
> 
> Then on an empty beach the sun is warmer...less people


Either way friend Giu, this thread is a load of hot air.


----------



## Valiente

Giulietta said:


> I have lived on the beach most of my life...my question:
> 
> If the beach is full of people...... will the sun be cooler???? It has to spread its heat by more people, right???
> 
> Then on an empty beach the sun is warmer...less people


What if the people on the beach are Africans covered in white sunblock? How will this affect the temperature of my beer and the volume of my gas during an El Nina event?

Boating is truly scientific. So few "get" that.


----------



## Giulietta

Valiente said:


> What if the people on the beach are Africans covered in white sunblock? How will this affect the temperature of my beer and the volume of my gas during an El Nina event?
> 
> Boating is truly scientific. So few "get" that.


Well...according to the newest publication about Great lakes depth, African people covered in sunblock, have little effect in Earths rotation...

As you know, as the Sun moves aroun earth, it does loose energy towards the end of the day, and regains it in the morning, conclusion, the Sun has luminosity cycles.

Now...I am in the US, its dark now...the Africans, are now seeing the raise in Sun Luminosity, because the Sun went around and is now starting to shine harder there...

Simply by moving the Africand to the USA will keep them warm, as long as they don't fly continental...

El Nino, this year is not coming, his cousin José Mauricio Estebez, the great guitar player is coming instead....

He ie LOCO!!!


----------



## Valiente

You Portuguese have come a long way since Henry the Navigator, it's clear!


----------



## Cruisingdad

I was glancing through this thread and the question popped into my mind:

Have any of you ever tried a Solar Stick? 

- CD

PS come on 100! You can do it!!


----------



## hellosailor

I haven't ordered the free packets of Holy Water on late night TV, either. Which I'm told are free, but come with instructions to sprinkle the special enclosed salt packet (honest) on your check for $17, mail it to the ministry, and repeat four weeks later. Total, $34 for a "free" chinese-restaurant type packet of allegedly Holy Water and two salt packets.

Now, I'm not comparing the Solar Stik to Holy Water. For one thing, the Holy Water ministry guy was in trouble years ago for racking in money the wrong way.

But, you can't go down to the local Stiks-R-Us to check out the Solar Stik, and the claims for it do seem oddly impossible against every [read: EVERY] claim by every solar panel maker, university test lab, and government test lab, on the planet. So I don't say Solar Stik is wrong--I'll just be very curious to see some numbers myself.

Brian has offered to lend me a Solar Stik next month for real testing, and if we can get together on the details (dem Debble, he be in dem details<G>) I'll be glad to let you know that I've tried it--and, what it puts out on my planet, where 11.6V counts as "voltaic-pile-necrophilia" and we rarely have more than one sun over the horizon at any given time.

Of course, as I've said elsewhere, I make no secret of the fact that:
1 - I have no relation to these folks,
2 - I can be bought, but the bidding starts in the middle six figures.

Matter of fact, I think I'll reserve a couple of dead batteries from the boatyard prep pile, to give it a REAL test against an immovable object.<G>


----------



## Cruisingdad

That is fine, but don't you go off trying to sprinkle the Holy Water on the Solar Stik. That is not a fair test, you hear me?? NOT FAIR! Real world only!

- CD


----------



## sailingdog

CD-

You had to go and kick this thread again...didn't you... You are an evil man, and the only reason you did it is that you're trying to catch the Fight Club thread for number of posts...


----------



## Cruisingdad

Page number 75.


----------



## camaraderie

Hey CD...it is only page number 19 onmy screen...you need to change your user options to see more posts per page! Saves all that scolling and clicking.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Cam,

Can I reduce the pages to make it 100 so I can collect my money from some of the sailnet members???


----------



## GaryWilson

*Solar reflectors*

I am going to purchase a boat with solar panels.....not sure of the size, but I think there are two panels about 80 watts each. This will be my first experience with solar panels. I don't know much about them yet, but I assume they put out more power with greater light exposure (and I understand shadows kill the output).

My question is, has anyone tried setting up a reflector next to a solar panel to direct more light to the solar panel (and fill in a shadow)?


----------



## sailingdog

Gary-

You really need to read this whole thread.

 Aaaaahhhh... Make it stop....


----------



## SimonV

This thread is now too big; it has become a small book with no end in sight. Please put a stop to it, or someone could summarize it and start again.


----------



## tdw

Some solar panels are good. Some are not.

Properly installed the good ones work very well provided you don't have the energy requirements of the Empire State Building.

Solar panels don't work very well in the shade.

Solar Stix are rubbish.

This thread is way past it's use by date.

Wombats are seriously cute and deserve lots of cuddles.

Goodnight and Good Luck.


----------



## tomaz_423

TDW, a good summary, bu you forgot some of the "essentials":
- sailing in the desert 
- 120% (and more) efficiency
- 14+ hour days close to equator
- stik is good, stik is bad, stik is good, stik is bad, ....
- Ohm law is no longer true
- W = Wh = Ah = A = ... 
- change the voltage a few times and you generate energy in the process
- Super batteries able to take any charge at any stage (even with 11.X V)
- Last but by far not least: lots of name calling (I improved my English we did not learn in school)


----------



## camaraderie

weren't there genius bulldogs in there somewhere?? (G)
********
Tomaz...*Last but by far not least: lots of name calling (I improved my English we did not learn in school)

*I think that was the you're an ass and full of crap thread. (G)
**********
The only thing missing from the summary is Lelalu's Jessica Simpson impression "I don't know what that is, but I know I want it."

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/../editpost.php?do=editpost&p=142127


----------



## sailingdog

camaraderie said:


> weren't there genius bulldogs in there somewhere?? (G)
> ********
> Tomaz...*Last but by far not least: lots of name calling (I improved my English we did not learn in school)
> 
> *I think that was the you're an ass and full of crap thread. (G)
> **********
> The only thing missing from the summary is Lelalu's Jessica Simpson impression "I don't know what that is, but I know I want it."


Good to see you've recovered from your stint as a moderator.


----------



## Cruisingdad

76....come on 76....


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*first post-from the envious*

I have not yet read this entire post, but wanted to offer an innocent question.

As a landlubber  who is forever fettered to the grid, it does me good to read threads like this. I often wish I had access to cheap solar panels that I could supplement the often over $300 per month to cool this mansion here in the hot south.

Since many of you here are permanently live aboards, that makes the boat your primary residence or maybe secondary. Recently the Fed has adopted some tax breaks for going solar and wind, do they apply to you?  If so, your cost could be abbreviated by recurring some tax incentive rebate.

Every day when you go out and see that great sunrise and the boat next door is making fumes and noise. Just smile and remember, it could always be worse.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Tax incentives or not, the cost of solar will exceed the cost of cheap electricity. A setup to overcome your electrical demand (assuming no air conditioning) will be very expensive. There are other reasons that make solar on boats a good investment:

1) Cheap electricity is not available.

2) You are not tied to the grid.

3) quiet and dependable.

4) makes distant points of call an option.

5) Allows more creature comforts.

6) Reduces your dependency on diesel which is not always available.


----------



## xort

but what about plazman's question...are there tax breaks available for solar/wind purchases for sailboats that are first or second homes?
Anybody try this?


----------



## Cruisingdad

I have not. As much solar as I have on there, it might just pay for my sailboat!!


----------



## kptmorgan04

*Summary and Suggestions*

ok.... I tried, I really really did to read this whole thing to get the important info from it because its something that I want to learn about and an investment I want to make within the next 6-8 months to my new and first boat. as some of you know I just bought it, but I have been out in the gulf of mexico at work since the purchase and will finally get on her right before memorial day weekend. 36ft Center Cockpit Ketch.

Basically I have 2 D4 and one Group 27 gel cell batteris, a fairly new alternator.
I will be cruising consistently for a month at a time, east coast in the summers and down to the bahamas in the winters. I dont know how many "Amp Hours" I will be using or even how to come up with that number. but I see the main draws being fridge, auto pilot, laptop, stero, nav lights (am I missing anything). 
I would like to be pretty much self sufficient, having to run the engine just for the sake of charging as little as possible. 
My thoughts and suggestions would be very much appreciated in advance.
Wind: Something on the Mizzen. there was another post on this, need to go back and read for recommended makes etc.
Solar: A mount that will be made similar to the solar stik withough paying that much money for what I deceiphered is just a mount with 2 panels and the Blue Sky product. I really like the idea of having it mounted on the aft quarter, but would like much more not to pay that much for a system.

So any quick recommendations or comments as to how many panels I would roughly need, how to go about the mounting situation and what type of wind generator I should be looking for?
Thanks again, espeically to saildog and cam and everyone else who has helped answer a lot of my questions over the past few weeks.

Pictures of the soon to be Marabelle Ann: Yahoo! Photos - kptmorgan04's Photos


----------



## sailingdog

KptMorgan-

It really would help if you had a rough idea of what your daily electrical needs are, what your total house battery bank capacity is, and how many days you'd like to be able to go without running the engines to top off the batteries. If your needs are relatively modest, you can possibly setup a bank of solar panels and a wind generator that would allow you, weather cooperating, to stay off the grid indefinitely, without running your engine to charge. 

You may have a 36' boat, but the electrical loads on a boat can vary quite a bit... a 26' boat with a 12VDC refrigerator, microwave, tv, and computer can burn more electricity in a day than a spartanly equipped 45' boat with no refrigeration, microwave, tv or computer. It really depends on you, your usage and your plans.


----------



## hellosailor

kptmorgan, this is one of those areas where either you do the math, or you gamble on "one size fits none".

You can determine your power needs by reading, or looking up, the power draws for each piece of equipment on board and multiplying those out times the number of hours you will be using them. A "stereo" could be 30 watts, or 120. No one here knows which one you have, or whether you plan to rock out twelve hours a day while under sail, versus play a little quiet night music over dinner down below. For the stuff that has no ratings, you need to use an ammeter to measure what it pulls, or make a best guess.

Likewise, there are things like your running lights and anchor lights that MIGHT be 10 watt or 20 watt bulbs, or more. The difference after a week adds up. And how much power your icebox pulls, and how long it runs, and whether you need it cold enough to store meat or keep the ice cream solid, only you can say.

Once you multiply out the watts and hours, and get watt-hours (or amp-hours) you can figure out how much battery capacity you want and whether you can afford it. Then you figure out how to generate it, and whether solar, wind, or machinery will be needed to make that happen.

But without crunching the numbers? You can either waste a lot of money, or come out very lucky. Yeah, that means a long visit to the boat, or some time aboard, to get the right numbers before you can do the refit. Boat projects are always like that, you can't do anything without three more things getting in the way first.<G>


----------



## sailingdog

hellosailor said:


> But without crunching the numbers? You can either waste a lot of money, or come out very lucky. Yeah, that means a long visit to the boat, or some time aboard, to get the right numbers before you can do the refit. Boat projects are always like that, you can't do anything without three more things getting in the way first.<g>


Three? You're damn lucky if it is only three things that slow you down... Project A is connected to Project B, which is waiting on Project C, and to finish Project C, you have to start and finish Project D and E... and so on.... A boat is too small a space for everything to be nicely separated and isolated. 
</g>


----------



## Cruisingdad

Kpt,

You made a very general question, so I will try and help with a general answer. I think it will help. This should get you on the right track at least.

The typical cruising boat uses about 160-180 ah/day. Me, the wife, and kiddo burnt about 150-170/day on our 380... but we did not have a water maker. Just plan on 160-180 for your needs. 180+ with a watermaker. 150-160+ without. 

Assuming your grp 27 is for starting and assuming your 4d's are wired in parallel for your house, and assuming your batts are in perfect condition, you have about 400ah total. Since you do not want to exceed the 50% discharge rate to preserve the life of your batts, that gives you 200ah at your disposal before recharge. That means you should rechare about every day, assuming a full charge with a 3-step charger. If you do not have a 3-stage charger on your alternator on your main, you will only charge about 80%, which will means you will REALLY be chained to recharging ever day and will have a shortened battery life.

Since most boats do not come standard w/ 3stage charging on their alt, you can guess you are probably just bulking your batts. Thus, in order to extend your time away without shortening the life of your batts, and assuming you want to do it as inexpensive as possible, for less than $2000 I would:

1) Buy another battery. I would do this and find a way to make it fit. If your gells are old, just replace them for agms. If they are not old, check the charge rating between the gel and agm and see if you can stick an agm in there. They are usually similar... but check first. You cannot run wets with your gells. This cost is about $400-$500 for a Lifeline 4d. That gave you another 200ah (100 useable).

2) Put on a 3-stage charger on your alternator. Depending on your alternator, this might be a couple of hunderd dollars to several hundred. Lets plan on $300. This will give your batts the proper charge for the windless, sunless days.

3) Install a wind generator. There is too many opinions floating around on which one to buy, and their prices range from $600-$2000. Let's use an Air-X for this example. It will cost about $800, with $300 in parts to install, plus about $200 in wire (being conservative). That is about $1300 and gives you a "guesstimated" 60 amps/day.

Thus, for $2000, you can now go about 2-21/2 days without charging. When you do charge, it will be a good, deep charge. However, you will be tough on your main engine (since charging batts with it is not a good use for it) and you will be quite limited by your diesel supply.

For less than $5,000, I would do the following:

4) Everything above.

5) Buy the stanchion mounts for 130 W Kyocera (KC) solar panels. I cannot recall exactly how much these cost. I think they are about $200/piece. 

6) Buy 2-KC 130W solar panels. These run about $650/piece. They will yield about 50-60 amps/day mounted on the stanchions. Thus you have 55 amps for $1300.

7) Buy a Blue Sky MPPT charge controller. These run about $350 as I recall. 

8) Buy the wire and lugs to connect the wire. THese should run about $300.

Thus for an additional $2150, you have extended your recharge to a maximum 3 days - with a lot of assumptions (like windy days and sunny skies). Your total cost is about $4150.

For over $5,000, I would:

9) Trash my gells and add 4- 4D AGM's (assuming you did not mean AGM when you said gells). About $1600-$2,000 for Lifelines.

10) Have a solar arch built. ABout $3500-$5000, depending on material and layout.

11) Add 4-6 KC 130's solar panels. $3000-$4200 depending on 4 or 6 panels. Wire them all in series into...

12) Forget the BlueSky and get a REAL MPPT charger... an Outback MX60 MPPT. About $500-$600.

You are now about $10,000 (assuming you do all the work) but should be totally off the grid. You should be able to generate more power than you use. Your large battery bank will overcome the dark, windless days and the agms's will take about a 30% faster charge and will be a better use for your large power generation. 

If you are really a tree-hugging, oil company hating, save the planet and live like Grizzly Adams SOB, you can then:

13) Buy a diesel generator to run MS charger for house bank. Cost about $15,000. You will just sip the diesel. Mastervolt and Fisher Panda would be good units for this as they are very quiet and efficient. I would avoid a Westerbeke (though a great unit) because it is better at running long periods of time which you will not use it for. I think the WB runs about 1700 RPM versus about 3000 on the MV and FP. Still, other more knowledgeable sailors may know better about generators... just explaining my decision.

Note:

If you make it to #13, you can be a friend of CruisingDad's and relish in the anguish of Giulietta and the other SUV driving Hippocritical sailors on this site!!!!! It is a privilege and an honor to watch as Giu's face turns red with anger at all the weight and money you have put on your boat (as he buys not one but two carbon fiber booms!!!)

HAHAHHAHAHAA!!!

- CD

PS These number (both the ah, draw, and $$) are all approximations and generalities). They are close... but still generalities.


----------



## Giulietta

Cruisingdad said:


> It is a privilege and an honor to watch as Giu's face turns red with anger at all the weight and money you have put on your boat (as he buys not one but two carbon fiber booms!!!)


The objective of my boat is to sail, not something else....thus the word sailboat.....  

Remember....you may light the city, but I sail around you.... 

I resent being called hypocritical.....


----------



## Cruisingdad

Giu!!!! You Know I Love You!!!!! Heeeeheheeh!!!!


----------



## Cruisingdad

I can just see your face, shaking your head, by the time you were around number 13!!!!! HAHAHAH!!


----------



## Giulietta

Cruisingdad said:


> I can just see your face, shaking your head, by the time you were around number 13!!!!! HAHAHAH!!


CD I was actually doing that...I was really shaking my head....    

And thinking....this guy lost it.....


----------



## sailingdog

CD-

You forgot the long-term, high-power, low-maintenance option of a small pebble bed nuclear reactor...  Lots of amp-hours, runs quietly for years at a time... etc...


----------



## bestfriend

Ohhhhhh Sailawaaaaay, just for you, its ALIVE!


----------



## sailingdog

bestfriend said:


> Ohhhhhh Sailawaaaaay, just for you, its ALIVE!


That was just perfect... LOL...


----------



## camaraderie

BF...LOL...that was excellent!!


----------



## Cruisingdad

78... come on page 78... don't die yet (CD performing CPR)... don't die!!


----------



## Giulietta

CD....get a life will you????


----------



## xort

Me again...CD worry not, this thread will explode again when the Practical Sailor report comes out.
I predict 1000, easily.


----------



## Cruisingdad

It already came out Xort!! You didn't read it?? It was putting out 110V, 60hz, all that. People could not believe it. Did not even make a differece if it was pointing at the sun!! Absolutley unbelieveable. There seemed to be some concern about the cord running out of it, under the curtain, and out of sight... but that is for another thread. (smile)

DON'T GET PIISED CJ... I AM JUST KIDDING!!


----------



## Giulietta

This poor woman installed the SS on her boat and look at what happened to her....its the new Chernobyl


----------



## Cruisingdad

She has 6 niples... there are only two panels on the SS!!


----------



## hellosailor

FWIW, Practical Sailor (at least, their one published email address) never bothered to respond to a polite enquiry asking IF they were reviewing the SS, let alone when the review might come out.

G has obviously been deranged after being rejected by one too many Continental Airlines stews. It's a shame he's a foreigner, any US native would know that's a lawsuit worth a couple of million, at least.<G>


----------



## Cruisingdad

Hello,

You are wrong. PS refused to write it up. Good news though: The Catholic Quarterly found out about it and it is front page news. I even heard the Pope is not using a staff anymore when he walks... only the solar stick!!!

- CD


----------



## camaraderie

That is the symbol for a nuclear reaction Giu! Welcome to New Hampshire! By the way...the State motto is "Live Free or Die". Nevertheless...I would not suggest you try to skip out on your hotel bill...I don't think that's what they meant by living free!! (G)


----------



## Giulietta

Unfortunately its true....

All those batteries inside CD's boat have caused consequences.....too much magneto-radio-syncro-blast...

his makeup is blurred...now that's a RACK CD


----------



## TSOJOURNER

I think you guys have beat this to death. Give it up !

(now can we go back to the nipple things ? I've got some questions ?)


----------



## sailingdog

Why did you have to revive this thread???


----------



## Freesail99

Is there a longer thread on sailnet ?


----------



## sailingdog

Fight Club is...


----------



## Cruisingdad

doo, da-da, da-dooh.....OOPS. Accidentally hit the Post Reply button...

- CD


----------



## camaraderie

If we all installed solar panels would that cut down on global warming since we would be absorbing all that sunlight?
We could use the electricity generated to make the panels self tracking so they could absorb even more or simply ship it all over to Al Gore's house.


----------



## PBzeer

Think of the money you could make selling "carbon credits" to people like ALgore, who never bother to practice what they preach.

_Currently at Dinner Key Marina, Florida_


----------



## soul searcher

And don't forget to put the warning lables on them so Tipper will know they are OK.


----------



## Valiente

soul searcher said:


> And don't forget to put the warning lables on them so Tipper will know they are OK.


I was half-hoping Jerry Falwell crushed that insolent twit when he keeled over the other day. No such luck getting a two-fer.


----------



## hellosailor

Cam, I want to thank you and instill the old Irish blessings on you, may you be in heaven before the Devil knows you've gone, and the wind always at your back. Either you or my first cup of coffee has just given me a WONDERFUL idea, I'm gonna start another on of those web pages asking for money. But WAIT! This isn't just donations, nossir. 

I'm asking folks to send me money based on their carbon consumption, and with it I promise to buy solar and wind power equipment, so I can go off the grid and compensate for the carbon emissions they are making! Yessirree, folks, you can compensate for your excess carbon dioxide emissions, NOW, by paying me to go solar, NOW. If you can't go solar and save the ice sheets, I can, and if you send me your money I'll do it NOW. 100% applied to the actual equipment, no overhead, no staff expenses, how many charities can promise that effectiveness? Heck, not even the Sierra Club or Greenpeace can operate without administrative overhead!

And a special thanks to Cam, because without your message--and I'm pretty sure your pithy comments about folks begging on the web--I'd have never thought about it.

OKAY NOW, LET'S SEE THOSE WALLETS! All those cute little penguins are counting on you! NOW!


----------



## camaraderie

HS...kewl...and I won't even take my usual 10% cut just to help you on your way!! (G)


----------



## CosmosMariner

I go out of state...drive 6,000 miles on a route from NC to TX to NC to MA to NC and find that I'm completely exhausted but this thread is NOT! This thread has more lives than Freddie!  

Today I cooked a 2lb pork roast with raspberry chipotle sauce and 4 baked potatos in our portable solar oven from solarovens(dot)org (around $150.00) and nearly over cooked it! There was an article in 'Living Aboard' magazine last year about a woman who cooks in this 2 pot oven temporarily set up on the foredeck. Haven't used it on the boat yet but it works great here in the mountains. Go to the site, these people are using the profits to provide these ovens DIRECTLY to women in 3rd world countries where fuel is scarce.  

While the roast was cooking I used my portable solar battery charger (7" x 5" x 3" about $26.00 on various internet sites but I got 3 for $21.00 in a special purchase, look around) to fully charg 2 new D cell and 2 AA cell NMH rechargable batteries. At the same time the 16 solar panels on the roof cranked out over 10kw for the day.  I wonder what Gore did. I've come to attach new meaning to the phrase 'It depends on whose ox is being Gored'.


----------



## sailingdog

Cosmos-

Do you have a solar stik yet???


----------



## CosmosMariner

Not a F***ing chance in hell and when I get an opinion on the subject I'll let you know!


----------



## sailingdog

CosmosMariner said:


> Not a F***ing chance in hell and when I get an opinion on the subject I'll let you know!


LOL... don't forget to tell us how you really feel about SolarStiks...


----------



## Idiens

Sad thing for the Gores about solar panels is that they take more energy to make than they ever recover.


----------



## xort

Regarding PS and their test of SS...
I e-mailed PS back in April asking if they were testing SS and this is the reply I received...

"Yes, it's in progress. Should get results in July issue, possibly June. 

Darrell Nicholson
Editor"

The pins & needles I'm sitting on are really starting to hurt.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Xort,

Better run out and buy it before the results make the prices go through the roof!!

- CD


----------



## hellosailor

A solar oven on the foredeck, oh joy, now there's a Real Good Reason we'll only eat cold candy bars during rough wx.<G>

A solar charger for NiMh batteries is a real good idea though, since they self-discharge so badly that they're often dead in three weeks. NiCad are a much better way to go if you want to "charge now, use next week or next month".
Except supposedly the "Hybrio" batteries, NiMh that are supposed to hold their charge on the shelf.

Ah, technology.

Pass me another Snickers Bar, wouldya?<G>


----------



## xort

lithium polymer & lithium ion are alleged to have very low discharge rates


----------



## Idiens

xort said:


> lithium polymer & lithium ion are alleged to have very low discharge rates


And you can now get them in handy lead-acid sizes. So a there's new competitor on the block for the best battery for cruisers. AGM's go in fear, you are no longer the most expensive.


----------



## hellosailor

Lithium-anything is great.

Provided, first, that you have a good automatic fire control system on board, because they seem to have a penchant for spontaneous combustion unmatched by any other power source except open flame.

And second, that you have enough household staff so you can afford to send one down to pick them up. If you have to DIY or hire a carrier to bring them--you probably can't afford the batteries either.<G>


----------



## CosmosMariner

Hellosailor, hello, you got it reversed. 'Nickel-metal hydride batteries have a considerably higher charge capacity than nickel-cadmium batteries...' Right off the blister pack from Radio Shack. If you are saying they lied then go sue them and make a bundle. Also my experience with NMH batteries is that in heavy use they discharge in much less than three weeks that's why the charger is part of the plan. And once again, not every tool is intended for all situations. That is why they invented Sea-swing stoves for under way and Magma grills for at anchor. Solar on the foredeck might be the answer if you are to far from provisions and run out of propane or alcohol. At the Bahamas land and sea park there is NO provisioning period. It is a great place for an extended stay but only if your provisions last. About 45 cruising boats got stuck at Chubb Cay last January for about a month because the Trades were against getting to Nassau. Chubb Cay facilities had been wiped out and there were no provisions - no food, no propane, no diesel or gasoline, no water - nothing. In those cases having the solar and wind devices were greatly appreciated. When you can't just run down to the corner store for parts or candy bars this other 'stuff' make real good sense. A month of candy bars....?


----------



## hellosailor

Cosmos, don't let the pix of hot babes addle your mind.<G>

I did NOT say that 'Nickel-metal hydride batteries have a considerably higher charge capacity than nickel-cadmium batteries...'. At least, looking back in the thread I don't see anyplace I said that, it would have been incorrect--most of the time.

What I did say, and do say, is that NiMh have a lousy self-discharge rate. Sure, you can buy a 2100mA NiMh AA cell, and only about 800mA in a NiCd AA cell. Now, put them both on the shelf, freshly charged, for two weeks. The NiMh cell will be down to about 700mA and the NiCd will still be at 750mA. All of a sudden, the tortoise beats the hare! The NiCd cells ARE more powerful, if you are leaving them on the shelf for ay period of time.

Got an FRS radio? Want to put in cells and leave it in the closet for a month? The NiMh will be dead, the NiCd will still be 85% full. Heck, I've got a set of NiCds in my handheld VHF that keep a working charge all winter--six months on the shelf. But the NiMh? If I leave them in the GPS for two weeks, they're more than half dead before I start.

Thank you, no, I don't want any NiMh batteries in anything anymore--unless it lives in a charging stand so it is always charging and ready to go. And, sucking power from a wall-wart. Uhuh. Once the ones I have die, I'll try the new Hybrio cells, which are built expressly to avoid this problem. Till then? No thanks, no more NiMh for me. Especially the ones from China, which can sometimes go completely dead in under two weeks.

"is that in heavy use they discharge in much less than three weeks " Forget heavy use, except for a few higher priced brands, they'll all be essentially dead after three weeks on the shelf. Matter of fact, there's at lest one brand of hybrid car that comes with a warning--the battery (NiMh) must be recharged at least once every two weeks, the car can't be left sitting.


----------



## CosmosMariner

I didn't say YOU said it, I said Radio Shack said it. And my batteries get used not stored on a shelf. I have used Lithium ions very successfully and the only problem with that technology has been one brand of laptop battery. Aint it great we can all choose what works for us!


----------



## hellosailor

It's a drug problem, I haven't had enough of my favorite recreational drug (caffiene<G>) today.<G>

I've also loved using lithium cells--but there have been MANY fire incidents from them. From IBM, SONY, and a number of others. In laptops, cell phones, and many other devices. Some known to be counterfeits, others known to be prime brands. From what I've read, even in the prime brands it is not entirely possible to eliminate these in QC, sort of like the problem with a drug where the effective level and the fatal level are simple too close: If the battery is made with tight tolerances for high power, very small contamination problems can cause it to short internally and catch fire. And, charger failures can cause fires even in the "best" batteries. Kinda like the problem of having a reactor in the backyard, and those Chinese guys complaining it might melt all the way down to them.<G>

Rat Shack: What can you say that's not already said in their own slogan:
"You've got questions? We've got blank stares!"
<G>


----------



## CosmosMariner

Hey...another entrapenurial opportunity....if we can determine the 'critical mass' of lithium ion batteries we can sell it as a fuel source...throw away that outdated Mesquite bring on the lithium!  Also, I don't buy anything that my life depends on at Radio shack.  The D batteries I was charging this weekend were for one of the 4 flashlights We keep distributed around the house and the AAs are for my digital camera - I want to see how long it takes that power hog to drain them flat, I already know Alkalines are a non starter in the camera, about a week of daily use, and 'good old' lithium ions last about 2 months. The camera case I got with the camera has a built in pocket for 4 spare AA batteries - the camera takes 2 at a time, but maybe the space is for a miget fire extinguisher. I wonder if someone makes a solar digital camera?


