Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 04-06-2013, 09:21 AM   #41
Guru
 
SomeSailor's Avatar
 
City: Everett, WA
Vessel Name: Honey Badger
Vessel Model: 42' CHB Europa
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 784
To me it's still a simple business decision. The cost doesn't outweigh the benefit. I can change my lead acid batteries every couple hundred cycles and even pay someone else to do it MUCH cheaper than buying a single implementation of Lithium based batteries.
__________________
Advertisement

SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2013, 10:57 AM   #42
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeSailor View Post
To me it's still a simple business decision. The cost doesn't outweigh the benefit. I can change my lead acid batteries every couple hundred cycles and even pay someone else to do it MUCH cheaper than buying a single implementation of Lithium based batteries.
Stop using common sense and let us play with our toys!
__________________

sunchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2013, 11:33 AM   #43
Senior Member
 
deckofficer's Avatar
 
City: Northern California
Country: US
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by motion30 View Post
I really like the idea of these batteries diva.net 4500 dollars the prices are ridiculous my thought is much better to spend money on solar panels
Since I quoted $4500, I guess you mean my cell's prices are ridiculous?

Did you consider the size of my bank? In 12 volt battery terms that would be (28) 100 a-hr 12 volt batteries. Take that $4500 and divide by 28 for a battery with 7 times the cycle life. It is a bargain.
__________________
Bob
USCG Unlimited Tonnage Open Ocean (CMA)
deckofficer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2013, 01:24 PM   #44
Guru
 
SomeSailor's Avatar
 
City: Everett, WA
Vessel Name: Honey Badger
Vessel Model: 42' CHB Europa
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 784
Quote:
Originally Posted by deckofficer View Post
Take that $4500 and divide by 28 for a battery with 7 times the cycle life. It is a bargain.
It is if you need that sort of amperage, plus you'd really be racking up cycles. Ironically, I'm at IHOP across the street from Pacific Power Batteries. Just bought 8 T145 Trojans for $165 each so my whole house bank was only $1400 or so after tax. Now if they would delivery them to my engine room and haul away the old...
SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2013, 06:49 PM   #45
Guru
 
motion30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 740
Wait. somebody's correct me if I'm wrong 100 anp. 3.2 volt.cells
. X 4. ... ,still.only 100 amp.at 12.volt
motion30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2013, 08:16 PM   #46
Senior Member
 
deckofficer's Avatar
 
City: Northern California
Country: US
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by motion30 View Post
Wait. somebody's correct me if I'm wrong 100 anp. 3.2 volt.cells
. X 4. ... ,still.only 100 amp.at 12.volt
Those were for the kayak, (8) 100 a-hr cells, or (2) 12 volt 100 a-hr batteries.

The above post was for (16) 700 a-hr cells or (1) 48 volt 700 a-hr bank.
__________________
Bob
USCG Unlimited Tonnage Open Ocean (CMA)
deckofficer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 06:37 AM   #47
Guru
 
CaptTom's Avatar
 
City: Southern Maine
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Cygnus
Vessel Model: Prairie 36 Coastal Cruiser
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,373
I've learned it's never a good cost/benefit case when you're jumping to new technology.

To justify it, you have to assume that the early model you're buying is going to last the entire payback period. When that period is very long (5-10 years or more) then you have two issues. One is that they may not last that long. What if there was some hidden manufacturing defect that won't be corrected until the technology matures?

Second, your brand-new technology will be hopelessly obsolete in 5-10 years. Obviously if you made a good decision for your application, and nothing changes in that time, and you're NOT the kind of person who wants the latest technology, your business case may still stand. But it's quite a gamble.

I jumped on the CFL bandwagon early and bought light bulbs that would pay for themselves in just 10 years (or something like that.) Here I am a few years later, replacing them with newer models that put out more and better light, take less time to come on, and aren't dim for the first 10 minutes like those original models. I have no intention of living with those crappy old bulbs until they pay for themselves. Oh, and the new ones don't cost much more than the old incandescents.
CaptTom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 06:44 AM   #48
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,525
"Oh, and the new ones don't cost much more than the old incandescent".

So the best saving might have been a draw full of incandescent.

New unproven tech is for the chest pounding "first adapters" , with a draw full of unwanted currency , that wish to strut the dock touting their greenness..

Anybody want an all electric car from another bankrupt car assembler??

Some slightly used Boeing batt packs?
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 08:39 AM   #49
Guru
 
City: North Charleston, SC
Country: USA
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptTom View Post
....................I jumped on the CFL bandwagon early and bought light bulbs that would pay for themselves in just 10 years (or something like that.) Here I am a few years later, replacing them with newer models that put out more and better light, take less time to come on, and aren't dim for the first 10 minutes like those original models. I have no intention of living with those crappy old bulbs until they pay for themselves. Oh, and the new ones don't cost much more than the old incandescents.
You too, ehh? I got tired of waiting two or three minutes for light after flipping the switch. And ended up stubbing my toes and crashing into things.

