# I've been Solar Struck by the SolarStik



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Yes, you heard that right.

If you remember the massive thread:
http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gear-maintenance/30050-effectiveness-solar-wind.html

Brian was true to his word, and left me to play with a complete SolarStik. The first thing I have to say, is that if you've ever spent any time getting metal fabrication done, the photos we've seen of this totally do not get you ready to see the real thing. It looks like something that either fell off the ISS and survived the fall to earth, or something craftily stolen from a nuclear sub's powerplant. "Tim the Toolman" would go gaga over it.

Massively overbuilt, incredibly beautiful strong welds, and every part is either captive or attached with a fastpin and/or vinyl-covered steel leash. No tools required for assembly, nothing to drop overboard, lots of attention to separating the stainless and aluminum with Delrin(?) sleeves and washers to prevent bi-metal corrosion problems.

We were all wondering why a couple of solar panels and a pole would cost so much money. The answer is, that "pole" would probably cost more to fabricate in your local metal shop. Does anyone need or want that much overkill? Well...maybe. On a 40-60 footer, sure. I'm just saying there's a tremendous amount of expensive metalwork and design behind this, the "pole" is probably stronger than the mast or boom of many 28' boats.

I know, that was only half the question, whether the thing was overpriced. The other big issue was how come users were claiming to get more power out of it than most of us seem to think is possible anywhere on this planet. I've got answers for PART of that, and it seems to be that those wild claims aren't totally wild.

The SolarStik ships with a BlueSky SolarBoost "MPPT" charge controller. Big deal, a regulator is a regulator, right? Wrong. Part of that we figured out in the other thread. It turns out that MPPT controllers aren't just regulators--they take overvoltage from the solar panels, and convert it down to higher amperage at the voltage the batteries really need. There's some loss in the MPPT controller, and some variation among makers, and more variation by time of day, but apparently an MPPT controller can account for 5-10% "more power than those panels are capable of putting out". Not literally more power--but more useable _amperage_ instead of dumping the extra voltage.

Then, it turns out there's another effect of MPPT controllers that even BlueSky wasn't talking about. MPPT controllers put out PWM (pulse width modulated) DC, not plain DC power. PWM-DC is more like an AC signal, it is simply not the same kind of power that a straight solar panel, or a panel with a conventional regulator, puts out.

One of their competitors (Morningstar) did some tests with/for Sandia Labs, who spend some of our tax dollars looking very closely at things like solar panels. See:

Addendum to Why PWM?

for their report, and there's a URL in there that links back to Sandia for some more unbiased reports that aren't quite as easy to read. Apparently when you use PWM instead of pure DC, and especially if you use it with AGM batteries, you can charge the battery more thoroughly and faster, as the "spikes" of DC don't cause local gassing the way a pure DC charger would. In their results, they showed batteries accepting higher capacity, up to 20% higher than even three-stage DC chargers.

In other words, use any PWM charger, including MPPT controllers, and if your battery was holding 200AH, you might see it holding 230-240AH after a few charge cycles from the MPPT controller.

The MPPT controller itself is using the solar panel's power more effectively (gaining 5-10% more amperage) and the PWM output from the controller is stuffing more amps into the battery (10-20% more) so yes, in theory, you could see folks "reading the meter" on the charge controller and concluding that they were getting 30% more power than they "should" be getting from solar panels, based on hooking up plain unregulated panels.

That magic doesn't apply just to the SolarStik--it apparently applies to all MPPT controlled solar panels, and the folks who make the controllers just aren't talking about it much. Unless you find Morningstar's web site or their tests with Sandia.

To make things a little bit more complex...you can't just "measure" PWM-DC with a plain multimeter. It isn't AC, it isn't DC, it's a special pulsating DC and regular meters are not designed to read that accurately. So, when the BlueSkies controller displayed voltage in/out, and displayed amperage into the batteries, I found it typically about 4% higher than my own "pretty good but not NIS-lab-calibrated" multimeter. The 4% difference is neither here nor there--for a _boater _ reading the thing like a gas gauge. Whether the BlueSky controller was a bit optimistic (it consistently rounded UP to three figures, my meter uses four digits) or just needed calibration, dunno. BS will recalibrate their controllers for any original owner during the warranty period if that really concerns you. I figure, if you are trying to charge a battery bank near 50% cycle depth...a couple of percent either way really is not a concern.

So with a PWM controller pushing perhaps 20-30% more charge into the batteries, and a chance that the "meter" is misleading the user by another 4-5%?

Yeah, I can see that some owners would be reporting incredible amp-hour claims for the SolarStik. Without having any idea why those numbers were happening, but swearing quite postively that those numbers WERE REAL.

It has been a very enlightening bit of testing for me. When I go solar, at some point, I don't know that I'd want a SolarStik. It's just massive, and while it probably would survive a rollover and cartwheel...I just don't know. I'm kinda hoping that Brain comes out with a "SolarStik Jr." for the rest of us, same quality, but maybe with some college engineering class figuring out how to pare it down to half the mass while still making it "strong enough". (Heck, even the finger grips in the carrying handle are half-inch-deep rounded and polished INDENTS sticking out above a piece of one-inch aluminum tubing.)

Now, what I haven't been able to get around to yet, and may not be able to finish up on, is clocking the output in real low sun angles, i.e. 6-10AM and 5-8PM. We all questioned how much that might affect the total output. From what I saw, aiming and rotating the panels every hour or so to track the sun made some difference. And the locks and adjusters and arm supports and all on the SolarStik _do _make that easy, again with a lot of expensive top quality metalwork. _(Apparently the same equipment, with a terrestial tripod base, is being sold to military and emergency/disaster operations centers--and they've got no complaints about how rugged it is either.)_

So yes, Brian dared me. Yes, he kept his word. And even if I'm not all done and don't have a full set of "pure" percents to come out with? I've got to say I can totally understand the price point, based on the fab job alone.

The radical output numbers? Not so surprising. Apparently MPPT and PWM are just "out there" and you've got to pull teeth to find out that they are inherently different--and the only way to go.

Aside from wishing for a "Junior" model <G> my only concern would be on the BlueSky controller. It looks nicely made, but it doesn't seem to be "conformal coated" or really designed for use in salt air environments. It took three reeadings through the manuals to be sure of what and how I was setting things up, because they're very flexible but a bit confusing. And oddly enough, you can't just set the controller for "AGM" or "Wet Lead", you need to find the specs on your own batteries, and then go match them up through a menu system that takes a half dozen tries before you get the knack of it.

I don't know how BlueSky compares to Outback, Morningstar, and the couple of other companies producing MPPT controllers in overall terms or quality, efficiency, price...a whole other kettle of fish. And properly installed down below with the other electronics the BlueSky controller probably is fine--but considering the massive overkill on every other part of the SolarStik, I'd like to see "SolarStik Jr." ship with an MPPT controller that was designed for use in salt air, either potted or coated.

This is not at all your father's Oldsmobile!


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Thanks for the post HS... looking forward to seeing your numbers...and will you post some photos for CP, before he goes ballistic.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Thanks for the time and effort HS.

- CD


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Ok, so I have to ask Hello:

What size panels did you have? 50's? If so, were you actually seeing 80-100 ah/day? If yes, then is that number potential for ANY MPPT controller?

- CD


----------



## Pamlicotraveler (Aug 13, 2006)

uh oh....looks like we're going to all be talking about the Solar Stik again. 

Personally, I wouldn't care if it gave 500 ah day...the dang thing is so ugly I would rather stay home...


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

CD-

Probably only for the ones that do PWM DC. If the MPPT doesn't do PWM, a lot of the benefits are lost.


Cruisingdad said:


> Ok, so I have to ask Hello:
> 
> What size panels did you have? 50's? If so, were you actually seeing 80-100 ah/day? If yes, then is that number potential for ANY MPPT controller?
> 
> - CD


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

OK, as most here know, I hate electricity and boat electronics and electrics and batteries and all that. 

I really hate electricity. (Maybe because I work with it???), I don't read about it, I don't really care much about it too. and all the gear you guys drool over...

So my questions are:

1)Can someone post a photo of this Solar stick thing??? I have no idea what your're talking about. 
2) It recharges your batteries with the sun, right?
3) what is a MPPT
4) and a PWM DC

I help people here, now its payback, I need help....not really just curious about what is this thing that gets you guys all excited.

Thanks


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

MPPT- Maximum Power Point Tracking... a technology that increases the efficient use of the output from solar panels.

PWM DC- Pulse width modulated DC current, which apparently helps increase charge acceptance by batteries.

Yes, the Solar Stik uses two 50 W solar panels mounted on a 3-axis mounting system with a BlueSky MPPT charge controller.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

OK, everybody at once.<G>

First off, no digicam here except the low-res one in the cell phone. If I took pictures, they'd look horrible. SD picture doesn't do them justice, and I've suggested to Brian that he REALLY needs some good professional pictures, close enough up to show detail and some human scale in them. You can, for instance, see the carry handle (on the main pole, between the tripod base and the panels) in SD's photo. What you can't see is that it looks like The Incredible Hulk gave a 1.5" aluminum pipe a death grip, and left his fingergrip embedded halfway through it. Nor can you see the welds, some of them beautifully lapped and as wide as your little finger. Or that the pole is in fact tapered aloft. I thought this was for windage, but Brian explained that they have to cut it open to do some of the welding inside, and then tapering it as they welded it back shut became a simple option, which also saves some weight. But--it just looks tapered, no sign of the welding involved. 
You know how some baots just have beautiful woodworking & cabinetry? Or the way Sabre puts a teak dust bin grill at the base of the companionway, to catch all the junk you trek in? And you'd never notice it unless you happened to look at it, close enough to see it. Sorry, I'm not going to break out the old 35mm. and start doing that job.<G>

SD-
Numbers. Well, here near forty north, with an oppressive sun, a weatherman's UV index of 9, and not perfect but pretty damn good clear skies, I was recording about 63 watts from 10AM - 1PM, loosely tracking the sun. That's right, 63 watts from a 100 watt panel set, according to my multimeter, about 4% more according to the SolarBoost numbers. Nothing near the 90 Watts guaranteed by BP, or the 100 Watts maximum rated. (the panels are labelled with both typical and maximum outputs.)
And again, I have to stress that I'm measuring PWM-DC with an instrument that is designed for pure DC, so I know the numbers I'm seeing are wrong. Not sure which way, but wrong. I didn't get a chance to do a full day of drain-and-refill real charge storage measurement. 
IIRC from the various solar charts, up here we're supposed to get about four equivalent hours of full output from the course of a whole day, versus six down in Florida. That would be...about 250 Watt-hours up here, indicating 375Wh down there in sunnier climes. Or about 73 Amphours at 13.6V here, and closer to 100AH down there. If I get better numbers or a longer run to measure the effects of early/late day hours, I'll post them. Won't be this week. Even if someone is reading the BlueSky panel (which as I said reads higher than my meter, no idea which is really more correct with PWM-DC) they shouldn't be seeing more than 4% above that--but, if they are reading from the "fuel gauge", they may be seeing another 10-20% gain in stored amperage, because the PWM-DC is allowing the battery to take a higher charge, per Morningstar's paper. Kinda reminds me of the first time I got gasoline in Canada, and not knowing anything about Imperial Gallons, I was amazed at the great mpg I was getting.<G>

"Probably only for the ones that do PWM DC. If the MPPT doesn't do PWM, a lot of the benefits are lost." ABSOLUTELY! But every mention of an MPPT controller that I've seen, indicates they are all using pulse width modulation or something similar, since they all essentially transform power, and you can't do that without monkeying with the DC and using PWM or pulsed DC or even AC at some point.

I wouldn't call the SS ugly, but "big" and "industrial" do apply--in the nicest way. It just ain't svelte, and it could be mistaken for a yawl mast on a smaller boat. Where those two big panels also make a nice replacement for a bimini top.<G>

Also of note, if someone is onboard all day and moving the panels as intended, that's also going to have a big effect compared to flat panels that are simply randomly moving as the boat points into the wind. Angling and aiming the panels is something else that was well-reported in the university, etc. lab results all linked from the monster thread. For someone who is just parking the boat and leaving it--this won't be any advantage. For someone onboard and willing to just nudge the panels every hour when they walk past (or tack)...big difference. A difference you can't get with simple flat panels.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

sailingdog said:


>


     

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh my wife came here runing because I was making so much noise.....its almost mid night......sorry

You have to be kidding me, right??? is that what you guys are all excited about???

Man I woke my son Luis he was sleeping...man I peed my underwear laughing...that stuff looks like the crap Neil Armstrong took to the moon, and left there!!!

I am still drying my eyes from laughing...the last time I laughed like this was in the movie Dodgeball when the guy throws a wrench at one of the players head....

You are telling me people actually put that stuff on their boats?????

Man you Americans are really funny...do I have premission to spread this around my freinds?? Please???

Thanks for the photo, that was really cool.

I can imagine CD runing to the home depot to buy one of those...

sorry, I really am out of your World....

Sorry I mean no disrespect to who makes that, (NASA??) I just can't imagine that on a boat!!! Sorry again.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

OK, great news, I have decided what I want from my boat.

Ordered a few Sticks from Nasa.com, the space store on line foe amateur astronauts and have modified my boat...

CD eat your heart out.....*350 MW RAW POWER!!!!*

Also when at night, the boat glows in th dark....










No space to sail, but I'm happy, I can light the marina, now.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

HS-

The solarstik site says it weighs around 80 lbs. What does the entire unit really weigh??


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

G-
You are looking at ground stations. The tripod bases are designed for field deployments, i.e. if you decided to invade Spain and set up some fast base camps complete with communications equipment, that's what you could bring to power them. I suspect that's a demo of a drop kit intended for military users--note the wonderful OD Green case it connects into. Which also has the self-contained AGM battery and controller installed in it, which is why they are called "drop kits".

The boaters' version is "just" the stick and panels, which then mount into a deck flush fitting or a transom mount outside the rail, or similar. See http://www.solarstik.com/pdf/latatt.pdf the picture at the bottom left of the page to see how much less goes on a boat, when it is installed outboard of the transom. Although, I'd think one could cut the corner off a standard pushpit and replace the corner pole with the base for it, making for even less "stuff" to have around.

But even then, this is more appropriate to bluewater cruisers and others who want serious power for long terms away from land, not dayracers.

The point that shouldn't be lost on you, is that even if they don't make a smaller model, the _technical aspects_ of using an MPPT controller and "making" more power with the same old panels and battery, are something that can apply to many other setups.

Small craft is a small market, I can see why they'd want to go after bigger boats (i.e. 40 foot plus seems to match the scale on this) and after the terrestial markets with the drop kits. In the US we are finally--finally--starting to put together civilian emergency response kits through organizations like the American Red Cross. They can distribute practically everything a shelter needs, including radio communications drop kits. But, they haven't had any good way to drop off "power". The typical suggestion is "commandeer the batteries from abandoned cars" since generators and fuel for them are bulky, expensive, hard to deploy and maintain.

Is this gizmo for everyone? Hellno. Especially when you are looking at ground stations with the eyes of a boater.<G> Is a Mercedes worth ten times the price of a Kia? Probably not--but they're definitely different products and it doesn't take long to appreciate that there ARE differences, once you see them close up.

I know my first reaction from the other thread was "That's obscene, for $1600 worth of equipment and some pole!" But, that's like asking why you paid more than ten grand for your boat. After all, it's just "a boat", right?<G>

* SD-*
That's probably about right. The "pole" is easily hefted by one man, and the two solar panels, which strap together with rubber bumpers/straps to make a conveniently stowed/transported pack, are also man-heftable. You'd need to be a bull to carry the whole thing any long distance by yourself, all at once.

As I said, the pole is more substantial than many mast and boom sections I've seen. Assuming that the panels were removed and stowed below before a storm at sea...I can't think of any way the pole could be damaged, even if a boat were rolled and tumbled. Massive overkill for _most _of us, you could weld up a cleat on it and us it to tie off the dinghy, too.<G>


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

HS, I take my hat for you. You have gained many consideration points in my book. 

You did reply in an inteligent maner even though I joked and played around. 

I really appreciate you explained that to me, and obviously see where this may be applied. Good idea to apply in humanitarian issues also.

Seems an interesting gizmo. I just wonder how that would hold in a storm, even attached to whatever frame. Unless they were removable, then were do you store them?

Anyway, like I said, I really appreceiate your response and clever explanation, and am happy I have not offended you. Thank you.

Now, off the record,why would I want to invade Spain?? Its full of Spanish people....


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

G-
The panels DO remove. That's part of what the pictures we've seen really don't make clear, there's a fantastic amount of engineering here, obviously done from a sailor's point of view. Each solar panel unplugs (one waterproof plug) and then by unscrewing one captive nut (attached with a leash) it folds down flat and attaches to the pole with a rubber strap. So, by unscrewing two captive screws--no tools needed, handles attached to the bolts, not wing nuts--you can drop the panels flat and secure them to the pole. I have no idea what wind strength that would hold against but I'd guess that would secure them up to hurricane forces. After that, all you have to do is loosen that screw completely, then pull one "fastpin" (again attached with a leash) from each panel, and you can remove the panel COMPLETELY and stow it below. Almost as fast as reefing a roller jib.<G>
The two panels, once removed, attach to each other with four more of the rubber straps, bumpers already on the "glass" so they face each other and keep the glass between them. Pretty well thought out, and a lot of time and money if you tried to build it from scratch.

As to invading Spain...well, you'd have miles more of seacoast, and the eternal gratitude of the Basques. Call it payback for the Spanish Inquisition and the conquest of South and Central America, they're overdue for that.


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

yea brother! 
the only other question I have is 
How big are her t*ts?


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

HS...Thanks for some great reporting and all your testing efforts. First I would note your reported 63 watts of output at peak (note how this contrasts with the claim of OVER 100 watts by Brian due to "special BP panels").