----------



## xort

I've been using rechargable lithium ion batteries made for the video industry practically every day since at least 1997. I leave them on their charger for extended periods of time. I've put heavy draws on them regularly. I'm on my 18th battery and no problems with any sort of fire hazard. I am very satisfied with the performance of these li-ions.

(They are not solar or wind charged.)

Come on 1000!


----------



## hellosailor

xort, I love 'em too. I'm just saying there have been significant fire problems associated with LiOn batteries of multiple types and sources, not limited to the counterfeit ones on the consumer market, which were initially blamed for all the fires.

And out of four LiOn battery packs for my laptop over the years? (Five if I count the one returned dead under warranty) two simply "failed" suddenly, went from 100% capacity one day to zero overnight. A third dropped from 100% to 50% overnight, then failed shortly afterwards. #4 dropped from 92% to 46% overnight--and knock wood so far has held that much. Premium brand names cells.

Considering what they cost...I love it when they work, but I wouldn't bet my life on WHETHER they would work at any given time.


----------



## xort

The wait is killing me! PS just announced their June issue and no solar panels. But they are doing a 2 part review of wind generators.


----------



## wind_magic

What is being said about NiMH self-discharging fast is true in my experience, so I wouldn't use them in a television remote control for that reason, but I love them for things like my digital camera, headlamp (camping), bicycle lights, handheld GPS (camping/biking/boating), etc.

Besides their high capacities, the thing I like most about NiMH batteries is that they are so easy to recharge when you are out trekking. To recharge all you have to do is put them somewhere so that they are touching your skin and then start giving them juice from pretty much any DC source - when you feel them getting hot **DING!!** they are done!

I did want to add the above comments ... but mostly I just missed seeing the title of this thread in the forum, it's become like a good pair of shoes that you just don't want to get rid of.


----------



## Valiente

I had a girlfriend like that once. Very compatable in one particular area, really poor in others and years after we officially "broke up", we would to continue to generate more energy than the typical SolarStik during brief tension-relieving episodes.

As long as we didn't talk, we were perfect together!


----------



## Idiens

The Dutch have got an eco disco going. Energy released on the dance floor is used to power the lighting and sweat collected from the aircon to flush the toilets.


----------



## Valiente

There you go. We can be clever monkeys when we aren't chucking our own feces about.


----------



## ReverendMike

Can we capture the heat generated by Global Warming and use it to generate electricity? Or at least capture the energy expended debating Global Warming? That would probably generate even more 'lectric.... 

Then we just have to scale the apparatus down to fit it on a boat.... Oh the possibilities!

(seriously, did PS really even look at the fricking stik? Or was that whole thing just a hilarious romp through the absurd?)


----------



## conchyjoe

ReverendMike said:


> (seriously, did PS really even look at the fricking stik? Or was that whole thing just a hilarious romp through the absurd?)


July. Queue up the crow......


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*Similar Electrical Topic*

Whew.... took quite a while to get through this thread. *SOLAR S%$#@ Rules!* Sorry, had to say it.

I've been out of the boating scene since I was a teenager and now getting back into it and reading/researching all I can to equip my boat properly. I'll be mainly spending weekends aboard hopping to the interesting haunts found around New England and will spend up to two weeks (vacation) cruising.

I am refitting/upgrading my boat and want to be frugal with electrical consumption. I am changing all lighting fixtures and bulbs to LEDs, purchased a small solar panel to trickle charge the batteries although after reading this and other threads, will be looking at larger "flexible" panels later, rewiring with tinned copper, and replacing the original push/pull switches and fuses with a DC Distribution panel having switch/breakers. I have started purchasing Shore Power components, but do not think I'll have it installed this season.

I do want to have 110v available for my lap top, and small electrical appliances (electrical tools, radio) if needed and want to equip my boat with an inverter that I can connect/use when wanted/required. Either hard wire it to my 12v system or the type that connects by cigg lighter connection. After reading Don Casey's chapter on inverters, it seems a lot of power is wasted during the DC to 110AC conversion.

So, I am interested in any advice/recommendations you folks have on marine inverters which maybe more efficiant than others and will do the job.

Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

P3x


----------



## camaraderie

P3x...yes there is a lot of conversion loss in inverters but they are sure nice to have. Good modified sine wave equipment (Heart/Xantrex) tends to be a lot more efficient in the stand by mode than pure sine wave stuff and less expensive as well. Some equipment is sensitive to mod/sine equipment I am told but we never had any issues with ours...and perhaps that is due to the quality of the equipment. Good luck with your upgrading. 
(Note...ours is a Heart 2500 charger/inverter.)


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Hi Camaraderie,

Thanks for the response. It gives me a good starting point to wade through all the information out there.

As I've read through this board (and this thread especially), I appreciate the time you folks devote to sharing your knowledge and experiences. It is a great help to getting back into boating and shortened the learning curve. I also surmize _Practical Sailor_ is a widly respected source of impartial sailing/gear knowledge. I'll be adding it to my ever expanding subscription list/must have library.

Especially looking forward to the review of the Solar Stick.

Thanks again,

P3x


----------



## ReverendMike

conchyjoe said:


> July. Queue up the crow......


Like your new title, Joe! Nice to know the review's coming (hadn't intended to call you a liar, sorry it came across that way), though i hope it won't end the fun here.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Well, Reverend, I just saw that too. I am guessing SD has not seen it!!!!

- CD


----------



## sailingdog

CD-

ConchyJoe's title is at least relatively accurate, unlike most of his posts...


----------



## ReverendMike

*There's something scwewy going on here wabbit...*

 I thought it said "*sailnet's* whipping boy" when i first saw it. I may be mistaken (or not...)

Heck, i was just trying to bump this back up the list, cuz it's good for everyone's blood pressure (oh look, i'm doing it again  )

Seriously, there's some good info back there in those pages. And some damn fine entertainment as well . Just take it with a grain of salt and do some further investigation (which is a good idea with anything on the internet IMHO).


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Schooner MISTRESS has "Solar Stiks". Because we can turn the panels 360 degrees, raise and lower them, and even tilt them, we do not want for power. At first light we get 8 amps, between 9 and 5 we take in 10 to 12 amps, and back to about 8 in the evening until the sun goes down. On board we have refrigeration, freezer, laptop, movies, all the latest electronics, I can run the microwave and vacuum off it, and all the lights and fans. Anyone interested in solar power should look into these Solar Stiks. Go to SOLAR STIK - Welcome to preview information and availability for this worth while item. You will not be sorry. The site does take a few minutes to load but it is worth the wait. While we do have a wind generator, it is the Solar Stik that creates at least 90% of our power. We live at anchor, and would not be without it. 
Kathleen
aboard 
Schooner MISTRESS
Yahoo! 360° - Schooner Mistress's Profile 
visit our site to see picks


----------



## sailingdog

I think LLL got a new handle....


----------



## camaraderie

Dawg...I can't do this again!! Once again the panels put out 70% more wattage than they are rated for at full power in direct sunlight on top of a mountain!! Excuse me...I have to go...my kool-aide is waiting.


----------



## sailingdog

camaraderie said:


> Dawg...I can't do this again!! Once again the panels put out 70% more wattage than they are rated for at full power in direct sunlight on top of a mountain!! Excuse me...I have to go...my kool-aide is waiting.


At least the Kool-Aid will be less painful than listening to the SolarStik fanatics... who don't understand that even a good MPPT controller can't violate the laws of physics.


----------



## PBzeer

Actually, I thought only politicans offered free lunches.


----------



## hellosailor

SD, bear in mind that we don't really know "the laws of physics" and from what we do know of htem, they seem to vary locally and subjectively. Like, the speed of light being a constant...except that you can slow it down to 30mph in a Bose-Einstein Condensate (5th state of matter) and do other funky things that blow away the "laws" as they've been taught and written.

Every dog can tell you that gravity is simply an illusion created by the vast mental power of sleeping dogs (which is why they need to sleep so much) in order to ensure that food falls DOWN to where they can get it.<G>


----------



## sailingdog

hellosailor said:


> SD, bear in mind that we don't really know "the laws of physics" and from what we do know of htem, they seem to vary locally and subjectively. Like, the speed of light being a constant...except that you can slow it down to 30mph in a Bose-Einstein Condensate (5th state of matter) and do other funky things that blow away the "laws" as they've been taught and written.
> 
> Every dog can tell you that gravity is simply an illusion created by the vast mental power of sleeping dogs (which is why they need to sleep so much) in order to ensure that food falls DOWN to where they can get it.<g>


The use of a Solar Stik doesn't change the laws as they apply to solar panels last I checked. If you have a non-SolarStik panel next to a SolarStik, and both are using essentially identical MPPT controllers, the SolarStik may have a slight increase in efficiency, provided the user directs them in the proper orientation. However, two 50W panels are never going to generate 300W of power... which is one of the more outrageous claims made earlier in this thread. 
</g>


----------



## hellosailor

SD, don't hold the "300W" claim against the SolarStik. IIRC that was a mistake already noted by a customer, not the company, and it was already corrected that it meant watt-hours not watts, or something trivially similar.

Sooner or later there'll be a PS evaluation printed, right? Till then, the world keeps on turning. Good panels and a MPPT controller still seem to be the best way to squeeze watts into batteries.


----------



## PBzeer

You do realize, that if the Solar Stik was as effective as some seem to say, that, according to the conspricacy fanatics, the Government or Big Oil, would have buried it already. You know, like that 200 mpg carberator.

_Currently at 34 12 18 N 77 48 04 W_


----------



## xort

HMMMM...
Schooner mistress is based in St Augustine. Solar Stik is based near St Augustine. Must be something in the water.


----------



## PBzeer

I've yet to see anyone with a Solar Stik recount how much time they spend "aiming" it.

And BTW xort, you're still almost 1200 behind the Song Chain, much less Surfy's defunct thread.

_Currently at 34 12 18 N 77 48 04 W_


----------



## sailingdog

xort said:


> HMMMM...
> Schooner mistress is based in St Augustine. Solar Stik is based near St Augustine. Must be something in the water.


Could be two things...

1) They were given the SolarStiks and told to talk them up... however, I didn't see a SolarStik on any of the photos of the boat....

2) They've got an undisclosed relationship with the SolarStik guys, but aren't telling us... not surprising, since the SolarStik fanatics tend to be a bit loose with the truth and the facts.


----------



## hellosailor

The government already DOES OWN all the Solar Stiks, that's why there is no inventory available for your local chandlery, or WalMart. They've seized the patent rights, classified them, and taken over all production.

Let's play Rumour Mill.<G>


----------



## xort

Solar Stik is a vast right wing conspiracy. Carl Rove owns Practical Sailor and will be proffering many more 'lies' very soon. 
The military is actually using them in the deserts of the middle east as 'sun reflector lasers' to burn holes into the eyes of all those who look at them. That's why they need the adjustable arm, as an aiming device. 
Sorry I can't pass on any more info, I have to go into hiding now in my bomb shelter. I just finished lining it with aluminum foil. I'll be safe. Mandrake, they won't get my essence!


----------



## CosmosMariner

As I said back on page 50-something (Hmmm, sounds like a good title for a TV show aimed at everyone who used to be and watched 'Thirty-Something'...I wonder...) my son was in the Bahamas last winter on his 27' Watkins with all the 'stuff' Mistress mentioned and with 4 105ah batteries and 3 75w solar panels flat mounted to a rigid frame over the cockpit with no charge controler. He had to disconnect one of the panels to prevent overcharging the batteries. Who needs the Schtick?


----------



## conchyjoe

SchoonerMISTRESS said:


> Schooner MISTRESS has "Solar Stiks". Because we can turn the panels 360 degrees, raise and lower them, and even tilt them, we do not want for power. At first light we get 8 amps, between 9 and 5 we take in 10 to 12 amps, and back to about 8 in the evening until the sun goes down. On board we have refrigeration, freezer, laptop, movies, all the latest electronics, I can run the microwave and vacuum off it, and all the lights and fans. Anyone interested in solar power should look into these Solar Stiks. Go to SOLAR STIK - Welcome to preview information and availability for this worth while item. You will not be sorry. The site does take a few minutes to load but it is worth the wait. While we do have a wind generator, it is the Solar Stik that creates at least 90% of our power. We live at anchor, and would not be without it.
> Kathleen
> aboard
> Schooner MISTRESS
> Yahoo! 360° - Schooner Mistress's Profile
> visit our site to see picks


Hold on, hold on, don't get your panties/boxers in a wad/bunch.

Kathleen has a prototype Solarstik that used 80 watt panels, not 50 watt panels. So she has a total of 160 watts, not 100 watts.

I'll let you guys do the rest of the math.

FYI, Kathleen has had a SolarStik(s) on her sailboat for a long time, and has real world long term experience with it.


----------



## camaraderie

Conchy...thanks for the additional info. She can get 12amps at max with 160 watt panels. Would have been nice if she had mentioned that! I remain skeptical of her hourly claims but on long sunny days in the summer with lots of attention I can see 100amps out of that setup being possible. 
I think it is worth noting that this is Schooner Mistresses first post and it was to make a rather outrageous claim about "SolarStik" from someone who is based in the same port as Solarstik's HQ. As normally understood...SolarStik is 100 watts of panel so the reaction she got was WELL deserved. 
I'm looking forward to the PS review.


----------



## conchyjoe

sailingdog said:


> I didn't see a SolarStik on any of the photos of the boat....


FYI.....










Like I said above, these were prototype units, and Kathleen wanted larger panels than the standard SolarStik.


----------



## conchyjoe

camaraderie said:


> Conchy...thanks for the additional info. She can get 12amps at max with 160 watt panels. Would have been nice if she had mentioned that! I remain skeptical of her hourly claims but on long sunny days in the summer with lots of attention I can see 100amps out of that setup being possible.
> I think it is worth noting that this is Schooner Mistresses first post and it was to make a rather outrageous claim about "SolarStik" from someone who is based in the same port as Solarstik's HQ. As normally understood...SolarStik is 100 watts of panel so the reaction she got was WELL deserved.
> I'm looking forward to the PS review.


I appreciate the response Cam.

I think most people on this website do not understand that folks like Kathleen and Susan actually have a sailboat, go sailing regularly as evidenced by their websites they have, but ARE NOT, and DO NOT claim to be Electrical Engineers, or experts at solar power.

They simply repeat what they see on the display. And I am happy with people saying the display is inaccurate.

My issue is with posters making outrageous comments and calling people out simply because they do not believe what someone says as referenced by some posters comments recently in this post.

It's sad to me that some people have nothing better to do than make and continue to make negative comments. And then in advance of respected publications reviews, make negative comments about the publisher/owner to defend their non-existent position. And when the PS article comes out, these people will continue to cry foul and demand a recount.

I hope everyone has a pleasent weekend.


----------



## PBzeer

I'm still waiting to see some indication of just how much attention one has to pay to "adjusting" the Solar Stik to obtain the stated output. Since the main difference between SS and other solar panel mountings is the adjustment process, how intensive is it?

_Currently at 34 12 18 N 77 48 04 W_


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Hello everyone!
This is Kathleen aboard Schooner MISTRESS. Please allow me to first point out I am new to this site and have just spent an hour trying to relocate this post, and having done so, I see there is much for me to explain. For starters, I am a live-a-board cruiser who happens to live in St. Augustine until our house (land anchor) sells which is suppose to happen at the end of this month. I first found out about "Solar Stik" from my husband who met the owner, Brian. I have only met the owner about two times and have had the pleasure of speaking with him probably the same amount of times. My husband met with him more often because it was my husband, after great amounts of research, who decided he wanted "Solar Stiks". This was back last year just before we launched MISTRESS. You see we have plans to sail around the world; therefore, power is a great concern for us. My panels are a bit different then the ones available for sale now. My husband, always wanting the best, wanted "Solar Stiks" but they were not yet on the market, so, he opted for 85-watt panels, and convinced Brian to sell him the prototypes, which we then had powdered coated black. Skip, my husband then added to the stiks to include a wind generator, radar, and GPS. MISTRESS has 4 each AGM 8D batteries for storage of the amps the "Solar Stiks" and the wind generator bring in. On board, as I said in my first post, I have all the bells and whistles and have yet to cycle my batteries even one time. How often do I play with them? Most times, I figure I arrange them maybe 3 to 4 times a day, depending on tide changes. Sometimes, because it is so easy to manipulate them I tilt here and there when I am on deck. However, on those days I will not be aboard for all the sunlit hours, I simply put them straight up when I am ready to leave, but I have probably already brought more amps in then those without "Solar Stiks", and so I start my day with an advantage. I have difficulty with strength and my hands but find them quite easy to adjust. I DO NOT GET A DARN THING FROM BRIAN, THE OWNER FOR THE GOOD WORDS I HAVE ABOUT HIS PRODUCT. As for the pictures on my web site, if you do not see them, then you must not have looked at all the pictures, because I know they are there. Now do not go looking for some promotional pics on them, again, I am not an employee and do not get anything for my view. 

Skip and I spent Sept, Oct, Nov, and most of Dec 2006 anchored out at the river property, were wind is generally scarce, therefore we lived off the panels. We have been living on board since August 2006 and have spent only a total of 33 days on the dock since that time.

If I do not respond to any of your post in a timely fashion please do not think I am avoiding you. I simply have many other things to do and chat sites like sail net and others are a reprieve from the daily grid of keeping our MISTRESS looking good, and my schoolwork. Say what you will, but for my money it make good sense to get the most out of any panels you would invest in. Granted, maybe you will not always be there to mess with them, but for when you are, you cannot beat the return on the investment. I am not some electronics wiz kid by any means, but for me the proof is in the pudding. My laptop is always running, I have a wealth of electronics, and even use a microwave and vacuum cleaner. We watch movies almost every night and I run the fans a lot. 

I do use LED lights and have mixed feelings about them. The idea is great, but not all are up to snuff yet. We installed more than 30 of them and more than half of them failed within a few months. So much for 100,000 hours worth of usages. I am also not that pleased with our Lorfran’s 1000-watt 12-v windlass, which apparently had too much grease packed into it, and am less happy with their response to fix it. It annoys the life out of me that you always have to hit the thing with a blunt object to get it to work. Not a cheap item and am pretty certain they will not be getting my future business. Now our Ray Marines dept sounder, while it was sure broken when we got it, they immediately sent us a new one at no charge. Therefore, I just want all to know that I do not have a problem calling a spade a spade. If I like a product, I will certainly tell others, and when I do not, you can expect me to say so. 

Fair winds and great solar days to us all,
Kathleen 
Aboard Schooner MISTRESS


----------



## xort

Kathleen
Thanks for the detailed posting.
Glad you are having fine sucess with your electrical system.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Thanks xort,
Please ask any questions about "Solar Stik" and if I can answer it I will sure try to help out. Last semester for a Comp I class I had to write a Process Analysis Essay. This was the essay most of us in school did on how to make a Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwich. The detail must be to the nth degree. Anyway, I did mine on how to create solar power aboard Schooner MISTRESS to run all the electrical items we have. The process is so easy, well, I guess it is as easy as making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. I got a 97%.
Right now it is 8:45 am and we are bringing in 8.7 amps from the panels. The starboard panel is mostly in the down position and facing east, the port panel is half up, extended out past the transom and is also tilted towards the east. Not a bad return for this time in the morning. Skip and I have to go to the house today to continue our unloading and transfer of our stuff to the river property and will probably leave here in about an hour, therefore when we go we will put them fully up. I find facing one outboard and one facing aft gives me the best results considering we will swing with the tide change while we are gone. I also thought about it yesterday after reading all the other postings about this product and realized I never spend more than about one minute each time I arrange the panels. 
Tomorrow we sail so join us if you can via the website. Would love to have you all aboard via Internet.
Kathleen
aboard 
Schooner MISTRESS


----------



## sailingdog

SchoonerMistress-

Correct me if I'm wrong, by above you say you have prototype SolarStiks with 85 W panels on them.


> My husband, always wanting the best, wanted "Solar Stiks" but they were not yet on the market, so, he opted for 85-watt panels, and convinced Brian to sell him the prototypes, which we then had powdered coated black.


This is not a standard SolarStik, as they are marketed, which uses two 50 W panels, and is in fact rated at 70% higher capacity.
*
If this is the case, then any data you give about the capabilities of the SolarStik would not apply to the commercially available units. *Being completely optimistic, and rating the panels at 12 Amps for eight hours, and another five hours at 8 amps, you'd get 136 Amp hours. That is at least achieveable, according to the numbers: Watts = Amps x Volts.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*Kathleen:*

We have a question relating to your installation. We are upgrading our batteries to AGM, and after reading the charge control literature, we are thinking that setting the charge control voltage for 14.5 volts is probably best. What did you set yours to?

We just purchsed one as well, but haven't got it installed yet.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Hi Amy,
I am a sailing a few miles off shore right now so will just answer your post at the moment and tend to others later. I believe ours are rated for 14.8, however, Skip has them at 14.4. The Blue Sky controller I know will at between 13.9 and 14.2 begin to regulate how much goes in so we do not over charge them. 

With reference to the difference between mine and the now available "Solar Stik", while they are different, the three points of adjustments is the same, thereby giving any one who has them the capability of bringing in more amps per hour in a day because they can articulate the panels. That is the same. 
I am not saying everyone should reap the same as I get. That would be silly. One thing is for sure, we all have something different to deal with, I'm just suggesting if you are looking to invest in solar, "Solar Stik" makes the investment return faster and last longer then anything else I have found so far. I love simple stuff that works well and lasts.
Kathleen
aboard
Schooner MISTRESS
PS. A beautful day out here off the coast of Florida. We went about 15 miles off shore and have been sailing along at 6 to 7.4 knots most of the day. Hope everyone else is having a good sail day too.


----------



## cardiacpaul

you wouldn't happen to be sailing with conchy joe, would ya?


----------



## sailingdog

My point is that the numbers that you are getting are quite similar to the ones that Conchy Joe and others were saying that the regular two-50 Watt panel Solar Stiks were capable of generating. However, your panels are 70% larger, and I don't see how they can be seeing similar numbers with only 100 Watts of panel. With 170 Watts of panel, I can see those numbers as being possibly achievable.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

I have taken some time to read over some of the previous post and have come to learn that I have been accused of all sorts of things. Because I am new to this site it appears I must have misunderstood what is chatted about here. I thought that we share ideas and experiences with each other in the hopes of helping each other out. I seem to have fallen into a bash fest and am really not sure why. There are certainly some folks in this world who remind me of horses. You can bring them to water but you cannot make them drink it. Truth is, I think this is a good product and thought a group like sailnet could appreciate having some decent discussion about it. Lots of the responses to my original post are so,... well.. nasty. I am not here to make anyone do anything, nor am I here to be trashed. If you don't want to buy this product, fine; I am still certainly going to continue to use mine. I will also continue to tell good friends about how well it works for us. Soon we will sail off using our "Solar Stik" and power all we need to sail around the world. 
Best of luck to all here who sail, enjoy it, and share good thoughts with others to help them have a better experience. For the rest of you who just want to nay say because you just don't know better and would rather crush an idea then to openly discuss that matter, you might want to take up sailing. It could help you relax a bit.
Kathleen
aboard
Schooner MISTRESS
presently located in our Nation's oldest city.
St. Augustine a town filled with innovative ideas and old schoonie boats so you best beware.

8:15 am June 18, 2007 addendum to above post.
Long wonderful day sailing yesterday and the posts of others left me feeling like the heck with it, I'm set for power and am just weeks away from sailing away, why should I care if some folks want to negities.
In an attempt to not let the nay sayers squelch a good idea for us cruisers I will give this one more try and try to get my point across.
7:00 am this morning Skip gave me my wake up call.
7:05 I pull myself out of bed and grab a cup of coffee which Skip has already made and check the "Blue Sky" controller before going on deck. We are bringing in 2.7 amps from the panels.
7:15 am after I have made one adjustment to the port side panel, facing it to the east we are now bringing in 4.8 amps.
At 7:35 I return from bringing Skip to the dingy dock and because we are in a swing, (tide change) I again reposition to port side panel. None of the above adjustments took longer than one minute to perform. This change brings us up to 7.3 amps.
Now lets make sure I re-explain that my panels are different because I have the prototypes and therefore my numbers will be higher than you will get with the 50 watt panels that come with the "Solar Stik" unit, but is it really that hard to understand that anyone with panels installed flat could not possibly get these kinds of numbers? I have seen boats with four panels, one to port, one to starboard, and two straight up, but still they cannot pull in the same as you could get with a mount that can be positioned in three different ways. 

THIS INFORMATION IS NOT FOR WEEKEND WORRIORS OR FOLKS THAT ONLY VISIT THEIR BOATS ONCE A WEEK OR ONCE A MONTH. This is for live a boards and cruisers. If you are a cruiser or a live a board boat owner you know your life style, your needs and wants are very different from the person who only visits their boat on occasion. This is our home and therefore we are here more than we are ... well, mowing the lawn. I sure would rather tilt a panel than mow the lawn. 
It is now 8:10 am and we are bringing in 8.4 amps. The numbers, which I have been called out for, don't lie. Articulation brings return.
Kathleen
aboard
Schooner MISTRESS
PS I do not know who Conchy Joe is and considering I live on board nearly 365 days a year due to illness, I don't think we have ever met. After reading his post though, he sounds like a reasonable guy.


----------



## sailaway21

Oh for GOD'S SAKES lady. There's 85, count 'em 85, pages of this happy horse manure devoted to one silly product. Did you think that your arrival on the scene was going to suddenly revolutionize the entire sailing world with your insights, something that had not been done in the previous 84 pages? Have you read the entire thread?

You want to "openly discuss" the matter? READ THE WHOLE UNENDING DAMN THREAD And, if there is a single possibly relevant point about Solar Stix, solar cells, battery charging and regulation, or even various sun-gods, that has not been raised I have surely missed it.

You could have the entire Encyclopedeia Brittanica dropped into your cockpit and you'd be questioning the thoroughness of the authors, unread. Sheesh!

If you and sweet Amy, who seems to be a one note flute, wish to revel in the glories of above mentioned product, I'd suggest tea at the Mah Jong club in St Aug. The rest of the known maritime world was hoping for a gentle and quiet death to this thread, with an emphasis on quiet.

How in the hell did you end up in my kitchen?


----------



## tdw

sailaway21 said:


> Oh for GOD'S SAKES lady. There's 85, count 'em 85, pages of this happy horse manure devoted to one silly product. Did you think that your arrival on the scene was going to suddenly revolutionize the entire sailing world with your insights, something that had not been done in the previous 84 pages? Have you read the entire thread?
> 
> You want to "openly discuss" the matter? READ THE WHOLE UNENDING DAMN THREAD And, if there is a single possibly relevant point about Solar Stix, solar cells, battery charging and regulation, or even various sun-gods, that has not been raised I have surely missed it.
> 
> You could have the entire Encyclopedeia Brittanica dropped into your cockpit and you'd be questioning the thoroughness of the authors, unread. Sheesh!
> 
> If you and sweet Amy, who seems to be a one note flute, wish to revel in the glories of above mentioned product, I'd suggest tea at the Mah Jong club in St Aug. The rest of the known maritime world was hoping for a gentle and quiet death to this thread, with an emphasis on quiet.
> 
> How in the hell did you end up in my kitchen?


And that's what he's like on a good day ! You oughta be here when he gets riled.


----------



## xort

Kathleen
I think just about everybody 'round here considers the Solar Stik a good product. The question is 'How Good'?
Your claims of power generation with the much larger panels are what conky joe was claiming for much smaller panels and that's what has many up in arms.
There also seems to be something up with several folks like yourself showing up and making posts praising the solar stik but contributing nothing else to the sailnet board. You have absolutely nothing to contribute about anchors, nav systems, sails & rigging, referigeration, etc but seem to have plenty to say about one topic...SS.
Where I come from this all seems like shilling. At least you finally came around to admitting you are friends with Brian. You should have posted that up front. It took a bit to dig that out of some aparent shills.
So in summary, it isn't that the product is good but rather HOW GOOD and it's about this underground marketing scheme posing as just friendly input.


----------



## PBzeer

And still, in the end, it comes down to the simple fact that Solar Stik is just a mounting device, for all intents and purposes. One can acheive the same results by devising their own mounting apparatus and using comparble panels and controllers, readily available to all.

_Currently at 35 01 29 N 76 41 43 W_


----------



## sailingdog

And it is a fairly expensive mounting device at that.


----------



## nickmiss

*Solar and Wind, we love it.*

Hi,
I rejoined this group after being out of the loop for a year or so, although not sure why as I don't remember unsubscribing, anyway... We have two solar panels on top of our dinghy davits, totally out of the way. We also have a wind generator. I'd have to ask my husband about the size and power as I'm not sure, but we love them!!! I wouldn't have a boat again without them. We've cruised the Bahamas the old way, running our diesel each day to power up and it always was a nuisance and noisy. We cruise (mostly weekends and mini week vacations now) with a minimum of gadgets and keep powered up with just the solar and wind and love the freedom! We've never had to plug in to shore power even at our homeport marina. I'd highly suggest them but also love cruising without the dependancy of too much electronic gadgetry.
Unfortunately we don't have enough time (with two businesses) to use our 9.2A enough. We are thinking about selling her if anyone out there is interested. She's (Persistence) a great boat. She's in great shape (new cushions, solar panels, wind generator, EPIRB, GPS, Depthsounder, LectraSan, dinghy davits, etc. etc.)! We've never even plugged into shore power with the panels and wind gen. It's great. We hate to let her go but also hate to let her sit. We've had a great time with her until this Summer. We've hauled her, and cleaned and painted her bottom, but haven't gotten to use her since and are feeling terribly guilty about it :-( If anyones interested....
Missy


----------



## camaraderie

Missy...that's the way to do it...Solar AND Wind...for less than the price of a solar stik and you're good to go in any kind of weather. 
If you are interested in selling your boat...you might mention the type/size here or use the classified section.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*excuse me??*

QUOTE: If you and sweet Amy, who seems to be a one note flute, wish to revel in the glories of above mentioned product, I'd suggest tea at the Mah Jong club in St Aug. The rest of the known maritime world was hoping for a gentle and quiet death to this thread, with an emphasis on quiet.

Sailaway, While I appreciate your good feedback, I do not appreciate the tone. Please realize that your accusations of being a "one note flute" could be applied to ANYONE who first enters a forum for information on a product they are researching. I joined this forum to help us make a good decision, which I feel was accomplished. I did not waltz back into the fray trumpeting the "solar stick" mantra when we purchased one, instead we kept a low profile.

After we have completed this project, we will be moving onto other tasks that will require more research in the "forum world". I hate to think that we may face the same charge of being a "one note flute" every time we join a new forum to research a product or idea... especially if it is a "new" product like the Solar Stick. That is a bad analogy!

and one more thing: how many times have I read "come on 1000"? I figured you guys would be GLAD to have some more "fodder".


----------



## TSOJOURNER

For starters, I am not friends with Brian and that is the reason I did not say so. I understand the man has a family but have never met them or gone to dinner or lunch or sailing with any of them or other members of his company. I did say I met the guy and have talked to him on the phone but that was in reference to the “Stik”s we purchased from him. I am not friends with every person I have ever purchased something from. Ask Lofrans who I have also spoken about, as well as my good comments for Ray Marine when addressing our broken dept sounder. I have belonged to this chat room for about a week and have already discussed Windlass, dept sounder, and LED lights along with “Solar Stik” so you should read all posts before you accuse me falsely. With reference to Conchy Joes claims of numbers, you may want to look to the “Blue Sky” controller for the answer to that one. I do know it can put more juice in, approx 2 amps, but do not pretend to understand how. Therefore, it is more than just the mounting system that is involved here and I understand that the panels that come with the system are rated for a 25-year life. Must be one of those laws of physics things. 

As for what else I have to contribute, I have two answers. First answer, MISTRESS has most of the latest equipment out there so many could benefit from how we fell about them, both good and bad. See post of Lofran’s windlass or the LED lights. I have high praise for our 4 each AGM 8 D batteries although my husband just told me that there are now new ones that are even better. As for anchors we have four Dansforths down, NE< SE< NW< & SW. Three are 25lbs and one is 35. On deck with have a 100 lb Fisherman, a CQR and another Dansforth, so I might have something to contribute on that score. Refrigeration as far as I can see really comes down to insulation. So many buy boats and pay extra for the best refrigeration system money can buy, only to find out that it requires 4” of insulation ALL around and their stock boat did not have the insulation recommended. Our sails are the original sails from when we purchased her, and we have been using and modifying them to get just the right shape until we can get new. When that time comes, Skip will investigate the situation and determine what he feels is best for MISTRESS and a life of cruising. All of MISTRESS’s rigging is new SS I think 7/16 and we have High Mods and turn buckles. If anyone is interested in the who, how much, and the like, ask and I will get with Skip on it. As for Nav systems, we have mostly Furuno equipment. On the laptop I have Offshore Navigator, but have not had much time to play with it, therefore I will not be able to say at this time if it works for me or not. The reason most of my post happened to be about solar was because, that is what I thought the thread was about and then simply responded to others posts. As far as the 85 pages are concerned, no I did not read all of them. So many seemed to be trash without content, and as I have previously said, I am new to the site and it took a few times to learn to navigate it. 
My second answer is the same as one other’s post about waiting to see what Practical Sailor has to say about it, and while you wait, I will charge up my batteries with my “Solar Stik”s and cruise off. 
Kathleen
Aboard
Schooner MISTRESS

PS 10:15 my panels are bringing in 9.7 amps on a now hazy day. What are your panels doing?


----------



## Cruisingdad

Schooner Mistress, Amy Johnson, and all:

Unfortunately, without spending a month reading through 80 something pages of good info, bad info, friendly (and not friendly) accusations back and forth, you will not understand why your first post provoked a tough response.

I encourage you to post here more regularly. It is a good group of people, but as many sailors are, opinionated and cautious. Don't let the posts you read here (solar & Wind) totally sway your judgement on who and what the people that frequent this site are. They are good people and friends.

To summarize the frustrations surrounding the Solar Stik, I will say that it is a very nice mounting system. That is all that it is. It is nothing more, nothing less. If you held the two 50W panels in your hands and pointed them at the sun (with the BS contoller), you would have EXACTLY the same power production. I believe I have said this before, about one hundred posts back. The rest of the stuff can be bought off of the shelf at a much lower price. The solar stik is a good system for the right person where the space or mountability of a large array can be difficult. It was fine when left there.

However, it is IMPOSSIBLE for any solar arrangement to break the laws of physics. Something is not right. Either the standard panels are underrated (ie, not really 50w panels), the Blue Sky charger is not giving an accurate reading of the amps-out (repeatedly mentioned on this and other sites regarding this product), or someone needs to adjust their reading glasses. Perhaps total amp hours or Kilowatts produced would be a more accurate presentation on the true power produced by the product. I know Outback has that function. I do not know about Blue Sky. One note of warning on the BS which was posted extensively on the Cruisers Forum: It was not designed for the marine market and has corrosion issues. For someone planning on sailing around the world, keep a weather eye on your C-Controller. Getting a replacement in the Sudan might be a bit tough (smile).

At any rate, come here. Post. Participate. Educate. Maybe even get photoshopped. But this is one of the hottest threads on the forum. It is not the best representation of the people you are meeting or their knowledge. Just a friendly comment from a regular poster who enjoys meeting other cruisers - and tries to be a nice guy!!!!

- CD

PS Sailaway is just in a bad mood bacause he has sleep deprivation from sitting up every night, all night, watching his anchor not drag. HAHA.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Cruising Dad, Thank you! I was beginning to believe this arena was worthless based on all the negitive responces I was getting. Sure does feel like a new comer doesn't stand a chance at expressing an opinion. I really thought I was being helpful, but obviously I was mistaken. I certainly did not mean to get everyones nose out of joint and maybe I should think twice about being involved in such a site. I certainly did not join to argue with folks and am sure there are plenty of good folks who visit here. Lets see what Practical Sailor has to say about it all, and I will mention the "Blue Sky" corrosion issue to my husband to make sure he is aware of a potential problem. Other than that, I think I will stay clear of these kinds of sites. I guess if you are not in it from the beginning you will remain an outsider.
But you have to try to know, so I have tried and now I know.
Kathleen
aboard
Schooner MISTRESS


----------



## camaraderie

Mistress...
I hope you understand why your first post got you in "trouble" since you have a non-standard stik and did not mention it and your numbers DO violate the laws of physics for the standard arrangement. 
That said...you are most welcome here and entitled to your opinions about how things work for you underway...we all have them on everything from hull design to anchors and the arguing is when the forum is fun to me as long as it doesn't get personal. 
We've had a long argument here about solar stiks (100watt version) and aside from the invective a few of things are clear:
1. Claims are being made for A/H output of the system that many of us feel violate the laws of physics. Hopefully the ps article will have REAL test data as opposed to anectodal use data and this can be settled. No one is arguing that pointing panels works very well if you are around to make the adjustments. It is the actual amp hours being claimed that is disputed.
2. You can buy the 2 panels and the BlueSky controller for $8-900 dollars which leaves the stik itself costing around $2000. Obviously that is a lot of money for something simply to aim your panels...but it appears to be well built, easy to use and functional. Individuals will make their own decisions about whether it is worth $2k. My major objection aside from price is that in a real cruising situation you are not ON the boat for much of the day and tide and wind will offset your adjustments considerably. If you are not on board when the tide changes....a properly adjusted solar stik will be most improperly aligned after the boat swings around...especially when the sun is NOT overhead. Same for wind shifts. 

Now...when you come on an 80 page thread and post stuff that has been thoroughly discussed before and don't know any more than you do about how the product works and admit you don't even read the details of the thread you force people to respond with:
1. Repeats of stuff that has gone before (like my prior paragraphs)
2. Attacks which question both your knowledge and/or your character. 

Anyway...that is my opinion. We all know you love your non-standard solar stiks now but you really have nothing more to add on this thread since you don't understand the technology or the product other than that it works for you. I welcome input on your sailing adventures and other stuff that is working for you guys but I do think you brought on the response you got yourself.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Kathleen,

Not true about the site... just this thread. You had the unfortunate chance of choosing the most hotly debated thing I have ever seen on sailnet. Best to probably just leave that alone.

As far as the other threads (assuming you are careful in off topic, smile) you will be fine. In fact, it will help your credibility to offer suggestions and toughts on other things. Sailing is not just about taking, it is giving back. At least that is what I believe. This is one medium to do it through. 

I will say though, regarding any posting board, it is not for the thin-skinned or easily offended. Stay true to who you are and honest, you have nothing to worry about. 

- CD


----------



## cardiacpaul

do any of the people that have a solar stik own a digital camera? take a picture of the meter readings willya? I've asked this before. and got nothing, nada, nyet, zip. It would go a long way in elimination some of the more hotly contested points. (not totally, I can "adjust" some of my meter readings, but hey, its a start.


----------



## bestfriend

Wow! Talk about walking in front of a firing squad on accident!


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Quote: by Camaraderie,
2. You can buy the 2 panels and the BlueSky controller for $8-900 dollars which leaves the stik itself costing around $2000. Obviously that is a lot of money for something simply to aim your panels...

Last Tuesday when the wind came through St. Augustine at 75 miles an hour I was on board alone and MISTRESS was thrown from 0 degrees to 28 degrees in a NY second and held there for some time. She righted herself and then again tried to put the rail in the water. Reported in town were trees down, billboards snapped in two, and several cars turned on their sides. My mounting system held with no problem and the panels remained safe. Was that worth 2 grand to me. Yeah it was. I was pretty surprised those panels didn't get ripped off and sent flying. I imagine it costs a pretty penny to test a pole for ocean cruising and all the variables that it can come up against and remain in place, while still offering three point positioning. 
Kathleen
aboard 
Schooner MISTRESS


----------



## Cruisingdad

Hi Kathleen,

The ability to withstand considerable forces is not restricted to the SS. I have a solar arch that is beefed up enough to take more than the boat would. It can also double/triple as a lifting mechanism, mounting mechanism, etc. It's cost was not much more than the SS and the power it prodcues and the hardware is VASTLY more than the SS can even dream about on its best days. Not to mention, I don't have to do a thing.

No doubt, you do not care... but my point is that you do not have to buy the SS to safely and securely mount your panels. Other options are available which are actually stronger. Valiant sure does not put the SS on their boats. 

THe solar stick is: A neat mounting system that can rotate, giving you the maximum potential power from the sun at that point in time. THe SS is not: A revolutionary answer to solar energy. They did not come up with the concept of rotating panels and they do not make anything other than the mounting system. THe rest is proprietary and can be bought off the shelf for considerably less. That was Cam's point, SD's point, my point, and the thousands of other replys 80 pages up.

Cruising is about relaxing, enjoying yourself, and a bit of that Zen that cannot be found elsewhere (smile). It is about taking and giving back. It is not about this thread which will only serve to irritate you, push you away from a good forum (and friends), and push even more people away from a potentially good product. If you really want to contribute - come on! We welcome you here. However, this is a very hot thread and a very hot subject on this forum (and other forums, incidentally). Your knowledge and experience would be better served giving us a hand elsewhere. I am not saying you are wrong. I am not saying you do not believe in the product. I am not saying that your BS controller is not showing 20 amps on a cloudy day. I AM saying that continued support of a product that breaks the laws of physics will not benefit your reputation here, in Cruisers Forum, SSCA, the marina you are at, the anchorage to which you go, or any other place in the world where people understand Ohm's law.

Don't push a hung jury. You won't like the response. Just my advice on this thread and this product only. Other than that, come on! I look forward to your advice and experience with cruising.

- CD


----------



## camaraderie

Mistress...
The rest of my sentence acknowledged that the stik "appears to be well built, easy to use and functional". So ...the fact that it survived 70mph winds is not surprisint to me. On the other hand...my dual Kyocera panels were mounted with rotating plastic clips on my stern rail and survived 1 hurricane (Isobel in the Chesapeake)...2 tropical storms and one squall w/ 65kt. winds in Lake Worth where I was aboard...all with no damage whatsoever. Cost of the mounting clips...about $30. 
My point remains that you are paying $2k for adjustability...you are OK with that and that is no problem for me...but others might want to spend it on more panels so they don't have to stick around and adjust them...or a wind generator...or margaritas. They need to understand the tradeoffs and YOU need to understand that no one here disputes that the stik is a well made product AND increases the output of panels in use through the aiming function. The dispute is over the AMOUNT of increase being claimed by Brian and others and we are hoping PS settles that discussion. 

Actually (cost aside and adjustingaside) I like your dual 85 watt panel setup as it comes much closer to meeting the average daily needs of cruising sailors in terms of amp hours. What kind of wind generator did you add and what are you getting out of it on average?


----------



## TSOJOURNER

We have an "Air X" unit. One of the newer ones which is not as loud as it's predisessors. When we were on the river we almost never got any power from it and only in a storm did we get amps. Here, closer to the inlet we probably average about an amp or two an hour, therefore I'm real happy we are not dependent of it for power or we would be in big trouble. I doubt it alone could handle our fridge and freezer system. When we get to hanging out in the trades I am sure it will be more valuable to us. 
Kathleen
aboard
Schooner MISTRESS


----------



## camaraderie

Summer Solstice...Since this is the longest day of the year on this side of the equator I thought it would be appropriate to acknowledge it on the solar thread. 
I vote we make this tilt permanent and leave the Wombats in the dark!


----------



## tdw

camaraderie said:


> Summer Solstice...Since this is the longest day of the year on this side of the equator I thought it would be appropriate to acknowledge it on the solar thread.
> I vote we make this tilt permanent and leave the Wombats in the dark!


Being the semi nocturnal critters wot we is that should be no problem but we'd need agreement on carbon offsets to allow for the open fireplace. Get's a tad chilly with no sun.

Now, with no sun to power our solar stix we need information on the new Wonder Product "Wind Stix".


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*practical sailor*

Just an FYI, we just received an e-mail newsletter from the Solar Stick people. They said that the September Prac Sail issue will have the solar stick review.

Amy


----------



## sailingdog

Hmm... Didn't Conchy Joe say it was going to be in the July issue a few posts ago??


----------



## camaraderie

Yes he did...apparently it keeps getting pushed back and is not shown in the current list of future reviews on their site.

Of note...their wind generator test shows the big 3 blade units superior to the small 5 blade units as I have been saying all along.

Fuzzy...here are the wind stiks you were asking about...just one of these will keep your burrow warm all winter!


----------



## hellosailor

So, SD, are you suggesting that ConchyJoe has now bought out Palm Coast Publications (or whatever they call the outfit that owns Practical Sailor) and has the ability to control their publication schedule as well? < G >

Does he have superpowers and a colorful latex costume, too? < G >

June, September....when it happens, it will happen.


----------



## conchyjoe

sailingdog said:


> Hmm... Didn't Conchy Joe say it was going to be in the July issue a few posts ago??


SD, I am still trying to figure out why you are calling me out. Can you explain that? To this day you have not shown any of us that you are anything other than a lonely person that enjoys being an internet bully and is only concerned with number of posts.

I'll ask you again: Who are you? Where is information about you so that anybody can understand that you actually sail, or have a sailboat, as well as something to say other than your lame attempts at me.

And please don't quote me any more unless it is direct.

If you would read back through this post, you will see that I said:

"Potentially June or July issue....."

Also if you read Xorts reply, he said:

"Regarding PS and their test of SS...
I e-mailed PS back in April asking if they were testing SS and this is the reply I received...

"Yes, it's in progress. Should get results in July issue, possibly June.

Darrell Nicholson
Editor"

The pins & needles I'm sitting on are really starting to hurt."

I have no control over what PS does.

Have a nice weekend everyone.


----------



## conchyjoe

camaraderie said:


> Yes he did...apparently it keeps getting pushed back and is not shown in the current list of future reviews on their site.
> 
> Of note...their wind generator test shows the big 3 blade units superior to the small 5 blade units as I have been saying all along.
> 
> Fuzzy...here are the wind stiks you were asking about...just one of these will keep your burrow warm all winter!


Cam, Those big blade units will take a finger or hand off! Where the heck do you put it? It is impressive the power they will make though..


----------



## cardiacpaul

I find it amazing that non of the people touting this product has a darn digital camera. All it would take is a couple of photos.


----------



## xort

CP
Digital cameras are pretty sophisticated. Perhaps they are waiting for the film to come back from fotomat?


----------



## camaraderie

Joe...I had a big blade 4 winds on my old 44 foot irwin put it on a big well-braced pole on my stern. I am 6'4" and I gave my head 6 inches clearance from the bottom of the blade in mounting. No problems and it reliably gave me 60+ amp/hours a day at anchor in the Bahamas on AVERAGE....that is only about 3 amps an hour x 24 but you are often trying to find SHELTER in an anchorage and that means <10kt winds. ONLY the big blade units give any useful output in light winds. Of course...in 20 kts...we'd make 15 amps AN HOUR...or 300 amp hours in a day...but those days don't come along too often! If I had to choose one system...I'd pick wind over solar...but obviously...having both is quite nice.


----------



## sailingdog

hellosailor said:


> So, SD, are you suggesting that ConchyJoe has now bought out Palm Coast Publications (or whatever they call the outfit that owns Practical Sailor) and has the ability to control their publication schedule as well? < G >
> 
> Does he have superpowers and a colorful latex costume, too? < G >
> 
> June, September....when it happens, it will happen.


HS_

Didn't say that at all... was just wondering why there was such a discrepancy between what CJ said, and what the publication was saying... Oh, wait...it was CJ speaking..... and he's proven he doesn't know what he's talking about on so many things.


----------



## Guest

Excerpted from a news story about the space shuttles return from work on the space station -

"While at the space station, the astronauts installed a new truss segment, unfurled a new pair of power-generating solar arrays and activated a rotating joint that allows the new solar arrays to track the sun."

Could that rotating joint be what I think it is ?


----------



## Valiente

Possibly, but StarStik sounds like a celebrity-endorsed vibrator.


----------



## conchyjoe

sailingdog said:


> was just wondering why there was such a discrepancy between what CJ said


You obviously have poor to marginal reading skills Sailingdog............


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Kathleen tip toes into the room.


Conchy Joe, I too am looking forward to the PS report. 
Also, I read somewhere back a few pages ago, folks were saying that if SS was as good as they say, the government would have stopped them in their tracts. I learned something today from my husband and while that alone is not news, he informs me that while SS was developed with cruisers in mind because the owner is a cruiser; however, as it turned out, the government is their big account. First responders and the like, are recieving these SS with kit already. 
I think of what SS could do to help missionaries accomplishs great things, in real time. 
I share your seat of pins and needles.

Question? I noticed another sailboat the other day had SS. Their two 50 watt panels were blue. Mine are black. Is it true blue ones are more efficient in summer because the panels work better cool? 
If so, would that change how you view the numbers and why; we might have similar numbers now, but in winter, I would do better?
I'm curious.
Kathleen
aboard
Schooner MISTRESS


----------



## sailingdog

conchyjoe said:


> You obviously have poor to marginal reading skills Sailingdog............


Actually, I was explaining why I was mentioning your previous post about the dates for the article. But, obviously, you're too stupid to realize that I was doing that.


----------



## conchyjoe

Sailingdog,

I am glad to see that you are still around, and badgering people. Welcome aboard.

So this is what you say I said:



sailingdog said:


> Hmm... Didn't Conchy Joe say it was going to be in the July issue a few posts ago??


This is exactly what I said:



ConchyJoe said:


> "Potentially June or July issue....."


If you are going to insist that I post proper info(Amps -vs- Amp Hours), I am going to have to insist that if you are going to quote me, that you are accurate. Otherwise, you are a big fat liar. Which I am already biased towards anyway, as you have not proven otherwise, instead hiding behind your non-existent sailing/boating resume.

You make accusations, then try to CYA with innuendo, as you did to Hellosailor a little earlier.

Hellosailer is just more polite than I.

I, as well as most people here, understand exactly what you are doing......

I at least respect Xort for his research, and applaud his integrity.

You sir, have no integrity. Instead you choose to flame with no basis for your comments.


----------



## conchyjoe

SchoonerMISTRESS said:


> Kathleen tip toes into the room.
> 
> 
> Conchy Joe, I too am looking forward to the PS report.
> Also, I read somewhere back a few pages ago, folks were saying that if SS was as good as they say, the government would have stopped them in their tracts. I learned something today from my husband and while that alone is not news, he informs me that while SS was developed with cruisers in mind because the owner is a cruiser; however, as it turned out, the government is their big account. First responders and the like, are recieving these SS with kit already.
> I think of what SS could do to help missionaries accomplishs great things, in real time.
> I share your seat of pins and needles.
> 
> Question? I noticed another sailboat the other day had SS. Their two 50 watt panels were blue. Mine are black. Is it true blue ones are more efficient in summer because the panels work better cool?
> If so, would that change how you view the numbers and why; we might have similar numbers now, but in winter, I would do better?
> I'm curious.
> Kathleen
> aboard
> Schooner MISTRESS


Come on in Kathleen, pay no attention to the idiots.

I am not sure which panels are on your system, but there is a clear difference in technology. Some of the other folks here like Hellosailor and Cam, might be able to better explain that.

There is certainly something to be said for the efficiency of panels based on the flow of air around them, which keeps panels cooler and generating more output than panels that do not have that benefit. We have discussed that here.

And yes, the Solarstik technology is selling well in the military arena. Much better than in the boating arena, but like many people have said, it is kind of expensive, and us sailors are pretty cheap....

As far as Practical Sailor is concerned, I look forward to seeing the info in print. I already know what it says, but am not allowed to talk about it.

I am stocking up on crow, as there are many here that will have to eat it, I just wished I could see the look on their faces.....

You will have to meet Susan one day. They are in Merritt Island, and have a SS on their Caliber. Consider coming down the weekend before Thanksgiving for the ECSA Pinedaville gathering. It is a whole lot of fun. Laurie and I will be there, and hopefully Brian and Steph.


----------



## conchyjoe

Whampoa said:


> Excerpted from a news story about the space shuttles return from work on the space station -
> 
> "While at the space station, the astronauts installed a new truss segment, unfurled a new pair of power-generating solar arrays and activated a rotating joint that allows the new solar arrays to track the sun."
> 
> Could that rotating joint be what I think it is ?


Too funny Whampoa. But did you read the technical info on what they did? I was surprised at what little power those panels actually generate.


----------



## camaraderie

Kathleen...I wouldn't be concerned about the color of your panels much as the difference in efficiency is not that great and in the summer...both panels are going to get QUITE hot. You are MUCH better off with your big panels as the extra 70 watts (70% greater capaicty) dwarfs the standard stik BP panels, and any minor differences due to color, and can go a long way to meeting your daily living needs.
Good airflow around the panels does help a bit and you have that with a stik just as I did with my stern mount or CD has with his arch mount. That is really only an issue with a bimini mount.

Joe...do you have a link to that article on the space panels?
As to the "crow"...remember that we want to see the *results in AMP hours per day generated in an on the water test that match what has been claimed... at or near 100 a/h's with measurments done by separate ammeter (i.e. not relying on the BlueSky controller readout).* We all agree that the stik system works much better than panels on the ground! 
Since we don't know anything about the test conditions...let alone what the results are...*I stand ready with my hot sauce* if it turns out that way with the above conditions. I hear crow tastes like chicken but maybe you'll disagree!(G)
My guess is that the test will not be rigourous and we will hit the magic 1000 post mark arguing about the results! (G)


----------



## xort

sailing dog
'fraid CJ is right about the release date of the PS article. As I mentioned about 200 posts ago, I e-mailed PS and they told me June or July. Who knows why they are holding back, I guess it's print space in the magazine. Perhaps we can start another 800 post thread on the mystery surrounding the PS delay. Maybe they are reviewing their results, checking their math?


----------



## hellosailor

Kathleen-
"however, as it turned out, the government is their big account. First responders and the like, are recieving these SS with kit already. "
Most of the US can be divided by like the four types of child in the Passover Hagoddah. Some aren't smart enough to stand in the rain without drowning. (They may be perfectly nice and kind people, they just need some help with some issues.) Others are really trying hard, but they are intentionally kept befuddled and busy trying to work three jobs and understand ever more complex corporate billing shemes (like AOL charging them month after month for a year after they cancel, and then doing it again even after a federal suit ordering it to stop. Or their medical insurance rejecting perfectly good covered claims, in order to expect some of them will give up and just accept rejection.)

Be that as it may...there are large and loosley related emergency response communities in the US today. Last year the FCC put forward a very broad request for comments about sweeping reforms to the entire width of the communications industries in the us, with a view of "what can be done to make sure they work". FEMA has their own initiatives, the ham radio fraternity and telecom industries have still more. The problems of "emergency power" have been big, especially when it comes to having responders move a thousand miles--while carrying explosive fuels.