I am having trouble following your math.
*That would be...about 250 Watt-hours up here, indicating 375Wh down there in sunnier climes. Or about 73 Amphours at 13.6V here, and closer to 100AH down there.
*How do you make that calculation...watt hours/Volts=amp hours NO? 
375 watt hours at 13.6V would generate...27 amp hours or so. 
Am I wrong on this calculation or misinterperting what you've said.

If I am right and the panels when adjusted reasonably frequently could put out the 63 Watts you found for the equivilent of 10 hours a day...or 630 watt hours at 13.6 volts...that would be 46 amp hours.

Are you measuring watt/amps/volts off the panels or only at the "end" of the system. I am a bit confused in that you found the output of the panels even lower that our prior estimates but came up with higher amp hours for your estimates. We know power cannot be boosted...merely converted so how does 63 watts peak translate into that kind of amp hours. Even at just 13 volts it is only 48 amp hours???

Actually 48 amp hours on 100 watt panels is nearly 100 % bettr than one might expect from fixed panels and a standard controller...so the positioning of the panels and the MPPT controller DO make a big difference even if my calcs are right...but the argument here has always been about the CLAIMED output and the unlikely scenario of a cruisers remaining on board to adjust panels as the boat swings in the wind and tide negating much of the positioning advantage.

Your further input on why my amphour calcs are so different than your estimates is eagerly awaited.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Hello Sailor, Thank you for explaining the product so well. Certainly much better than I was able to do. For us, we have a 50' sailboat which we want to take around Cape Horn some day. We wanted something strong, we wanted power, and we have 4 AGM 8D's; we also like living away from land. 

Just a quick note about the frequency of adjustments to the panels. Very often, because of tide changes, I might not touch the panels but two or three times a day. In the beginning, because I wanted to see how much power I could make, I messed around with them all the time. But now, I have found a good position that carries me often through the whole day, with nothing more than a tilt here or there.
Kathleen
aboard
Schooner MISTRESS


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Kathleen-
For no good reason, I can deal with volts and amps. (Well, sometimes, and I still can't get my license for practicing mathematics over the internet, but that's neither here nor there, right?<G>) For a boat your size, that solar mizzen mast <G> probably scales in very nicely. No custom negotiating with tower welders and other techie stuff required, and I can see it fitting in very nicely there.
No matter who I ask...the best answer I can get about really accurately measuring amps and volts on a PWM-DC system seems to involve fourier transforms and other math that glaze my eyes and hurt my head. I confess, I never took calculus and if anyone has a good PBS-video-set to recommend on it, please do.
What I want to do, is actually deep cycle some battery power in/out with the SolarStik and make the measurements based on the DC from the batteries. Easier said than done, as I had to go out of town, came back to heat warnings, grabbed most of a good day and then ducked thunderstorms and (please, tell me this isn't Kansas) even TORNADO WARNINGS and I can tell you, until fairly recently I was sure I wasn't in Kansas and didn't know anyone named ToTo.

Cam-
"First I would note your reported 63 watts of output at peak (note how this contrasts with the claim of OVER 100 watts by Brian due to "special BP panels"). 
I'm not going over that 960+ message thread but IIRC it wasn't Brian but someone else who was claiming that wattage, and that may have also been someone who simply said watts instead of amps or watt-hours...I thought that had been cleared up?
My readings are from a good but not perfect day, with a UV index of 9 and temps in the 80's. If you can get a brighter day (which you can) and move further south (easily!) and cool the panels into the 60's instead of the 80's, you can raise their output every time. That's well documented and should be no surprise to anyone. BP only warrants the panels for 90 watts output, I could only measure some 63 under the conditions I had. I'd really like to retest them on a screamingly beautiful day--but don't know if I'll be able to command that kind of wx before the panels have to move on.

"I am having trouble following your math." Remember, I'm numerically challenged.<G>
"That would be...about 250 Watt-hours up here, indicating 375Wh down there in sunnier climes. Or about 73 Amphours at 13.6V here, and closer to 100AH down there."

"How do you make that calculation...watt hours/Volts=amp hours NO? "
Right, should be.

"375 watt hours at 13.6V would generate...27 amp hours or so. 
Am I wrong on this calculation or misinterperting what you've said. "
Your math is right, let me look back at the notes and see what I've screwed up now....OK, I see it. probably got interrupted by that telephone thing and dropped out a line. I was talking about two different things: Watthours as being the total daily output from the unit, so let me rephrase that and add in the missing part:

""That would be...about 250 Watt-hours up here, _based on four hours of full output power, which is what a full day is usually equal to_, indicating 375Wh down there in sunnier climes. Or about 73 Amphours at 13.6V here _for the four midday hours, and neglecting anything outside of them_,"

Does that read clearer?

The general literature and the URLs posted from the other thread all indicate that you can approximate the full daily power output of the panels (typically in watt-hours but however you please) by taking the output during the noon-to-one-oh-clock hour, and multiplying it by a factor for that location. Down south like the Florida Keys, that factor is about six. Up north here, it is about four. Those are rough numbers--but they are good ballpark numbers.

"If I am right and the panels when adjusted reasonably frequently could put out the 63 Watts you found for the equivilent of 10 hours a day...or 630 watt hours at 13.6 volts...that would be 46 amp hours. "
Nah. You can't get ten hours at maximum power. And some testing I did in dim light shows that while you can measure good voltage from the panels in lowering light--that's only into the high resistance of the voltmeter. Hook up a real load of any kind, and the output plummets down to 4-6 volts real fast, the panels are useless in the light we see here at 7AM. To give you some comparison, using a classic lightmeter the 6:30AM light was around 65 foot candles (I know, an obsolete standard but one I prefer) while noontime daylight is something like 32,000 foot candles.
Considering that the amount of power (sunlight) available to the panels changes by a factor or 32,000/65, naerly a 500x change in the amount of sunlight and power going INTO the panels, there is no way the panels are going to put out more than 1/500th of their full power at 6:30AM. Ain't gonna happen unless aliens on a UFO are beaming lasers into them.<G> Even the light at 8AM was not enough to generate any power _into any load_ attached to the panels. So, anyone who thinks the first and last two hours of sunlight are going to generate power...better flag down that UFO.

The light level readings I got, measuring incident light (i.e. that falling on the panels) was:
5:30AM, 12 foot candles 
6:00 AM, 32 foot candles
6:30AM, 65 foot candles
7:15AM, 130 foot candles
8:10AM, 260 foot candles
and then I was in motion and didn't get a chance to measure again until somewhate after 10AM, at which point I had "noon" daylight, a full scale reading on the lightmeter, a classic Gossen LunaPro. Not calibrated to anything in many years but a reasonably accurate if archaic device.

"Are you measuring watt/amps/volts off the panels or only at the "end" of the system." Both ways. I measured at multiple times, and in order to reality check things I plugged the meter into the output of the stick directly (at the input of the controller) and the output of the controller. I read the amperage via the current shunt supplied with the unit (a huge 500A model which would be bombproof even without ventilation in this application) and I used the meter itself, with an internal 10A current shunt, inline both ahead and behind the controller.

" I am a bit confused in that you found the output of the panels even lower that our prior estimates but came up with higher amp hours for your estimates. We know power cannot be boosted...merely converted so how does 63 watts peak translate into that kind of amp hours."
Ah-ah, you're confusing my statements about watt-hours with amphours. As I rephrased it above--I'm using watt-hours to indicate accumulated total daily output, and using amps or amps to indicate "instant" current.
Again, that I got 63 watts instead of 100 watts is EXPECTED because I'm further north and the day wasn't perfect.

"so the positioning of the panels and the MPPT controller DO make a big difference even if my calcs are right"
Well, the MPPT does make a difference, somewhere between 4-10% acording to pretty much all the published literature which really _is _out there. It would have been easier to find that stuff if SolarStik mentioned it on their web site, but I'm not even sure that THEY were really aware of it.

As to aiming the panels...I didn't see a lot of difference during the noon hours, but then again, the sun was pretty high up here, I'd expect it to make a significant difference in the winter months when the sun literally is only half as high up in the sky. For someone like Kathleen, _who is on the boat all day _and can casually swing the panels three times a day, that's great. For someone leaving the boat, going ashore, etc. and letting it swing in the wind and current...I could see that leaving the panels horizontal (making the whole Stik a very expensive dinghy tie-up point) would be just as effective as hoping the panels didn't swing around the wrong way.

"but the argument here has always been about the CLAIMED output" Agreed. From what I've seen, and without being able to do a full load-cycle to check "real" DC... There's a quote from Arthur C. Clarke that is very appropriate here, to the effect that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

The average owner will have no way to know that their "power meter" may be off by 4-5%. (Nor will it matter.) The average owner, _upgrading to a Solar Stik with the supplied MPPT controller,_ may in fact notice a 20% increase in battery capacity. And they would simply think that was from the SolarStik, since they would have no reason to understand that the _controller_ itself was using the raw power more efficiently (5-10%) and cycling the batteries more efficiently (10%?).

The combined effect of removing "plain" solar panels and a "plain" regulator, and replacing them with a SolarStik, could give an owner a 20% boost in the power that they were getting from "the same" panels.

Why the battery companies, and the many web sites discussing batteries, don't discuss the advantages of using pulsed DC for charging...dunno, but that word needs to get out. I tried to talk to someone at JCI about that, but of course, "the" man was on vacation.

When I take my dog for a walk, first we get in the elevator. From the dog's point of view, cables, drums, motors, switches, Mr. Otis's marvelous safety brakes, are all non-existant. The dog knows MY MASTER IS GOD, HE MAKES MAGIC. EVERY TIME THAT DOOR OPENS, THE WORLD HAS CHANGED. Dumb dog, yeah, but that's also how we typically grasp technology: It's magic. (Hey, I think of knitting the same way. Someone takes a STRING? And makes it into hats and sweaters?! That eludes me, I'm lucky enough to tie knots.<G>)

So. I hope that explains things--a few words unfortunately dropped from the post. Some easily explained observer error from the users. Heck, why should the typical boat owner know more about pulsed-width-power systems than any one of us knows about the comparative chemistry of fiber-reinforced-composite hulls? All they should have to know, is what works.

MPPT works. Good robust wiring, works. (I might have lost some by using 8-10g wiring instead of something heavier, but I was using short runs.) And the SolarStik?

Well, if Kathleen makes it around the Horn, her SolarStik ain't gonna break off in green water. You've got to get your hands, or eyes, on one of them in person. You still may not want one on your boat--but you WILL understand the price it sells for.


----------



## wind_magic (Jun 6, 2006)

PWM is not a great new invention designed to do anything special, it's just the way that processors create a specific voltage from a higher voltage. Computers are digital so they have to use tricks to create specific voltages. An older analog system might have complicated networks of components or transformers to create 9 volts from 12 volts for example, but computers do it with tricks. The trick is that the digital circuit switches the 12 volts on and off extremely fast. It changes the width of these pulses (thus - Pulse width modulated!) as kind of a duty cycle. So for example if the pulses were as wide as the spaces between them then that is about a 50% duty cycle, so the 12 volts will average out to be around, well, whatever, 6 volts I guess. And if the pulses are longer the voltage is higher, whereas if the spaces are longer the voltage is lower. If it's just one big pulses that never turns off, that's DC 12 volts. If it's just one big space that never turns on, that's DC 0 volts. So basically PWM is just a digital way of turning a voltage like 12 volts into any voltage from 0-12 volts without having to spend a pile of money on a bunch of complicated expensive components. It's a trick that computers use instead of using expensive digital to analog converters and things like that.

That you might get some tertiary benefit from using PWM to charge batteries is just a terrific side effect if it is true. PWM is just how basically any processor creates voltages these days. And it has downsides too, turning that voltage on and off can create frequencies that interfere with radios and all kinds of stuff, so you have to be careful when you design it. Using a more expensive circuit like a digital to analog converter and running that through an amplifier is much less noisy and accomplishes the same thing (at a greater price). Stereo systems could use PWM to create the voltages necessary to reproduce music on speakers, but it would sound like crap, that's why the more expensive digital to analog (DAC) converters are used in stereo systems and places where all that noise generated by PWM would be considered ugly and bad.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"So basically PWM is just a digital way of turning a voltage like 12 volts into any voltage from "
Yes and no. PWM-DC really should be thought of as an AC form of voltage, since the waveform is quite variable and in most ways it can't be treated as "plain" DC at all.
Like, the radio interference problem, akin to AC not DC.
Like, not being able to accurately measure or meter it, akin to changing AC waveforms, not "plain" AC and not DC either.

" it's just the way that processors create a specific voltage from a higher voltage. "
Yes, but that's not critical. What's important about PWM is that it allows processors to work the OTHER WAY AROUND, boosting lower digital voltages to higher ones as well, and to change voltage WITHOUT DUMPING POWER. A plain DC regulator can reduce voltages just fine all by itself--but the PWM system does it without dumping power (net wattage), making it more efficient, if more expensive.

And, there's that effect on battery charging. Apparently well documented and confirmed by reputable parties--but someone forgot to tell us plain folks.<G>

"Stereo systems could use PWM to create the voltages necessary to reproduce music on speakers, but it would sound like crap," Well, haven't you just described the CD player, MP3s and digital music? They all start with a digital signal, quite similar to PWM-DC with a uniform pulse width and only the rate varying. Matter of fact, that's almost identical to a classic automobile alternator putting out PWM-DC using a fixed pulse width, like a classic Delcotron. OK, it gets converted back to an analog signal before we hear it--but there are folks who still say it sounds like crap because of conversion issues.<G>

I tried to get a look at the SolarBoost output on an oscilloscope, an older Tektronics model. If I really pushed things....I got something with a fairly regular waveform, but I have no idea how badly the battery was swamping things, or how that really could have changed once it got outside the bulk acceptance charge. It was a tall square wave with a sloppy bottom corner, which I assume was the result of an inductor "dying" in the end of a discharge cycle. One of those "yeah, but it really doesn't matter, it works just as well and is cheaper to build that way" things. Not worth speculating about.

Cam-
Although I was in the bulk charge phase...is it possible that I would have seen more amperage out of the controller IF the batteries had been discharged? Maybe it was giving me higher voltage and less amperage, because that's what the battery needed more in the existing charge state?
One more thing to test, next time the rain gods and the sun gods all conspire and the tornado warnings stop long enough for me to spend some quality time with a good book...and some electronics?<G>


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

HS...Thanks...but I am still confused about your revised statement which said:
* ""That would be...about 250 Watt-hours up here, based on four hours of full output power, which is what a full day is usually equal to, indicating 375Wh down there in sunnier climes. Or about 73 Amphours at 13.6V here for the four midday hours, and neglecting anything outside of them,"

Does that read clearer?*

I read this as you saying that you would assume 250 watt hours where you are for the four midday hours combined...or about 75 watts on a perfect day vs. your measured 63 watts right? 
Then you extrapolate this to 375 watt hours for the same 4 hours down south or about 90+ watts per hour. Correct so far???
If you take the 375 watt hours and divide it by 13.6V...*that is 27 amp hours for the 4 hour peak period down south and less if you use the traditional bulk charging voltage of 14.4. 
How do you come up with 73 amp hours ? I think that is a math error.

*If I am correct then 8 hours of peak performance down south would result in 54 amp hours (2 x 27) and 12 hours would result in 81 but as you point out with your candlepower morning readings...there is really no possibility of getting 12 hours of full output. *Do you agree with these numbers and that 80 amphours or more out of the panels per day is a dream?

****************
*You thought Brian had not claimed excessive output from the panels themselves and thought it was someone else...but here is his direct quote:
*We bought 14 different brands of solar panels to determine which one was the most powerful, and after two years of testing, the BP350U was chosen. We were consistently able to exceed the STC rating of the panel in good conditions.

*So he is saying that his panels will consistently exceed their 100 watt rating despite your measured 63 watts. Note that his ability to CLAIM output of OVER 100 watts is essential to his claim of 80-100 A/H's per day. 
Just wanted to set the record straight that it IS Brian making these claims. 
Here is the link to his full exposition: 
http://archives.sailboatowners.com/...7092103838.77&id=461963&ptl=#2007096173139.65

Based on your review of how the ACTUAL performance of the unit can easily be misinterperted by the product owner given what they see...and Brian's own statement that he is not scientist...I am *not* accusing him of lying about the panels. Indeed...the fact that he gave them to you to test indicates that he believes in them. I think he is merely mis-informed about their real output just like the people that have bought them.

I would hope that he either refutes your tested findings in a scientific manner or stops making claims that you have refuted with testing. 
You are obviously impressed with the quality and performance of the product he has put together and it should be able to find its niche with cruisers without needing to resort to marketing hype.

I hope you can get a measurement of wattage in direct sun on a perfect day before you turn 'em back in so we can really end this debate...but you deserve major kudos for the work you have done on behalf of your fellow sailors! 

Let me know if there is anything you disagree with in what I have said as I don't want to spin your results. 
*

*


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

The military tests everything hey use before spending many of our dimes. 
Perchance, is any of that for public comsumption? 

Oh, thanks so much for putting this thing thru its paces. I DO think it could be a viable product, IF it can be nailed down as to what it really does on a consistant basis.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Cam-
"I read this as you saying that ... Correct so far???"
Yes.

"If you take the 375 watt hours and divide it by 13.6V...that is 27 amp hours for the 4 hour peak period down south and less if you use the traditional bulk charging voltage of 14.4. 
How do you come up with 73 amp hours ? I think that is a math error. "
OK, now I'm getting confused, too many notes and quotes in too many places. I see where I said "about 250 Watt-hours up here, indicating 375Wh down there in sunnier climes. Or about 73 Amphours at 13.6V here,". Let me try to figure out what I was thinking. 250 WH divided by 13.6V would be about 18 Ah. I think I *ed that up and multiplied out by four (hours) again!

And yes, I was reading/seeing the bulk/acceptance charge happening at 13.6 volts, not 14.4 volts, for what that's worth. Whether that's the charging algorithm, or a deception of reading PWM as DC, or whether that's really all the voltage you need to do this...Dunno.

"If I am correct..." And I think you are, "... then 8 hours of peak performance down south would result in 54 amp hours (2 x 27) and 12 hours would result in 81 but as you point out with your candlepower morning readings...there is really no possibility of getting 12 hours of full output. Do you agree with these numbers and that 80 amphours or more out of the panels per day is a dream?" At this point, and without complete testing, YES, I agree. I can't see any way to get 80AH, even 80AH at 13.6V, out of a 100W panel array.

80AH x 13.6V = 1088 WH, yes?

So given ten hours of screaming daylight and a panel set putting out 100W...it would still be a stretch. I don't think that's possible.

"You thought Brian had not claimed excessive output from the panels themselves and thought it was someone else...but here is his direct quote:...We were consistently able to exceed the STC rating of the panel in good conditions. "

"...it IS Brian making these claims. 
Here is the link to his full exposition: 
http://archives.sailboatowners.com/p...07096173139.65"
He does seem awfully optimistic about ouput, but then again he also says flat out "But given optimal conditions, 70-80 amp hours is a fair representation of the daily power output for the marine market." and I have to wonder, did he make the same mistake of double-converting that I did?? Or did he just make the mistake of confusing amps and watts? There's obviously SOMEthing wrong with the claims--which if you remember is how I got sucked into this.
I don't think it is hard to exceed the STC ratings of the panel IF (IIRC) you consider that the STC ratings are for flat panels, not tracking the sun. By tracking the sun, sure, you can pick up extra power. Whether that power can be effectively gained 1/2 hour before sunset...I don't know, it can't be gained around here. BUT, I also "read" that kind of power that late in the day, when I was just using a voltmeter and no load. I don't know if Brian is electrically astute enough to realize that when the panels are loaded (plugged into a charger) that bonus power can't actually be sucked out of them, the voltage plummets.

"I think he is merely mis-informed about their real output just like the people that have bought them."
One thing that he made clear is that he is not a techie. I'm no EE but I'm more astute about volts and amps than the average idiot, and I still found this "exploration" to be full of surprises. He does have an incredibly robust mounting system, and some technology that is "as good as it gets" for squeezing the power out of the solar panels though. (Unless there's another brand of MPPT controller that squeezes even harder.<G>)

"but you deserve major kudos" Thank you, all deposits to the First National Bank of Karma graciously accepted.<G> I'll tell you, it would be both easier and harder to sit all day in the sun and test that thing, if there was an iced marguerita dispenser built into it!

And you deserve major credit for proofreading me and catching the errors! Maybe if the wx holds for this Sunday...I'll get a chance to make new math errors.<G>

CPaul-
I have no idea what the military has available in testing. Bear in mind that Sandia Labs, which has a lot of photovoltaic testing up for public access, is also one of those places where you can get on wrong end of an M16 if you go in the wrong places.<G> Sometimes, when the military needs a light bulb, they just send someone down the store to buy one. If it lights up, they buy more of 'em.<G>


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

I used to go to Sandia quite a bit. (and Fort Huachuca...) as well as "An Agency of the Federal Government based in Langley Virginia" (Honest enjun, thats how we billed 'em)

They do some real spooky stuff at all of those places. I'm glad I'm retired. 

A friend I went to HS ith worked for T.I. Over an adult beverage one evening many years ago, he says "I have to go home early, I leave for Utah in the morning"

Really, I ask, whatcha gonna do in Utah?

"testing" was the reply

Whatcha gonna test?

"just some testing, thats all"

25 years later, that SOB still won't say what he was blowing up or tracking down.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Thanks HS...one note...you said:
I don't think it is hard to exceed the STC ratings of the panel IF (IIRC) you consider that the STC ratings are for flat panels, not tracking the sun.

The STC ratings are actually with sun overhead and not accumulated ratings...just output ratings and even done at nearly a mile high altitude so there is less atmosphere blockage so the STC ratings tend to be quite unrealistic on the high side vs. actual use. The California ratings measure off angle rays so tend to be more conservative and realistic for fixed panels but probably too conservative for adjustable ones. The right answer is probably somewhere between the two numbers but he main point is that you don't get more than 100 watts out of the panels...and you are lucky if you get close to 100 on a bright sunlit day with a still cool breeze blowing.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

OK...I will make it simple for you...

If someone is selling a product, and what it does can't be explained in a small sentence....it should be illegal and therefore not sold.

So, please in one sentence...what does the Lewis Armstrong thing do??


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

I hate my computer. Every once in a while I compose a reply, go out to check a web site, come back, and everything is gone because some damned link closed the window where I was posting the reply. sigh.

G-
What Lewis Armstrong thing? Whadda talking about?

Cam-
While looking for solar output /vs/ temp, I found http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~ozer/engr300-solar1N.pdf
Where some engineering students were measuring output versus angle to the sun. They made the SAME MISTAKE I DID, and others have, of measuring the panle output under no-load conditions. So bear in mind--when they show output voltage from the panels, they are probably WAY WRONG and the voltage probabyl drops WAY SOONER. Dunno, I didn't see any link to check with them or their professor.
But check it out, they do show how both voltage and current plummet as the panel faces away from the sun, if as I've noticed it drops much faster under load--they are way over-optimistic and panel orientation makes a much bigger difference.

Also found







a graph which lives at 
http://www.locoengineering.com/Solar Info.htm
and gives a display of output-vs-time-of-day, for fixed panels. Do some calculus for me, how does their output from 10-2 compare to the entire day's output? (Nothing radical or new there, just the first nice graphs I've seen for that.) They're showing surprisingly good output at 6AM/PM, and again that's with "fixed" panels...if I were more enterprising I could combine that data with the angle-of-incidence bit from the first site to get some numbers for us, on how much gain can be gotten from angling the panels between 6AM-10AM and 2PM-6PM. Without doing the math...I suspect it's more than 20% power gain during those hours?? Take a look.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Ok, Hello, to sum this up:

1) THe Stick itself is very well made and would be a great option for the right person.

2) It does NOT put out the numbers specified, and a person would expect (with diligent turning of the panels) about a 10-20% increase over flat panels

Is this correct? 

- CD


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

HS-

I am glad that ConchyJoe isn't allowed on this board any longer... he'd be attacking you for telling what you're seeing—regardless of whether it is realistic and honest or not.

Thanks for the update... When you get some hard numbers, can you post a table or something with the actual output and some sense of the conditions it was under, and how often the panels were adjusted, and how much adjusting the panels really affects actual output??


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

And in the end, the Solar Stik is still just an expensive mounting system, though I don't doubt well made, for components that anyone can buy and use. It would appear, that performance claims lie primarily in the components, more than the Stik itself, though it does contribute by beind adjustable.

Is there really anything else to say?


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

John, I'm not sure I'd be that hard on it. To a large extent, yes, the performance comes from the components (PWM), but there's also a significant boost from being able to rotate/angle the panels--which it allows very simply and robustly. If someone else designed some kind of "ball mount" to allow solar panels to be stuck on a pulpit and rotated that way...But I don't know that there is anything like that on the market, capable of holding panels up in +20 knots, much less what the SS can hold them in. (I figure, by 20 knots the wx is closing in and I'd want to stow them anyway.)

The numbers indicating the affect of angling the panels, seem to come from "no load" conditions, and that's simply not right. I haven't seen numbers under load yet, I'll try to get some.

Sailingdog-
Jeez, you guys are gonna extort all the dribs and drabs from me before I can get it all finished in one piece.<G> I checked/changed the panel angle before each set of measurements, every 1/2 hour at the outside.
9:15 AM, batteries measured under no load as 12.30 volts and 12.24 volts, the latter being B2 and connected via the A/B switch and the boat's cabling--not directly. 
10:15 AM, "bulk" charge indicated, remote showing 13.2V to on the batteries as I started the tests--and it took me a while to figure out the SolarBoost setups after this point. The SBoost was connected directly to B1 only, flowing into B2 via the A/B switch set to "both" during the whole day.
Next note has no time mark, shows 13.10 (my meter) at the batteries with the SBoost showing 13.4 out to them, my meter showing 15.70 V out of the panels. I'm not sure if there's an error in the note regarding the 13.10/vs/13.4 difference here I think I was still fuzzy brained from trying to understand the SBoost programming.
11:00AM, 15.42 in, 13.37 out, measured by my meter on the SBoost terminals. The sun was already full brightness (per the Gossen meter) and the SBoost was still in "bulk" mode using the default wet lead facotry settings. 
At that point I checked the SBoost reaedings, 13.3V @4.4 Amps shown, versus my multimeter [email protected] shown (using separate shunts, one in the positive lead, one in the negative) so I was indicating 56.1W and it was indicating 58.5W, either a 95% or 104% difference depending on which side you look at. To me that just means either the SBoost display metering was off by 5%, or the effect of PWM on my DC meter was 5%. I don't know.

By 11:15 AM it was showing 13.6 volts @ 4.^, for 62.56W charging. 
At 11:20 I measured 15.81V into the SBoost and 13.36V out of it, against 13.5-13.6 showing on it's panel. In theory the SBoost was providing about a 6-7% net gain, putting out 4.7A @ 13.6V instead of the 4.4A at 15.81V that was coming out of the panels. (Check my math, but that's what I wrote at the time.) I went on to about 1AM but didn't see any significant increases in any numbers, which didn't surprise me since 11AM-1PM would all be "peak" output time. I was surprised not to see anything near 100W coming out of the panel array though, it was only around 85F so I can't blame that on heat.

CD-
I don't know, I'm hard put to stick a number on the gain. I mean, which numbers do we go by? The 5% difference in meters, indicating....which one is right? The 10-20% difference in battery gain/performance, that PWM is supposed to add? The 6-7% net gain in charging amperage that I did measure? If the 6-7% is real, and the 5% metering difference is from my DC meter being "low" due to the PWM...that would mean an 11-12% gain from the MPPT controller alone. Plus the real but elusive "gain under load" from the angled panels, which might be that much again or more. And then, there's the battery gain from PWM...where or how do we write that one up?
All that I'm saying, is that to someone who doesn't split up those pieces, the change from flat panels to this _system_ could appear to be a huge difference, I suspect possibly 30-40% overall depending a lot on how their batteries responded to the PWM charging.
Still, if the gain from angling the panels really is (let's say) 10%...and you add the gain from the MPPT as another 10%...
What did Alan Greenspan say? A couple of million here, a couple of million there, sooner or later you're talking real money.<G>

This puts me in mind of some testing that Consumer Reports did on 35mm cameras a million years ago. They surveyed repair shops and asked what models they did the most repairs on, then compared that to sales figures. And they paned Nikon as needing too many repairs. What they forgot to factor in, was at that time essentially all the pros used Nikons--in the rain, on the beach, all day all night everywhere, so the cameras took a lot more abuse than the ones used twice a year at weddings and vacations.<G>

I think I've made a start at turning up some of the real issues, but a lot more needs to be done to get the real answers.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

hellosailor said:


> Sailingdog-
> Jeez, you guys are gonna extort all the dribs and drabs from me before I can get it all finished in one piece.<g> <g><g>


HS-

It's just the canine solar torture interrogation technique. 

</g></g></g>


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Hello Sailor says:
No custom negotiating with tower welders and other techie stuff required, and I can see it fitting in very nicely there.

There was certainly plenty of other custom negotiation for MISTRESS. It was nice when Skip found something available that was strong enough to do what he wanted. Additionally, SS was modified to afford the mount things (sorry about that) to hold the gimbaled GPS mount, Radar, and wind generator. The bowsprit, chain plates, and a bunch of other stuff he made from scratch. 

Some day, I will tell you a funny story about the very special drill that gave its life for 14 of the 16 chain plates. This very, pumped up, Taylor style drill polished the unfinished chain plates Skip made to the polished finish they are now. It was, as Skip describes its demise, a worthy, firery, spectacular death. 

_________________________
No matter who I ask...the best answer I can get about really accurately measuring amps and volts on a PWM-DC system seems to involve fourier transforms and other math that glaze my eyes and hurt my head. I confess, I never took calculus and if anyone has a good PBS-video-set to recommend on it, please do.

PWM .. fourier? xformers,….. calculus …. glazed eyes,… 
P. B. S. “no wait, I know that one“. 

________________________

What I want to do, is actually deep cycle some battery power in/out with the SolarStik and make the measurements based on the DC from the batteries.

I understand that. 

________________________
Thunderstorms and TORNADO WARNINGS - Heard about them from folks across the Sound from you. Somewhere, Over The Rain Bow, hmm hmmm hmmmmmmm. 

________________________
I'll tell you, it would be both easier and harder to sit all day in the sun and test that thing, if there was an iced marguerita dispenser built into it!

The new sun covers makes this much easier. 
Tonight was also marguerite night. Hot days.  

________________________
I hate my computer. Every once in a while I compose a reply, go out to check a web site, come back, and everything is gone because some damned link closed the window where I was posting the reply. sigh.

Open Word while you are on line and then you can copy quotes into Word, get off line, and respond in Word, then copy and paste it on to the web site. Much easier.  
_______________________
But I don't know that there is anything like that on the market, capable of holding panels up in +20 knots, much less what the SS can hold them in. (I figure, by 20 knots the wx is closing in and I'd want to stow them anyway.)

I don’t know if you are saying 20 knots because that is what SS claims, but I have already experienced above 70 twice in one day. Both my larger panels were in the down position and held completely. They did not move. 

______________________
Giulietta says, So, please in one sentence...what does the Lewis Armstrong thing do??
I think I am starting to get your sense of humor. Good one.  

______________________
Cruisingdad says, 
2) … and a person would expect (with diligent turning of the panels) about a 10-20% increase over flat panels

It’s NOT diligent. I swear. 

______________________
Sailingdog says, …and how much adjusting the panels really affects actual output??
It helps to face them towards the sun.  

Sailingdog says, 
HS– 
It's just the canine solar torture interrogation technique. 

That’s funny. lol
I feel for HelloSailor. Its one thing to test a product out, it is quite different to put it down on paper and then answer questions about it. 
What did he do that was so wrong that you all made him do this?  
I suppose we all owe him a margarita.

Kathleen
Aboard
Schooner MISTRESS


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

I think, the main reason this topic has been so exhaustively covered is that in the beginning it was the Stik itself that was suppose to give the seemingly impossible output that was cited. Thanks to hellosailor's efforts, we can now see that while the Stik plays a part, due to it's adjustablity, it is really the components used ON the Stik that are primarily responsible for the performance, rather than simply the Stik.

At this point, it would seem the conversation is really about those components, moreso than about SS.


----------



## bobmcgov (Jul 19, 2007)

*Trackers, wattage, and MPPT*

If I might toss in some empirical observations from a terrestrial user of similar tech....

My house and cabinet shop run off immense lead acid batteries, eight PV panels, and an 8.2 ft diameter wind turbine. The solar panels are mounted on twin Zomeworks trackers. I'm closer to 41 degrees North and have employed both a Trace C60 non-MMPT charge controller and an Outback MX60 MPPT controller. There's also a nifty little logging monitor by Trimetric, which allows me to follow solar and wind inputs over time.

First thing I'd point out is that amps are _pulled_, not pushed. As the batteries approach their rated voltage, their charging rate drops substantially -- they start to push back. Also, they become hot and that increases internal resistance.

The proper way to test what is known as 'flash' wattage is with a carbon pile or similar load; you'll find reputable manufacturers of PV panels are actually a bit conservative on their ratings, listing panels about 7% below real-world performance and vastly understating the panels' open and closed circuit voltages. To wit, my 24 volt (130 watt) Siemens/Shell monocrystallines pump out 35 volts and 142 watts each on a cool, sunny day.

As others have said, MPPT simply compares the momentary voltage of the panels vs. batteries and adjust the former to a minimal gradient (~1 volt) above the latter; the excess it converts to amps. Easy peasy. Testing is not so easy, tho: a smart charge controller (like the BlueSky or Outback) also tapers charge inputs according to its perception of battery needs; the same panels in the same sun will read different wattages in bulk, absorb, float, and equalize modes.

Nice thing about the Outback is its display: you can watch panel volts and amps side-by-side with battery volts and amps, in real time. This I check against the Trimetric meter for actual amp-hour-in/out readings daily and monthly.

I can attest to a substantial amp-hour increase using MPPT over non-MPPT charge controllers: 40% in bulk mode on a cold day with thirsty batteries; 15% when it's hot (supresses PV volts) or the batts are nearly full.

Tracking PV mounts provide major gains when & where the sun follows a long arc. They are little help here when days are short. But in the summer they yield about two or three hours more prime charging than I'd get with fixed mounts; figure twenty to thirty percent gains in summer, maybe half that in winter.

 Not sure any of this helps with the Solar Stick. Sailboats are tough environments for PV, given their shading, minimal unused deck space, and tendency to roll about and turn every few minutes. Wait five more years until the amorphous film production ramps up and laminate your panels over the entire hull, that's my best advice. Now wind turbines -- they are a natural fit with sailboats! Ask me about those some time....


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I'll wait for fuel cells to get a little cheaper... mind you for the price of two Solar Stiks I could buy one Fuel Cell now...


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Kathleen-
"I don't know if you are saying 20 knots because that is what SS claims," No, I just picked 20 knots because at that point, at least around here, it usually is time to start securing things you plan on keeping on the boat.<G> Or at least, making sure you know if that's going to be climbing or lessening.
______________________
the Lewis Armstrong thing 
I can only think of blowing a horn?
______________________
CD, if you figure the sun moves 15 degrees per hour, moving the panels once per hour would still be "prime" alignment. Moving them every 90 minutes or so...well...if you're on deck, aren't you trimming the sails and all more often than that anyway?