So, solar power for "micro" solutions has been eyed by a lot of people from a lot of different communities. One solar stick won't keep a cellular "COW" running very long, but it may keep one EOC location on the air, with parsimonious use, 24x7 to carry the most crucial traffic. A lot of the people responsible for the many outlying locations, who need that type of solution, may be finding it. And conversely, FEMA and other large players are looking into "drop kits" of resources. There are "drop kits" of satellite internet stations (one suitcase, by helicopter, with 24 hours to anyplace) and drop kits of ham radio gear (standardized for the first time ever) for similar deployment.

I've deployed with emergency radio gear to an American Red Cross shelter. You know what they brought? A batch of Nextel phones, some charged, some not, some functional, some not. The Nextels are great but several times every day you'll hear "the Nextels are out, where are the amateur radio guys?" and the traffic goes out by amateur radio. Powered by whatever batteries we can roll or carry, with no resupply if there's no genset or other power to be scrounged. I'd like to see one of those surplus Soviet strontium piles in the ARC equipment racks...but a Solar Stik could also serve a purpose.<G> At least it doesn't "go flat" sitting in the shelf in the logistics area!

A Solarstik, overpriced, overbuilt, oversold or whatever, would simply need to be RUGGED and SELF-CONTAINED in order to meet the accompanying need for a "drop kit independent power source". I could easily see FEMA picking up five hundred and ordering them dropped at local shelters in a disaster, in order to provide power for the radio drop kits being sent into the same places. Right now, local emergency radio shelters are frequently powered by "Go get me all the car batteries you can find that haven't been flooded".

Boaters? Hell no, had to find anyone who'd write you a check for 500 units of anything for a boat.<G>

About solar cell panels and colors? Damfino, everyone has new patents and everyone makes their own claims. Some technologies work better in shade, others don't. I'd expect every color to mean a different maker/process, with some pros/cons to it. But overall...Like Shell or Mobil, they'll both work.<G>

WRT " folks were saying that if SS was as good as they say, the government would have stopped them in their tracts. " Nah. The goverment has limited powers to classify and take over patents which may be "in the national interest" for defense and security means. Cold fusion, they could take off the market. A simple construction of conventionally available mass-market parts using mass-market technology? No, the government could not stop (take over) Solar Stik.

If, OTOH, the tests to publish in September's PS were to come out with radically different results, and IF the printed claims made by SS were found to be substantially fraudulent--that would be something else. But US law allows for sales "puffery", and requires express fraud. If the folks at SS said "this panel may produce up to 100AH per day" and the panels never produced more than 60AH per day? That's not fraud, because the little words "may...up to..." would have been used. And so far, a lot of the claims are coming from "user endorsements" not from Brian or SS themselves. So...no harm, no foul. Not yet, not under the rules.

If nothing else we probably owe Brian and SS a great round of applause, for forcing us all to get educated about solar technology standards and claims on the market in general, and about the great advantages to be found in using MPPT controllers!


----------



## cardiacpaul

_"Come on in Kathleen, pay no attention to the idiots."_

I'm just an idiot that really likes pictures. got any? (what, 3rd time?)


----------



## camaraderie

Hey HS...weren't you supposed to get a test set up? What happened to that?


----------



## hellosailor

I may work something out with Brian next week, he's certainly willing & eager, we've been in touch.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Hey Camaraderie,
I am not concerned about my panels, I was just wondering if that could be a reason for the numbers to look similar. I thought maybe because in general something black will hold more heat than something blue, the efficiency might be different. I realize this is a very basic way of viewing the issue, but sometimes things are simple.
Xort,
I thank you for all the information and while I was once able to understand all this wonderful electronic talk, illness has now made that near impossible for me. I miss not being able to keep up. I was actually suppose to be the one who did all the electronics for MISTRESS having spent years in the field, even though that was many years ago. However, it all ended up in Skip's hand as so much other stuff did as well, and we are fortunate to have a good friend who is ABY certified and while Skip did all the work, it was nice to have a reliable sounding board to work through all of her electronics. I stand now just a casual observer wishing I had my good smarts back.
Kathleen 
aboard
Schooner MISTRESS


----------



## xort

Kathleen
UMMM, you're welcome. Not sure what info I put forth except the dates quoted by Practical Sailor. I asked many, many more questions than any answers I provided. I'm still learning while shopping.
Sorry to hear of your illness. I take it you can still cruise?


----------



## hellosailor

Kathleen-
the color of the panels doesn't really tell you anything except what frequencies of light they absorb/reflect. In theory they need to absorb 100% of whatever frequency range they can convert to photovoltaic power--but AFAIK this varies a bit for each of them, and newer technologies are coming in with multiple layers, each of which absorbs a DIFFERENT range, effectively doubling or tripling the absorbtion of the panel. (I don't think that's on the market yet--but it is coming.)

So...If one panel reflects blue, or some blue, but it doesn't need any blue light to make power...OK. If an identical panel used different dyes and happened to absorb that blue...it might look black and it might get a little hotter from the extra light being absorbed. Or...it might also be a touch more efficient and designed with better cooling so it was all a moot point. Or, the cells might just happen to work as well at the hotter temperature, as the "blue" ones did at their own cooler temp.

I don't think we can guess anything from the color of the panel alone. Not until they start charging extra to match your panels to the Sunbrella Bimini canvases.<G>


----------



## hellosailor

*I've Been Solar Struck!*

So today, I finally met Brian, who actually left a huge amount of very nicely welded gear with me. Yes, a whole Solar Stik installation, which I had hoped to spend this weekend examining for trap doors and secret strontium pile power sources.

Unfortunately, I will not be able to even LOOK at it until the weekend after this one.

But. The actual metalwork is damn impressive, areospace or military grade. The fittings are hugely robust, and everyplace where steel contacts aluminum, there are delrin bushings, sleeves...I would hate to even think about asking a local machine shop "Do me a favor, knock off a copy of this?" because I _know _ the answer would be one month and kilobucks.

Is this necessary for the average small boat sailor? No, obviously it is top class work designed so it probably would withstand a rollover at sea. The panels can be secured in the the "flat down" position against high wind, and the various rods, pins, struts, etc. just aren't what your average shadetree mechanic would bolt up.

So, after a couple of hours looking and talking...I can't speak for the power output yet, but the Stik itself is...well...impressive. I've opted for the hard way (separate controller and wiring so I can peek and poke in various places) but give me some two weeks, and I'll get back with some numbers about output.

Yes, Brian came through, and the array really has to be seen and felt, hands-in or close-up, to appreciate the construction. (And if I find that strontium pile hidden in a secret compartment, he won't get it back. Reddy Kilowatt promised me a personal nuke 40 years ago, and I'm getting tired of waiting for it!<G>)


----------



## camaraderie

Hey great HS...looking forward to your further reports!


----------



## sailingdog

HS-

Looking foward to hearing some unbiased, honest results from the SolarStik. Let us know and take some damn photos for CP, before he goes ballistic.


----------



## hellosailor

You guys will have to be patient for a fortnight more. Although Brian mentioned he's expecting new brochures from the printer next week, so maybe he'll have more to show on the site as well. (He's been on the road all week.)

One other interesting tweak: The stik isn't just a pole. The upper section has beensquashed somewhat into an airfoil shape, not a plain cylinder. I don't know that really will make a boat any faster...but it was something unexpected, signs of more $$ production costs.


----------



## sailingdog

Umm.. that will weaken the pole in resisting loads across the minor axis of the ellipse...


----------



## TSOJOURNER

If it's attached horizontally it might function as a wing and provide lift to get the arse end of the boat up out of the water... 30 knots here we come !


----------



## thedudeistoocool

*jiminy crickets*

I spend 2 days reading 900+ posts only to find out that someone ripped out the last page ? Now I know why some people peek at the end of a book before reading it. When somebody finds out how it ends let me know.

I guess I'll go suspend myself inverted over my head so I can give myself a few swirleys and flush this crap out of my head.

Then I guess I might as well kill the rest of the week and go read the infamous FightClub thread.

Yeah yeah I know, I obviously have too much time on my hands- it's because I don't own a bloody boat yet.


----------



## xort

Ahhh, the insane glory of destoying another life!!!
The power is mine, all MINE!!!!


Yea, I'm boatless too. For now


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*AGM's*

I'm locked in the same charging conundrum as everyone else and will probably end up with at least four different charging options. I have settled on AGM however and would support anyones decision to go with them over wet cells or gells. I installed two banks of 3 group 31 AGMs wired parallel they provide around 315 amp hours per bank, that size happened to fit perfectly into the access space I had available, also they are manageable weight wise at around 75 lbs, I would have prefered to install a couple of 8D's but there was no room low in the boat and I'm dead against setting weight up too high.
On the subject of power usage refrigeration is generally public enemy number one, has anyone had any experience with Sterling motor systems as opposed to Rankine cycle, they use Helium and CO2 and have a linear motor as opposed to reciprocal. Supposedly they are quite a bit more efficient.


----------



## hellosailor

AFAIK Sterling and Rankine cycle engines were supposed to save the world (just like Wankel) many years ago and many times over. For some reason that just hasn't ever quite happened yet, so I'd either buy a conventional reefer system or learn to drink warm beer.


----------



## sailingdog

Roger-

Just curious, but what was your idea behind splitting the AGM cells into two banks rather than keeping it as one larger house bank of 630 Amp-Hours? It would be more advantageous IMHO to keep it as one large bank, rather than two smaller banks, since generally it is better for the batteries to do so.



Rogercopy said:


> I'm locked in the same charging conundrum as everyone else and will probably end up with at least four different charging options. I have settled on AGM however and would support anyones decision to go with them over wet cells or gells. I installed two banks of 3 group 31 AGMs wired parallel they provide around 315 amp hours per bank, that size happened to fit perfectly into the access space I had available, also they are manageable weight wise at around 75 lbs, I would have prefered to install a couple of 8D's but there was no room low in the boat and I'm dead against setting weight up too high.
> On the subject of power usage refrigeration is generally public enemy number one, has anyone had any experience with Sterling motor systems as opposed to Rankine cycle, they use Helium and CO2 and have a linear motor as opposed to reciprocal. Supposedly they are quite a bit more efficient.


----------



## CosmosMariner

rogercopy,

Seems like just a couple centuries ago on this thread (somewhere around page 30 or was it 50) I mentioned that both our son and we have Engle MT35 portable Freezers on our boats, his 27' Watkins and our 25' Watkins. We use them to make ice in polycarbonate juice bottles filled 3/4 with water. Every day we swap 2 frozen 'block ice' with the partially thawed block ice from the boat's ice box. We also make Ice cubes and use 'Ice Cubies' from Newfoam corp. We keep a few meats and some ice cream in there as well. Power draw is claimed to be 2.5 amps on freezer setting but is actually lower. We have both run our machines 24X7 for 2 years with no problems. Defrosting once every 6 months. Bob Bitchin keeps a MT35 in the cockpit of The Lost Soul (read the refit articles) and Capt. Woody took the smaller MT17 on his circumnavigation. They sell them in Lats and Atts mag. These units run on AC or DC and I have run mine on solar recharged DC for the past year exclusively. _


----------



## conchyjoe

CosmosMariner said:


> rogercopy,
> 
> Seems like just a couple centuries ago on this thread (somewhere around page 30 or was it 50) I mentioned that both our son and we have Engle MT35 portable Freezers on our boats, his 27' Watkins and our 25' Watkins. We use them to make ice in polycarbonate juice bottles filled 3/4 with water. Every day we swap 2 frozen 'block ice' with the partially thawed block ice from the boat's ice box. We also make Ice cubes and use 'Ice Cubies' from Newfoam corp. We keep a few meats and some ice cream in there as well. Power draw is claimed to be 2.5 amps on freezer setting but is actually lower. We have both run our machines 24X7 for 2 years with no problems. Defrosting once every 6 months. Bob Bitchin keeps a MT35 in the cockpit of The Lost Soul (read the refit articles) and Capt. Woody took the smaller MT17 on his circumnavigation. They sell them in Lats and Atts mag. These units run on AC or DC and I have run mine on solar recharged DC for the past year exclusively. _


Rogercopy,

CM does have a very valid point here. Bob even uses the "blanket" on his Engle, and it is more efficient there as well.

If you take a look at what Richard Kollman is saying over on his site at Kollmann Marine Boat Refrigeration Specialist you will find that, with a little work (or maybe a lot!), you can build a pretty efficient refrigeration system.

It certainly lends itself to your idea of two banks, one for the refer alone, and charged with solar (mathmatics depending of course, and it is accepted that I am no mathmatician) that will meet your needs, depending on where you are located.

Best of luck.


----------



## sailingdog

Also, Engel and sister brand Norcold were recently ranked as the best portable refrigerators by Practical Sailor Magazine.  I have an MT27 on my boat.


----------



## sailhog

Conchyjoe,
Everyone at Sailnet would appreciate it if you got rid of your little blurb under your pseudonyme. We like Sailingdog. Thanks in advance.


----------



## camaraderie

Rogercopy...dividing your house banks into two banks is not a great idea. One bank is more efficient from a charging acceptance standpoint with AGM's but it is no big deal. Running your fridege off just one bank is going to cycle one bank more and harder and cause unequal life between your two banks. Solar charging alone will not take good car of your batteries. Be sure to drain them to 50% every couple of weeks and put a good 3 stage charge on them to get them to 100% for better life cycling.


----------



## sailingdog

sailhog said:


> Conchyjoe,
> Everyone at Sailnet would appreciate it if you got rid of your little blurb under your pseudonyme. We like Sailingdog. Thanks in advance.


Thanks Sailhog....


----------



## conchyjoe

Have a nice day.


----------



## sailingdog

ConchyJoe-

BTW, I sail on a 28' trimaran lying in Fairhaven, on the Acushnet River.


----------



## Giulietta

Joe,

I don't read this thread, in fact I don't give a rats ass for electronics and batteries and all that heavy crap, but I hve to but in here just to keep the record straight.


Actually, he is older than 13, much much older, and does have a boat, and does his own stuff on his boat.

He is nuts but a good man, I've met him for real. He really is a kind guy that wants to share and help.

He can eat a lobster in 5 minutes too!!

Now...carry on


----------



## conchyjoe

Have a nice day.


----------



## Giulietta

Conchy, be nice....life's too short....

I have a boat, do you like me???


----------



## conchyjoe

Have a nice day.


----------



## sailingdog

That appears to be Portsmouth, NH, not too far from where Giulietta and I had lunch a few months back.


----------



## Giulietta

Is that Portsmouth?


----------



## conchyjoe

Have a nice day.


----------



## sailingdog

edit: apology accepted...


----------



## sailhog

Sailingdog is a good guy.


----------



## conchyjoe

Have a nice day.


----------



## sailhog

JOe is a nice guy.


----------



## Guesser

sailhog said:


> Sailingdog,
> The guy's a disgusting freak. He has a picture of himself that frames his well-marbled belly hanging over his shorts. He's got homosexual pedophile written all over his stupid face.


Hey now, please do not link homosexuals and pedophiles together. They are not the same thing. Although I agree, he does look pretty freaky.


----------



## conchyjoe

Have a nice day.


----------



## sailhog

Guesser,
Sorry. I definitely did not mean to offend.


----------



## Guesser

sailingdog said:


> "Sailingdog is a jerk" is your title... that would be an attack...
> 
> And calling me a jerk, liar and fraud is not an attack... hmm... you seem to be using a different dictionary than the rest of us.
> 
> Finally, calling me a "13 year old snot nosed kid" would be considered an attack or insult by most people.
> 
> **** off *******. The prosecution rests. You claim not to be attacking me, but you've just proven it over and over again.. so either you don't know what the word attack means or you're too stupid to understand the definition or you're a pathological liar... it's one of them.


I see you're still making friends here on "The Senior Member's Only" website


----------



## Giulietta

Guys, you need a group hug....

We're all going to SD's house drink the beer sailhog bought, refrigerated by Conchyjoes refrigerators, OK??


----------



## sailhog

Have a nice day.


----------



## sailingdog

Thanks Sailhog... might take you up on that...


----------



## Giulietta

So??? is that Portsmouth???


----------



## sailhog

Giu is a nice guy.


----------



## Giulietta

sailhog said:


> Giu,
> Stop playing referee and take a cheap shot at Joe!


I do I do...what's a cheap shot any way??? Where can I get them??

Get me 4 to take


----------



## sailhog

Joe is a nice guy.


----------



## Giulietta

I got it....had to google it....

HEY YOU CONCHY JOE.....SUCK ON THIS CHEAP SHOT

OR THIS.....CHEAP SHOT ALSO


----------



## sailhog

Sailnet is full of nice people.


----------



## sailingdog

Sailhog–

Thanks for that... I don't know if I deserve it...but thanks anyways...


----------



## Giulietta

Hog...thanks. I know and you're right...

Actually, I think they both should meet in New England and make sweet sweet love to each other they could then have little "Conchydogs"     

C'mon this is the internet....we're all brave...

we can all offend each other, when we're not looking in th eye of the opposer...

Its called BRAVERY OF BEING OUT OF RANGE!!!

Its because of feeling he (CJ) was being a little unfair to SD that I said what I said, and came out to defend Sailingdog, saying I had met him. And that he is a nice guy, not what he seems here on sailnet....


----------



## sailingdog

Giulietta said:


> Hog...thanks. I know and you're right...
> 
> Actually, I think they both should meet in New England and make sweet sweet love to each other they could then have little "Conchydogs"


Ewww... really disgusting, even for you... 



> C'mon this is the internet....we're all brave...
> 
> we can all offend each other, when we're not looking in th eye of the opposer...
> 
> Its called BRAVERY OF BEING OUT OF RANGE!!!


LOL...probably a bit true for all of us.



> Its because of feeling he (CJ) was being a little unfair to SD that I said what I said, and came out to defend Sailingdog, saying I had met him. And that he is a nice guy, not what he seems here on sailnet....


LOL... I can be a bit abrasive...


----------



## sailhog

Giu,
There's a post on the Fortress anchor in which I "rebutt" your claims. I'd be interested to hear your re-rebuttal.


----------



## sailingdog

Sailhog-

Don't encourage him...


----------



## sailhog

SD,
How is this response "off topic"? Danforth anchor. A sailor's ass. It really "bites into the dirt," if you know what I mean. I think it's legit.


----------



## Valiente

I think the SolarStiks are currently jammed in the thread where the sun will never find them.


----------



## conchyjoe

*Please stop and read this.*

I want to take a moment and publicly apologize to Sailingdog for attacking him in the forum.

I hope everyone can find it in their heart to accept this in good faith and go back and edit their posts and make them more reasonable as I will mine.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Giulietta

Good, now don't forget to post the photos of the marriage...and I want one of the "conchydogs" named after me, ok?? (G)


----------



## cardiacpaul

I refuse to engage in battle with a moron, they'll drag you down to their level and pummel you with experience.


----------



## sailhog

ConchyJoe,
All is forgiven. What boat do you sail?


----------



## hellosailor

OK, Cj, Sd, all you folks who have been waiting for this thread to hit a thousand messages....

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gear-maintenance/35009-ive-been-solar-struck-solarstik.html#post168011

I've been SolarStruck. Decided to start a new thread about it, too. Chow's on!


----------



## xort

Sunday, Jul 15, conky joe posted:



conchyjoe said:


> I want to take a moment and publicly apologize to Sailingdog for attacking him in the forum.
> 
> I hope everyone can find it in their heart to accept this in good faith and go back and edit their posts and make them more reasonable as I will mine.
> 
> Have a nice day.


Then Wednesday, July 18, conky joe posts on the SSCA board (speaking of Sailnet & this thread)...

"HelloSailor,

I see that now. There are a lot of posers over that, so I decided to avoid that place."

I love it; 'everybody stop the attacks on this board now please (while I continue to attack you on another board)'
Interesting choice of words...poser...
Perhaps he meant non-compensated product reviewer?


----------



## sailingdog

Xort-

One reason he has stopped attacking us on this board is that the administrator finally decided that he deserved banning, based on his behavior on this thread IMHO...and is persona non-grata here..


----------



## Cruisingdad

Just for Sailaway!!!


----------



## sailingdog

CD-

That was totally uncalled for...


----------



## TSOJOURNER

I'd like to add to this thread. I had an Arco solar panel on my boat (the lancer, not the new bene) and I took many measurements of it in full-sun conditions to see if I could figure out how long it would take to charge a battery completely. Suprisingly enough, I figured out with a lot of math and adding a diode to reduce loss at night, it would take 15 days to recover just one of the batteries in my boat. 

I think solar can, and usually is overrated. There are circumstances where you pay a huge amount for a few nice big panels that can run TV's or fridges, but they won't recover the investment unless you were to burn through hundreds and hundreds of gallons of fuel, and you never know in a linear fashion how soon they will recover the cost because they are so easily affected by external issues like shadows and clouds. 

I'm pretty happy with a 65 Amp alternator on my inboard. I have a battery tender panel for when I'm out of the boat, but that is about it. I have managed my electricity to the point using oil lanterns for anchor lights at night and minimal lights to where I went 6 days once before I had to recharge with the inboard. This is running 2 "8" type batteries and a starting battery in separate banks.

For me, and my personal use, running the engine would take me over a year at sea to recover the solar panel cost on the lancer. On the Beneteau 323, electricty use is a lot higher because we have so many damn toys on it. I have to re-charge for an hour every two days. 

So my opinion, do they help? Sure. For me they a large investment to get something that gets in the way all of the time on deck, and doesn't work in all conditions. 

I don't mind using one to keep things topped off, however, I recently saw a cruiser with them all the way around the cockpit, and he "used them to power everything he had on sunny days." This looked horrific and ruined a really pretty yacht. 

As far as wind generators go, I am not too sure just one can cut it. There are tons and tons of ways to make "free" juice for your batteries, and I think that wind generators would make for a nervous day with all of those blades swinging around. I think there is even a system to trail from the boat when you're moving, and also one that can attach to your free-wheeling prop shaft too. Of course, this doesn't solve the problem of what to do when you're on the hook for a week... back to inboard, wind and solar.

Now that's just my personal observations and ideas. I expect that many more people would use banks of panels in a heartbeat, but I can't justify it at this time.

To help answer the question the first post had, I would go to "Cheaperthandirt.com" and look up their military compact solar panels. We used three of these on my dad's ship and had really good results in Cabo, Mexico to recover a dead battery.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

OH - those solar panels were about 25 watts or something... let me see, hang on...

ok here they are, and he also ordered something like a voltage regulator and you also have to pay attention how to wire the panels together to make sure you run in series, not parallel.

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/GSE35125-56153-544.html


----------



## Cruisingdad

Lancer,

Solar works. I have been running exclusivel off of it for almost 3 months now. It akes a large array and a good charge and a nice sized bank, though. Still, it is a LOT cheaper than a diesel generator... and a lot quieter.

- CD


----------



## sailingdog

The payback in solar panels is often the silence and the freedom from having to run a fossil-fuel-based, noisy and smelly generator or engine. It also can help prolong your engine life, since you can eliminate much of the low-load recharging operation of the engine.


----------



## Valiente

sailingdog said:


> The payback in solar panels is often the silence and the freedom from having to run a fossil-fuel-based, noisy and smelly generator or engine. It also can help prolong your engine life, since you can eliminate much of the low-load recharging operation of the engine.


Exactly. The perception of how effective it is has to take into account a whole range of factors that are hard to quantify, like "all the hours I DIDN'T run the engine at anchor", or the abovementioned quiet, or even the simple fact that sun beating down on a solar panel isn't beating down on your deck or into your cockpit.

I think they are simply "trickle charge toys" on smaller boats, but if you have the decks for them, or you can stand to put in a purpose-built arch, they are very much a part of not only an ecological approach to charging, but an economical one, as well, particularly when used in conjunction with that large alternator, a wind gen and a portable genset. Nothing beats having the space and buoyancy to have a large battery bank, though.


----------



## ReverendMike

You know... this thread is getting to be as redundant and repetitive (not to mention you're repeating yourselves) as the Dems v Reps thread. 



Did I mention that you're all repeating yourselves?


----------



## camaraderie

You know what gets me is all the attention being paid to solar with very little to wind. As I've said before, my wind gen gave me 2x as much power on average than my 160W worth of solar panels and took up very little acreage and yet it seems that most people look at solar first and wind is only added as a secondary consideration. You see lots of boats with solar and no wind...but not very many with wind and no solar. Maybe I should invent a "wind stik" and sell it for $3000!! (g)
I don't get it.


----------



## bobmcgov

Cam: Wind power seems like the obvious choice on a boat designed to reap the wind. I'm a big fan myself, having lived the past four years solely by wind and solar power. But.... I can see why boaters would shy away from wind power, and I'd say it's dangerous to rely on wind power alone. Some reasons why I'd be leery:

1) Turbines need clean air to work well. Turbulence reduces output and destroys them mechanically. Winds aloft are much more powerful than those near decks. So the obvious place for a turbine is at the masthead. But even a small turbine weighs 30 lbs or so -- that's a lot of weight aloft.

2) A sailboat turbine needs to be small and lightweight. But small turbines produce very little energy -- output is roughly proportional to swept area, and a 4' diameter turbine like the AirX won't really produce more than 1 kWh per day. (I know AirX owners *living in a Class 6 wind area* who got 0.75 kWh/day, on the odd occasion the things were working.) The manufacturer's claims of 400 peak watts should not be used in calculating daily or monthly power output. Since output~swept area=r^2, a turbune half as large can produce at most one quarter the power. Downsizing quickly renders them toys.

3) Additionally, a boat-sized turbine generally has a small 'can', or rotor-stator arrangement, usually employing permanent magnets and laminations. The power curve flattens very quickly. To compensate, such turbines use very light, sharply-tapered blades with high tip-speed ratios (up to 13.5 times windspeed.) These airfoils sacrifice solidity and have a very narrow window of efficiency. Wider, slower blades are better, but they require a much heftier alternator. Higher RPMs also = noise, vibration, and shorter life. Small alternators spun fast is a proven recipe for ruin.

4) Small turbines are prone to damage in sustained high winds when the coils melt. Also, when batteries are full, a turbine needs someplace to put the excess juice. Letting it freewheel is bad for the mechanics; ought to held under load at all times. Bigger turbys use variable blade pitch; not realistic on a thirty-pound unit. So some turn out of the wind and stall the blades; others use alternating braking. The first method (furling) causes hysteresis, noise, and ungodly fatigue on the mechanicals; the second method (shorting the leads) inevitably burns up the stator.

5) So it's not a question of IF your small turbine will fail, but WHEN. The likeliest answer is "100 miles from Antigua". They are brute simple to repair, but you had better carry a full turbine's worth of spare parts on your boat, doubling up on rectifiers, stators, and bearings. That money and weight would buy some nice PV panels.

6) A rapidly-spinning propeller near the deck of a heaving boat full of tired people and many ropes. Paging Isadora Duncan....

7) Some people would argue the above list recommends a Vertical Axis Wind Turbine, like the ten thousand variants on the Darrius or Savonius designs. But VAWTs are lousy for generating electricity *and always will be*. Every two years, someone comes out with a better mousetrap that stands on its end and goes round and round; and every one turns out to be a flop. As sailors, people here can easily understand why (50% beam reach, 25% beating, 25% DDW). Japan, Germany, and GE have some really good engineers. They build and install three-bladed, horizontal-axis wind turbines. If there was a better way to catch mice, they would know -- and sell it.

Solar panels on a sailboat are problematic, but so are small wind turbines. Asking inherently underweight and overstressed machines to survive in a gyrating salt-water environment is a stiff request. I love windpower, but here's a few pix showing why I wouldn't favor it over solar:

























Nine major failures in less than four years. And this is a robust 8.2' turbine, rather heftier than most boat-sized ones. (Tho if I was was buying one, it would be similar to the D400 or Rutland: stout little 5-bladed HAWTs. Sacrifice swept area for solidity.)