I'm hoping to do some tilt measurements under load later today, sneaking them in this afternoon to see how much tilt really matters--under load.

______________________
"What did he do that was so wrong that you all made him do this? "
You know, I was asking myself a very similar question. But asking it with words that would make some folks understand what "crusing like a sailor" meant. And, shouldn't that be "cursing AS a sailor" ? Don't want the GrammarPatrol to come after me now.<G>

"I suppose we all owe him a margarita."
The heck with webcams, the next killer app will send mixed drinks over the internet.<G>


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

Lots of good consulting work done here. What's your consultants rate?

As for going back & forth to different web pages...in the newest internet explorer, they have a TABS feature. You open a new tab and can toggle between web pages, it's like having 2 internet explorers open on your desktop. I've sued it to cut & paste and it works great.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I had a light bulb moment this morning. We all know I have a Skip, souped up version of SS and for that reason I no longer speak to the issue of numbers because I have the two 85 watt panels and therefore my numbers will not be the same as the two 50 watt panels that come with SS. I have continued to speak of the ease of use of a SS and that it takes little effort to capture the sun, and this is where my light bulb moment comes in. Sorry for the delay. I have two SS, we know that, however because of that each morning I take one panel and face it east and turn the second panel, on the second Stik, and face it aft with a tilt to the east. SS cannot have the panels at ninety degree to each other. You can turn it so both panels face east in the morning and then I am not sure how much manipulation it would take to reap the best benefit. My mind will not see this for me, but I have a sneaky suspicion my Skip custom version may give me an advantage.

If a real SS was to be rotated so that both panels were facing east in the morning, I suppose it would only require tilts during the day to accomplish what I get in the way of ease of use, but again, I really cannot see this with my brain. I believe this makes me no more than a curious bystander in this forum, and therefore, cannot offer anything concrete. It looks like it's up to HelloSailor and Practical Sailor now.

When I mentioned this to Skip this morning he was half paying attention to me and filling the dingy with gas at the same time, however he said, he can still recognize a good product when he sees it and maintains SS is a good product.

Kathleen
Aboard 
Schooner MISTRESS

PS Schooner MISTRESS sends a tall cool Margarita to HelloSailor. Click on link here. www.margarita.com


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Hellosailor...

heheheheheheheh I really wanted to say NEIL ARMSTRONG, but somehow I wrote Lewis.....remember I said it look like something Appolo crews left in the moon??? (EXTREMELY LARGE VERY BIG G)

eheheheheheheh

But....the music play works fine too...

Now.. can someone write down in one short sentence what the thing does???


----------



## US25 (Jul 20, 2007)

Giulietta said:


> Now.. can someone write down in one short sentence what the thing does???


It charges the batteries.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Xort-

Tabs have been around a long time in most browsers besides IE...


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Xort-
The web page thing (can we dissemble here?<G>) isn't a browser problem, it's an email problem. My email client ain't changing and it has the annoying habit of opening links--all in the same window, so it wipes out the one you forgot it opened that was still open, when you open a new one. 
Consulting rate? Like I said, what did I get myself into!? It really would be better off with some lab rats who would afford to hang a "standard sun" light fixture over it someplace and do a 16-hour lab run. I'm about at the point where I turn to Tonto and say "Our job here is done" and we ride off with a big HiYo Silver! And Away! <G> Oh, wait, I'm short one big silver horse, one Indian, one black mask and a batch of silver bullets. Drat!

G-
How come you are asking about what the thing does when you already showed up a dozen small ones supplying megawatts of power onboard Giulietta?<G> Obviously, this is a solar powered orange press, it squeezes oranges to make fresh juice. The big panels go up-and-down as they absorb solar radiation, you put the oranges in the big pole in the middle and the juice runs out the spigot in the bottom. That's why the tripod is so big, so you can fit a large bowl or pitcher beneath it to catch all the juice.<G>

Kathleen-
"I suppose it would only require tilts " No, the standard version would require tilts--but also rotation of the pole, to track from east to south (or north) then west. No biggie, but something else to fiddle. Then again, unless you are windcocking into a fixed wind all day every day...you'd have to do that anyway.

And now, a raw data dump followed by some comments. I took one panel and a bag full of controller and wires with me yesterday, slipping the testing in between some more sociable behavior. The raw numbers are (drumroll):

============================
SolarStik Saturday July 21st.
Results from ONE solar panel.

11AM
13.5V @ 3.1A angled to sun
moved 45d away dropped to 
12.5V @ 2.5A
10% loss.

13.4V to 13.3V dropped
2.8A to 2.6A dropped

Shdaowing: 
13.5V drops to 13.2V
2.6A drops to 2A (i row) 1.5A (2 rows)

13.3V @ 2.5A out, 33.25 W in full sunlight (no clouds yet)
13.5V @ 2.9A with bumpers removed, all rows unobstructed now.
1/10 A less per bumper.

11:10AM 39.15 Watts /vs/ 33.25 Watts with bumpers left on!

11:45AM light high cirrus clouds
13.6V @ 2.5A aimed to sun
13.3V @ 1.7A misaimed 45degrees

(then)
13.4V @ 2.1A aimed direct
13.3V @ 1.9A aimed 15d off

1:10PM
14.2V @ 3A /vs/ 14.1 C @ 2.7A (42.6 Watts)
14.2V @ 3A direct /vs/ 14.1V @ 2.7A aimed 10deg. off

3PM flat panel 13.6V @ 2.2A
13.8V @ 2.4A when angled to sun.
29.92/vs/33.2Watts, flat is only 90% of full power.
Another 10-15d past the sun produced 13.4V @ 1.9A, bigger loss.
Some high cirrus clouds moving at the time.
Cloud shift, 13.9V @ 2.5V = 34.75W out, angled to sun.

4:30 PM high solid light cloud cover, abandoned tests.
===========================

So, the first big surprise: The panels on the unit that I'm working with, each have three (one inch?) rubber "feet" on them, so the panels don't hit face to face when they are stowed together. As I'm explaining to my friend what the hell I'm scattering on their lawn (and cabling back to the AGM deep cycle in my trunk, what, isn't that how you charge a hybrid?<G>) they note that the bumpers ARE CREATING SHADOW on two of the three rows of cells that are in the BP panel.

It doesn't take long to see that even a little shadow is not a good thing, so I razored the bumpers off and a funny thing happened. As noted, the output rose! Given the sunlight wasn't prefectly even with the wispy high clouds, and that the SolarBoost display rounds things to only 3 digits...I can only say that it appears that any shadowing, even the one inch bumpers that only partly overlay cells, can reduce output by one or two tenths of a volt AND amp.

The best I got today was 42.6 Watts at the 1:10PM run, bumpers off (one mystery corrected) with very light wispy clouds up there. That's substantially closer to the 45W output that BP guarantees, and the 50W maximum. So I think that in full blazing sunlight, 50W output might not be a surprise. (Remember this is from one panel--not the whole array.) But I'm thinking that unless you are in paradise, 35 (40?) Watts is way more realistic for these panels, in the midday hours.

The notes about angling the panels are made without a protractor, using the old Number One Eyeball, so don't expect one-degree precision. They do tell me that there's a significant loss, at any hour, from being as little as 10-15 degrees off from a direct solar angle, and a killer by 45 degrees. Since the sun shifts 15 degrees per hour...Someone shifting their panels just once per hour to track the sun, could be gaining a lot of power versus flat cells. Ten percent times each hour, times the power difference of those hours when the sun is brighter overhead...There's never a mathematician around when you need one.<G>


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Of course having tide changes vs being on land will also add to the equation I guess. 

Will need to call Brian and ask why mine didn't come with the juicer part. 

Thanks a lot HS. Please try not to dream of SS chasing you in the night. 
Kathleen
aboard
Schooner MISTRESS


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Kathleen-
Oh, you HAD to put that image into my head. Now I can see the mini version of the "War of the Worlds" tripods coming. I'll have to take a circuitious way home and make sure to use heavier security chains, to make sure it can't follow me.<G>

If there's time, and if there's one more day of "don't go out, it's so sunny and bright you'll catch fire" then I'll try to get one more run, either the early or late hours of the day to check the output in those times, as well as the max under "incineration" lighting. I suspect those hours are just icing on the cake, we already know:
1-The rotation and angle make a 10% plusplus difference
2-The MPPT controller makes a huge difference, 10-20% plus.
3-The bumpers need to move off the panels and out onto the trim.<G>
4-Brian needs to come out with a "Solar Stik Jr." that's not bombproof, but is sized more for smaller craft. Although I guess there's a limit to how light you can make the mast, and still securely support those two panels under wind loads. And....
5-This really _is _as good as it gets.

Frankly, I never thought the test panels would show up. (Come on now, how many folks thought that would EVER happen?<G>) And while all the numbers haven't quite matched some of the optimism, I give him great credit for being willing to just drop off a rig and let the numbers come as they may.

The output I've seen, given the more northern conditions I'm under, has been about as good as it gets. The "who knew?" about MPPT controllers being more efficient, and PWM charging batteries to a better depth faster, and angling the panels....Been a real education to me. I'm betting that when PS comes out with their review, they'll also make similar comments. This is no miracle--but it is as good as solar gets.

If anyone has a friend in the "stainless tubing and towers" business and can get them to run up an estimate for a similar rotate-angle-support tower, I've got a feeling the SolarStik is actually a bargain once that metalwork is figured in. I never expected that, either. Even in inch-and-a-half stainless, I don't think anyone would like the fabrication bill for anything the could come close.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

HS: Thanks very much for all the work you've done. I'm sure that while most of it was to satisfy your own needs and questions about this particular device, you've done a lot of people here a great service by posting your thoughts and your results.

My own situation allows me to simply put up a load of panels and wait for the sun to move overhead until I get full output. But your results in optimizing that output with MPPT and PWM devices is impressive, and not everyone has the space I do. I particularly think that a SolarStik Junior, as you put it, would allow 25-35 footers to use a single 50 or 130 W panel to great advantage in an anchorage situation, and would keep more people off shore power and/or running gensets to keep their beer cold.


----------



## ebs001 (May 8, 2006)

From reading this thread I believe that HS has found the MPPT the real benefit and the SolarStik a nice to have. As a way explanation of the MPPT's operation I foud some interesting information at http://www.blueskyenergyinc.com/pdf/Blue Sky_What is MPPT.pdf 
The cost of a BlueSky MPPT is $210.


----------



## Freesail99 (Feb 13, 2006)

So I would need a MPPT AND a Outback MX60 charge controller ? Or one or the other ?


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Question: On the system that you have, What happens early in the morning when a flat pabnel gets no direct light until about 10-11AM? More specifically, how much of a gain over a flat panel system is to be had? I'd be interested in hearing a comparison from someone who has a flat system as to when it really starts to put out power. 

we purchased ours in May and have been thrilled with it. We've been playing with ours for a few days now and found that in the straight up position at 7AM we get hardly anything, but when we pitch and rotate we get around 5 amps that early in the morning. 

It doesn't seem to be the amount of power at one time we are producing, but rather that we can now produce it all day. Averaging 7 amps most of the day on the blue sky 2000E we seem to be averaging around 70+ on a good clear day.

This is just based on simople math, but our estimate based on the time of day, hour by hour that we are producing a steady 7 amps. we are running our quite a few appliances on our boat. 

Hellosailor, after having read the numbers just posted, they don't give any early morning or late evening output, so could that be where the real difference is? Simply articulating the panels in the morning and evening seems to produce much more power early and late in the day which is where we notice huge gains over a flat panel. 

And thatnk you for the testing effort.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

The Outback is an MPPT charge controller IIRC. 


Freesail99 said:


> So I would need a MPPT AND a Outback MX60 charge controller ? Or one or the other ?


----------



## Freesail99 (Feb 13, 2006)

Thanks SD I was confused.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

AMY...The real issue we have been discussing is how much wattage the stik can put out under IDEAL circumstances...not whether it is better than fixed panels. If it cannot put out what Brian claims at PEAK hours...then it cannot put that out when the sun is lower on the horizon either. 
We ALL agree that the ability to position the stik in the tail hours of the day is a significant plus over fixed systems. 
Note that what you "seem" to be averaging on a good clear day...would "seem" to be rather overstated since you are relying on the MPPT readouts rather than actual test equipment. You would need 10 hours of input at slightly more than the peak wattage HS measured to hit 70AH's.

EDIT...HS did do some early measurements with the panels pointed at the sun BUT the REAL output was quite low. To understand...look at the footcandles of light hitting a properly positioned panel he recorded:
* The light level readings I got, measuring incident light (i.e. that falling on the panels) was:
5:30AM, 12 foot candles 
6:00 AM, 32 foot candles
6:30AM, 65 foot candles
7:15AM, 130 foot candles
8:10AM, 260 foot candles

*This contrasts with about 32000 footcandles at PEAK where he measured about 43 watts. So there is input to the panels at low angles to the sun...but even it was 500 percent more...it doesn't amount to much compared to the 6 hours or so of peak output in your neck of the woods.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

ebs-
Not just the controller. Bear in mind that if you don't have the SolarStik...well, what option do you have to mount solar panels that will allow them to be tilted AND rotated, so they can be pointed right at the sun all day? Keep them flat, and outside of the two noon hours they are going to lose 10% of their output immediately, from being misaligned. An hour further in each direction, and you'll lose more, maybe 25% of the power in each hour. An hour later, when the sun is now at 45 degrees to the panels...You'd have to check the graphs on the web links, but with the panels simply mounted flat, we're really crippling the panels. And it is not just tilt, but rotation that has to be adjusted as well.
Flat panels are a great simple way to do "some maintenance charging" on a moored boat...but not a great way to collect solar panel. The gain from moving the panels around seems to meet/exceed the gain from the MPPT's extra efficiency, and even considering the effect of PWM on the batteries, moving the panels around would still seem to be as important as the MPPT alone. (Saying this based on the rough numbers and rough math I've done, and leaving it for someone else to really look into it with more precision if they want to.)

Freesail-
"So I would need a MPPT AND a Outback MX60 charge controller ? " Nope. The Outback _is_ an MPPT controller. I'm sure Outback and Blue Skies could argue about why who makes the better piece of equipment or what options suit each user more.<G> There are some unexpected options in the SolarBoost that I looked at, like using the solar output to determine "night" and then switch on a circuit based on that, which could automatically run anchor lights, etc. And an auxiliary output with various options. I made no attempt to compare the various MPPT controllers, but AFAIK they are all using PWM-DC so any one of them would provide those gains.

Amy-
"Hellosailor, after having read the numbers just posted, they don't give any early morning or late evening output, so could that be where the real difference is?" Easily. I couldn't get the right positions and wx to get clear low-angle testing, and frankly I can't understand how you can get 5A at any useful voltage from the panels that early in the day. The only testing I could do was with a light meter, which told me there just wasn't that much power (light) to be found at that hour. Maybe you have a better direct sun view, reflection form the open water, the different latitude...All I could find was that the panels DO produce voltage in low light--but not under load. No power under load in low light, either. So the answer must be that your panels in your situation are somehow getting more light. Angling--as from my raw numbers--really would be critical at that hour.

Cam-
You hit the nail on the head. I'm convinced part of this is a matter of location and ideal wx, and the rest probably is the result of confusion, not any intentional misrepresentation.

Maybe...Amy, there's a charge total setting in your BS2000e controller, isn't there? Could you set it for "zero", and then read out how many TOTAL amp-hours it has supplied to your batteries after one or two complete days, just to give us a "day" check on this? Preferably a day when you are starting with better than 50% charged batteries, so we can make sure this isn't also just a phenomenom about battery charge state? You are running 2x50W standard BP panels in there, right? Not docked next to any really shiny glass walled buildings?< G >


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

The only other thing I would reiterate since we keep talking about the horizontal and vertical alignment of the panels is that this testing is on land where you can set and forget for an hour or two. You've already measured what small changes in alignment do to degrade output. On a boat out cruising there is wind and current and tide to deal with as well as wakes and these will ALL degrade the performance of the stik from what you measure on land given the same number of adjustments. 

HS... I want to play around with some of your numbers some more but have guests and not enough time right now. Will catch up later! Thanks for all the detail & hope you can get a clear day for a final go before you need to return them.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Cam,
I see what you are saying, but i also think that is an unfair comparison. if a boat is swinging around, (when we are at anchor we only seem to swing when the tide changes every 6 hours or so) won't it affect the flat panels just as much, if not more? At least we can correct for the problem with the stick. And we regularly see that 5 amperage early in the morning, and the stick is usually at full throttle by 9. We've even seen better than 8 amps on the readout occasionally, but not for very long and usually when the batteries are pretty low from a day or two of bad weather.

Hello S,
Yes we are in Florida, and on the water, and have a clear view of the sunrise. I don't remember reading in the manual that it will tally the amp hours, but I'll recheck it and see what it says. we have not played with the voltage output setting on the 2000E and aoording to the manual it is factory set for 13.8 volts. I'll check it when I get back t the boat later today and let you know. By the way, thank you for the bumper info. I'll be removng them later today.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Amy...swinging at anchor will affect flat panels less since the sun remains at the same angle to them. Lets say the sun is 45 degrees above the horizon. No matter which way the boat turns, the sun hits those panels at the same angle. 
If on the other hand you adjust your panels to 45 degrees to point directly at the sun then it gets virtually no direct light if the boat swings 180 degrees. 
As you point out...if you are in an anchorage with no wind, no current, no wakes...and are on board every 6 hours when the tide changes, you can maximize the output from your panels and way out do a flat panel. But as HS has found, when small angle differences from the original setting are present, wattage drops a bit and FULL output is not attained. Watch the boats in a typical anchorage on a typical day and you will find them swinginng across an arc as the wind and tide and other factors play with them. My point is NOT that the stik is inneffective. My point is that results on the water MUST be lower than on the land. With positioning 3-4 times a day I DO expect that they will outperform a flat panel. 
Also...in true cruising mode, most cruisers are OFF their boats for significant parts of the day so that further degrades the differential potential between flat and adjustable. On the other hand, many flat panel installations are shaded by the boom etc. so THAT degrades their performance. So each person has to look at their boat and their anchoring venues and cruising style and budget and make a decision that makes sense for themselves. 