----------



## TSOJOURNER

CD can you send me your setup for those panels? I'd like to look into those for my 32 footer... if we don't sell it we are going to use it for the big trip I am planning later this fall. If you've been running on them for 3 months now, I bet you've saved about 10,000 in electricity bills already from what guys tell me about your ship! hahaha!

Seriously, can you send me those specs? I'd love to pour over them.


----------



## Cruisingdad

My initial setup, as it stands right now:

4 Kyocera 130watt panels, wired in series, mounted on top of a solar arch. THese are fed with 4 gauge wire into a Outback Mx60 MPPT charge controller. My output last weekend was over 200 ah. I have an additional 2 panels setting in my garage at home, waiting to be installed. I have not gotten around to it yet becuase the current setup is more than sufficient.

The only thing the solar does not run is the Air Conditioner. I have a Xantrex Prosine 2.0 Inverter/charger for any 110 needs.

These all feed into four Lifeline AGM 4-d batteries, which alone provide 840 ah, or 420ah at a 50% discharge. That house bank is charged with the Xantrex prosine. I also have a seperate starter bank of a 1000 CCA Optima (I think it is 1000). THis bank is charged by a seperate Xantrex charger and is completely independent of the main bank in every fashion. With the flip of a 1-2-both switch, I can run the boat from the house bank, the starter bank, or both. Same with starting the engine... just the flip of a switch.

Did all that make sense?

- CD


----------



## wind_magic

I think everyone should have at least one solar panel. Even if you use tons of power and one solar panel isn't nearly enough it still has one benefit - when you turn all your junk off and leave the boat the panel will, eventually, recharge your bank. It takes a little bit of the worry out of leaving the boat because you know that your bank is going to charge back up and stay in a charged state no matter how long you are gone.


----------



## camaraderie

Bob...I appreciate your comments even while disagreeing with many of them as they apply to *actual use* on cruising boats (as opposed to units designed for permanent use on land). I was getting an average of 60ah's a day from my 4 winds generator (roughly 650 watts), which was quite quiet and safe and we never had a single repair in 3 years of daily use. Practical Sailor did a test on small and large generators recently and the large did much better and the SSCA member surveys returned the KISS and 4winds as the favored products. I personally had all the solar I could fit on my 44 footer without an arch (2x80watt panels) and still got twice as much from the wind gen and I WOULD have both again but if I had to choose, I would choose the wind since it gave me more. 
The real key is to get USABLE output in 8knots of wind through 20 knots of wind and this requires large blades. Most cruisers shut down their wind gens or feather them in 25kts. plus so destruction is not an issue...PRODUCTION is. 
I'm not saying wind-gens can't break...but the good ones are virtually trouble free, I used my occasional excess wind power to heat my hot water without running the engine, weighs only 19 lbs instead of an ARCH and panels etc.. $1899 complete with regulator, mounting pole &kit. 
I guess my point is that solar is "sexy" right now and you may get a lot more bang for your buck with the wind option.


----------



## CosmosMariner

Gee...never thought of my house as 'Sexy'  ... the boat is, well, another story...


----------



## Giulietta

THOUGHT YOU GUYS WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THIS INSIGHT BY SA!!!

QUOTE FROM THE AFOC THREAD....     



sailaway21 said:


> Well, it's ninety seven pages and those assholes over in Solar World have finally gotten around to sex. Which puts them one evolutionary notch below Paris Hilton. Some moron, who can bite me at his earliest convenience, re-started the thread and his twin juvenile thought that yet another interjection on the merits of wind power would be sufficient to return a measure of sanity to the previous ninety six pages of beanwater. The moron had malice aforethought, the twin idiot savant is in sailnet denial. If you missed it earlier in this thread, sailnet denial is when you actually think that if you make just one more post they will actually understand and come around to your way of thinking, thanking you for the illumination. We all suffer from it somewhat but, and you know who you are, we should resist the impulses it engenders.


----------



## Valiente

I can recommend a hemmoroid cream that also is a handy wind turbine lubricant.


----------



## Giulietta

Valiente said:


> I can recommend a hemmoroid cream that also is a handy wind turbine lubricant.


Geee how rough is sex in Canada???


----------



## RXBOT

Seems like this thread is out of control. However what happens when UR becalmed (no wind generator), in a fog bank (no solar), not moving (no towed array generator), & U can't start auxilary engine because batteries r dead? Well if U had a honda air cooled, 5 H.P., weighs 28 pounds, costs less than $300 brand new motor U could drive an alternator, say 130 amp like made by bosch from a ford lincoln continental. U could probably start the gas or diesel engine and charge the battery bank pretty damn quick.


----------



## Rockter

RX...

So 5 hp at the crank, say even a modest 3 hp at the generator, so something like 2 kW available at the output... say 140 A at 14 V.

What's the link for that generator. Is there a wee diesel one available?


----------



## Rockter

A while back I bought a "Windbugger", and it worked well for a few years before seawater got into the forward bearing in a gale, and it siezed up . If you don't go for refrigeration... not needed too much in Scotland... it really can do well. 

On the long hauls it could OK, managing to deliver about 3 or 4 amperes most of the time. It does not sound much, but it does meet all your non-fridge loads, and easily too. We had to make best use of tinned provisions nearly all the time.

When we'd catch a good fish... dorado were typical, though few.... we'd put extra effort into the refrigeration just to avoid wasting the meat. Perhaps running the motor a wee while to recover the battery drain. It's a 275 Ah house battery, and a dedicated starter battery.


----------



## bobmcgov

Cam: Interesting unit. That Four Winds is a two-blade unit, right? Have you experienced any yaw chatter, or blade stress due to gyroscopic effects? Anyone who has held a spinning bicycle wheel by its axles and tried to change its orientation is familiar with the feeling. It's a difficult challenge for wind turbines on a boat, if that boat is at sea.

Curious how many hours per year you'd guess you ran your little turby? Wind power may make more sense for occasional use than constant use. (My house turby spins the equivalent of 250,000 miles per year on a car engine.) If you can keep the hours down, longevity and reliablility would improve.

Also intrigued about the small wattage of solar you have, for such a large boat. Agree that arches are undesirable. Just measured my panels.... Lessee, up to 170 watts (each) at 14 sq ft (32x64"). Too big to stash a pair of those on the back rail, maybe. And still not up to the genny's output. But lots more than you have. Power density has improved in the past few years, as with all things transistor-ish. And as slight increases in turbine diameter can double output, so can slightly increasing the dimensions of a solar panel double the watts. Might look for higher output panels in a slightly larger format.

The thing I love about wind power is that, when it works, it fills the batts much faster than solar. I can struggle thru weeks of tired batteries, wondering why I'm losing ground every day. Then the wind kicks up and overnight, the bank is fully charged. About 60% wind-40% solar for me. But I no longer trust wind power -- there's so many ways for small turbines to go wrong.

Hey -- if y'all can mount a little 8" schedule 40 steel pipe to your cruisers, here's the Solar Stik to end all discussions:










Heavy, yes -- but just think what you could do with 4 kWh per day....


----------



## sailhog

Valiente said:


> I can recommend a hemmoroid cream that also is a handy wind turbine lubricant.


Hydrocortizone makes my pecker go numb.


----------



## Valiente

Giulietta said:


> Geee how rough is sex in Canada???


Well, it only STARTS with know how to screw in a canoe...


----------



## Valiente

sailhog said:


> Hydrocortizone makes my pecker go numb.


(locates 10 foot pole, but decides against touching that one...)


----------



## camaraderie

Bob

*Cam: Interesting unit. That Four Winds is a two-blade unit, right? Have you experienced any yaw chatter, or blade stress due to gyroscopic effects?

*Yeah, mine was the 2 blade unit. The only time it started making real noise was when the wind was over 20...and we usually shut it down if it got to 25. This was probably about 2% of the time since we were at anchor in relatively protected places. No blade issues whatsoever.

* Curious how many hours per year you'd guess you ran your little turby? Wind power may make more sense for occasional use than constant use.

*Well I don't really know the answer to that there were many windless periods at anchor as well as the very windy days where we shut her down so I guess that is occasional use.

* Also intrigued about the small wattage of solar you have, for such a large boat.* 
This was all on my last boat Bob.. 44 footer and we mounted the 2 Kyocera 80 watt panels on the port and starboard pushpits and I got the largest that would fit there and FOLD DOWN at sea at the time. My other choice was an expensive arch or a bimini top installation which I did not want for the tropics (due to hurricane prep difficulty). So...I opted for the combo of wind and solar and got on the order of 100ah a day which met about 2/3 of my total needs & we would run the engine every few day to make up the difference. (Balmar 110A)

To get 100amphours a day on average out of fixed solar alone, I figure I would need around 400 watts of panels which would make my boat look like a certain Catalina....and who would want that??


----------



## Cruisingdad

camaraderie said:


> To get 100amphours a day on average out of fixed solar alone, I figure I would need around 400 watts of panels which would make my boat look like a certain Catalina....and who would want that??


HAHAHA!

- CD


----------



## sailingdog

BUMP! This is for Sailaway...


----------



## SuzieWong

*solar and wind*

So many replies. Couldn't read them all, but as I try to find answers through the forum I want to reply with my experience from solar and wind:
My hunter 466 is lying in hong kong. good winds in winter (but often in cloudy and misty from january onwards), long sunny periods in summer and autumn (plus some showers and the occasional typhoon).
Anyway, the windgenerator was installed first, but the performance didn't appear that good than i expected. Well, to get the rated 350W output you need about 30kts wind. 
In summer I installed three solar panels (Kyocera, 130W), the maximum I could fit onto the bimini area. And I am very happy, thanks to the plasmatronic charge controller I have the charge history for the last 30 days. (only from solar, the windgenerator has it's own charge controller without display and dump resistors). On a good sunny day the three panels achieve well above 100Ah on my 12V system, I saw a peak charge of 22A during noon. It is enough to have the inverter and timer running 24h plus a 350W (220V AC) dehumidifyer for 30min per day.
On cloudy days the performance is different, I once glimpsed onto the display to see only 5A charge during lunch. But I am very happy with the all over all performance and can recommmend solar panels highly.

On cloudy days (again, I need lots of wind) the windgenerator supports charge of the batteries. Unfortunately I can't tell exactly how many Ah, but with the wind blowing 20Kts surely enough to keep fridge and lights running.


----------



## camaraderie

SW...thanks for the report...yes 390watts of panels with a good controller are capable of making 100ah for you on a sunny day so I'd say your measurements are good there. What kind of wind generator do you have? Sounds like a not so good one!


----------



## Valiente

Suzie...it sounds like you have the system I want to install. Thanks for the tip on the Plasmatronic CC...being able to track production is the other side of being able to track (and conserve) usage.


----------



## sailingdog

Is the Plasmatronic CC a MPPT-type or an older three-stage CC???


----------



## Valiente

sailingdog said:


> Is the Plasmatronic CC a MPPT-type or an older three-stage CC???


Can't tell! It's written in Strine...Mr. Wombat? Hello?

http://www.12volt.com.au/redirect.html?a=/General Htmls/webcat2003/solarregulators.html

http://www.solarsales.com.au/charge_controllers/plasmatronic.html


----------



## camaraderie

Pwm but I don't think mppt from the description in the literature...nice other features though...like sending an echo charge to the starter battery after the house is full.


----------



## tdw

Valiente said:


> Can't tell! It's written in Strine...Mr. Wombat? Hello?
> 
> http://www.12volt.com.au/redirect.html?a=/General Htmls/webcat2003/solarregulators.html
> 
> http://www.solarsales.com.au/charge_controllers/plasmatronic.html


Confusion reigns.

I keep seeing the letters MPP.

On the other hand, have we seen the latest Practical Sailor ?

Article on a very interesting product that I've never seen discussed here but feel is worth investigation. Certainly would make the perfect accessory for a multi bbg Catalina. PP 22 - 25.


----------



## SuzieWong

*plasmatronic charge controller*

The plasmatronic charge controller in NOT mppt. I was advised that mppt on 12V panels in hot climate doesn't bring the advantage that they cost more.
In addition I had to consider a serial charger for the solar panels as I didn't want to change the wiring for the windgenerator. You can run them all of the plasmatronic, but then it gets really too difficult for my electric knowledge as you have to run shunt controllers, relais and so on. 
This way the windgenerator has it's own parallel charge controller with dump resistors, the solar panels have the serial charge controller wich allows load diversion (eg: divert additional energy to fridge as soon as battery voltage reaches 13.3V, stop energy supply to fridge as soon as battery voltage drops below 12.5V).

As windgenerator I am using a Superwind 350, the only model I could find with feathering props. I wanted feathering props as the boat lies in the typhoon belt and I can't take are of the boat permanently due to work.
No major typhoon has struck since I installed it, and I hope I won't be able to report about typhoon resistance of the system in the next few years.

enjoy sailing


----------



## camaraderie

SuzieW...thanks for the additional info. I see why your wind gen is not so hot for producing amps. Here's the power curve:








It just produces 1 or 2 amps at 10 knots which is what you get most often. Compare to some other curves at 10 knots and you'll see what I mean:









As you can see...4winds, kiss and windbugger all produce 100-200% more amps at "anchorage wind speeds". My 4 winds went thorugh 1 hurricane and two tropical storms with no issues simply by tying off the blades to the pole. Anyway...don't expect you will change your setup as you are getting everything you need...but it is instructive for those considering different models. Thanks!


----------



## Cruisingdad

Sailaway,

You will be happy to notice that this has now reached 100 pages. You owe me money!!!! 

HAhA!

- CD


----------



## sailingdog

CD- 

It's only 34 pages on my computer...


----------



## Freesail99

It is 100 pages on my computer


----------



## camaraderie

It's only 25 on mine!! But only five to go till we breat the 1000 post mark!


----------



## sailingdog

Cool....  How many posts in the fight club thread???


----------



## therapy23

camaraderie said:


> SuzieW...thanks for the additional info. I see why your wind gen is not so hot for producing amps. Here's the power curve:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It just produces 1 or 2 amps at 10 knots which is what you get most often. Compare to some other curves at 10 knots and you'll see what I mean:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see...4winds, kiss and windbugger all produce 100-200% more amps at "anchorage wind speeds". My 4 winds went thorugh 1 hurricane and two tropical storms with no issues simply by tying off the blades to the pole. Anyway...don't expect you will change your setup as you are getting everything you need...but it is instructive for those considering different models. Thanks!


Thank you so very much for that chart.

Four winds for me I guess.

What are it's down sides??

Wait...........that chart is on the Fourwinds website...........Hmmmmmm..........


----------



## Cruisingdad

sailingdog said:


> CD-
> 
> It's only 34 pages on my computer...


Don't be difficult. I feel like Darth Vader when he said, "... I have waited a long, long time for this moment...."

HEHE!

COME ON 1000!!!!!!! posts.

- CD


----------



## Cruisingdad

I put a very nice post in Off Topic for Sailaway about this, so let me emphasize here: ..........


----------



## Cruisingdad

Sailaway, I just made #1000.

HEHE!

I am going to bed.

- CD


----------



## sailingdog

And Cam says I try to inflate my post count...


----------



## Valiente

therapy23 said:


> Thank you so very much for that chart.
> 
> Four winds for me I guess.
> 
> What are it's down sides??
> 
> Wait...........that chart is on the Fourwinds website...........Hmmmmmm..........


Don't be so hasty. Practical Sailor had a good pair of articles on the plus and minuses of the various styles of wind gens, and it comes down to location of the boat, noise produced and ranking of the wind gen in the importance of one's energy supply needs. In my own situation, that order is solar, followed by alternators, followed by wind, followed by small gas genset as a belt-and-suspenders approach (the Honda EU2000, which can also feed "stock" 115 AC power tools on deck or ashore instead of running a big draw through the inverter).

This means I can opt for a smaller-bladed, quieter wind gen if I wish, because wind is a lesser component of my proposed charging supply chain. I can see that if I am in 30 knots of wind on a cloudy or even stormy day (or night), I could really juice the batteries just via sailing, which would allow me to opt for autopilot over windvane if higher wave crests were stalling the vane.

Lots to consider. I am amazed that this ridiculous and frequently derailed thread is finally producing useful information.


----------



## sailingdog

BTW, I like the KISS windgen, since it is a good deal more affordable. However, it isn't as efficient at lower wind speeds. The KISS is about $1000, about the same cost as the Rutland 913, and the Four Winds II is about $2000.


----------



## camaraderie

Therapy...of course you are right...that is on the 4 winds site and one would expect marketing hype. So throw out the 4 winds and look at the KISS and the windbugger which they have no interest in promoting...still double the power in low winds of many of the smaller units. (And I can tell you from personal experience that I got 4-6 amps in 10-15knots out of my 4 winds).

The downside is large blades which mean you have to mount further off the deck toprovide proper clearance and you need to brace the pole mount carefully and under tension ( a little bend) to keep vibration to a minimum from the longer "lever". Also...you need to tie off the blades in higher winds with the loop provided. I always tied off in anything over 25 knots. You can get one with a centrifugal brake mechanism but I did not want the complication. 
SSCA members rated the KISS and the 4 Winds highest in their member equipment surveys if I recall correctly. 

Val...don't forget that going downwind you reduce the available wind gen force by 5-6 knots and going up wind you increase it by the same. So where wind vanes typically work least well, is also where wind gens also work least well. This would definitely influence my choice of wind/solar balance depending on where I planned to cruise.

Dog...the 4windsII is $1899...but that includes full pole mounting kit, all wiring and regulator, whereas the Kiss price requires you to buy all the mounting components and wiring...so the price difference isn't quite so great. Nothing wrong with the KISS though!


----------



## sailhog

Valiente said:


> I am amazed that this ridiculous and frequently derailed thread is finally producing useful information.


I can change that...

One often overlooked downside of wind power is the everpresent danger of getting one's armpit hair caught in the blades. This can be a painful, even life-threatening, hazard when sailing offshore. Discuss!


----------



## sailingdog

Sailhog-

If your armpit har is that long.. you need to start shaving it and stop popping the hormone pills. 


sailhog said:


> I can change that...
> 
> One often overlooked downside of wind power is the everpresent danger of getting one's armpit hair caught in the blades. This can be a painful, even life-threatening, hazard when sailing offshore. Discuss!


----------



## wind_magic

Hmm. I had already made the decision to get the KISS when I purchase, but maybe I should give the 4 winds another look.


----------



## chucklesR

Whew 101 pages, I finally finished them all. 
Where is the PS review of the SS? I read something somewhere that said it's a nice mount system, as a passive system, it's not passive (who remembers to reposition it?) and it's pricey, was that PS?

Doesn't matter, I have a 2 axis rotatable 80w on my davits, and I'm happy to report I get from 30-35 ah on a good day. That and my honda 2000, propane powered refridge and I'm making ice in the topics, playing the stero all day (truth be told, I live in maryland not the tropics).
The day I pay 4.5k for a stick is the day I sell my boat and take up beach combing.
Sorry, after 100 pages of posts, I'm entitled to talk trash. Now I'm done.


----------



## hellosailor

I think PS published the first part of their review three weeks or so ago, second part still to come. 

So, Chuckles, what is the brand name for the 2-axis rotatable you have on the davits? It would be nice to know what options there are versus the SS for this.

FWIW, I think the SS is well below $4500 now. My first reaction was that it was horribly overpriced. Then I got to SEE it, and I can say there's easily $2000+ of metal fabrication in it, plus $1000+ of electrical components. Making it not so unreasonable--if that's the type of mount and structure someone wants.

Since some of the big chandleries are now first carrying it--the real selling price remains to be seen.


----------



## Freesail99

I be interested in learning what this 2 axis rotatable 80w ( solar panel ) on my davits is all about.


----------



## tdw

I'm pretty sure the review is in the current issue of PS which I received last week. Remember that down her in the antipodes we tend to get deliveries a litlle later than you lot in the US.

I have to say the price left me gobsmacked and they do make the point that mounting a windvane will be well nigh impossible if you have one of these things. 

Apart from which they are bloody ugly.


----------



## camaraderie

If I may summarize PS...they said..good, well made product that gets you a lot more a/h's than fixed panels if you rotate them. Expensive...and 70-80 AH claims would be "optimistic" based on their testing....i.e. don't believe all the hype but t is a good product.


----------



## chucklesR

HelloSailor, by two axis was I was incorrect (better say that in this forum quick and plain.
I should have said single axis of rotation. Mine are mounted on the back of my dinghy davits and I can tilt them fore and aft - visually they look like a spoiler on the back of a car (www.mypci.net) - standard Gemini solar panel option.

I agree, having seen one - the metal fabication work is extensive and visually darn good quality - and in this forum I guess I better say I'm a trained and previously certified MIG/TIG welder and metals fabication specialist certified for NDI (previous life in the USAF-ANG, before I transfered to the Navy, after I transfered from the Marine Corp Reserve) - I've been around. Marine Corp tank driver, USAF metal fabrication specialist, USN Radioman (both submarine and surface but my electronics training is from the age of vacuum tubes) and Information Technology Chief Petty Officer, Retired, currently Database demigod.

I went home, dug out my PS issues - my wife keeps them bound in folders for me - and found the article. Good, not revolutionary, not passive.
Perfect for rich folks with small decks that can't just hang another panel on the rail and don't mind a stern looking like a pipe farm. How many rich folks have small decks?
Thanks.


----------



## SimonV

Are here we go, now we are talking about decks, size does not matter if you have a big deck or a small deck, its about how you use your deck, if your other half is happy with you deck and does not covert your neighbors deck, even if it is bigger, be happy with your deck. You could always clean up around your deck that would make it look bigger. Men be proud of your decks. let others use your deck it all part of the enjoyment.


----------



## Valiente

My wife's comment: "Who said that deck size doesn't matter? Did your mother tell you that?"

Heh.


----------



## chucklesR

As long as the deck is firm underfoot and fills the gap between the rails it can not be a bad deck, or an undersized deck.


----------



## xort

chucklesR said:


> As long as the deck is firm underfoot and fills the gap between the rails it can not be a bad deck, or an undersized deck.


RAILS??? Do you have pictures of that?


----------



## hellosailor

Chuckles, I think SS got into the marine market almost by accident. The whole thing just looks a whole lot more natural in the "terrestial" deployment with the heavy tripod base that it drops into. When I told them that I was waiting for a "Son of SolarStik" or "SolarStik Junior" to come out, downscaled a bit, they said "be patient".<G> Apparently something is in the works, or at least in consideration, and marine is just a secondary market for this thing.

As a professional welder...if you took a sketch of something similar, or a photo of one, into your local "Hi we can do stainless and aluminum right" welding shop, what do you figure they'd charge for it?

Best I can figure, is that this one is most suitable for a boat around 40' OAL, and best installed inboard, with a pipe mount installed in the corner of the rear deck. (Outboard mounts just violate my boundaries, so to speak.<G>)


----------



## denby

Hey, what happened, did this thread finally die? There is only 102 pages. So which is better, solar or wind? 


Dennis
Somebody has to stir things up, it's to quiet around here.


----------



## xort

Sway will be looking for you


----------



## denby

xort said:


> Sway will be looking for you


I think he already is.

Dennis


----------



## Waterrat

*outside the box*

Hello

I must admit I have not read this entire post and I hope someone has not posted this yet but you should all take a look at this vidio on popular mechanics. I think this has very nice if not interesting applications on a sailboat. If homeshooling on a boat it may even be an interesting experiment with kids. The sound might be a little more then I would like on a larger device. It seems that this might be one of those great think outside the box moments. Since this is my first post I can't post a link so *google search *Shawn Frayne 2007 Breakthrough Awards

The first link should be the 2-3 min movie of Popular mechnics 2007 Breakthrough Awards

WR


----------



## camaraderie

WR...welcome and thanks for the "link". Most impressive thinking! We'll have to see if it converts into usable products down the road and wonder how noisy they might be when producing a usable # of watts.


----------



## denby

Cam, that would work well on your rv. No solar stick needed.


Dennis


----------



## hellosailor

Micropower would have limited uses on boats. A two foot long micropower stick (like the one shown) would barely power one masthead wind instrument or marker light. A nice concept but "not economically feasible" for most boating applications.


----------



## wind_magic

If only there was a device that could collect solar energy in a battery that could be purchased anywhere, was inexpensive, reliable, stored well, was non-hazardous, easy to transport, low tech, and was easy to use. While we're wishing it might as well be self-replicating, energy dense, and float too. Oh, wait, that's right .. they are called trees.


----------



## xort

Trees won't be the saviour of our energy needs, grasses will.
I talked with a phd chemist who is working on this stuff. He predicted that in 15 years, grasses will produce enough ethanol to supply all our fuel needs.


----------



## hellosailor

"If only there was a device that could collect solar energy in a battery that could be purchased anywhere, was inexpensive, reliable, stored well, was non-hazardous, easy to transport, low tech, and was easy to use. While we're wishing it might as well be self-replicating, energy dense, and float too. Oh, wait, that's right .. they are called trees"

Trees are not inexpensive, that's why most of Europe and the middle east will give you a book of waxed paper matches not the paper pulp or wood ones common in the US. (OK, they sell them these days, no one gives them away any more, wood and wax paper alike are too expensive.) And the Japanese have to import trees contracted below US subsidized market prices to make their own chop sticks at home, they've denuded their forests. As had the British, Italians, Greeks, Germans, French, and large sections of the US. As Brazil is going today.

Cheap? Only if you steal them or make no plans to replace them and let the eology go to hell after strip clearing them. Like cheap nuclear power--which ignores the last 50,000 years on the expense sheet.

Easy to transport? Not even if you can float them downhill, they are not energy-dense and you spend a lot of fuel moving them with a lot of lost stock on the way.

Oh, and if you'd seen or heard of any of the great municipal ash fills of the early 20th century (The entire 63-64 NY World's Fair was build on an ash filled swamp) you find wood has other drawbacks-lots of waste. Corrosive, bulky waste.

The smog and asthma deaths in London the 60's from massive chimney smokes are almost forgotten--but still on record.

Grasses have some advantages, after all Brazilian ethanol is produced from bagasse (sugar cane waste, essentially a grass like bamboo) with something like 12x the efficiency of tearing it out of corn.

But trees? If that technology was so good....we'd have never been forced to leave it.


----------



## denby

hellosailor, I believe the ash fills you speak of are from coal not trees. I could be wrong.


Dennis


----------



## xort

cellulosic ethanol can be made from trees. Michigan is building a processor that will use sustainable forestry to create ethanol. But grasses do have more potential.


----------



## hellosailor

Denby-
Coal. trees, either one makes lots of ashes. A hundred years ago folks saved their fireplace ashes to "feed" their gardens. No gardens today, where ya gonna put the ashes?

They used to use them (coal and wood ash) on snow, then switched to salt because because got tired of tracking ashes into their rugs. Still a problem. Still not efficient.

Go to any New England valley in winter when the po folks are using wood to heat their homes. By the end of a cold week, the town stinks of wood smoke and there's heavy have from it. Not a good option.


----------



## denby

hellosailor said:


> Denby-
> Coal. trees, either one makes lots of ashes. A hundred years ago folks saved their fireplace ashes to "feed" their gardens. No gardens today, where ya gonna put the ashes?
> 
> They used to use them (coal and wood ash) on snow, then switched to salt because because got tired of tracking ashes into their rugs. Still a problem. Still not efficient.
> 
> Go to any New England valley in winter when the po folks are using wood to heat their homes. By the end of a cold week, the town stinks of wood smoke and there's heavy have from it. Not a good option.


I live in New England and heat my 3100 square foot house solely on wood for 5 years, use the ash in compost. Most of the house is 200 years old.