HS's research is finally bringing some reality to the actual function and potential of the stik system. The product works and significant gains over flat panels and NON-MPPT controllers may be expected. The gains are substantially less when compared to flat panels that DO have an MPPT controller. My own view is that a couple of fixed panels with an MPPT controller and a wind generator is a better use of my cruising bucks and will deliver more amp hours but that is MY opinion and others may come to different conclusions based on their own needs.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Advantages as I see them, as least for me.

I think I do better on the water than in the land test with reference to positioning, because I draw 6 & 1/2 feet with a heavy keel and therefore, I mostly ride to the current here unless the wind is really kicking up. Many of the smaller sailboats in the anchorage will sail about on their anchors much more than MISTRESS does until the tide is running fast. 

Additionally, my panels are not on the house or deck and therefore that leaves me more room for life raft, dingy, water tanks, and all that other equipment we cruisers have. 

The last thing I like about the idea of SS is the ability to add to it with the additional brackets you can buy and Skip also designed a gimbaled GPS mount which he had welded on to the SS. When we purchased our wind generator we included the mounting system for it. Once in hand, Skip found he did not need the mounting system and our wind generator sits atop one of our SS, again leaving more room on deck for,.... I don't know, my feet. 

This is obviously a personal choice and one each of us needs to make based on your boat, where you are, how often you use your boat, and what kind of power consumption you are dealing with. I am very happy Skip was able to find this and did not have to pay to have it build and I rather like not having the panels on deck. 
Kathleen
aboard
Schooner MISTRESS


----------



## bobmcgov (Jul 19, 2007)

Cam: that's been my experience. My trackers help, but the real gains come from my new, smarter MPPT controller. At $800 each for the trackers, I might have been better served using fixed mounts & adding two more big PV panels. I admit the trackers are cool to watch, tho -- like big sunflowers.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Amy-
On one panel, both bumpers were on cells. On the panel I wasn't looking at, two of the three bumpers were in the clear area above the cells. 
I think a bead of silicon seal (allowed to dry up into a strip of rubber) on the aluminum, or something similar, would do the same job while staying clear of the cells. Should be a simple "field fix" to do, so you can still stow the panels without banging the glass up.
The one I'm working with has the 2000i (?) with the separate control/display head. LOTS of programming options to read and check, but even without the remote I made sure to check the voltage settings in the main box. I would assume that if you select lower voltage for the bulk/acceptance charge, it should be able to put out higher amperage instead. 
Maybe you're using a larger thirstier battery bank, so the controller is trying to feed it with more amps at less voltage during the charge? (I have no idea what the program tries to do that way, I've only noticed that this one seems to "lead" the battery voltage but not simply feed it the max that it was set for, at least not in bulk phase, which is all I was reading from. Never got enough watts to get past that.)
A good point, that with a wind gen on top of the SolarStik (one reason they included a standard "pipe" up top) it conserves even more resources and allows that AND the panels to "get off the boat".
Does your wind output integrate into the same controller?

Cam-
Interesting observations on boat motions /vs/ flat panels. What is it that the sharks say? "Reality bites!" I guess this is one of those little problems where the real world gets in the way.< G >
I for one am glad to wait until you get a chance to look over the numbers and think about what else is going on.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Here goes... the summary to the saga... I hope I have been completely accurate here...

THe questions regarding the SS, for those that do not want to read 44000 pages of good info, bad info, name calling, etc... is:

1) WHAT IS REAL WORLD OUTPUT FOR A CRUISER?
2) DOES IT JUSTIFY THE PRICE?

Am I wrong here?? THat is the basis for this conversation.

Answers:

1)​The real world output for the SS, assuming a diligent turning, is in the 60's-70 ah/day (70's being wayyyy on the outside, perfect day range). Is that correct, or have I missread? So, unless you are living very frugally, 60-70 will not touch your outgo. You will have to find another means of charging, buy another solar stick(s), or both. Cruisers often ask us what our real outgo was. For us, without a watermaker, 150-180 was our number, IIRC. Cam, Soul Searcher, Btrayfors, Tartan34c, PBeezer, Faster... is that what you have seen??

I honestly do not undersatnd how people come in less than that. Maybe their kids turn off the lights?? I do not know.

2​
Here is what I have. It cost me, start to finish, about $7,500 or so. That is a lot more than the SS... but my daily average output is about 176 ah/day. That just about puts me off the grid (or totally off the grid if the kids turn off the lights).










The pic above is a frontal shot.










THis pic show the side view of the solar arch.










This pic shows a long-view of the panels across the top.

This setup consists of 4-KC 130 panels wired in series to a Outback MX-60 MPPT controller. THe cost of these was about $600/panel plus 500ish for the controller, and 400ish for the wire and lugs. THe rest is the arch, which doubles as a line holder, extra equipment holder (like dive tanks soon), and a place I can hang my dirty underwear to let them dry out (to scare away the pesky Sea Rays).

So, where is the money better spent?? These are real world numbers. Also, with a setup like mine, you can easily add a wind (which I do not think you should) or even more panels with minimal expense. A negative of mine is that you will have to find a machine/fab shop to buid the arch. The typical (if any) bimini will NOT hold that kind of weight. Thus, you have more frustration and time involoved in designing the system.

I am not against the SS. I have said that a million times I think. It seems that it is a good product with a very neat mounting system for the "right" boat wth "Realistic" views on what it will put out. However, it is simply a mounting system and if your aspirations are to be close to off the grid, you better buy a bunch of them.

Any differing opinions?

- CD


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

CD, is that a solar panel aray or the Disco Dancing Deck of your ship? < g >

Do you get any problems from seagulls and the like partying up there and leaving little deposits that shade the cells?

More important, you've got 520 Watts of panels up there, versus 100 Watts for one SolarStik, or 200 Watts for a pair of them. If we pulled a random number out the air and said a SS could provide 60-70AH in a day from the 100W panel set...You are getting 176AH out of a 520 W array.

Hmmm...they're going some 65% efficiency (comparing AH to W, crudely and incorrectly but still meaningful for the comparison) while you're getting about 30% efficiency from the huge flat panels. You've spent less, and you're getting enough power, but you're still using twice as much panel (and real estate) to get the same wattage out of them.

Of course you don't have to fuss with the flat panels, just hose 'em down once in a while, that's worth something too.

(That's a BIG BOAT you've got there!)


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

hellosailor said:


> CD, is that a solar panel aray or the Disco Dancing Deck of your ship? < g >
> 
> Do you get any problems from seagulls and the like partying up there and leaving little deposits that shade the cells?
> 
> ...


First of all, that is NOT a disco dancing deck. Come on, you are losing credibility here. That IS a very high-tech sun-tan bed. Don't believe??? Come lay out on it and see what happens (smile).

Ok,

THere is NO way that those panels sitting flat on that oversized roll-bar are going to compete with the constant rotation and adjustment of adjustable panels. Anyone that thinks so is crazy (smile). However, I do not know what the max I can get out of my panels is. I have not depleted the batts enough to know yet. I am topped off by the time the day is over. Did that make sense?? But I can tell you that 60-70 ain't gonna cut it with my kids!! Still, I doubt they will get a whole lot more than the max I have seen (176).

Also, I am not picking sides in anything here, but I will say that in my experience, we are off of our boat a good percentage of the time when anchored. THere is no one on board to move the panels. THis mimicks what Cam said. As I have said in many threads before, we are out messing around in the dink, walking the shore, snorkeling, have a hook in the water (I hate to call what I do fishing), etc. The exception is rainy days, which is another story.

THus, some of the practicalities of rotating the panels I find unrealistic in how WE cruise. Others without kids may be different (lucky dogs). I honestly will not speak for them. But I will say our experiences mimick Cams.

On another note... as I have two worthless mutts on board, we never have had much of an issue with birds, in general. It is not that my dogs could in their dreams catch one, but I think they bark enough to make even an irritating bird want to switch islands!!

BTW, I will say again Hello, thanks for taking the time to do that. I know you did it for your own curiosity too, but your time has helped a lot of people out there make good, informed decisions... and those are the only decision worth making.

- CD


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> Also, with a setup like mine, you can easily add a wind (which I do not think you should) or even more panels with minimal expense. A negative of mine is that you will have to find a machine/fab shop to buid the arch. The typical (if any) bimini will NOT hold that kind of weight. Thus, you have more frustration and time involoved in designing the system.


Why would you not have a wind gen? To my mind, cloudy days and dark nights are at least 55-60% of the time, even in the tropics, but you can get decent wind most of the time.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

To answer CD's question...our amp hour usage per day was in the 150 range...but about 80-100 of this was due to the fridge which is a big two bay affair with dual cold plates and we were in VERY warm water with a dark hull. So...I can see smaller bat with limited refrigeration coming in around 100 amp hours a day if they are frugal. We also knew smaller boats that came in above us in daily use...usually through heavy HAM/SSB use or lots of PC & DVD watching time. 
That's why I think it is good for people to have a realistic idea of their at anchor A/H useage before making investments in battery banks, alternators, solar stiks etc.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Valiente said:


> Why would you not have a wind gen? To my mind, cloudy days and dark nights are at least 55-60% of the time, even in the tropics, but you can get decent wind most of the time.


Val,

I had a Air-X on my setup. I bought all the crap to set it up. THen when I went to put it up... I realized it was going to shade the panels. At some point it was going to shade, no matter what.

I can produce enough to stay off the grid. Why add a wind?? In the lower latts, you will have some cloudy days, but in general it is bright and sunny. You WILL have the 2-4 storm in the summer, but the winter is typically quite nice and bright and the summer keeps the sun out for a long time and generally bright most of the day.

Besides, we always like to snuggle up in anchorage as close to land as we can to avoid the wind. THat makes a wind useless, considering you probably are not getting anything out of it until 12mph, IIRC. Cam has the chart for that.

Now, if you were only going to go with one thing and wanted to keep costs low, wind would make more sense. But I have 840-880 ah on my house bank, plus seperate starter bank, so I can weather the occasional fronts and cloudy days. And if it is still cloudy days later, I have a diesel generator.

But again, when you go to plan out your array and wind, look at where you will put the wind. If it shades those panels much at all, their power output drop exponentially.

Those are just my feelings. Other dissargree.

What do you think Cam?

- CD


----------



## wind_magic (Jun 6, 2006)

What is it about the Solar Stik that makes you want to get one just to smash somebody's car up with it.  I would really like one to swing around at people and toss off of a bridge just to see what would happen to it. And I'm very non-violent.  Something about the Solar Stik brings this out, the Solar Stik is punk rock.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

To this point, my alternate energy source (wind) merely slows down the rate of discharge. Better insulation on the fridge will help, but still, if the reefer is running, along with the A/P and computer, I'm pulling 12 amps when I check the meter. I thought about adding solar, but decided a small Honda generator was the better value (for me). Aside from the fact I don't really have the space to add enough panels, unless I make the boat look like the designated wreck in a Star Wars movie.

As an aside, you're all wrong about CD's panels. What they really are is his heliport.

_On the hard at Deaton's Yacht Service, Oriental, NC_


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

WindMagic-
It IS awfully similar to the old NikeZeus defense missiles. Tempting to add a rocket engine and a couple of fins and see if anyone gets upset by one.<G>

John-
As long as you're in range of fuel stations, I've got to agree that a small genset makes an awful lot of sense for a lot of users. Cheaper than the solar panels and electronics alone, higher output, smaller. If you don't need to burn an awful lot of gasoline to meet your needs....could be simply way cheaper and simpler overall, for many.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Where has all the invective gone?? geesh, you are all being so nice all of a sudden.

anyway, Hellosailor... the blue sky control that came with our solar stik doesn't have a feature that totals the amp-hours of the day. I take it that yours does? Did we get the right one, or did you get the right one?

It appears that ours shows three numerical values:
battery voltage
solar panel current (at solar panel voltage)
actual charge current (after the 2000E does it's thing with mppt)

Our lunchtime (about an hour straight) observation today is as follows:

outside conditions: clear, 90 degrees
batt voltage: 12.2 to 12.3
solar panel current: 6.1
output charge current: 7.8

this is all data directly from the 2000E display. We had alot of running around to do today, so all we can gve you is a brief report.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Amy-
"the blue sky control that came with our solar stik doesn't have a feature that totals the amp-hours of the day. I take it that yours does? Did we get the right one, or did you get the right one?"
I'm sure you got the "right" one, the one I am working with is just a different model, different options. It is what was available.

"outside conditions: clear, 90 degrees"
OK, that says the panel outout is slightly degraded by the heat.

"batt voltage: 12.2 to 12.3
solar panel current: 6.1
output charge current: 7.8 "

The numbers tell me that your batteries are nowhere near full, so the controller is easily able to take excess voltage from the panels (probably over 16V) and squeeze out some extra amperage instead. No way to tell, without using an extra meter, what VOLTAGE it is charging at though. For all we know, it could be charging at 12.6 volts times 7.8A, which would be 98 watts--within the spec for your panels in blazing sunlight. No miracle--just good efficient charging.

I'm so lucky, it is supposed to rain on and off all week, so I don't have to feel guilty at all about not being able to spend Quality Time with a solar panel at all.< g > Not till next weekend, at least.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

*THE TRUTH...THE REAL TRUTH...

IN 1969, AREA 57 DEVELOPPED WHAT WOULD LATER BE....

THE DOOM OF SAILNET.....

EXTRA TERRESTERIAL STUFF....​*
*THANKS TO THE PORTUGUESE LUNAR PROGRAM, THAT STARTED IN 1957, SPY CAMERAS SHOWED THE TRUTH BEHIND THE SOLAR ****X*


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Well, that solves the problem of knowing where the JUNIOR sized solar stiks went.< g >


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

HS....
it gets better....

check this out!!!!

It turns out U.S.S. CD was used in a 1980's hit movie.....


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

This post is to address a couple of the questions HS posed in his earlier posts after doing some testing. I finally found the time to re-read everything and understand it better and do a few calculations. I don't think anything below changes the conclusions we seem to have reached but hopefully it will tie up some loose ends&#8230;HS's statements are in bold type:

*Although I was in the bulk charge phase...is it possible that I would have seen more amperage out of the controller IF the batteries had been discharged? Maybe it was giving me higher voltage and less amperage, because that's what the battery needed more in the existing charge state?*
As you pointed out HS, it is really wattage that matters so the totals would have been the same either way. Also, since we know we never want to discharge our batts beyond 50% I think your conditions were good ones since they reflect reality and your batts were 30-40% discharged and ready for a good bulk charge rate. You were not seeing a resistance to the charge rate and what was being put into the batts in WATTAGE was close to what was available from the panels. 
What IS puzzling to me is that we never saw 14.4-14.5 V level charging out of the controller. I think the closest you got was one 14.2 reading. Is this a function of the controller that can be changed or was mis-adjusted. If not&#8230;I can see a sulfation issue cropping up over time. Your thoughts?
**************
*While looking for solar output /vs/ temp, I found http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~ozer/engr300-solar1N.pdf
Where some engineering students were measuring output versus angle to the sun. They made the SAME MISTAKE I DID, and others have, of measuring the panle output under no-load conditions. So bear in mind--when they show output voltage from the panels, they are probably WAY WRONG and the voltage probabyl drops WAY SOONER. Dunno, I didn't see any link to check with them or their professor.
But check it out, they do show how both voltage and current plummet as the panel faces away from the sun, if as I've noticed it drops much faster under load--they are way over-optimistic and panel orientation makes a much bigger difference.

*
The student experiment with regard to angle of incidence vs. power is a bit flawed for our purposes since they eliminated all reflection and did not place a load on the cells &#8230;but it shows a 10% loss in power for a 25 degree off axis shift and a 23% loss when off axis by 45 degrees. These are less than the losses you showed for off axis positioning, but&#8230;it does show BOTH that the ability to tilt and position matters a great deal during the day AND that normal swinging at anchor can also have a great effect. No surprises there. 
My guess is that with a real load&#8230;the voltage would behave in a similar manner but we have no solid data to support that&#8230;though your data would suggest that is true. You ought to write them and suggest THAT experiment for next year!! 
Caution&#8230;.MATH FOLLOWS!! (G)
According to the experiment&#8230;both POWER and CURRENT are a COSINE function of the angle of incidence. 
Example&#8230;Power= Maximum power times the COSINE of the angle of incidence. 
Lets take a 10 degree angle of incidence on a 100 watt panel (i.e. 10degrees off vertical) . Cosine of 10 degrees is .985 so multiplying by 100 watts gives you a maximum of 98.5 watts&#8230;a 1.5% loss. 
20 degrees=6%, 30= 13%, 40=24% etc. etc.

Note that this jibes well with what USERS of the solar stik have said about how MANY adjustments are necessary per day AND what Tomaz projected way early on in our earlier Stik debates. Way to go Tomaz!

But if as HS suggests&#8230;both amps and voltage drop in a cosine like manner&#8230;then power drops quite a bit quicker since power then would be:
Wattage = Cosine angle * max voltage TIMES Cosine Angle * Max AMPS&#8230;
Example at 20 degrees off vertical:
100Watt panel&#8230; (Cosine 20degrees* 17.5V) TIMES (Cosine 20degrees* 5.72amps)=88.5 Watts&#8230; a 12% loss which is about what HS measured and DOUBLE the experiments "no load" prediction.

Since we don't have actual data measurements of both approaches in a controlled environment, it seems to me that we only can safely say that getting off axis by 20 degrees&#8230;(or about 100 minutes without adjustment) causes between a 6 and 12% drop from maximum output.

******************
*Also found







a graph which lives at
http://www.locoengineering.com/Solar Info.htm
and gives a display of output-vs-time-of-day, for fixed panels. Do some calculus for me, how does their output from 10-2 compare to the entire day's output? (Nothing radical or new there, just the first nice graphs I've seen for that.) They're showing surprisingly good output at 6AM/PM, and again that's with "fixed" panels...if I were more enterprising I could combine that data with the angle-of-incidence bit from the first site to get some numbers for us, on how much gain can be gotten from angling the panels between 6AM-10AM and 2PM-6PM. Without doing the math...I suspect it's more than 20% power gain during those hours?? Take a look.*

OK&#8230;When faced to the noon sun at the ANGLE of Latitude&#8230;
from 10AM-2PM panels produce 80-100% of rated power. Average 90% of power times 1/3 of a 12 hour day. 
From 8-10 AND 2-4 they produce between about 50-80% &#8230;of rated or average 65% for 1/3 of 12
From 6-8 and 4-6 they produce between 0 and 50% of output or average 25%
So for the full day we can approximate that a ONCE aimed panel puts out the average of 25% +65% and 90% of its full rated 12 hour value or 60%. 
A 100 watt panel gives 1200 watt/hours in a 12 hour day&#8230;and 60% would be 720 watt hours. At 13.6 volts this would be 53 amp hours per day (on a perfect day and assuming no conversion losses.)

It is not clear how much of the hour to hour loss of wattage is due to not aiming the panels and how much is due to atmospheric weakening of the sun as it goes lower on the horizon. So&#8230;we can't go much further than to say that any increase beyond 53 ah's achieved is likely due to stik adjustment beyond the initial adjustment. 
But in fairness...lets also note that many panel installations can't even make that initial adjustment and will get out of whack with full output faster and cut out completely at low angles of the sun and so would not achieve even 53 ah's. 
The other thing I would take away from this link is that HS's latitude in mid summer is just as capable of producing full output as say Florida is at this time of year. The 63watt peak measured output may be the result of atmospheric absorbtion or high clouds but it is not a function of latitude. 
***************************************
*At 11:20 I measured 15.81V into the SBoost and 13.36V out of it, against 13.5-13.6 showing on it's panel. In theory the SBoost was providing about a 6-7% net gain, putting out 4.7A @ 13.6V instead of the 4.4A at 15.81V that was coming out of the panels. (Check my math, but that's what I wrote at the time.)*

OK&#8230;so you have panels putting out 69.6 watts. The Sboost&#8230;converts the excess voltage into amps and puts out 63.92 watts or an 8.2% loss from perfect conversion. What we really need to compare to is what a normal regulator would do in the same circumstance&#8230;it would preserve the amps and chop any voltage over 13.6 converting it to heat. So we would have 13.6 Volts times 4.4 amps or 59.84 Watts. Thus in this example the Sboost provides a 6.8% gain in power delivered to the batteries over a conventional 3 stage regulator. 
Even though I think we each got there differently&#8230;.out numbers agree! (G)
*********
*11AM
13.5V @ 3.1A angled to sun
moved 45d away dropped to
12.5V @ 2.5A
10% loss.*
&#8230;.umm &#8230;that is a 25% loss of power AND 12.5V means nothing is going into the battery. Is that voltage a typo? Something is screwy there&#8230;the loss of power makes sense but I would expect the amps to drop rather than the voltage unless you were measuring panel output and not after the controller.

(then)
*13.4V @ 2.1A aimed direct
13.3V @ 1.9A aimed 15d off
*10% loss of output in an hour of sun movement!

*1:10PM
14.2V @ 3A /vs/ 14.1 C @ 2.7A (42.6 Watts)
14.2V @ 3A direct /vs/ 14.1V @ 2.7A aimed 10deg. Off*
Another 10% loss but finally we see 14+ Volts to the battery. Any time the panel is being fully driven in bulk charge mode we should be seeing over 14V if we are to expect our batteries to last. We need to understand better why you are not seeing 14+ more of the time. 13.6V is absorbtion level voltage. 
*******************
Finally, you responded to Amy saying:
*batt voltage: 12.2 to 12.3
solar panel current: 6.1
output charge current: 7.8 "

The numbers tell me that your batteries are nowhere near full, so the controller is easily able to take excess voltage from the panels (probably over 16V) and squeeze out some extra amperage instead. No way to tell, without using an extra meter, what VOLTAGE it is charging at though. For all we know, it could be charging at 12.6 volts times 7.8A, which would be 98 watts--within the spec for your panels in blazing sunlight. No miracle--just good efficient charging.*

I would suggest that the real answer lies in the fact that there was stuff running on the boat and that the numbers reflect that...remember ZERO charging is going on if the VOLTAGE is less than about 13V at the battery terminal during charging. You can't rely on that 12.3 rating with other stuff running and thus you can't rely on the amps either. I may be making the wrong assumption here but my guess is the fridge or other stuff (chargers, pc etc.) was on. Amy can correct me if that assumption is wrong and everything n the boat was shut down.
**************
So for HS and others with an interest in this death spiral of a post&#8230; I hope the above was somewhat useful or provocative to your thinking. Obviously I speculated a lot on some things and am quite open to critiques if you think I am off base in my assumptions. This continues to be most interesting. Thanks not only for your work but those earlier links HS&#8230;they were most interesting and thought provoking.

Sorry...no pictures Giu!


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

G, you have to throttle back a bit on the pictures. Once they get a thousand(?) pixels wide they blow out the whole page and that makes everything impossible to read without scrolling. The fault of the forum software, for not downsizing the images, but you can help that.

Cam-
"What IS puzzling to me is that we never saw 14.4-14.5 V level charging out of the controller. I think the closest you got was one 14.2 reading. Is this a function of the controller that can be changed or was mis-adjusted."
The controller is very adjustable. In the second run--the more recently posted raw data--keep in mind that I had it programmed for an AGM battery rather than the wet lead, so yes, some targets are lower. For the AGM bulk is set to 13.6 and acceptance to 14.4, and it was still in the bulk phase.

"http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~ozer/engr300-solar1N.pdf ...
The student experiment ...is a bit flawed for our purposes since they eliminated all reflection and did not place a load on the cells &#8230;...These are less than the losses you showed...does show BOTH that the ability to tilt and position matters a great deal during the day AND that normal swinging at anchor can also have a great effect. No surprises there. 
My guess is that with a real load&#8230;the voltage would behave in a similar manner but we have no solid data to support that&#8230;though your data would suggest that is true. You ought to write them and suggest THAT experiment for next year!! "
ROFL. No corresponding address. With any luck they will go to work someplace besides NASA.< g > I can confirm from my own second day of testing, that with a real load the voltage does go down similarly. As it did in low-light, when the panels were loaded.

"Caution&#8230;.MATH FOLLOWS!! (G)"
Wait, I'll put on my bunker gear and thermal goggles.

"According to the experiment&#8230;both POWER and CURRENT are a COSINE function of the angle of incidence. 
...Cosine of 10 degrees is .985 so multiplying by 100 watts gives you a maximum of 98.5 watts&#8230;a 1.5% loss. 
20 degrees=6%, 30= 13%, 40=24% etc. etc."
...But if as HS suggests&#8230;both amps and voltage drop in a cosine like manner&#8230;then power drops quite a bit quicker since power then would be:...
Since we don't have actual data measurements of both approaches in a controlled environment, it seems to me that we only can safely say that getting off axis by 20 degrees&#8230;(or about 100 minutes without adjustment) causes between a 6 and 12% drop from maximum output."

Obviously, these need to ship with a "panel monkey" that can sit up there and adjust the panels every hour or so in exchange for a food pellet. Perhaps the unemployed Capuchin (?) monkeys that are no longer able to find work with organ grinders?

******************
"OK&#8230;When faced to the noon sun at the ANGLE of Latitude&#8230;
A 100 watt panel gives 1200 watt/hours in a 12 hour day&#8230;and 60% would be 720 watt hours. At 13.6 volts this would be 53 amp hours per day (on a perfect day and assuming no conversion losses.)"
So you are suggesting an output equal to ~seven hours of sunlight, versus the common six hours suggested here and there, for tropical locations.

***************************************
"...(Check my math, but that's what I wrote at the time.)

OK&#8230;so you have panels putting out 69.6 watts. ...Thus in this example the Sboost provides a 6.8% gain in power delivered to the batteries over a conventional 3 stage regulator. 
Even though I think we each got there differently&#8230;.out numbers agree! (G)"
*********
"11AM
13.5V @ 3.1A angled to sun
moved 45d away dropped to
12.5V @ 2.5A
10% loss.
&#8230;.umm &#8230;that is a 25% loss of power AND 12.5V means nothing is going into the battery. Is that voltage a typo?" 
Nope. Read it from the panel's display. It did not like being angled 45d away from the sun. My direct readings (multimeter) are four digits, the SB's are 3-digit. Maybe the sun ducked for just the wrong moment behind a small cloud while I was looking the other way?
...
"1:10PM
14.2V @ 3A /vs/ 14.1 C @ 2.7A (42.6 Watts)
14.2V @ 3A direct /vs/ 14.1V @ 2.7A aimed 10deg. Off
Another 10% loss but finally we see 14+ Volts to the battery. Any time the panel is being fully driven in bulk charge mode we should be seeing over 14V if we are to expect our batteries to last. We need to understand better why you are not seeing 14+ more of the time. 13.6V is absorbtion level voltage. ?"
It does seem odd, I can only speculate as before that the charge algorithm is set up to supply amperage first, voltage second, and to supply just "battery plus xx%" voltage in order to maximize the amperage. Both the display and indicator lights indicated BULK not ACCEPTANCE in that phase. And bulk was set for 13.6 for the AGM battery I was using, per the manufacturer's recommendation that anything above it would not contribute to the charge.

*******************
"Finally, you responded to Amy saying:
batt voltage: 12.2 to 12.3
...The numbers tell me that your batteries are nowhere near full, so ..."

"I would suggest that the real answer lies in the fact that there was stuff running on the boat and that the numbers reflect that...Amy can correct me if that assumption is wrong and everything n the boat was shut down."

If you expect her to take notes, you may have to send her a notepad.< g >

"This continues to be most interesting."
NOW, to apply for the government grant money. I'll have to ask the folks at Sandia if they've got any budget left.< G >


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

G, you have to throttle back a bit on the pictures. Once they get a thousand(?) pixels wide they blow out the whole page and that makes everything impossible to read without scrolling. The fault of the forum software, for not downsizing the images, but you can help that.

Cam-
"What IS puzzling to me is that we never saw 14.4-14.5 V level charging out of the controller. I think the closest you got was one 14.2 reading. Is this a function of the controller that can be changed or was mis-adjusted."
The controller is very adjustable. In the second run--the more recently posted raw data--keep in mind that I had it programmed for an AGM battery rather than the wet lead, so yes, some targets are lower. For the AGM bulk is set to 13.6 and acceptance to 14.4, and it was still in the bulk phase.

"http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~ozer/engr300-solar1N.pdf ...
The student experiment ...is a bit flawed for our purposes since they eliminated all reflection and did not place a load on the cells &#8230;...These are less than the losses you showed...does show BOTH that the ability to tilt and position matters a great deal during the day AND that normal swinging at anchor can also have a great effect. No surprises there. 
My guess is that with a real load&#8230;the voltage would behave in a similar manner but we have no solid data to support that&#8230;though your data would suggest that is true. You ought to write them and suggest THAT experiment for next year!! "
ROFL. No corresponding address. With any luck they will go to work someplace besides NASA.< g > I can confirm from my own second day of testing, that with a real load the voltage does go down similarly. As it did in low-light, when the panels were loaded.

"Caution&#8230;.MATH FOLLOWS!! (G)"
Wait, I'll put on my bunker gear and thermal goggles.

"According to the experiment&#8230;both POWER and CURRENT are a COSINE function of the angle of incidence. 
...Cosine of 10 degrees is .985 so multiplying by 100 watts gives you a maximum of 98.5 watts&#8230;a 1.5% loss. 
20 degrees=6%, 30= 13%, 40=24% etc. etc."
...But if as HS suggests&#8230;both amps and voltage drop in a cosine like manner&#8230;then power drops quite a bit quicker since power then would be:...
Since we don't have actual data measurements of both approaches in a controlled environment, it seems to me that we only can safely say that getting off axis by 20 degrees&#8230;(or about 100 minutes without adjustment) causes between a 6 and 12% drop from maximum output."

Obviously, these need to ship with a "panel monkey" that can sit up there and adjust the panels every hour or so in exchange for a food pellet. Perhaps the unemployed Capuchin (?) monkeys that are no longer able to find work with organ grinders?

******************
"OK&#8230;When faced to the noon sun at the ANGLE of Latitude&#8230;
A 100 watt panel gives 1200 watt/hours in a 12 hour day&#8230;and 60% would be 720 watt hours. At 13.6 volts this would be 53 amp hours per day (on a perfect day and assuming no conversion losses.)"
So you are suggesting an output equal to ~seven hours of sunlight, versus the common six hours suggested here and there, for tropical locations.

***************************************
"...(Check my math, but that's what I wrote at the time.)

OK&#8230;so you have panels putting out 69.6 watts. ...Thus in this example the Sboost provides a 6.8% gain in power delivered to the batteries over a conventional 3 stage regulator. 
Even though I think we each got there differently&#8230;.out numbers agree! (G)"
*********
"11AM
13.5V @ 3.1A angled to sun
moved 45d away dropped to
12.5V @ 2.5A
10% loss.
&#8230;.umm &#8230;that is a 25% loss of power AND 12.5V means nothing is going into the battery. Is that voltage a typo?" 
Nope. Read it from the panel's display. It did not like being angled 45d away from the sun. My direct readings (multimeter) are four digits, the SB's are 3-digit. Maybe the sun ducked for just the wrong moment behind a small cloud while I was looking the other way?
...
"1:10PM
14.2V @ 3A /vs/ 14.1 C @ 2.7A (42.6 Watts)
14.2V @ 3A direct /vs/ 14.1V @ 2.7A aimed 10deg. Off
Another 10% loss but finally we see 14+ Volts to the battery. Any time the panel is being fully driven in bulk charge mode we should be seeing over 14V if we are to expect our batteries to last. We need to understand better why you are not seeing 14+ more of the time. 13.6V is absorbtion level voltage. ?"
It does seem odd, I can only speculate as before that the charge algorithm is set up to supply amperage first, voltage second, and to supply just "battery plus xx%" voltage in order to maximize the amperage. Both the display and indicator lights indicated BULK not ACCEPTANCE in that phase. And bulk was set for 13.6 for the AGM battery I was using, per the manufacturer's recommendation that anything above it would not contribute to the charge.

*******************
"Finally, you responded to Amy saying:
batt voltage: 12.2 to 12.3
...The numbers tell me that your batteries are nowhere near full, so ..."

"I would suggest that the real answer lies in the fact that there was stuff running on the boat and that the numbers reflect that...Amy can correct me if that assumption is wrong and everything n the boat was shut down."

If you expect her to take notes, you may have to send her a notepad.< g >

"This continues to be most interesting."
NOW, to apply for the government grant money. I'll have to ask the folks at Sandia if they've got any budget left.< G >


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

hellosailor said:


> G, you have to throttle back a bit on the pictures. Once they get a thousand(?) pixels wide they blow out the whole page and that makes everything impossible to read without scrolling. The fault of the forum software, for not downsizing the images, but you can help that.


HS, I'm sorry about that.

I can tell yolu how to tune the rigging, how to do things on the boat, how to trim, how to size the sails, and a few other things, but unfortunately, doing what you ask I really don't know...I am computer chalenged..

I just take the photos as they are. I will try to reduce them.

Sorry


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Giu-

Get Picasa, at http://picasa.google.com and irfanview, at http://irfanview.com


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

HS...ok....well I thin the problem witht the voltage is that BULK stage on AGM's should be 14.4V and Absorbtion should be the lower value but AGM mfrs are increasingly saying you can keep it at 14.2 or so even during absorbtion with float voltage declining to the 13.3 range. 

Just so all understand...BULK is the heavy loading stage where the battery is between 50 and 80% full. Absorbtion is where the battery begins to show resistance to high charge rates and goes from around 80-90% and Float is the finishing stage at lower voltage and minor amps to bring the battery to 100%. 

This should not affect any of the power measurements you've done...but certainly explains the issue I was questioning.
Here's a chart Balmar uses for their regulators charging different types of batteries:


Primary Program Settings 
.........................Universal, Deep Cycle Wet, GEL, AGM, Optima AGM
Bulk Voltage (Max) 14.1............. 14.6 .........14.1...14.4 ....14.6
Absorption Voltage 13.9............. 14.4 .........13.9... 14.2... 14.4
Float Voltage........ 13.4............. 13.4......... 13.7...13.4.... 13.4


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

I guess the tech (from a smaller battery company that makes this particular AGM) got spun, I know I most carefully wrote down what he said. ("But it was the best of butter!")

These guys did say "bulk at 13.5 to 14.4 V Maximum 10 Amps, acceptance at 14.4V" so yes, they do spec bulk at 14.4--he just said it could take higher amperage during the bulk phase if it was held down to 13.6V, with no other loss.

One thing I noticed in the pages of instructions for the SolarBoost with remote, was that there was no simple "Wet-AGM-Gel" selection, everything has to be programmed manually. Must be designed "for professional installation only".< G >


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

Giulietta said:


> HS, I'm sorry about that.
> 
> I can tell yolu how to tune the rigging, how to do things on the boat, how to trim, how to size the sails, and a few other things, but unfortunately, doing what you ask I really don't know...I am computer chalenged..
> 
> ...


In Photoshop, go under "Image", then to "Image Size". Under "Pixel Dimensions", set it to 800 in "Width". The "Height" will change automatically to 600 pixels. Save and post those works of art and they should not be quite so huge.