Dennis


----------



## wind_magic

hellosailor said:


> Trees are not inexpensive


They are compared to solar panels. Even in places where they don't have trees.



hellosailor said:


> Cheap?


They are compared to solar panels.



hellosailor said:


> Easy to transport?


They are compared to solar panels.



hellosailor said:


> But trees? If that technology was so good....we'd have never been forced to leave it.


Some of us never left it. I have a pile of wood right out back, so does my step-father, so does my sister and her family, so does everybody around here. My neighbor heats a big two story house with wood. You city people crack me up. 

My point was that there is more solar power in a piece of firewood than in a whole bunch of solar panels mounted on a boat that are allowed to collect energy for a long period of time. How long would it take solar panels to collect enough power to generate as much heat energy as in a single piece of firewood ? I'll tell you .. it takes so much energy to produce as much heat energy as a single piece of firewood that we don't even bother comparing solar panels to wood for heating, we only compare fossil fuels and nuclear/electricity to wood for that. Trees are very good solar energy collectors. And of importance to us on boats, you can "refuel" on wood in some really out of the way places.


----------



## Idiens

I read somewhere that solar panels will not operate long enough to replace the energy it took to make them. (Smelting silicon, glass, aluminum, copper, ...)
However, much as I have often tried to back off the dock with the power cable attached, it was never long enough to take cruising. Solar panels do generate a bit of useful power quietly in wet places where trees don't grow and I don't have a wood burning genset on my boat.
When ashore, trees are good for lots of supplies, shady cooling, wind screening, above flood housing, lumber, fuel,... I believe they have branches everywhere.


----------



## Waterrat

*Burning Wood*

Polution from burining wood can be minimized by adding a catalytic converter to your smoke stack. That reduces one problem but may rasie a few when you consider what goes into makeing the converter. Another bonus is that wood is recently fixed carbon and we are just cycling what is already there and not adding more. Trees are renewable.


----------



## denby

btw, how did we get to wood burning on this thread? My post 1019 I only asked which was better, solar or wind? Now we are on wood. I think I need a much bigger boat, maybe 60 feet. I'll tell my wife. 

Dennis


----------



## hellosailor

"They are compared to solar panels."
Yeah yeah. Trees have had a couple of million years to get their act together and find ways to absorb multiple wavelengths and make good use of the light failling on them. Most solar cell panels today absorb one narrow band--and there's good research from multiple sources all indicating that "soon" solar cells will have 3-5 absorbtion bands, pushing their effiency way up. Not to mention, they don't need pruning, borer infestion, and leaf cleanup in the call. Although, solar cells that could change color to put on a nice show during the seasons would be a nice plus.<G>


----------



## wind_magic

denby said:


> btw, how did we get to wood burning on this thread? My post 1019 I only asked which was better, solar or wind? Now we are on wood. I think I need a much bigger boat, maybe 60 feet. I'll tell my wife.


Oh, that's easy to answer, Dennis. I was afraid the thread was going to die and I know how much sailaway21 enjoys this thread so I threw in an extra 0.02$us to keep some energy in it.

And of course you are right hellosailor, I was just being a pain in the ass.


----------



## Idiens

So is the concept to grow a tree on your rear deck and chop bits off when energy is needed? Or use the tree to mount solar panels as it might be cheaper than a solar stick? 
A couple more billion years or some genetic engineering could get the trees to produce electricity (cross a pine with an electric eel)? Presto - A Christmas tree with nav-lights.


----------



## bestfriend

So, I am wondering, when the dollar goes by the way of the peso, whats the best way to buy a solarstik cheap?


----------



## Valiente

Saw this the other day...it's fairly technical, but the technology seems promising enough to make a difference to the average sailor in a couple of years...

http://www.nanosolar.com/technology.htm


----------



## wind_magic

I found this solar powered bug control device online ...










(it wasn't me sway, someone else restarted it  )


----------



## bestfriend

The bastard

Hey wind that thing is great! Can't even see the buttons or the plug, is it wireless?


----------



## HoffaLives

the best thing about wood (at least in canada), is that not only does it provide heat, but meat as well. drag a stick in the water behind you for awhile, pull it out, and you'll have a couple of beavers hanging on it. mmm good eatin' that. throw back the stick, pull it out again in a bit, more beavers. never go hungry up here though yer teeth might grow long and yeller.

also good fer beatin' off those damn wimmen who won't leave a guy alone.


----------



## camaraderie

Wow Val...good link...this appears to be much further along than most of the innovations and claims we read about. This could really change things on both land and sea!


----------



## bestfriend

How does it work, me first me first!


----------



## HoffaLives

depending on how many condoms you have you could keep your battery bank charged with this...
http://www.ifilm.com/video/2877403


----------



## wind_magic

bestfriend said:


> The bastard
> 
> Hey wind that thing is great! Can't even see the buttons or the plug, is it wireless?


Oh yeah. 

Hey I heard that if you are burning a bug with the magnifying glass when the sun goes down and there is a green flash that something really cool will happen. Like the bug will grow into a giant bug or something. Like Mothra.


----------



## bestfriend

HoffaLives said:


> depending on how many condoms you have you could keep your battery bank charged with this...
> http://www.ifilm.com/video/2877403


Doesn't say anything about new or used condoms, you could save some money there.


----------



## Valiente

camaraderie said:


> Wow Val...good link...this appears to be much further along than most of the innovations and claims we read about. This could really change things on both land and sea!


Yes, I thought that while reading it as well. We'll see. It certainly seems more "solid" than, say, fuel cell technology, which also holds a lot of promise for future small boat propulsion.


----------



## denby

Does it require a solar stick?


----------



## Idiens

Valiente said:


> .... fuel cell technology, which also holds a lot of promise for future small boat propulsion.


You could do that today, if you fancy methonal as a fuel..

www.efoy.com


----------



## sailingdog

I like the idea of the printed solar panels that Nano Solar has. However, it remains to be seen if they can pull it off and make a commercially viable product of it. There have been other dramatic breakthroughs in solar panel technology that for one reason or another never got off the ground commercially.


----------



## Freesail99

> There have been other dramatic breakthroughs in solar panel technology that for one reason or another never got off the ground commercially


With oil nearing $100.00 per barel, that may be all the push they need.


----------



## cardiacpaul

but does it interfere with the signals that I'm getting thru my tinfoil hat? 
bad things man, bad things


----------



## xort

What ever happened to the 'paint on' solar? You could apply this paint anywhere, hook up leads and get solar power.


----------



## wind_magic

xort said:


> What ever happened to the 'paint on' solar? You could apply this paint anywhere, hook up leads and get solar power.


Solar paint will work if you paint it on to a battery and hook up the leads.


----------



## xort

*solar cell spray on paint*

Here's what I'm talking about...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0114_050114_solarplastic.html


----------



## RealityCheck

Thanks for that link... very interesting. I didn't know people were working the IR solar power to that degree.


----------



## bestfriend

*One last thing before I go*


----------



## denby

OK, BF has lost it. He is either on drugs or he needs some drugs, which ever it is BF get some help.


----------



## sailingdog

Denby-

Took you long enough to notice.


----------



## denby

sailingdog said:


> Denby-
> 
> Took you long enough to notice.


I knew he was a little off before but today he is really off.


----------



## cardiacpaul

BF, is that code? Thats code ain't it... When are they comin'? how many of 'em????
Will they use that damn thing that makes my hair fall out and my pooter pucker again???? 
Wheres my ranger rick secret decoder ring, 
help me look for it willya?


----------



## SYMandalay

I have eight years of cruising experience with my setup, mostly in the Bahamas, T & C, Dominican Republic, Florida and the East Coast. There is a lot of sun in most of these places and there is a lot of wind in the Bahamas and Caribbean.

We have five panels for a total of 310 watts and an Aerogen 6 wind generator. We are not extremely heavy users of power. Our setup will keep us supplied at anchor for an unlimited time as long as there is not a lot of cloud cover and the wind is 15 knots or more.

Our panels can be tilted to some degree to point at the sun. This is critical in the winter when the sun is low. Horizontal stationary panels are very inefficient.

Our Aerogen wind generator is quiet and produces useful power at 15 knots and a lot when the wind is near 20 knots or more. Wind generators are expensive and require maintenance! They are hard to get at and hard to work on. Ours in an alternator - some are generators with brushes that fail.

Given a fresh start, I would go with more panels and no wind generator, I think. Panels require no maintenance and are guaranteed for twenty years. You need to be very conservative with your calculations on panel power production. Assume five hours per day at about half rated capacity.

Good luck,

Colin

Photo here http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee244/Mandalay0044/Mandalay/AlternativeEnergy.jpg


----------



## camaraderie

Mandalay...I think you would like wind power better if you had:
1. A big blade unit that delivered useful power at 8-10 knots
2. A brushless system. 

Big difference as the test reports and SSCA equipment reviews have shown. I agree with your comments on panels...you need a lot of watts to generate sufficient amp hours to run the boat. My experience says to take watts rated and divide by 3 to get daily amp hours generated.


----------



## xort

camaraderie said:


> My experience says to take watts rated and divide by 3 to get daily amp hours generated.


So 2 130 watt panels will average 85 amps per day? That's not to bad to suppliment a 100+ amp/day draw.


----------



## hellosailor

Xort-
"So 2 130 watt panels will average 85 amps per day?"
Are we confusing amps with amp-hours again?<G>

260 watts of panels, averaging 15 volts, would be about 17 AMPS of power under typical noon daylight. A rough fudge factor, since sunlight varies over the day, is to say the panels produce the equivalent of five hours of "full" power over the length of the entire day. So yes, 83-85 AmpHOURS of power production, at nominal voltage, for the entire day.

There are web sites that give you closer "fudge factors" based on your lattitude and the time of year, 4-6 hours is typical.


----------



## xort

HS
Thanks
I like getting some real world info as well as the company literature. That's kind of where this all started as well as what got us 'slightly off track'.
There was some good stuff back there somewhere but I'll be damned if I'm wading through it all again. Makes a good research project for somebody...else.


----------



## sailingdog

It depends on the exact panels, but that HS's figures sound about right. Of course, this will be affected by where you are located, and the typical weather patterns there. Jolly Old England and Seattle might not do so well.  Further north, the winter days will be less useful, the summer days will be longer... so you'll get more useful hours of daylight.


----------



## bestfriend

Just because...
http://www.windsun.com/Batteries/Battery_FAQ.htm#What is a Battery?


----------



## sailingdog

Why do you guys keep bringing this thread back from the dead? Oh, yeah, to bug Sailaway... Sounds good to me.


----------



## denby

sailingdog said:


> Why do you guys keep bringing this thread back from the dead? Oh, yeah, to bug Sailaway... Sounds good to me.


Hey Dog, we try.  Are we doing ok.


----------



## sailingdog

I don't know... Sailaway hasn't blown up about this thread recently, so keep trying.


----------



## camaraderie

More from nano solar...99 cents a watt and in production! 
http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/2007/12/18/nanosolar-ships-first-panels/


----------



## sailingdog

Cool...


----------



## camaraderie

...and news of much better batteries ahead too! 
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/nanowire-010908.html


----------



## sailingdog

Remains to be seen if they can make a viable commercial product.


----------



## Idiens

Nigel Calder said he was hoping to test batteries of thin lead during the coming year. Sounds good if they really turn into a reasonably priced product. Lithium Ion would be even better, but I expect more expensive.


----------



## sailingdog

The only worry I have of using Lithium Ion or related chemistry batteries is their nasty habit of bursting into flame or exploding if improperly charged.


----------



## Johnrb

Cam: Thanks for that Nanosolar link.


----------



## arf145

*Nanosolar*

That's very exciting--great for boats, but at those watts/$, could be significant to global warming, energy use, etc.

Tom


----------



## sailingdog

Got a Voltaic backpack for Christmas... pretty cool backpack with three small solar panels and a small lithium ion battery inside to charge things like iPods, PDAs, and cell phones.

btw, this one's for you Sway...


----------



## xort

NICE! 
SD, could you please post several more comments on your solar powered backpack?
Specs on capacity, charge times, sizing.
How about some pix?
Pleeeze?


----------



## sailingdog

Xort-

You can read about the backpacks here.


----------



## wind_magic

Xort, If you are looking for recommendations, I like the Sunlinq folding solar panels. You just secure them to your pack as you hike and then you can remove them in camp and put them on top of your tarp, etc, and put your pack under cover. Also has the advantage of not ruining the pack if the folding solar panel gets damaged, you just buy another one. These things are really tough, I don't think you'd accidentally damage one.

Sunlinq folding solar panel (one vender, there are many)

I have no association with whoever that vendor is, that is just the first place that came up when I put Sunlinq and folding solar panel into google, lots of places sell them. They come in 6.5 watts, 25 watts, and some other sizes too.

Here is a picture of one of the bigger ones, unfolded ...










SD, can you remove the panels on that pack ? I like it!


----------



## sailingdog

Yup...panels are removable. One of the really nice features is the little lithium ion battery pack that they have inside the pack, so that you aren't limited to charging during daylight hours. The battery pack also can be used as an LED flashlight, and will run about 55 hours when fully charged.  It's pretty well thought out, and my laptop fits inside the bag... so I'm using it to carry my MacBook as well.


wind_magic said:


> ...
> SD, can you remove the panels on that pack ? I like it!


----------



## denby

Hey Dog,
Does it come with a solar stick? Is it better then wind power? 

Sway is going to love this. Restarting the solar thread.


----------



## CosmosMariner

Cam, thanks for the link. With their technology I could double the power of my house for 13% of the original cost.

Dog, weired as it may be this thread seems to be the 'solar water cooler' where the info gets around.  As a result of the 'Schtick' discussions I looked into MPPT charge controlers and am now getting 3 MX60s for my house and one for Wu-Hsin.  A lot of posts to have gone through but I think every piece of data available was presented making it easier for me to make choices.


----------



## wind_magic

I installed a Bluesky MPPT charger and I have to admit it is a lot better than my Morningstar charger was. It really keeps a good charge on the batteries and seems to get there a lot faster than the other controller did. Whether that means it's more efficient I don't know, but it should be for as much as it costs. 

I like the Bluesky for other reasons too. For one thing it is very well made, tough, made with good quality components. I also like the ease of use - the light stays on for bulk charge, blinks to top it off, and has shorter blinks when it is just sustaining the batteries, so at a glance you can tell what it is doing. My old controller didn't really say much.


----------



## Giulietta

Dear Sailaway....

With all my LOVE!!! ehehehehehe


----------



## denby

Giulietta said:


> Dear Sailaway....
> 
> With all my LOVE!!! ehehehehehe


Now you've done it. Sway will be so happy.


----------



## xort

May your solar panel get as hot as hades!


----------



## denby

Uspirate,

Maybe we can get two CD bobble head dolls by posting on Sways favorite thread of all time.


----------



## camaraderie

Breaking News...Introduced at the Miami Boat Show
The Solar Stik Catalina!


----------



## denby

camaraderie said:


> Breaking News...Introduced at the Miami Boat Show
> The Solar Stik Catalina!
> View attachment 1010


Cool, CD probably has one already.


----------



## camaraderie

He helped design it!


----------



## xort

On that grill, I see what looks like a propane hookup. Is that the back up heating source? How many BTU's can the solar stick generate for the BBQ before switching to the back up source?


----------



## TSOJOURNER

I'm seeing something here......
Maybe CD is Alex's neighbor at the Marina.


----------



## chucklesR

camaraderie said:


> Breaking News...Introduced at the Miami Boat Show
> The Solar Stik Catalina!
> View attachment 1010


I'm thinking Solar Stik probably will advertise this as an electric cooker capable of putting 1700w of cooking power for up to 13.5 hours a day.
Propane is for the 1 in 1000 days you can't get any sunshine at all.

It'll also come with a deep fat fryer, blender, and hair dryer accessory.


----------



## sailingdog

Well, now we know what CD is buying next for his boat.


----------



## Cruisingdad

camaraderie said:


> Breaking News...Introduced at the Miami Boat Show
> The Solar Stik Catalina!
> View attachment 1010


HAHAHA! How did I miss this post and where can I get one!!??

- CD


----------



## TSOJOURNER

i was borne on a sail boat..and still sailing (62 years)..tried everything over the years..all not satisfactory for the money i have spent..now i am a happy sailer..we use a diesel gen.low speed --low noise..cost less tham all the wind gen & solar pan..we will be leaving on a world trip this spring on our new 55 .


----------



## camaraderie

kooroo...well it only took you 7 years for your first post!  Welcome aboard. What kind of 55??


----------



## Freesail99

camaraderie said:


> kooroo...well it only took you 7 years for your first post!  Welcome aboard. What kind of 55??


I'm impressed that he could remember his sign on name never mind the password.


----------



## denby

camaraderie said:


> kooroo...well it only took you 7 years for your first post!  Welcome aboard. What kind of 55??


Yea and he has to put his first post on Sways favorite thread.


----------



## wind_magic

Solar power is, like, a really good thing.


----------



## denby

Wind,

You beet me to it, was going to give it a few more days.


----------



## denby

camaraderie said:


> kooroo...well it only took you 7 years for your first post!  Welcome aboard. What kind of 55??


Cam,

I think you're going to wait 7 more years for the answer.


----------



## denby

Do solar panels work if it is cloudy?  















Beat you to it Windy.


----------



## sailingdog

Yes, of course they do...just not very well. 


denby said:


> Do solar panels work if it is cloudy?
> 
> Beat you to it Windy.


----------



## tjaldur

Charging the batteries must be the closest approach to an everlasting machine. I have 430 amp/h batteries and use two solar panels with a capacity of 88 watt and a Ruthland 913 windmill that can give up to 250 watt. But it seldom blows enough to reach that peak. If I do not use the computer and the TV I can manage without using the engine that has a 110 amp alternator. Or the generator (2550 W/220 V) that is connected to a 60 amp charger. Then the continuous use is around 5 amps (60 W/h) , frigidaire, diesel-heater and light. My experience is that light-bulbs use a lot. Even the smallest light-bulb uses 15 watt. From now on I will change all the light-bulbs to LEDs. 

Portable computer uses 40 W/h and TV uses 60 W/h, output from a 1500 W pure sinus inverter. The average, during 24 hours is around 100 W/h, that is 2400 W each day. Without the solar panel and the windmill I would have to let the engine run two hours a day or the generator 3 hours a day. With solar panels and windmill I run the generator for about 5 hours a week. Usually when I need to use power-tools anyway.


----------



## tristanhayes

Does anyone else have any experience with the DuoGen units?


----------



## camaraderie

I have no personal experience with Duogen...but reports elsewhere on the Internet from owers indicate that owners are VERY pleased with the IN WATER performance of the units underway...but quite unhappy with the out of water wind performance.


----------



## Valiente

denby said:


> Do solar panels work if it is cloudy?
> 
> Beat you to it Windy.


I have heard they work well at night if you shine a strong light on them.


----------



## Valiente

camaraderie said:


> I have no personal experience with Duogen...but reports elsewhere on the Internet from owers indicate that owners are VERY pleased with the IN WATER performance of the units underway...but quite unhappy with the out of water wind performance.


Still, they might be a great choice for someone like myself planning on getting three 130W Kyocera panels and for whom the wind gen is the "third source" after solar and alternator, with a Honda EU2000 as the final, rarely used source for charging. (The Honda is for power tools, so I don't have to draw AC from the inverter for more than occasional loads like a microwave.)

The DuoGen and other types like it make more sense if you think of them as towed generators with an auxiliary wind function rather than wind generators that you can tow. That's my understand of it, anyway.


----------



## camaraderie

Yeah..I think that is fair Val...but let's face it...90% of cruising for most folks is on the hook rather than crossing an ocean. To me...doesn't make a whole lot of sense even for you Val if you are gonna need more than 100ah's a day since that is all the panels will get ya AND some days it is not sunny.


----------



## denby

Ok Sway, this should make you happy.


----------



## Edgeaholic

sailingdog said:


> The only worry I have of using Lithium Ion or related chemistry batteries is their nasty habit of bursting into flame or exploding if improperly charged.


You mean "Rapidly disassemble". Even still, it only happens in about %.5 of laptop batteries as a total.

As for how often it happens fast enough to make significant amounts of smoke and the like. Thats even lower number of %.01 of the time. So you have a .0001 chance of it happening. However, if you do rapid discharging and charging of li-ion batteries you'll likely just kill the battery. I remember reading about some testing they did on a Honda insight with Li-Ion instead of Ni-cad. They would do a single track run and kill off 4 or 5 cells. Granted, this was 3 or 4 years ago; Lithium ion technology has significantly changed since.


----------



## Edgeaholic

Some of the latest high efficiency panels work very well in all weather, Including, on a full moon night. 

I wouldn't be surprised to see a boat with them built into the deck as part of the design.


----------



## JohnRPollard

What I like about enviro-friendly solar panels is how they contribute to the "greening" of the environment:

Solar Energy Firms Leave Waste Behind in China - washingtonpost.com


----------



## xort

I guess the Chinese are 'stik-ing' it to themselves


----------



## denby

The worst part of the waste compound is the tetrachloride. It causes birth defects and sterilization among other thing. Also the chlorine causes problems, dose anyone remember the aerosol cans being banned in the 70ds and the "freon" banned in 89? What they were banning is the chlorine.


----------



## denby

I forgot, welcome aboard Edgeaholic.


----------



## sailingdog

Of course the highest efficiency solar panels are polycrystalline, and AFAIK can't be walked on.


----------



## jgaddis

sailingdog said:


> Of course the highest efficiency solar panels are polycrystalline, and AFAIK can't be walked on.


Why would you want to walk on them?

I read all 1125 post in this thread, besides the solar stick stuff, it has been very informative.


----------



## hellosailor

If you have limited space,and the panels are strongenough to walk on, you can mount them directly on the cabin top. No need for a post,or targa rails, or other dedicated space and hardware.


----------



## sailingdog

Some boats have very limited space to mount panels, and as such, use amorphous silicon thin film panels, which can be surface mounted and walked upon.


----------



## Freesail99

I see WM is selling the Solar stick now


----------



## camaraderie

Did you also see where they lost a ton of money and a CEO recently!


----------



## denby

jgaddis said:


> Why would you want to walk on them?
> 
> I read all 1125 post in this thread, besides the solar stick stuff, it has been very informative.


You actually read all the post? You have too much time on your hands.


----------



## jgaddis

denby said:


> You actually read all the post? You have too much time on your hands.


<---- Read while bored at work.

Thanks for the explanation.

Hope I don't get fried for this, is there a forum similar to this for Trawlers?


----------



## TSOJOURNER

jgaddis said:


> <---- Read while bored at work.
> 
> Thanks for the explanation.
> 
> Hope I don't get fried for this, is there a forum similar to this for Trawlers?


Last time i heard from you. you were looking for a haul out, looking for a trawler now?


----------



## jgaddis

Still looking for a haulout 

Trawler is for down the road.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

the panel i had on my first mac was mounted on top of the cabin, you could literally dance on it if you're into it. the panel on my cal was mounted from the stern rail, same setup im using now but it doesnt work as well with the 25 due to the outboard and swim ladder. i need a bigger boat. heck i need alot of stuff.


----------



## xort

Hey, how bout that solar stik? Oh sorry wrong message board.


----------



## Edgeaholic

camaraderie said:


> Did you also see where they lost a ton of money and a CEO recently!


ya, but they got their old one back. Now, if they could just get a marketing VP. Focus on the customer, what they want. Price, selection, service.

Fancy stores are great if you got a whole chain of them. However, I'm a price conscious consumer and sadly as much as I like the people at my local West Marine. The price is about 30 percent higher than ordering my products online from a competitor. I'd be willing to pay a 10 percent premium for in store today. Otherwise, I'll just borrow what I need from others till what I need\want arrives.


----------



## denby

Valiente, 

This is the thread, Sway really loves this one. and appreciates it when someone revives it.


----------



## denby

xort said:


> Hey, how bout that solar stik? Oh sorry wrong message board.


Does Sway like the solar stick also? I thought it was only this thread and the dog thread.


----------



## sailingdog

Denby-

I think Sway will be gunning for you soon...and you must know that most right wingers have and carry guns...


----------



## denby

sailingdog said:


> Denby-
> 
> I think Sway will be gunning for you soon...and you must know that most right wingers have and carry guns...


Thats okay Dog, I'm armed.


----------



## wind_magic

I can't believe you people would post to this thread again.


----------



## wind_magic

I mean, seriously, it's a really old thread.


----------



## denby

I wouldn't dare post on this thread, It was my evil twin brother.


----------



## sailingdog

There is no such thing as an EVIL TWIN...that is a hollywood myth... Denby is trying to pin the blame on his twin, who is totally blameless.


----------



## denby

sailingdog said:


> There is no such thing as an EVIL TWIN...that is a hollywood myth... Denby is trying to pin the blame on his twin, who is totally blameless.


And how do you know that? We are identical twins.


----------



## sailingdog

You can't fool me... I'm an identical twin, too... I've seen all the games we can play... and how we work and think. 


denby said:


> And how do you know that? We are identical twins.


----------



## xort

Solar & wind? What's that? 

Denby, is your twin conky joe?


----------



## denby

Dog,

I once ran across a guy that owed Dave $10, he thought I was Dave and I could not get a word in edge wise so I took the $10 and told my brother the next day that he got payed back.   Till this day I still don't know who it was.


----------



## denby

xort said:


> Solar & wind? What's that?
> 
> Denby, is your twin conky joe?


Who is conky Joe?


----------



## xort

Den
go back about 50 pages on this thread and read up. he was the guy that got the brawl started. shame on you for not knowing your sailnut history

as penance, you should be required to read this entire epic from first post to last


----------



## sailingdog

ConchyJoe was a troll of sorts IMHO... and was one of the people who doesn't know the difference between amp-hours and amps and how important that minor difference is. 

He claims to be a professional marine product reviewer who didn't have the technical know how to properly review jack.

*He was the one who introduced the solarstik and claims you can get 100 amp-hours or more out of a pair of 50 Watt Solar Panels per day.*

50 Watts = 14 volts * 3.57 amps... times two, and you get 100 Watts = 14 volts * 7.14 amps...

*On a good day, you might get the equivalent of 10 full power hours out of the panels... that leaves you about 28 amp-hours shy of the claims... *

BTW, the reality based records for non-tracking panels is that they get about *5-6 HOURS OF FULL PANEL OUTPUT PER DAY, *so the 10 Hours is being pretty damn optimistic to begin with, and assumes the ambient temperature for the panels is around 60˚ F, since the panels will tend to drop output as their temperature rises... Have you ever felt the surface of a solar panel on a summer day??? It ain't at 60˚F... that's for damn sure.

BTW, Conchy got hisself banned and then came back under several other handles to rant, rave, threaten people... and generally act the ass. Google him... and you'll find his website. I won't bother linking to it here.. that would increase his Google page ranking... and he don't deserve that.

Xort-

I think you owe Denby an apology, even if he did have an evil Twin....it wouldn't be as bad as ConchyJoe...


----------



## denby

xort said:


> Den
> go back about 50 pages on this thread and read up. he was the guy that got the brawl started. shame on you for not knowing your sailnut history
> 
> as penance, you should be required to read this entire epic from first post to last


First, thanks Dog, I did not get involved in that brawl but now I remember it.

Xort,

ignore my pm. And you're crazy if you think I'm going to read this hole thread again.


----------



## artbyjody

So I take it - do not buy a solar stick or else you will feel like you had a stick somewhere where maybe sunlight doesn't get to? I kinda missed that I think


----------



## denby

artbyjody said:


> So I take it - do not buy a solar stick or else you will feel like you had a stick somewhere where maybe sunlight doesn't get to? I kinda missed that I think


I don't think you missed much but you kind of summed it up.


----------



## cardiacpaul

Hey, whats happening with Reed? (just feeling my oats this morning)


----------



## camaraderie

CP...since you asked:
Day 399 Departing The Terra Firma 
 Friday, 23 May 2008  Wind E 25 knots, Course N, Speed 3 to 4 knots, Position 38*09s by 154*08w

Out here on the edge of human existence at sea I feel detatched from humanity. At the same time I feel connected in many ways. Even if I couldn't communicate and wasn't being told how people connect with me I would know it because I feel certain ways we are together. I feel myself very much as a spirit and in that way I connect with everyone's common consciousness and they are connected to distance, the movements of nature, the stars, the life cycles of humans. In our quest to know ourselves, the universe and God, we become more like energy and love and light. We cling less to materiality and realize our eternal existence. This has a lot to do with what inspired the voyage for me. I realized that it might be possible to loosen the bonds that pull me to earth and I could live for a longer period of time with out touching the land. As I prepared myself over the years in every way it became apparent that if I succeeded even most of the way that I would have departed the touch of the terra firma longer than any human since we evolved here on Mother Earth. Two Russians spent a year in space, but my hero Jon Sanders holds the first and second place records for not having touched the land while at sea
419 days 22hours and 10 minutes and 657 days 21 hours and 18 minutes. He comes from a racing sailing background and has many more unbroken records. If I can maintain the balance I intend to depart the touch of the terra firma longer than any human has. The implications of this place in human evolution gives me energy to continue through the trials and tribulations and the beauty.

Reid

1000days.net - Home
**********************
He does indeed have a unique place in human evolution...though I think evolution is supposed to imply progress!


----------



## Valiente

Mahatma Gandhi walked barefoot everywhere, to the point that his feet 
became quite thick and hard. He also was quite a spiritual person. 
Even when he was not on a hunger strike, he did not eat much and 
became quite thin and frail. Due to this diet, he wound up with very 
bad breath. Therefore, he came to be known as a . . .

Super calloused fragile mystic plagued with halitosis.

In other news, the wind vane is on, and now I can design a bimini/arch for the after deck that will provide shade and support for four 130W solar panels.










The World Encompassed


----------



## Giulietta

Good Lord Val...I just saw now how high your boat sits in the water....

If you fall overboard you need a crane....that is if you survive the impact on the water from the height....


----------



## denby

Valiente said:


> *Mahatma Gandhi walked barefoot everywhere, to the point that his feet
> became quite thick and hard. He also was quite a spiritual person.
> Even when he was not on a hunger strike, he did not eat much and
> became quite thin and frail. Due to this diet, he wound up with very
> bad breath. Therefore, he came to be known as a . . .
> 
> Super calloused fragile mystic plagued with halitosis.*
> 
> In other news, the wind vane is on, and now I can design a bimini/arch for the after deck that will provide shade and support for four 130W solar panels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The World Encompassed


Val,

Slow day? bored? You're sounding like my father.
But pretty good.


----------



## sailingdog

Once he loads it up for cruising, it'll sit a bit lower... 


Giulietta said:


> Good Lord Val...I just saw now how high your boat sits in the water....
> 
> If you fall overboard you need a crane....that is if you survive the impact on the water from the height....


----------



## Valiente

Giulietta said:


> Good Lord Val...I just saw now how high your boat sits in the water....
> 
> If you fall overboard you need a crane....that is if you survive the impact on the water from the height....


The crane is to the left in the photo, and the height of the stern is why I'm bringing a hang glider. The only downside to this stern is that puffins nest in the portlights.


----------



## artbyjody

Water Sports: World's First Solar Speedboat Does 30 Knots Gas-Free


----------



## Idiens

But how does it do it without a solar stik?


----------



## denby

I bet Sway is really happy I revived this thread, there are 25 more post he can read.


----------



## sailingdog

26 now... how do you mount solar panels if you don't buy a SolarStik???


----------



## wind_magic

What do you mean without a Solar Stik ?

 

Without a Solar Stik, that just doesn't make any sense that anyone would try it without a Solar Stik. Did they even have solar panels before the Solar Stik ?


----------



## artbyjody

denby said:


> I bet Sway is really happy I revived this thread, there are 25 more post he can read.


I thought I did? Solar power engineered sails are now just around the corner - no sticks required! If powerboats can do it.. sailor ingenuity is second to none..just look at erps!


----------



## denby

artbyjody said:


> I thought I did? Solar power engineered sails are now just around the corner - no sticks required! If powerboats can do it.. sailor ingenuity is second to none..just look at erps!


One of us did. I bet Sway is just lovig all the new post.


----------



## PBzeer

I thought periodic posts to this thread were necessary to maintain one's good standing as an AFOC.


----------



## denby

PBzeer said:


> I thought periodic posts to this thread were necessary to maintain one's good standing as an AFOC.


That too.


----------



## jgaddis

Will my solarstick work at night? I have some flashlights.

Lake Mead picture from this weekend.


----------



## xort

AFOCs all, keep up the bad work!
You have a lot of work ahead of you to catch up to the AFOC thread. 
To get on track to the original topic I created, it looks like I may pass on solar & wind for a while at least. I'll get some time in with the system as is and then make a decision as to whether solar or wind would be a good addition. Only have so many boat bucks to toss into the hole just now!


----------



## wind_magic

jgaddis said:


> Will my solarstick work at night? I have some flashlights.


A flashlight will work, but you have to be careful with hooking lights up to the solarstik. Since the solarstik works at 150% efficiency, if you hook a light to it and that light shines back on the solarstik, back into the light, back on to the stik, back into the light, etc, it will eventually create a singularity which rips space time and opens a void into the 23rd dimension sucking the entire earth into a place that is bad. Really really bad.


----------



## xort

I ripped one that was really really bad once. it opened a void all right. Wind Power!


----------



## JohnRPollard

xort said:


> AFOCs all, keep up the bad work!
> You have a lot of work ahead of you to catch up to the AFOC thread.
> To get on track to the original topic I created, it looks like I may pass on solar & wind for a while at least. I'll get some time in with the system as is and then make a decision as to whether solar or wind would be a good addition. Only have so many boat bucks to toss into the hole just now!


XORT,

With your new boat, you're in the enviable position to upgrade it however you like. You don't have to remain wed to old charging paradigms, you can experiment with new methods and leapfrog the luddite cruising community.

With recent developments in technology, you no longer have to choose between solar or wind, or spend a fortune on both. Instead you can invest in state-of-the-art "solar wind" collectors. Since the solar winds blow continuously and predictably, the collectors work night and day, rain or shine.

These will be on the market soon, thanks to spinoff technology from NASA's space program. The old methods will be obsolete -- well worth the short wait. Seriously.


----------



## jgaddis

wind_magic said:


> A flashlight will work, but you have to be careful with hooking lights up to the solarstik. Since the solarstik works at 150% efficiency, if you hook a light to it and that light shines back on the solarstik, back into the light, back on to the stik, back into the light, etc, it will eventually create a singularity which rips space time and opens a void into the 23rd dimension sucking the entire earth into a place that is bad. Really really bad.


Was worried about that, Ill use LED's to be safe.


----------



## artbyjody

Something else to look at:

Cyclone Waste Heat Engine promises power on the cheap - Engadget


----------



## artbyjody

And just to prove we are not the only cynics...and to prove that since the invention of the PC - calculators have long since lost appeal..

Ask JackRabbit: Soundings Independence 60 Solar Flim-Flam


----------



## hellosailor

Cyclone's exhibitor used the word "steam" in the video. I thought this might be a rotary Sterling engine but apparently it is a rotary STEAM engine, and they are just using waste heat to generate the steam. Possibly a clever niche product but there are reasons that rotary cylinder heads went out of use. And steam engines that made use of waste heat (aka double-triple-and quadrupple-expansion steam turbines) are old news. Quad-expansion was generallyconsidered overkill by the 1920's. Triple and quad-expansion steam turbines (not rotary cylinder heads) were and are great ways to get efficient power. Might be a bit bulky to use on the auxiliary engine of a sailboat, or the primary engine of a lawnmower.

This guy wants to sell rotary cylinder head steam engine powered lawnmowers?! 
"More coal! More coal!" [Around the World in 80 Days, J. Verne]


----------



## camaraderie

We've talked about Nano Solar here before. Here is the latest from them. 
VERY EXCITING.

Nanosolar Blog
The solar industry's first 1GW production tool. Here it is:


----------



## sailaway21

Nice vid of the Reynold's Wrap line, Cam. (g)


----------



## therapy23

camaraderie said:


> We've talked about Nano Solar here before. Here is the latest from them.
> VERY EXCITING.
> 
> Nanosolar Blog
> The solar industry's first 1GW production tool. Here it is:


It is not a publicly traded company is it?


----------



## wind_magic

Pretty cool Cam.


----------



## doctorcam

*No way to buy in*



therapy23 said:


> It is not a publicly traded company is it?


No - privately held. Their website says that basically they don't need the money, since the process is so inexpensive.

I think it'll be a year or two before we see panels that can be used on a boat, more's the pity.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*very cool, Cam*

you would think that they wouldn't risk promulgating trade secrets in a you-tube video.


----------



## hellosailor

I don't think they are risking anything. They suggest that what they are doing is pretty conventional lithography, the kind any quik-print shop would do. Their "secret" is in the patented special "ink" and "paper" that become the solar panel as they set and cure.

What is curious from their web site is that they imply they could produce the material at 20x the speed they are doing now. And yet, their output for all of 2008 is already allocated and spoken for. With that kind of demand...I'd turn the throttle up to "11" and hire a second shift!


----------



## sailingdog

HS-

The production bottleneck may not be the actual "printing " of the solar panels, but the speed at which they can produce the ink necessary to print with. Upping the speed of the press only does you some good if you have enough ink to keep it running.

I used to work with Web Offset equipment.  They don't do so good when they run out of ink.  More wastage at higher speed too...cause if the press has a problem it goes through more material before you can correct it....so there are reasons not to go hell-bent for speed.



hellosailor said:


> I don't think they are risking anything. They suggest that what they are doing is pretty conventional lithography, the kind any quik-print shop would do. Their "secret" is in the patented special "ink" and "paper" that become the solar panel as they set and cure.
> 
> What is curious from their web site is that they imply they could produce the material at 20x the speed they are doing now. And yet, their output for all of 2008 is already allocated and spoken for. With that kind of demand...I'd turn the throttle up to "11" and hire a second shift!


----------



## chucklesR

I remain a skeptic. Not in their ability to print a solar panel, but in just how efficient it is. 
1000 homes running off 10 acres - they don't mention the batteries to run the houses during night, but we'll skip that part.

That's 435600 square feet (10 acres), now one could assume that 1/1000 of that being 435 square feet one could simply paste a nanosolar array to the roof of an average house and power the puppy up. Of course you'd have to clean the roof daily to keep bird poop, leaves and such from turning off your Air conditioner.

If anyone could do that, they would have done it.
They cite a 14.5% cell effectiveness, IIRC the norm is close to 6%; if they are in fact twice as efficient.
Rough numbers, my 80w panel is roughly 7 sq ft, it would take 62 of them to cover 435 sq feet. 
On a good day I've observed 3ah at 13.6v going into the batteries (the MPPT reduces the 16-17v down, ah up). 
3ah x 62 = 186ah at 13v, rounding off in favor of them (and ignoring conversion to AC loss) we'll call that 18ah at 110v, and then we'll double that because they say their cells are more efficient. 
40ah, 110v, per hour at best, curved over time (panel won't be 100 effective during all 10 hours of daylight) and let's be nice and say it makes 300 amp hours per day at 110v.

My fridge uses 13amp 13x24 = 312. 

Nuff said? or is my math grossly wrong (I admit to being poor at math).

I'm not saying it's not good, just saying it's not ready, not without a whole LOT more efficiencies being applied pandemically.


----------



## sailingdog

Chuckles-

You're confusing your units... panels don't put out amp-hours... they put out a certain number of amps at a given voltage. You get amp-hours by multiplying the output in amps by the number of hours it is capable of supplying that amount of current. 

An 80W panel should be putting out more than 3 Amps at 13.6 volts. 13.6 x 3 = 40.8 watts. Your numbers are ignoring the fact that relatively fully charged batteries are going to draw less amps of current from the panels, and your batteries are probably close to topped off. 

An 80 W panel should be putting out almost 6 amps (5.88 or so) at 13.6 V. This should give about 30 amp-hours or so to the batteries—since they average about the equivalent of five full power hours of output over the course of a day. If you had 62 panels, you'd get 372 amps or 1860 amp-hours @ 13.6 V. 

If you convert to 120 V, you're going to get about 210 amp hours @ 120 V or so...ignoring voltage conversion losses and such. If we double it, you'll be getting 420 amp-hours at 120 V.


----------



## chucklesR

amps x voltage for a specified period of time produce amp hours of use at a specified voltage - that was the context I was speaking in; I don't believe I confused that.

I agree that 80w panels put out 6amps in a perfect world. I've seen 3 out of mine. Unlike the solar stik guys I don't make ridiculous numbers up. I do get about 30 amp hours per day, maybe I'm just not looking at the right time (I think that's nap time around here).

I don't understand why you thought I was confused, your end numbers:

"If you had 62 panels, you'd get 372 amps or 1860 amp-hours @ 13.6 V. 
If you convert to 120 V, you're going to get about 210 amp hours @ 120 V or so...ignoring voltage conversion losses and such. If we double it, you'll be getting 420 amp-hours at 120 V." W
ere in line with mine, just I used 12V not 13.6.

Still, 420amp hours at 120v does not run a house in todays world. Those batteries, unless they are super batteries not even concieved of yet, will in fact be dead come morning.


----------



## sailingdog

you just had the units in the wrong places.  btw, they're not mentioning the small cold fusion reactor that they install as part of the panel installation.


----------



## camaraderie

My guess is that no batteries are involved and that the panels will simply feed into the electrical grid and the grid will need all that can be supplied at any given moment and there will be a net reduction of fossil fuel needed when the sun is out. The statement that 400 homes or 1000 homes or whatever can be powered by the panels is simply one of SCALE....comparing the output in Kilowatts for the panels to the # of KW's that the average house uses. (Divide this number by 22 to get the number of Al Gore houses that would be powered by the panels!)


----------



## hellosailor

Chuckles, the best way to run the numbers and compare systems is to put everything in kilowatt-hours. And, a household fridge draws much less power than you might think, once you realize that it cycles on/off and uses almost no power for substantial amounts of time. (Especially if you don't go frost-free.)

There are also differences in how you use--or waste--the power generated from solar panels. An MPPT controller will provide a 20-30% power gain, compared to a dumb regulator that simply dumps excess voltage. BIG change in the amount of power you get out. Solar panels are pretty much all built to standards and regulations in the US, if yours are rated for 80W they will put out 80W, plus or minus a 10% manufacturing tolerance, during midday on the bright sunny times of the year. But if that's measured at 20VDC output, and your regulator is knocking that down to 14 VDC? You'll only see 57W in useful power, and that only during a 4-6 hour peak period. Roughly 300watt-hours, which you might see as 20-25 "amp hours". That's all they are rated for--if you follow the conversions, and use a dumb regulator. AFAIK the cheapest MPPTs are going to set you back over $200 though, and that's the new low-priced stuff.


----------



## chucklesR

camaraderie said:


> My guess is that no batteries are involved and that the panels will simply feed into the electrical grid and the grid will need all that can be supplied at any given moment and there will be a net reduction of fossil fuel needed when the sun is out. The statement that 400 homes or 1000 homes or whatever can be powered by the panels is simply one of SCALE....comparing the output in Kilowatts for the panels to the # of KW's that the average house uses. (Divide this number by 22 to get the number of Al Gore houses that would be powered by the panels!)


Cam, they are talking about powering cities up - there must be batteries, Tippy Gore isn't going to go without her Alternate Al all night long.

Hellosailor, I have a Xantrex C12 regulator.

I've gotten up in the morning with my 210ah battery bank reading 86% at the worst (about 180 ah remaining) and it normally reads 2pm, balancing the 1-3 amp hours I'm drawing during some of the daylight hours with the evening lights and fans, then the anchor light all night plus my 1ah CPAP running...
All in all, it's not bad.
That's living off the grid.


----------



## sailingdog

How you know what Tippy Gore uses to power Alternate Al, or that she has one... I don't want to know. 


chucklesR said:


> Cam, they are talking about powering cities up - there must be batteries, Tippy Gore isn't going to go without her Alternate Al all night long.


----------



## hellosailor

"Cam, they are talking about powering cities up - there must be batteries,"
Chuckles, you've got to think outside the battery box. Batteries are for little folks. When you want to store massive amounts of power, there are better ways to do it. Years ago when Indian Point (nuke) was in discussion, there was also a lot of discussion about hollowing out Storm King (?) mountain and installing giant pumps. At night when there was excess power, they would pump megagallons of water UP into the mountain. During the day, they would let it run out and reverse the pumps as dynamos. Storing the electricity as kinetic energy, no batteries needed. 

Never happened though, I think there was a ruckus about how the fish might mind it.


----------



## artbyjody

hellosailor said:


> During the day, they would let it run out and reverse the pumps as dynamos. Storing the electricity as kinetic energy, no batteries needed.
> 
> Never happened though, I think there was a ruckus about how the fish might mind it.


Hmmm wonder why we in Washington State never thought of that - all of our fish swim upstream (and apparently love it)... but then again environmentalists that do not want to prevent sea lions from gorging on upstream, up-hopping, and otherwise apparently acrobatically inclined, staple of fish commonly referred to as salmon. They would in turn introduce a resolution along with another rider that would prevent such being constructed and take away yet one other off-road vehicle trail.


----------



## chucklesR

hellosailor said:


> "Cam, they are talking about powering cities up - there must be batteries,"
> Chuckles, you've got to think outside the battery box. Batteries are for little folks. When you want to store massive amounts of power, there are better ways to do it. Years ago when Indian Point (nuke) was in discussion, there was also a lot of discussion about hollowing out Storm King (?) mountain and installing giant pumps. At night when there was excess power, they would pump megagallons of water UP into the mountain. During the day, they would let it run out and reverse the pumps as dynamos. Storing the electricity as kinetic energy, no batteries needed.
> 
> Never happened though, I think there was a ruckus about how the fish might mind it.


Yep, you have to love the scale of that thought though don't you.

I wasn't actually thinking batteries, should have said storage.


----------



## mallo

*French river Rance*

Hi I have been reading this thread with interest, not that we have solar but just the way things are going, I remember on a visit to the barrage not fat from us hearing that when France had a surplus of electricity the would pump water into the river Rance to store extra energy have a look at Rance tidal power plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
It's a very interesting area, however the people running the plant control the tides inside the river Rance and a few times the dingy has been well high and dry!!!!
Its quite interesting also because this was all built a long time ago and still well used!!


----------



## wind_magic

Do they make a cold fusion stik ?

On a serious note - my own solar installation has been doing pretty well. I have been going through a fair amount of water in the batteries, however, and may finally have to admit that Cam was right all along and that the newer style batteries might be worth the investment over the lead acid types. I could never argue against Cam's point that the newer batteries won't spill electrolyte when the boat is heeled over either, and I think my batteries might.


----------



## sailingdog

No, but they do make a Mr. Fusion. 


wind_magic said:


> Do they make a cold fusion stik ?
> 
> On a serious note - my own solar installation has been doing pretty well. I have been going through a fair amount of water in the batteries, however, and may finally have to admit that Cam was right all along and that the newer style batteries might be worth the investment over the lead acid types. I could never argue against Cam's point that the newer batteries won't spill electrolyte when the boat is heeled over either, and I think my batteries might.


----------



## hellosailor

wind_magic said:


> ...On a serious note - my own solar installation has been doing pretty well. I have been going through a fair amount of water in the batteries... the newer batteries won't spill electrolyte when the boat is heeled over either, and I think my batteries might.


Shouldn't be hard to check that. If the batteries themselves are the typical black, clean them off (baking soda and water, to neutralize any acid) and then sprinkle plain talcum powder on the tops. If you are heeling far enough to spill electrolyte, you'll see tracks through the powder where the liquid dribbles down as it spills. Talc won't hurt anything, just don't pour it IN the battery. (Where it should be inert anyway.)

If the battery is lighter, you should be able to take a "washable magic marker" (Crayola & kids toy makers) and draw a line around the caps. Same thing, any fluid washing past will wash out the line.

But going through a lot of electrolyte COULD also mean your charge controller is too hot, and you are overcharging the batteries. In that case usually you'd be losing the most fluid from the cell next to the positive terminal since that cooks off fastest.


----------



## denby

Sway,

Still waiting for the CD bobble head dolls.


----------



## xort

Aw Denby you still care


----------



## seaspot

Damn you's all to solar panel, control panel, my batteries are burning, hell! I saw the thread and I thought it was exactly what I needed to read for my new solar setup. Now my head hurts, my feet stink, and I don't believe in Jesus. But I'll give you all props for sticking kinda sorta to topic for this long, wow. 

If I could just butt in for a second, I promise I'll make this as painless as possible. But I would like to ask an *GASP, opinion. Mind you I am using that as loosly as possible. But here goes.

Ok, I have a OLD (like about 12 year old 75W) panel, and last year I hooked it up to a Sunsei 20amp charge controller (with batt monitor, panel output, neato LED's and such that I bought last year). I have 2 banks of 5 year old batteries (2 small deep cycles that came with the boat and 1 big deep cycle I scavenged from my old power boat) that have to be replaced big time. 

I run my stereo, Sirius, Garmin Gps, VHF, depth sounder, plus running/anchor lights. BUT, I want to run a small fridge. At anchor I am really only concerned about the fridge and I would like to have the stereo and sirius. Hell, I'll turn a crank up flashlight all night for "ambiance" and put a patch over one eye during the day if that's what it will take. 

So here's what I was thunkin'. I was thunkin' I would get 2 85 watt panels and connect them to my solar charger and feed a three bank system. I wanted 1 battery for the fridge, one for house, and one to start and since the start isn't used much maybe toss on a small "trickle charge" panel to keep that up and isolated from the system. I was even thinkin' to just add one of those battery chargers (AA, AAA types) to just charge up a few batt's for a small light, camera, and book light batteries. I am super flexible!

I have the current panel mounted to my aft rails with aluminum support braces I made. BTW, this is on a 27 CAL. But to get both panels up I was going to make a archy kinda davity thing off the back (to keep it out of the boom shadow) with some aluminum tubing, a welder, and a couple of friends that do metal work. But now all this and that about sticks and arches and rotation, Oh my!

Money is tight, so the panels are going to be the big expense, and then new batteries are deffinately needed (sugestions, wet, AGM, Gel's?). Plus I have to buy the fridge too (converting a 7 day cooler into a fridge is the plan). I need to be able to mount the 'house' and the 'fridge' batteries at a slight angle. 

I can get my metal friends to fabricate a really cool ass looking stik to mount on the stern to hold my panels if you think it would increase my panels output. Or maybe I could just glue 2 big inflatable pontoons to the side of my boat and if I needed to increase the output of the panels I could just inflate one side or the other. But either or, any, whatever... I obviously need a little help. 

So can you all almighty electric heyzues's help me out with a few suggestions?


----------



## sailingdog

A three bank system is pretty inefficient, especially on a smaller boat. IMHO, you'd be much better off with a two bank system and just making the house bank BIG. If you can't mount the batteries flat.. get AGMs... they can be mounted in pretty much any position. Gels basically have the worst characteristics of both AGMs and Wet Cells.. 

As for tilting solar panel mounts, unless you are fanatical about adjusting the panels, don't bother. 

You shouldn't need a trickle charge panel for the start bank, just put in a echo charger and that should allow the engine bank to re-charge whenever the house bank is being charged.


----------



## camaraderie

I'm gonna stick with your panels to start with. You will have 235 watts of panels which on AVERAGE will supply you with maybe 60-70 amp hours per day to your batteries. A Fridge will use ALL of that + plus you'll have more panel area than sail area on a cal27! 
You need more than what you are planning to cover all your needs. Are you living aboard at anchor or plugged into a dock? Are you prepping for an extended trip? Need to know more for good advice on the batteries and systems.


----------



## seaspot

Plugged into the dock? What's that? I don't have any shore power set up at all, but I do have one of those nifty adapters and and extension cord if I ever find a need to use some shore power.

I'm not so much prepping for an extended trip, per se, but I do like staying at anchor quite a bit for as long as possible. I don't live aboard but I do typically stay aboard 3 to 4 days per week most of the time. I am just tired of being so ice dependent, not to mention how much I spend on ice and it usually only lasts for about 2 days in the height of summer. But next year I'm planning on several 30 day or so cruises so I've been trying to figure out how to keep up with the demand I will have. 

So far even with that old panel and those old batteries I've never plugged into shore power since I bought the boat last March. Plus I try not to use the engine (atomic 4) for much more than getting out of the slip. I've only used about 7 gallons of gas this whole year so far. But I have thought about one of those small genny's.

I was just hoping that if I made a small fridge out of a really efficiant smaller cooler that I might be able to run that with the panels being able to keep up with the demand.


----------



## hellosailor

Seapost, ice dependency can be cured. The Viet Cong operated for years on one handful of sticky rice, boiled once, eaten hot the first time, cold the next two times, and that was all their food and fuel consumption for the day. No refrigeration needed, even in the jungle.

Refrigeration is a BIG LUXURY that we've only grown dependent on, in the West, in the past 4 generations. (100 years). If you want to keep cold food, or frozen food, it takes a lot of money (read: power) to do that. Electricity ashore can run 6 cents to 36 cents per kilowatt hour, but at anchor it is probably going to cost at least 50c/kwhr no matter how you slice it.

You can pay for an efficient box, you can pay for less box and more fuel...either way, the solutions have all been written up (all over the web) and the only question is, which one you want to buy into.

Sticking the beer and soft drinks (or even the milk, if you put it in a proper container) in a mesh bag and hanging it overboard may chill it enough for you--depending on when and where you are. Fifteen minutes in winter water can really chill a beer. OK, maybe not in VA.<G>


----------



## xort

Seaspot
Did you really read the entire thread?


----------



## camaraderie

Seaspot...given your plans, and if you want refrigeration...I suggest a portable Honda or similar generator with a 3 stage battery charger. 
If you really want to be passively self sufficient it is gonna take more panels or a wind generator added into the mix. I suggest a house bank of WET cells of at least 300ah's with more if you can fit it. This will give you 150ah's to work with before charging is needed. That would be THREE group 31 size or TW0 group 4D size deep cycle batteries.


----------



## seaspot

I didn't read the entire thread, but came close. But once that Susan chick bowed out it did get a little less crazy and more technicle, LOL. Even me, with limited electrical experience could tell something wasn't right. 

I've been looking at some of these "super efficiant" fridges and kit's and still can't figure out why I couldn't do it. What if I were to increase the panel size to something like 2 of the Kyocera 205 watt panels?

I was thinking of building my own fridge with a conversion kit but making the capacity smaller than what the kit is rated for (about half the size) and adding a ton of insulation to try to make it as efficiant as possible. 

Honestly, I can eat out of cans and boxes, but I do like a cold can of soda/beer to make a good day better. 

I guess I will either have to rethink this whole idea or just stick with the ice. It just really pisses me off that so many places rip you off on ice. A $3 dollar bag at 7-11 will be $5-$10 bucks at a marina and I have even seen it as much as $1 per lb! That's just a total rip off. I make my own blocks while I am at home but they only last for a few days then I'm back to the man for more. I was really hoping I could stop buying ice, it's just costing me too much. 

Maybe I'll take a look at those gennerators and see whats up with that.