I looked this up in Photoshop 6. I have Photoshop CS2 on my main computer, but that's not open at the moment, so I can't check if the procedure is the same.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*roflmao!*

That was absolutely hysterical, g!! Great job!


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

That pic of the landing pad looks familiar to me for some reason... I am trying to place it... ahh, must be Top Gun. I guess I do look like a blonde haired Tom Cruise. (smile)

- CD


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

CRUISINGDAD’s 2 dogs.
It is true that Skip and I really miss our two labs who we found good homes for when we moved onto MISTRESS last year, however, we were getting a little tired of hearing the “We don’t have opposable thumbs” excuse as a good reason for not doing more around the house to help out. Sounds like at least your dogs chase the birds away from clean decks. 

___________________
Giulietta, I can tell you how to tune the rigging, how to do things on the boat, how to trim, how to size the sails, and a few other things, but unfortunately, doing what you ask I really don't know...I am computer chalenged..

If you use Microsoft Picture to work on your photos, or really most any picture program, find the edit button and click on it, and then most have a resize button. From there you can usually choose an option like large web pic or small web pic. For this forum it is best to use small web pics. You can also resize to a custom fit, but you will probably find the options easier to use. IT IS IMPORTANT TO COPY THE ORIGINAL PIC FIRST AND THEN CHANGE THE COPY. This way you will always have the original and can take any of these pics and do all the crazy things you do with them over and over again. I was slow on the pic from Cruisingdad’s panels, until I scrolled down and then noticed which pic it was. Very Funny!

_____________________
Camaraderie says,
HS...ok....well I thin the problem witht the voltage is that BULK stage on AGM's should be 14.4V and Absorbtion should be the lower value but AGM mfrs are increasingly saying you can keep it at 14.2 or so even during absorbtion with float voltage declining to the 13.3 range.

I am not certain but I think you have been both talking about the regulator in the BlueSky. Our 4 AGM 8Ds top out at 14.8 for our house bank, however, Skip preset the controller to top out at 14.4 or 14.5, and the regulator will start controlling the amount of input starting at 13.9. I believe these are some of the options you get to program into the system yourself. When, usually around mid day the BlueSky starts to blink it means that it is regulating the input. I will usually plug in the laptop and cell phones at this time and watch the indicator rise right away because of the load. This rise will bring the panels back up to normal. 

Please a small note referencing refrigeration. Skip says for every boat he has ever worked on with reference to the refrigeration; almost all have less insulation than the unit requires to run efficiently and this is usually the biggest draw and causes cruisers the most frustration.
Kathleen
aboard
Schooner MISTRESS


----------



## AnnapolisStar (Jul 25, 2007)

*Some more comments*

I have a free solar panel simulator available at http://Yachtsoftware.org that may answer some of your questions. For example with two 120 watt Kyocera panels pointed directly at the sun full time you would get 32% more amps in June in Baltimore than if the panels were simply fixed mounted on top of a bimini. That is a lot of work in manual alignment for a not so impressive improvement in output power.

The program also shows tables of expected amps at all times of the day including the morning and evening for both a user specified fixed mounting angle and a perfectly aligned with the sun panel. For Baltimore in June with a simple PWM controller charging a depleted battery:

Mounted	Aligned
Time	on Bimini	With Sun
5:12 AM 0.0 Amps 0.0 Amps
6:26 AM 1.7 Amps 8.4 Amps
7:40 AM 5.2 Amps 12.1 Amps
8:53 AM 8.9 Amps 13.7 Amps
10:07AM	11.9 Amps 14.6 Amps
11:21AM	13.9 Amps 15.0 Amps
12:35PM	14.6 Amps 15.1 Amps
1:48 PM	13.9 Amps 15.0 Amps
3:02 PM	11.9 Amps 14.6 Amps
4:16 PM 8.9 Amps 13.7 Amps
5:30 PM 5.2 Amps 12.1 Amps
6:43 PM 1.7 Amps 8.4 Amps
7:57 PM 0.0 Amps 0.0 Amps

It has a good comparison between the MPPT charge Controller and the simpler PWM controller (like the C30 from Xantrex). For the dual Kyocera example you would get 16.5% more power with an MPPT controller. The MPPT controller has some drawbacks though. It is expensive, it can generate RF interference because the DC-DC conversion process operates at high frequency, and some of them have minimum input power requirements like the bzProducts model that require 100 watts. Note also that the mppt controller improvement is inversely proportional to the battery charging voltage. It really shines when the batteries are nearly depleted but the improvement is not so dramatic when charging a battery that may only be 25% down.

I have verified this simulation with hundreds of measurements on our boat s/v Star over our two year voyage along the East coast of the U.S. and down to the Bahamas.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

uhmmm, did you just stumble into this discussion, Annapolis? 

Or did you go back and read the previous thread consisting of 900 pages?


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

AStar...looks cool to mess around with. Thanks for the link. 
Pls. Clarify..are you measuring amps at a FIXED voltage and is your 32% increase based on CONTINUOUS tracking of the sun OR periodic adjustment? 
When you say "nearly depleted" on the MPPT...do you mean nearly DEAD or 50% discharged? What would you say the benefit would be vs. a PWM on a 50% recharge cycle. 
Welcome aboard!


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

A-Star, it is interesting to note from your chart that your two panels, presumbaly "same make" purchase at the same time? show about a 10% difference in output.

"It has a good comparison between the MPPT charge Controller and the simpler PWM controller (like the C30 from Xantrex)." A fast read of the C30 manual indicates it is not a PWM controller at all, but simply a RELAY, that connects/disconnects the solar panels automatically. Or did I misread that?

From what I've seen so far, no MPPT controller will actually give a 30% gain in and of itself--it looks like the gain is more on the order of 10%+ from the MPPT controller, and another 10-20% comes from the PWM power, regardless of whether that comes from an MPPT controller or an alternator or other device. Which reminds me, to call JCI and ask about PWM and batteries.


----------



## RealityCheck (Jun 2, 2007)

I looked over the SolarStik site and it looks as if they do not offer an 80 or 100 watt panel... is the problem that they are to large or could they be used with the stand on a boat. Would the standard panels and a KISS type wind generator be a better move than moving up in panel wattage. I'll be in the Carib and wind is generally available all night.

Yes, I know one question is Dependant on my power requirements... still working that one out but much of it is for the production of ICE. The cost of the Stik would almost be worth it for an unending supply of ICE cubes.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Personally I'd rather diversify (sun+wind) to make it more likely I could get power when the sun isn't shining.

As to what they offer...you'd have to ask them directly. The Stik looks robust enough to hold larger panels though.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

I just spoke this evening to an English couple on a Roberts 38 called "Serenity" who've been out cruising for years and are now doing the Great Lakes after...Brazil...

Anyway, they have an Ampair wind gen, and they commented that they make their real power (6-10 amps) towing the thing behind the boat on downwind runs. As they sensibly pointed out, the wind genny barely moves on a run, so you might as well tow a generator.

http://www.boost-energy.com/ampair/products_product4.asp


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

I would get wind generator for the caribe over solar if I had to choose. My own experience is that a couple of 80 watt fixed panels and a wind generator will reliably give you over 100amps a day on average. More can be had with an MPPT contoller and my experience was in th Bahamas with this set up. There is significantly more wind in the Caribe though many anchorages are protected from the trades by high land. 

BUT you must get a wind generator with big blades...not the multiple small ones if you want amp production in 10 knots or less which is what you get in most anchorages. See Practical Sailor review from the last 2 months! KISS or FourWinds would still be my top choices. Either of these and fixed 160 watt solar panels is less expensive than a solar stik with 100 watt panels which is the only option offered on their site.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

This is why I figure you pay more for the SolarStik to solve a small boat problem of not enough deck space/no arch than for its benefits. It's a compromise, like everything else. If you have enough room for two or three 130 W panels (about $1,500), plus a wind genset ($1,000-$1,500), it's cheaper to put 'em up facing the zenith and forget about them and you will likely get the same amps or better than two 50 W panels exquisitely and optimally aimed off a pole bolted into the transom of a 30 footer...and which will cost the same as the "passive" panel set up.

Of course, in the first scenario, you continue to make power on breezy nights and cloudy days.

This is a rare case where having a bigger boat actually saves you money, because the "real estate" is cheaper.


----------



## ebs001 (May 8, 2006)

Wind generators align themselves, all the time.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Valiente,
Thanks for the sanity. If you are actively sailing, nothing comes close to the output of the water towed generator. Duo-gen has a plus as it is convertable to wind generation for at anchor charging. I would regard it as a more reliable source of charging as well, because it will be charging when you really need your batteries up, underway. If your bank is down at anchor it's generally not a crisis. If you're running low at sea it can be a problem.

I found my way to the three manufacturers via this site:http://www.onpassage.com/Alternative_Energy/Water_towed_generators.htm


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

sailaway21 said:


> Valiente,
> Thanks for the sanity. If you are actively sailing, nothing comes close to the output of the water towed generator. Duo-gen has a plus as it is convertable to wind generation for at anchor charging. I would regard it as a more reliable source of charging as well, because it will be charging when you really need your batteries up, underway. If your bank is down at anchor it's generally not a crisis. If you're running low at sea it can be a problem.
> 
> I found my way to the three manufacturers via this site:http://www.onpassage.com/Alternative_Energy/Water_towed_generators.htm


Yes, shaft generators do a similar thing with less chance of shark bite incidents (recall the Walker Log and how many cruisers in the '60s would lose to hungry fish?).

Unfortunately, or fortunately, I am installing a feathering prop to reduce drag under sail. I suppose the beauty of the towed generator is that it can be pulled out and stowed when you're topped up, and you don't necessarily have to convert it back to "air use" until you start close reaching.

Thanks for the links.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Tow generator huh???

That's hard to photoshop, but I'll come up with something....you just wait....I´ll get it done.....


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

How about a Panda genset on pontoons chained to the stern of Cam's boat? You could put a barbeque on it for veracity.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Giu,
How about a 16kW diesel genset by yanmar?


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Keep'em a comin.....keep'em a comin.....

As they say here in Rodeo land....


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Towed Generator? Is that where you put the Gen in the dink and tow it behind to reduce noise?


----------



## RealityCheck (Jun 2, 2007)

Much of my Carib time is at anchor with very little long distance sailing so a towed generator would not be useful but if I were doing long passages, I would consider it.

I'm leaning toward the stick with the KISS wind gen... they do make an adapter. I still have to figure out what my actual needs/ wants in power will be and then see if a fixed rear davit type unit or the SolarStik is the best. I do like the look of the SolarStik and wind gen vs the large flat panels on a rear support but that would probably give me more working space for other "toys" I may want to use even more power... Radar/HF Radio/Sat doms/ moon bounce arrays... geezzz maybe a really long power cord is what I need. Will never consider a genset... too much noise... not what I do sailing for and the KISS is about as low noise as a wind gen can get.

Great thread here... love the info and opinions.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

A little more news trickles in:

First, that PWM makes a difference in charging--but that difference also depends on charge state (aka SOC) and no one wants to comment beyond the Morningstar/Sandia report.

Second, that some alternators supply PWM, but others still supply DC, and again, no makers want to comment, apparently there is a Cold War going on in charger/alternator technology, still.

Third, Cam take note, that during the "bulk" phase amperage is more important than voltage, and the charging algorithm used by BS very definitely favors supplying more amperage at lower voltage, which explains why I wasn't seeing 14.4 (or 13.6) during that phase. 


Fifth, the BS controller may be 97% efficient at 24v versus 95% efficient at 12V (input voltages) so setting the panels up for 12/vs/24 volt input won't make much of a difference...although, if setting them up for 24V allows me to gain an extra hour of charging under load--that will be interesting. Haven't had a chance to ask BP about the effect of removing the diodes (since the BS takes care of that purpose) to try eeking another quarter or perhaps half volt out of the panels, either.

And of course last, the weather gods still won't whisper in my ear and let me know when there will be a nice clear sunny late afternoon to finish some testing.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Here in lovely Florida for the past four or five days we have been having afternoon thunderstorms that start hazing up the sky by late morning and staying that way for the rest of the day. It has been nice to capture what sun power I can early on with my unofficial Solar Stik(s). The AirX wind generator has also not been giving us a steady rain of power. There have been burst of energy in the afternoon when the storms come through, but overall, we are having a normal mid summer sky. For the second or third time in a year we ran the engine for an hour this evening because the batteries were down to 12.4. We probably could have lived like real sailors and been cruising conservative, but opted to use a bit of fuel.
Kathleen
aboard
Schooner MISTRESS


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Thunderstorms?

I woke up this morning and found out I'd been relocated to Kansas, seven (SEVEN) tornado echos were on the weather radars at the same time that an EF2 hit Brooklyn, clocked at some 115mph, which hasn't been hit by a tornado in 50 years.

Kansas...I'm sorry, I'm sure someone loves living there, I just never signed up for that tour.

Meanwhile...I found out that my DMM apparently _was _out of calibration. While I hasten to get the last work done, I'm also trying to make sure it is better calibrated, but for now, I have to assume the discrepancy between my measurements and the SB's numbers, were mainly an error on my end.

Heatwaves, torrents, overcasts, tornadoes...this is NO WAY TO GET TESTS DONE!
< G >


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

hellosailor said:


> ...I found out that my DMM apparently _was _out of calibration. While I hasten to get the last work done, I'm also trying to make sure it is better calibrated, but for now, I have to assume the discrepancy between my measurements and the SB's numbers, were mainly an error on my end.
> 
> Heatwaves, torrents, overcasts, tornadoes...this is NO WAY TO GET TESTS DONE!
> < G >


And how did you know it was out of calibration??? You did the ole key on the kite trick, didn't you? (smile)

- CD


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Well, no. I though it was IN calibration because it showed a tight 12v regulated supply as 12.0x volts. But now I have to suspect that source--because I remembered where I had failed to unpack my other DMM from, and the other DMM said "He's nuts". The other DMM seems to read much closer to the SolarBoost readout, and it is the better quality of the two.

I've got to do some more looking at this, poll the usual suspects and see what seems reasonable. Ain't gonna send either one off for lab calibration though.< G >


----------



## bvibob (Jul 23, 2007)

The Practical Sailor article on the Solarstik came out today......


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

bvibob said:


> The Practical Sailor article on the Solarstik came out today......


Made for an interesting read. IT was a good review, pretty much stating what has been said in this forum though. A good product, well made, and good idea. 70-80 ah/day is "optimistic", but adding a wind gen on there can make 100 ah/day a real possibility.

At least, that is how I read it.

- CD


----------



## Pamlicotraveler (Aug 13, 2006)

Did they mention how ugly it is? I guess I should go read it...I subscribe to PS but haven't had the time today.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Anyone got that up on the web? Maybe...SS has it up on their site?


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

It is on their site. That is how I read it.

- CD


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

CD-
"It is on their site. That is how I read it."
The review is on WHOSE site? I looked the SS site, (plain HTML entry only) didn't see a word about it. Or is it only on the PS paid site? 

Got URL?


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

BVIBob...thanks for the tip but it is time for you to go back into lurking mode Conchy Joe. Busted.


----------



## Pamlicotraveler (Aug 13, 2006)

camaraderie said:


> BVIBob...thanks for the tip but it is time for you to go back into lurking mode Conchy Joe. Busted.


Did we miss something Cam? cookies?


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Moderator's tools. double secret but accurate!!


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

hellosailor said:


> CD-
> "It is on their site. That is how I read it."
> The review is on WHOSE site? I looked the SS site, (plain HTML entry only) didn't see a word about it. Or is it only on the PS paid site?
> 
> Got URL?


It is on the Practical Sailor online site. I assume you must pay for that?? I am am paying member, so I cannot say for sure.

- CD


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Cam-
As of right here, right now, today? On the solarstik site?

" Media Reviews

Sail Miami Review
Posted Sunday, January 7, 2007

Blue Water Sailing
Getting the Most out of your House Battery Bank

Herman Sears Review 
KI4NJT - HAM radio consultant

Conchy Joe Article 
Posted Saturday January 20, 2007

www.navagear.com Article 
August 2nd, 2007 · by Aaron Tinling, Publisher

Hunter "Shoot the Breeze" Article
Read Hunter Marine's endorsement of the Solar Stik™

Videos

Solar Stik™ Marine Video

Solar Stik™ Terra Video

Latitudes and Attitudes 2006"

Now, I don't mind if you're doing recreational drugs, but it really is impolite of you not to share them.<G>


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

It is under Chandlery on this issue online at www.practical-sailor.com

You may have to pay. Anyone that wants it for free, I have Hellosailors credit card number. He won't mind.

- CD


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Looks like I won't be eating crow anytime soon. But I was underestimating the price of $3800! So it is actually 800 bucks worth of panels and controller and 3000 bucks worth of stik. 
Anyway, this was a fun thread. Thanks again HS for your good work and balanced reporting in your testing...I think you did a more thorough job than PS...but it is nice to see similar results.


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

based on the results here, and on PS, I don't need pictures any longer.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Cam-
"800 bucks worth of panels and controller "
Huh? A real fast look:
Two BP350U panels, list $458US discount $375US. Plus shipping...let's say $50 to get them intact. About $800 for the panels alone.
BlueSky SolarBoost 2000e Controller: $236 on sale for $199US, another $200 plus shipping.

So let's be hard, but real. There's a fast thousand dollars worth of panels and electronics there, and many shoppers will pay more. Oh, throw in another $50-100 for the connecting cable. So...

$2700 worth of stik may sound extreme, I know I can use U-bolts and rail sections for far less, too. But a triple-axis adjustable and securable mount...Honestly, have you had any custom welding done, in stainless or aluminum?
Custom radar arch, bowsprit repairs, any mods? I've had some welding bills, and trying to have a metal shop fab up the base and adjusting arms for that price--would mean calling your brother in law and telling him you were locking up your wife and the beer until he was done.

We won't all need that kind of mount, we won't all mount it. Many of us are quite content not to sail on Hinckleys too.

Looking on the positive side, we've all learned that even if we don't need the Hinckley, the expensive MPPT controllers are worth switching to, and gimballing the solar panels (instead of throwing them on the deck) can also boost production an easy 30% per day.

The flip side of the question is...What can anyone fab up a gimballing rail mount (or other mount) for, that will allow solar panels of this size to be rotated in three dimensions to track the sun? Is there anything else out there? (Kinda like a "RAM" mount on steroids? Or a coupla Capuchin monkeys in sailor suits?<G>)

I'd still like someone to either post a public synopsis of results of the PS report (which is legal and proper and does not violate copyright laws) or to PM me and email some info.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

THey basically said:

It is a nice system, a nice mount, but expensive. They also basically said that 70-80 ah/day was quite "optimistic". They averaged 7 a/h from 10-2, with a max output of 7.9 (IIRC) at noon, moving them every hour. They seemed to portray it was a neat mounting system, and would be a good option for some people, but you can buy the pieces on your own much cheaper (now where have I heard that before)??

You know, I have no problem with the SS. I think it is the right design for the right person... as long as that person is realistic. I have tried to stay out of the strong emotions on both sides, but I will say again that if you are looking for a system and mount for under 4k where you can also likely put a wind gen on there and be done with it... look at the SS. If you want something that will basically get you off the grid and does not require any attention other than washing off bird poop, go have an arch built and put on a large array. The cost of a large array is about twice as much as the SS, but it can also serve as davits for a dink, mounting other objects, and will get you off the grid or very close to, and requires no attention. If you add on the other attributes, maybe it is not so expensive anymore. Factor the cost of the arch and panels against a diesel generator, and you will vastly come out better with solar.

- CD

PS I have been running exclsively off of solar for about 2 months (or more)now. My charger has been turned off, both due to lack of electricity and because frankly, I make power for free now.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

HS...in an earlier post on the other thread I researched and found the whole thing for about $800 as I recall but don't want to bother with doing that again for the sake of a few hundred. 
I do not disagree with your analysis that the stik is well built and a precision piece of work that may appeal to a certain customer. My larger point is that 3 way adjustability and adjustment 3 times a day at minimum is a pain in the butt for a cruiser and that in ON THE WATER at anchor situations, much of the directabiliity benefits of the stik are lost due to tide, wind, current and wake moving the boat while you are down below or off the boat and not paying attention. 
It is better and cheaper IMHO to simply rail or bimini mount two LARGER panels AND get a wind generator to supply the needs of most cruisers. I fully understand that the stik is a solution for some. Just pointing out that other less expensive and less labor intensive options exist for most to get the requisite A/H's into their battery bank.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Cam-
I think we're generally in agreement.
" My larger point is that 3 way adjustability and adjustment 3 times a day at minimum is a pain in the butt for a cruiser" 
Eh, dunno. I have friends who say it must be a pain in the butt to adjust lines and sheets and sails, just get a motor boat and drive.<G> So, once every hour while you are getting your eyes around the boat looking to play "what's wrong with this picture"...you tilt a panel. (shrug).

"and that in ON THE WATER at anchor situations, much of the directabiliity benefits of the stik are lost due to tide, wind, current and wake moving the boat while you are down below or off the boat and not paying attention." 
Absolutely. For an unattended boat, it won't do much. This is a product for a piece of the cruising market, not the mooring queens.


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

So Practical Sailor says 70 to 80...

I'm looking at a Solar Stik ad in Latt & Atts that says "AVERAGE DAILY POWER PRODUCTION IS 80 TO 100 AMP-HOURS."

Average daily production, not peak production or some other such thing.

I guess PS must be a bunch of incompetent product testers as opposed to the always truthful & forthright people connected to Solar Stik.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

????? SolarStik and its advocates have tended to overestimate the capabilities of the system. I think PS's numbers sound about right.


xort said:


> So Practical Sailor says 70 to 80...
> 
> I'm looking at a Solar Stik ad in Latt & Atts that says "AVERAGE DAILY POWER PRODUCTION IS 80 TO 100 AMP-HOURS."
> 
> ...


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

sailingdog said:


> ????? SolarStik and its advocates have tended to overestimate the capabilities of the system. I think PS's numbers sound about right.


I think he was being sarcastic, SD.

- CD


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Yeah, apparently more confusion because of the MPPT charging algorithm a mentioned before.

The MPPT controller they are using will not simply apply a conventional 14.4V bulk charge in th bulk phase--even if you are programmed for them. It seems to apply about 0.1-0.2V more than the battery voltage, at the highest amperage it can supply. This is totally contradictory to conventional charging logic, but apparently with PWM it works.

So if you did something foolish, or tried to test a hard charge, and started with a battery that was at 11.4 volts (i.e. dead) instead of the more typical 12.1 volts that some of us would never try to get below...

You'd see the SolarStik pumping out lots of "amps" and "amphours" instead of normal power.

Let's pull some numbers out of the air, suppose a 100W array put out 100W for 8 hours during the typical waterfront day in Hades. 800W-hours, total, presumably at the 17.5V maximum voltage for the panel. That would be something like 800/17.5 =45.7AH on a good day in Hell, right?

Now, take the same solar array in Hell and plug in an MPPT controller and a dead battery. After all, in Hell all batteries are probably dead anyway. The math hanges, 800/11.4=70AH!

Yes, the same array in the same conditions might be putting out 70AH or 45AH, depending on how many volts it was putting out at the same time.

And I think there has been a bit of confusion over that, which I would expect SolarStik to clear up. Their users are split between sailors (who shouldn't be cycling batteries down that low) and emergency powe deployments, like OEM centers, where the batteries will be ridden all the way down to "dead" on a regular basis if that is the criteria they are needed for. Heck, if I was running an OEM and needed full power 24x7, I might also say "run 'em till they die, we'll call in for more batteries when we can".

We've got the tests...they've got the feedback...figure a couple of months till they revise & replace all the ads and paperworks but I'd expect the claims will come in line with what the more extensive testing has shown: Different results for different users, in different markets.

If they were con men...they sure wouldn't have been dropping off Stiks and and saying "Here, beat on 'em and then talk it up". No body has tried to muzzle me, much less to bid on the six-figure dollar amount where I can be bribed. (gosh darn!) <G>


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*70-80 amp-hours*

well, I have to throw in our observstions. Doing rudimentary math, it seems as though we have been hovering around 70-80 per day ourselves. When we use the boat, we use quite a bit of power. Typically at the end of the day the solarboost registers about 12.8 volts for battery voltage and the "float" indication is intermittently on from night to night. But by morning, we are at about 12.2 or so. We tend to sleep with the fridge, anchor light, strereo, and all of our electronics operating. Usually by about 8:00 on a clear morning we can see about 5.5 amps on the solarboost display, which then jumps up to over 7 by about 9:00 Still not sure I understand all of that HS, but so far so good on this end as far as power goes. We are certainly not lacking for it at this point.

Thanks again. It has been fun and informative.

So, where do we go from here?


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Amy-
"But by morning, we are at about 12.2 or so. Usually by about 8:00 on a clear morning we can see about 5.5 amps on the solarboost display, "
So, for where you are, you are getting 12.2v x 5.5A for a total of 67.1 watts out of your 100 Watt array (assuming you have the standard 2x50W panels).
No magic.

Without the MPPT controller you'd probably be seeing 4.6A at 14.4V instead--with the extra voltage wasted. And without the panels being aimed (which of course you can quickly try yourself) you'd probably see another 20-45% drop in the amperage as well.

There's an old old joke that I suppose I'd better repeat because some of the forum members will be unfamiliar with it:
A guy goes into a bar with his dog. The bartender says, sorry, we don't allow dogs in here. The guy says, but he's a TALKING dog, he's special. Bartender, having heard everything, says Yeah sure, let's hear him talk. If he can talk you both can have a drink for free, and he sets up two shots.
So the guy points up to the ceiling and ask the dog "What's up there?" and the dog goes "ROOF!" and the bartender pulls back the two shots and says uh-uuh, not good enough. He says look, no nonsense, let's see what he really knows. Who was the greatest baseball player of all time? And the dog goes "RUTH!" and the bartender physically throws 'em both out on the street.

The guy dusts himself off, looks at the dog, and the dog looks back at him and says "What, I shoulda said DiMaggio?"

The morale being, THE DOG TALKS AT ALL. It doesn't matter whether the dog really knows baseball--he's talking at all and that should be enough.

Amps here, watts there...It ain't a nuclear pile, it IS about as effective as a solar installation can get. Whether the massive structure and installation is worth the price, is what my math teacher used to call "a simple exercise left to the reader". 

I've got the feeling they could cut a grand off the price and re-engineer a much trimmer model for marine use, but this "overkill" probably impresses the customers in the OEM field operations business--and there's more of them, with more budget money, than there are sailors.

The numbers, meantime...are best taken with a grain of salt and an eye for context. And it certainly has been an education about charging, I feel like I've gotten the rude surprise that "conventional" regulators, even the 3-4-stage ones, are really obsolete power wasters compared to MPPT technology and PWM-DC. And that's from battery and power folks--not from what SolarStik had to say. It's been a real eye opener.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*anybody still here?*

just thought i'd mention to you that it looks like SS went and changed their image. They got a new website and it looks like they have refined quite a bit of their marketing hype. Maybe they were paying attention to you after all 

cold down here today!


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Amy-
I can tell you from speaking to the owner, he's the first one to say right up front that he's not an electrical engineer, he's not a super-techie, but he's eager. That, and they are marketing to emergency centers and the military--folks who can and do have electrical engineers on hand. 
The charge controllers show amp hours--not watt hours. (At least, the ones SS is using show amp hours.) So, one could easily think that amp hours, into a dead battery, was a good way to measure performance. Of course 'dead' also pushes things beyond where sailors ought to go--unless you've got a job on the Styx ferry<G>. 
A lot of confusion--but the only "lies" I ever heard were from innocent end users, or from folks including myself, who sometimes said "watt" when we meant "amp" or made a simple math error--and conceded it without any fuss.

Will it replace engines on small craft? No, not quite. But if it replaces lawn jockeys and those pink plastic flamingoes (which are out of production now) it might catch on.<G> For what it is, it certainly is a nice one.

Now, if one of the many companies promising prospective investors that they are "this close" to perfecting a triple layer, or five layer, or seven layer solar cell with three to four times the efficiency of everything else, would only make that breakthrough and give us some cheap solar POWER.

Meanwhile, I'm still pissed at Westinghouse. Reddy Killowatt promised us all that we'd have home nuclear power packs, the size of hot water heaters, by the time we grew up. Well, Westinghouse, I'M STILL WAITING.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

HS-

What you need is a Mr. Fusion... coming soon to stores near you...


----------



## SimonV (Jul 6, 2006)

Defender are still advertising the SS as giving 80-100 Amps in a 24 hour period. Thats with two 50W panels.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Defender are, or at least were, a quirky place. Bear in mind it is still a small private business--not a national chain. It used to be fun when someone said "We don't have anything like that, but let me go look in the basement" and you never knew what they'd come back up with.

You probably CAN get that many "amps" out of it in 24 hours. That's exactly the problem. Amps are meaningless, unless they are given for a specific load, i.e. at a specific voltage. 90 amps at 10 volts is the same 900 watts that would "only" be 62.5 amps at 14.4 volts. 62.5 doesn't sound the same as 90, does it? But with an MPPT controller, the same 900 watts could show up either way--depending on whether it was feeding a big dead battery bank, or a fully charged system with heavy loads running.
I think Defender also took multiple months before they stuck a price tag online and listed the SS at all, after they started selling it. I'm sure they'll catch up, sooner or later. Unless someone got lost in the new and bigger basement.<G>

Not meaning any insult ot anyone, in another thread about cooking at:
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f91/how-do-you-cook-onboard-89-new-post.html
you'll see a member asking "How many amp hours for a chicken dinner?" about electric cookers. The real question is watts, not amps, but how many of us own watt meters?!

Sometimes you need precision guided missile co-ordinates to navigate, sometimes "About another hour down the road" is close enough.<G>


----------



## bestfriend (Sep 26, 2006)

Here it is!!!! Whoops! This isn't the wheat grass thread....... wait a min....where the.........


----------



## artbyjody (Jan 4, 2008)

bestfriend said:


> Here it is!!!! Whoops! This isn't the wheat grass thread....... wait a min....where the.........


You are all over the map.....stop snorting your drink....


----------



## bestfriend (Sep 26, 2006)

Wow Cam, did you really edit this down to 130 posts? Take out all the useless inane unrelated threads like this one?


----------



## denby (Feb 21, 2007)

Sway is not going to be happy.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

This is the SHORT solar stick thread...the 1000 posters is the wind and solar thread! Go find Simon and drink your san francisco "wheat grass" shake!


----------



## bestfriend (Sep 26, 2006)

Rats! Newman!!!


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*anyone read this article*

Lats & Atts, May issue, "Going Green" section. No mention of the solar stik, but a pretty "interesting" article regarding greening your boat with solar.

I hate to admit it, but after what I learned from this thread, and having bought a stik, I don't think that the article painted a very clear picture at all.

It states it is possible to mount two 210 watt panels on a articulating mount (like the solar stik) for a small boat. I have two 50 watters on my stik and they almost do the job of my bimini!

Very little of the "solar" section seems correct or even possible to me.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Thanks for the Tip Amy...I just read the article and there is a lot of good stuff in there and then there is a lot of stuff that is presented as fact when it is actually the subject of considerable debate among those who actually use this stuff rather than install it! You are absolutely correct about his solar discussion...it must be a typo or oversight. A couple of 210W panels would take up a 5' x6.5 foot space! I wouldn't want to try articulating those in a breeze!


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

With a rack like that, who needs sails? 

Nice Tayana, by the way!


----------



## craigtoo (Aug 17, 2007)

You should see his RV...!


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

i just got back from the boat, adjusted and cleaned my solar panels. life is good


----------



## artbyjody (Jan 4, 2008)

uspirate said:


> i just got back from the boat, adjusted and cleaned my solar panels. life is good


And you judge life by how clean your solar panels are... please tell me that the Las Vegas gals are not that ahem... white gloved


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*just noticed this*

on the solarstik site, they actually linked to this forum discussion.

looks like they got a new site along the way.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

Well, credit to them for having not only a sense of humour, but great endurance.

Hey, wasn't this thread past 1,000 posts?


----------



## denby (Feb 21, 2007)

Valiente said:


> Well, credit to them for having not only a sense of humour, but great endurance.
> 
> Hey, wasn't this thread past 1,000 posts?


Wrong thread, you're thinking of the solar, wind thread.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

Right, thanks. How could I forget?

Oh, yeah...I _tried _to forget.


----------



## H2Ocruizers (Jan 6, 2009)

*In case anyone is still listening...*

I want to personally thank everyone who took part in this debate early on. It's hardly an exaggeration to say that this particular debate on Sailnet was a major factor in our successful entry into the marine marketplace... and for that, we express our sincere gratitude to all of you.

Because of the debate here, many whom might not have otherwise heard about us... did.

Many who did their homework and researched the purchase of a Solar Stik™, inadvertently stumbled into this forum. It was enough to make them further investigate, and many ended up purchasing a system.

The letters keep pouring in from cruisers around the world who bought one, and found out first hand just at how well it works (and yes, blown away by the construction as well!)

For example, one cruising couple first heard about it here in this forum... we just received a response back from him with a cruising update:

"...She's over in the Bahamas right now. it was a bit late in the season to bring her north, so we left her in Hope Town for the winter. We had multiple people dingy up to the boat at anchor asking to check out the Stik, and we sang its praises. It puts out enough power to run both reefer units with some juice left over to pump up the batteries to boot! Love it!"

This gentleman has a brand new Hylas 46 and had his system installed at the Hylas factory. He is only one writer one of many, many letters we have received.

Thank you to everyone here... we truly appreciate your spirit and opinions.

Brian Bosley


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

Well, that was unexpected.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Nice Ad!!


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

Brian B
In return for the very positive effect on your business from sailnet, can I assume you are going to be buying ad space here?


----------



## H2Ocruizers (Jan 6, 2009)

actually, yes.


----------



## craigtoo (Aug 17, 2007)

H2Ocruizers said:


> actually, yes.


Rep when I see the ad! Preliminary thanks H20.!!


----------



## H2Ocruizers (Jan 6, 2009)

*Thanx, Craig...*

...we sent an email requesting information. We'll keep an eye out for the response.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

You probably won't get one. PM and ask one the mods to forward your request to the CEO.


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

Brian
Good to see...
I wasn't sure if that first post was a rubbing of our noses in it...


----------



## H2Ocruizers (Jan 6, 2009)

*sincerity*

Thanx, Xort... I hesitated to write that, but it IS out of sincerity that I wrote it. In light of the overall discussion in here, there was really no way to write it and NOT have it pontificated by the reader, but I felt it was necessary. We are up over 100 marine systems sold in the last 16 months, and many purchasers said that they read at least something about it on the Sailnet forums before purchasing.

That is why we are making a provision in the budget to advertise here on Sailnet.

Cam, I appreciate the info... we have actually sent a couple emails with no reply... I'll follow your directive.


----------



## denby (Feb 21, 2007)

camaraderie said:


> You probably won't get one. PM and ask one the mods to forward your request to the CEO.


Cam,

Can't he PM the CEO directly? I PM Rob on occasion and he always response.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

I like the Google Ads that haunt this thread: How to MAKE your own solar cells. Oh, yeah, sure, that's got to be easy.<G>


----------



## wind_magic (Jun 6, 2006)

hellosailor said:


> I like the Google Ads that haunt this thread: How to MAKE your own solar cells. Oh, yeah, sure, that's got to be easy.<G>


The silicon only has to be 99.9999% pure, how hard could it be. It's just sand.


----------