----------



## camaraderie

Seaspot...those Kyoera's are EACH about 3' x 5' and will cost $2k just for the panels. Figure a couple of grand for an arch, another $500 for a regulator to handle them and wiring etc. and you've spent nearly $5k to keep your beer cold AND added a completely unwieldy 5x6' structure off the back of the boat. BUT it WILL keep your beer cold! 
That's why I suggested the Honda for under a grand WITH the charger. OR a wind genny so you wouldn't need such a large panel area...and in my experience...when the sun ain't shining...the wind is blowing. 
Anyway...you know the options and the costs now...good luck with the decision making.


----------



## chucklesR

16 pound bags of ice go for 2.89 cents at my local grocery store, they keep beer cold for a couple of days. 
Given the average use of the average boat (I seem to get out more than my friends) ice seems to be the economical solution towards beer coolness.


Seriously, for economical refridge's look at Dometric propane powered, a 16 dollar charge of gas into my 20lb canister keeps mine running and making ice for just under 4 weeks. 

Oh, wait, monohulls can't use them, that whole leaning over thing


----------



## jgaddis

chucklesR said:


> 16 pound bags of ice go for 2.89 cents at my local grocery store, they keep beer cold for a couple of days.
> Given the average use of the average boat (I seem to get out more than my friends) ice seems to be the economical solution towards beer coolness.
> 
> Seriously, for economical refridge's look at Dometric propane powered, a 16 dollar charge of gas into my 20lb canister keeps mine running and making ice for just under 4 weeks.
> 
> Oh, wait, monohulls can't use them, that whole leaning over thing


time for gimbeled fridges!


----------



## Freesail99

> Seaspot...those Kyocera's are EACH about 3' x 5' and will cost $2k just for the panels


I just got a price on 2, 130 watt Kyocera, wire, mounting champs and charge controller for $1600.


----------



## camaraderie

Good price Free...now can you do something about the size??


----------



## RandyonR3

I've put together a system that works, but it is pricy.. If you check the photos of my 42, I've mounted 2 - 75 watt pannels atop the bimmini, and mounted a 4-winds off the rear.
All the power is run through 2 - morningstar controlers, - one with a dump load into the waterheater and stored in a house bank of 10 - 4ds by Lifeline. With over 1000 hours of uasable power, I very seldom see below 12.6 volts and much of the time, I show 13 volts or higher.
I've been off the grid for 4 years now and the lifelines have never been on a shore charger, although, once ever 3 to 4 months I do fire up the motor with a balmer 160 and 3 stage charger and cook the 4ds for a few hours..
What I've found as the secret to the system is the large bank and acessories as the freezer, frige, watermaker, and such are the more expencive but very low use of amp hours..
Our freezer is Technautics Cool Blue, and frige draws off the freezer, and items like the watermaker is a Spectra Ventura 150...
We've also learned to use the systems when power is high and usable..
As the watermaker, we only run it when the solar is high or the wind is kicking up.. Charging the Laptop, camara batteries, or doing photo work and using the inverter, we try to do it mid day while we're getting the most out of the solar..
I think the large bank of AGMs is the best answer as its like a huge sponge with a lot of flexability for charging and usage


----------



## RandyonR3

By the way, you've got to check out that Bimmini frame I built to support the pannels.. That 1 1/2 stainless tubing on the bimmini and dogger....


----------



## Freesail99

> Good price Free...now can you do something about the size??


On the davit it gives me an aircraft carrier look .....


----------



## bestfriend

Ooops, wrong thread. Just ignore this....


----------



## artbyjody

bestfriend said:


> Ooops, wrong thread. Just ignore this....


Yeah! Someone brought it up again!


----------



## wind_magic

Freesail99 said:


> On the davit it gives me an aircraft carrier look .....


I wonder if they have solar stiks on aircraft carriers.


----------



## xort

Solar & wind? What's that?


----------



## denby

BF,

This is not the ignore threads.


----------



## artbyjody

Solar oven melts steel and in 2010 MacGregor's get a slimmed down solar oven guaranteed to relieve owners of embarrassment of ownership on forums, on first use of device.


----------



## tdreffin

*Effectiveness of solar and wind*

I've been blue-water cruising for 30 yrs; owned 4 boats over 40'. None of them had a generator onboard. My husband and I have always used solar and wind power to run our boat needs, and we keep them simple - no freezers, just refrigerators to keep produce cool for a week until next grocery visit. One wind generator, and 4 solar cells are mounted atop our cabin top on "Scud". Running an engine for power destroys the engine over time. However, you do need to cruise in good sun and wind areas, like the tropics. The Chesapeake had good sun this past summer, but no summer winds.


----------



## Giulietta

Bump...really interesting threads like this should stay up all the time..


----------



## denby

Giulietta said:


> Bump...really interesting threads like this should stay up all the time..


Bored Alex?


----------



## xort

Thanks Alex
You're the brest


----------



## camaraderie

Welcome aboard TD...I guess we can call your posts SCUD missives!


----------



## artbyjody

Weekly Solar update:

Solar Panel Quantum Leap: Near-Perfect Light Absorption Possible


----------



## AdamLein

artbyjody said:


> Weekly Solar update:
> 
> Solar Panel Quantum Leap: Near-Perfect Light Absorption Possible


That's pretty awesome. I wonder how much more it will cost to apply seven 50-100 nm coatings to our already pricey selection of solar panels.


----------



## artbyjody

Awesome reply XORT...

Wait for it...

Wait...

For those that have designer issues about where to place their solar panels, solar sticks, and what nots...

I present:










Yes, the Feng Shui compass...

Read more here: *http://preview.tinyurl.com/5c2rx5*


----------



## xort

Anybody know anything about solar & wind?


----------



## denby

xort said:


> Anybody know anything about solar & wind?


I didn't think you cared anymore, Sway will love this.


----------



## xort

I have a special place in my heart for this thread, it was one of my earliest ones.


----------



## craigtoo

It's like hanging out in "Ignore" here!

I feel so at home...

heh


----------



## xort

But to ignore would be SOOO wrong


----------



## jgaddis

This . Thread . Shall . Not . Die .


----------



## denby

How nice, someone else who cares. I'm sure Sway will be beside himself.


----------



## wind_magic

I wonder how the solar stik accounts for the winter solstice, does it automatically rotate the panels further to the horizon ? Or up towards the zenith, you know, if you are in the southern hemisphere.


----------



## camaraderie

Windy...in your case...it automatically seeks a place the sun don't shine!


----------



## craigtoo

camaraderie said:


> Windy...in your case...it automatically seeks a place the sun don't shine!


BAhahahahahha!

POINT CAM!

(See? You can get points now that you're not on staff!!!!! How lucky do you feel???)


----------



## denby

camaraderie said:


> Windy...in your case...it automatically seeks a place the sun don't shine!


Hey Cam,

Don't pick on my solar buddy Windy. :hothead :gunner He's doing good work here.   

Windy, I thought you forgot this thread. Sway will be happy. :laugher


----------



## camaraderie

*EARTH* to Denby...*WIND* is not Solar...*and* you are *FIRED*!!


----------



## denby

camaraderie said:


> *EARTH* to Denby...*WIND* is not Solar...*and* you are *FIRED*!!


Solar as in solar thread.


----------



## denby

Hey Cam,

What do you mean I'm Fired! You gave up the big red button so how can you fire me.


----------



## camaraderie

You're fired as keeper of the Stik thread!! I'm bigger than you and you should treat your elders with respect!


----------



## wind_magic

camaraderie said:


> Windy...in your case...it automatically seeks a place the sun don't shine!


These ladies brought your dates with them ...


----------



## denby

camaraderie said:


> You're fired as keeper of the Stik thread!! I'm bigger than you and you should treat your elders with respect!


Well first of all I'll give you that you are older then me. In fact probable the oldest on the forum.   Secondly, I think Windy is the keeper of the thread, I just help out.


----------



## camaraderie

Windy...did you get yer name blowing up sheep for Giu??


----------



## denby

camaraderie said:


> Windy...did you get yer name blowing up sheep for Giu??


:laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher

That's not nice.

:laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher


----------



## wind_magic

camaraderie said:


> Windy...did you get yer name blowing up sheep for Giu??


Where did you get your name ...


----------



## denby

wind_magic said:


> Where did you get your name ...


Caaaaaaaaaam, Caaaaaaaaaaaaaam.


----------



## camaraderie

Den...I don't know what to say except...stay away from my Teletubby. Ol' Windy is MINE alone!! 
(Note remainder of SolarStik protruding from head)








And Windy...did you know what Den does to catch women in CT? 








Well actually that was the BEFORE shot...here's the after:


----------



## xort

Cam
You should have made this a sticky while you could


----------



## wind_magic

That was still pretty early in the evening Cam, here is Den a little later ...


----------



## denby

wind_magic said:


> That was still pretty early in the evening Cam, here is Den a little later ...


What am I drinking there?  A cheep wisky?  That is deffenetly not me. It would be rum or vodka.


----------



## sailingdog

That could be rum and coke... 


denby said:


> What am I drinking there?  A cheep wisky?  That is deffenetly not me. It would be rum or vodka.


----------



## xort

Bubb2
Are you interested in a solar panel or 6?


----------



## bubb2

I only need 3 one for each battery thats what they told me over at SA.


----------



## jgaddis

OMG at the Country lov'n. Long live this thread.


----------



## sailingdog

Why are you bumping this thread???? Oh yeah, it drives Sway nuts...


----------



## denby

xort said:


> Bubb2
> Are you interested in a solar panel or 6?


It's nice to see you still care.


----------



## xort

Bubb
Did you buy those 3 panels yet?


----------



## denby

xort said:


> Bubb
> Did you buy those 3 panels yet?


Starting the new year out right? Sway will love it.


----------



## bubb2

xort said:


> Bubb
> Did you buy those 3 panels yet?


Xort, I been having lots of trouble finding what I need in solar panels. Why do all of them have pointy corners!!


----------



## xort

Bubb
if you mount them real close to your wind generator, you'll solve that problem. just rotate the corners so they get equal treatment from the wind gen
Glad I can help
Sway, you have anything to add?


----------



## bubb2

New problems with wind generators that you haven't thought about yet.

UFO hits wind turbine | The Sun |News|UFOs


----------



## hellosailor

Did you miss the sidebar? They've collided with two police helicopters as well. Obviously, some of the aliens have a DWI problem. Or would that be FWI?


----------



## denby

Anyone know if wind is better then solar?


----------



## camaraderie

Bastardo Sujo!


----------



## xort

If you are full of hot air, it favors wind gen. Your hot breath can spin the wind gen but will heat up the solar panels which has a negative effect on the panels.


----------



## sailingdog

camaraderie said:


> Bastardo Sujo!


Umm... you talking to yourself again???


----------



## denby

20 days till launch. How much more trouble can I cause.


----------



## wind_magic

For reasons not worth going into here, I have had to spend a lot of time recently studying genetics, DNA, how cells work, etc. It is very complicated, and I am amazed at the variety of things that have to happen for cells to make proteins, how base pairs form DNA, how DNA is replicated, how tRNA moves amino acids around and delivers them to ribosomes, how polypeptides get folded and bent into usable proteins, etc. Did you know that DNA is copied to RNA, shuttled out of the nucleus, and then it is manipulated until it actually ends up as polypeptides that are bent into useful shapes like three dimensional puzzles ? And that those shapes sometimes come together to form things like hemoglobin that carries oxygen ? Unreal. Cells even have special proteins that come along and fix problems in our DNA as it is used to make RNA and when it is replicated, even special proteins to take the tension out of the double helix when it is unwound to make copies, it is simply incredible all of the things that go into making a cell work, into making our bodies work, there's no way to express how unbelievable it all is, how it all manages to work together. Did you know that our cells are powered by a little power plant called mitochondrial DNA that scientists suspect used to actually be a separate life form like a bacteria that somehow ended up inside of human cells, that our cells actually contain these little special DNA sequences that are symbiotic with our human DNA ? And that trees have a third set of DNA called chloroplast DNA that does photosynthesis ? How did all of this first start out, it looks like an engineering project gone crazy, it is so complex you can hardly imagine it. And to think, cells are replicating right now in your body, moving amino acids around, turning sugars into usable fuel, making hormones to send messages around in our bodies, all this activity, ceaseless, so much going on we may never fully appreciate the intricacies of it all ...

The most amazing thing about all of these incredible processes and systems, all of the intricate workings that are going on inside of us is that all of these forces can combine together and work in harmony to allow us to ... post to the solar and wind thread.


----------



## artbyjody

wind_magic said:


> For reasons not worth going into here, I have had to spend a lot of time recently studying genetics, DNA, how cells work, etc. It is very complicated, and I am amazed at the variety of things that have to happen for cells to make proteins, how base pairs form DNA, how DNA is replicated, how tRNA moves amino acids around and delivers them to ribosomes, how polypeptides get folded and bent into usable proteins, etc. Did you know that DNA is copied to RNA, shuttled out of the nucleus, and then it is manipulated until it actually ends up as polypeptides that are bent into useful shapes like three dimensional puzzles ? And that those shapes sometimes come together to form things like hemoglobin that carries oxygen ? Unreal. Cells even have special proteins that come along and fix problems in our DNA as it is used to make RNA and when it is replicated, even special proteins to take the tension out of the double helix when it is unwound to make copies, it is simply incredible all of the things that go into making a cell work, into making our bodies work, there's no way to express how unbelievable it all is, how it all manages to work together. Did you know that our cells are powered by a little power plant called mitochondrial DNA that scientists suspect used to actually be a separate life form like a bacteria that somehow ended up inside of human cells, that our cells actually contain these little special DNA sequences that are symbiotic with our human DNA ? And that trees have a third set of DNA called chloroplast DNA that does photosynthesis ? How did all of this first start out, it looks like an engineering project gone crazy, it is so complex you can hardly imagine it. And to think, cells are replicating right now in your body, moving amino acids around, turning sugars into usable fuel, making hormones to send messages around in our bodies, all this activity, ceaseless, so much going on we may never fully appreciate the intricacies of it all ...
> 
> The most amazing thing about all of these incredible processes and systems, all of the intricate workings that are going on inside of us is that all of these forces can combine together and work in harmony to allow us to ... post to the solar and wind thread.


I am guessing - Denby is 20 days to launch and you launch this weekend?


----------



## xort

Windy
You taking posting lessons from Sway?


----------



## sailingdog

Slacker....  


denby said:


> 20 days till launch. How much more trouble can I cause.


----------



## denby

wind_magic said:


> For reasons not worth going into here, I have had to spend a lot of time recently studying genetics, DNA, how cells work, etc. It is very complicated, and I am amazed at the variety of things that have to happen for cells to make proteins, how base pairs form DNA, how DNA is replicated, how tRNA moves amino acids around and delivers them to ribosomes, how polypeptides get folded and bent into usable proteins, etc. Did you know that DNA is copied to RNA, shuttled out of the nucleus, and then it is manipulated until it actually ends up as polypeptides that are bent into useful shapes like three dimensional puzzles ? And that those shapes sometimes come together to form things like hemoglobin that carries oxygen ? Unreal. Cells even have special proteins that come along and fix problems in our DNA as it is used to make RNA and when it is replicated, even special proteins to take the tension out of the double helix when it is unwound to make copies, it is simply incredible all of the things that go into making a cell work, into making our bodies work, there's no way to express how unbelievable it all is, how it all manages to work together. Did you know that our cells are powered by a little power plant called mitochondrial DNA that scientists suspect used to actually be a separate life form like a bacteria that somehow ended up inside of human cells, that our cells actually contain these little special DNA sequences that are symbiotic with our human DNA ? And that trees have a third set of DNA called chloroplast DNA that does photosynthesis ? How did all of this first start out, it looks like an engineering project gone crazy, it is so complex you can hardly imagine it. And to think, cells are replicating right now in your body, moving amino acids around, turning sugars into usable fuel, making hormones to send messages around in our bodies, all this activity, ceaseless, so much going on we may never fully appreciate the intricacies of it all ...
> 
> The most amazing thing about all of these incredible processes and systems, all of the intricate workings that are going on inside of us is that all of these forces can combine together and work in harmony to allow us to ... post to the solar and wind thread.


Windy,

That is very good, Sway would be proud.:laugher :laugher :laugher :laugher


----------



## sailingdog

Did Sway study writing from Faulkner??


----------



## camaraderie

Tolstoy!


----------



## liquidroof

I also use 4 - 4D's plus an alternate starter battery totally seperated from any of these systems as a backup/emergency starter. I also have a generator and use a Prosine Inverter/Charger 2.0 (I really like it).

I agree with Cam's point about a good MS charge.


----------



## wind_magic

It is summer so I have a little fan that is powered from the battery bank, but what is funny is that whenever a cloud goes over the solar panels the fan slows down just a little bit, and then when the clouds goes away the fan speeds back up again. So I can close my eyes and listen to the clouds passing over. 

Solar and wind is very effective. I am so glad that we have a solar and wind thread to post to and talk about all of the exciting solar and wind topics which deserve our attention. It is a happy thread.


----------



## Freesail99

wind_magic said:


> It is summer so I have a little fan that is powered from the battery bank, but was is funny is that whenever a cloud goes over the solar panels the fan slows down just a little bit, and then when the clouds goes away the fan speeds back up again. So I can close my eyes and listen to the clouds passing over.
> 
> Solar and wind is very effective. I am so glad that we have a solar and wind thread to post to and talk about all of the exciting solar and wind topics which deserve our attention. It is a happy thread.


Now you understand why there are tree huggers. I mean didn't you feel like one with nature?


----------



## denby

Windy,

Sway loves you.:laugher


----------



## tjaldur

Alas, my copy of Douglas Hofstadter's book: "Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid", is at the bottom of the ocean, somewhere in the Bay of Biscay, as I would need it know for some quotations from this book to fully appreciate what really is taking place in this thread. Now I must quote from my memory, which is not quite the same, but so be it.

This thread is but another instance of the famous paradox by Epimenides: "All Cretans are Liars". Since Epimenides himself was a Cretan, this phrase lacks a decision procedure. If it is true that "All Cretans are liars" then it is false. It can not be decided, because the sentence references itself. Which has haunted mathematics and computer science ever since under the name of the: "Undecidability-problem".

Since Big-Bang or possibly the last not so Big Bang in a chain of several not so Big Bangs, hydrogen-plasma has been asking itself: "What Am I Doing here?" In its effort to answer this question, hydrogen-plasma has recursively transformed itself into, among other things, DNA, as wind-magic so cleverly show us. So that this question can be pondered upon, by those instances of DNA, that are best fit to ponder upon it, namely those who most frequently ask themselves: "Why am I doing this?". 

So, once a recursive function is found, that gives a decision procedure for: "why a man sails a boat from a harbour with the aim of reaching the harbour he left", then a procedure for why hydrogen-plasma is there and necessarily must end up with a thread like this, will also be found.


----------



## AdamLein

tjaldur you lost me in there... I will have to ponder your post for a while until I understand it.

However, while I agree that supposing "All Cretans are liars" to be true leads to a contradiction, it cannot likewise be claimed that supposing the same statement to be _false_ also leads to a contradiction. If the statement is false, it merely implies that there are some Cretans who are not liars, and that Epimenides is not fortunate to count himself among their number.

p.s. I would look up the reference for you, but it would appear that _my_ copy of GEB has also gone missing. Coincidence?


----------



## tjaldur

It appears we both need out copy of GEB. Anyway you are right that assuming that the sentence is false does not lead to a contradiction, but that was never the issue, it is the undecidability that is the issue and that remains, for both assumptions.

I just wanted to share the train of thoughts that wind-magic's story about DNA inspired in me. Namely the tendency many people have to wander about questions that cannot be solved. Now is that a property of the world or a property of our logic?


----------



## TSOJOURNER

this discussion is the kind that persuade a lot of Philosophers that they really were (!!!!) in favor of Quantum Mechanics all along. 

--jerry


----------



## TSOJOURNER

It's not that a statement is TRUE - or that a statement that it is False... It is JUST that you have made the decision to limit the choices to those two items - and therefore exclude other possibilities. 

Clearly, were I to be asked about my wife's current new "hair color", I would opt to quickly come up with another solution to this kind of question...

--jr


----------



## saltydog75

With good insulation on the frig. I could shut it off at night & still have frozen cubes in the morning! By rigging solar panels to have sun at nearly 90 degrees to incident sun you can "squeeze" 15-18% more amps in early/late parts of the day. The FourWinds didn't help as much as I'd hoped but every little bit helps.
Saltydog75 & S/V Oui Si


----------



## smackdaddy

tjaldur said:


> It appears we both need out copy of GEB. Anyway you are right that assuming that the sentence is false does not lead to a contradiction, but that was never the issue, it is the undecidability that is the issue and that remains, for both assumptions.
> 
> I just wanted to share the train of thoughts that wind-magic's story about DNA inspired in me. Namely the tendency many people have to wander about questions that cannot be solved. Now is that a property of the world or a property of our logic?


Ahh - yes. It's always both true and false. Verschränkung...that crazy cat of Schrödinger's.


----------



## stpabr

Wow


----------



## centerline

xort said:


> I received this comment recently on a mailing list...
> 
> "Our experience over the years in the Caribbean is that solar panels work but only on boats which have minimal electrical requirements. Even the sailboats are running their engines to keep the refrigeration and freezer going once or twice a day. We had solar & wind on our sailboats so we do have lots of first hand experience with both.
> 
> We encounter sailboats with 4-6 panels and two wind generators who still run the diesel daily. That's a lot of space devoted to panels and a lot of noise 24/7 from the props."
> 
> So I'm looking for some real world experience with powering a boat's systems with solar & wind.
> 
> I'm planning on a little over 100 amps per day and was expecting to get most of that from 2 large panels and a wind gen. Not practical?


 I have not read the complete list of responses, but have read donw the list far enough that it sparked my fire..

anything written can be skewed in whatever direction the author wants to lead you.... so reading one paragraph wont give you anymore information than is necessary to start/keep a rumor going.

IF there is problem with solar panels, its only in the way they are rated... the largest percentage of the people who consider them, take the numbers as advertised on the panels, and try to make it work for their needs without anymore education. they seem to believe their schooling is closed and they go forth with their idea... and as much as we try to give them what they will need, they listen to people who DO NOT UNDERSTAND the systems any better than they themselves do, and so they go forth with _what they want to believe_ and continue to install 1 or 2 small panels that have barely enough power to supply the needs in the best circumstances, and NOTHING left over for when a bit more power needs to be used, or for future needs. (and then bad mouth the system for not being adequate)

these people who have no idea how panels are rated, or what the rating means (and there is a LOT more of this type around than one wants to believe), they ignorantly claim big panels are overkill, and god forbid that someone should spend a couple hundred dollars more for an overkill of charging capability.
but there may be some validity in what they claim if you dont have a big enough battery bank to make use of the capability.. one has to remember the bank IS part of the system and has to be sized accordingly.

solar is absolutely a great source of power, and the available output it only limited to the space one has to install more panels... but it must be understand that some people's power requirements on their boat (or elsewhere) are completely unreasonable because they feel no need to conserve. these people will not be happy with solar, and will be on the side of the naysayers..

(2) 140-160watt panels will easily supply the needs of most medium sized NON-luxury boats _with a refridgerator_ where ever there is daylight for at least 6 hours a day...

this is NOT true of boats that have washers/dryers, satellite tvs , A/C units and other assorted unnecessary power consuming items, that are considered luxury items by most of us...

when a solar set up is properly sized and installed on a boat (or anywhere else), it is almost always maintenance and trouble free for many many years... there is no other system on the boat that will work every single day and be as dependable for so many years without touching it, or that will give back as much, as what the power producing solar panels will.

a properly installed solar charging system should last 20+ years if the batteries are maintained properly.... and replaced as needed, which will be less often than with any other charging system.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

xort said:


> We encounter sailboats with 4-6 panels and two wind generators who still run the diesel daily. That's a lot of space devoted to panels and a lot of noise 24/7 from the props."


 What utter rot.

Pity its still not 2009 where I could have s good go st that drivel!


----------



## sharkbait

1


----------



## Don L

stpabr said:


> Wow


waited 6 years for that :eek


----------



## hellosailor

ROFL.
Hardly a Solarstik thread. That's a rather high-end piece of equipment and the only thing it has in common with DIY solar is that if the buyer doesn't know what they're buying, the odds are they won't be happy. Sooner or later.
Bruce Bingham had an article in one of the sailing mags this month about a fairly simple and careful installation he did, very similar to the SolarStik in terms of how flexibly the panels can be moved around. Very much less expensive and probably quite sufficient for anyone who doesn't want to keep their panels deployed *out*side the lifelines during heavy weather.

Some year ago one of the major burger chains in the US decided to try out a value meal combination offering a 1/3 pound burger for the same price that the competition sold a 1/4 pound burger. More burger, less price, what could go wrong with that?!

When the program failed miserably they discovered that the average US customer "knew" that 4 was bigger than 3, so the 1/3 pound burger HAD TO BE SMALLER than the 1/4 pound one, and a rip off.

These are the same people who are buying boats. And solar power. And everything else on the market. And every day, every used car salesman gets up and thanks the good lord that the mass market can't count beyond their fingers, if that high. (sigh)


----------



## outbound

Have two Kyocera panels and two D400s.
No disappointment in solar output. Wind not so much. Great in the islands or on passage-lousy in New England. Just not enough daily wind up here. 
However, on passage together they are sufficient to run all lights, AP, frig/freezer, radar, and com/nav gear. Genset never needs to go on. However people forget even on passage you run your engine when VMG falls. 
In carribean the same at anchor. They run everything. Then no AP, radar, Nav but more computer, movies and stereo. TV very rarely goes on so intentionally will do something power wasteful like turn on AC so genset will be run at least once a month. Just put in a watermaker so need another year to see if this holds true. 
In New England will need to "plug in" or run genset ( a noisy 4kw) every 3-4 days for 1-2h. Have 1020 of lifelines and don't let them go below ~80%. 

In short with all kinds of LEDs available and much more energy efficient frig/freezer set ups average couple not using AC shouldn't rarely if ever need a genset. If funds are limited go high output alternator first, then solar then wind then genset. If using just for passage hear the watt & sea units are the cats pajamas and the cruising units are almost affordable. 
My 2 cents.


----------



## SVAuspicious

xort said:


> I'm planning on a little over 100 amps per day and was expecting to get most of that from 2 large panels and a wind gen. Not practical?


Units are very important. If you don't use the correct units you almost certainly are missing something and your ability to make good decisions is grossly disadvantaged. There is no useful measure of "amps per day." You probably mean amp-hours/day (probably) but amp-hours require a baseline voltage (12 VDC? 24 VDC?). That is why engineers use watt-hours (Wh) instead of amp-hours (Ah) but we aren't going to fix that. Ah are too embedded.

100 Ah/day is pretty austere.



centerline said:


> solar is absolutely a great source of power, and the available output it only limited to the space one has to install more panels... but then one also has to understand that some people's power requirements on their boat (or elsewhere) are completley unreasonable because they feel no need to conserve.


Agreed. The same calculus applies to watermakers. In fact they are interrelated as watermakers draw power. *sigh*

On a cruising boat just about everything has an effect on just about everything else. It is system engineering. What are all your loads, all your sources, and all your energy storage?

Sure I can tell you that most cruisers find solar to be more effective than wind but do you have space to keep up with YOUR demand? If you cook on induction, run two laptops most of the day, have a fridge and two freezers, and watch movies every night you'll probably be happier with a fossil fuel energy source.



outbound said:


> In short with all kinds of LEDs available and much more energy efficient frig/freezer set ups average couple not using AC shouldn't rarely if ever need a genset. If funds are limited go high output alternator first, then solar then wind then genset.


Agreed. If you need a genset for some reason you may find that the economics of solar and wind don't make sense if fuel is readily available.

Again - everything effects everything. Where will you put your solar panels? Can you see the sails? Will wind generators shade the panels? Your boat is a system and needs to be treated that way.


----------