I also have two of the early US Congress mandated low water use toilets at home that as often as not, clog when attempting to flush a #2.
rwidman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 09:00 AM   #50
Guru
 
SomeSailor's Avatar
 
City: Everett, WA
Vessel Name: Honey Badger
Vessel Model: 42' CHB Europa
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 784
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptTom View Post
I've learned it's never a good cost/benefit case when you're jumping to new technology.
That's not true. I am a project manager at Boeing and everything I do is funded with IR&D (Integrated Research & Development) money. I don't need a business case at all. I only have to identify a legitimate technology need or a market gap in technology to proceed through discovery and feasibility studies.

All of this good stuff (I'll use the 787 as an example) was a great technology bet that had little (if any) business case. You just have to have a keen sense of the difference between invention and innovation. First to market innovation can build a business case where there is none currently.

Lithium batteries, onboard oxygen generation, self inerting fuel tank, electric brakes, heads up displays, full carbon wing and fuselage, full time data connectivity, onboard aircraft health management, active dimming windows, LED interior lighting, RFID tagging of LRUs, paperless cockpit, elimination of engine bleed for start and cooling, decreased cabin pressure, wireless tire pressure monitoring, synthetic vision, glidepath optimization, airport position awareness, and many more are examples of things that didn't have much (if any) business case at the time, but is at the heart of why so many people want this airplane.

Nothing wrong with innovation, but that bleeding edge can be a lonely place. Especially if it's misplaced technology. My batteries work just fine, and no new battery technology is probably gonna improve that enough for me to jump on just yet.
SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 09:30 AM   #51
Guru
 
alormaria's Avatar
 
City: Trenton
Country: USA
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 902
Quote:
Originally Posted by MurrayM View Post

Resale? Nope, no way. I'm a one boat kinda guy! Been using the same camera, lenses, tripod, and spot meter I bought 30 years ago and never needed to buy more gear. One girlfriend/common law wife for 28 years too. Man, I'm on a roll
Need pictures of the camera gear.
__________________
Al Johnson
34' Marine Trader
"Angelina"
alormaria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 09:38 AM   #52
Guru
 
City: North Charleston, SC
Country: USA
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by MurrayM View Post
Resale? Nope, no way. I'm a one boat kinda guy! Been using the same camera, lenses, tripod, and spot meter I bought 30 years ago and never needed to buy more gear. One girlfriend/common law wife for 28 years too. Man, I'm on a roll
It's good that you can also see the future. Know that your boat will never be wrecked or sunk. Know that you will never forced to move far from the water (job, family, etc.), know that you have enough years of healthy life in front of you to enjoy those high priced batteries.

Any person who states that they will "always" or "never" do something just isn't thinking clearly.

As for the camera, those film cameras were cool, what with the detachable flash and interchangeable lenses, but digital photography and computer manipulation are far in advance of what could be done 30 years ago.
rwidman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 10:25 AM   #53
Guru
 
MurrayM's Avatar
 
City: Kitimat, North Coast BC
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Badger
Vessel Model: 30' Sundowner Tug
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwidman View Post
It's good that you can also see the future. Know that your boat will never be wrecked or sunk. Know that you will never forced to move far from the water (job, family, etc.), know that you have enough years of healthy life in front of you to enjoy those high priced batteries.

Any person who states that they will "always" or "never" do something just isn't thinking clearly.
Silly me. I forgot the little blue dude "I'm joking around here taking things to the extreme for the halibut" winky face

Oh, and again, I'm not buying these batteries ( )

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwidman View Post
As for the camera, those film cameras were cool, what with the detachable flash and interchangeable lenses, but digital photography and computer manipulation are far in advance of what could be done 30 years ago.
Get your nose inches away from a 20x24 print of mine made from a 4x5 negative, and the skies / clouds are buttery smoooooth. Match that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alormaria View Post
Need pictures of the camera gear.
Weird, as I have a digi-snapshot camera, but I've never taken a photo of my gear with it. Here's a shot I poached off the web. (For those who are into large format gear, I have an early Zone VI 4x5 camera outfit).
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Wists 4x5.jpg
Views:	51
Size:	67.6 KB
ID:	17828  
__________________
"The most interesting path between two points is not a straight line" Murray Minchin
MurrayM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 12:11 PM   #54
Senior Member
 
deckofficer's Avatar
 
City: Northern California
Country: US
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 409
I used to have a Linhof 4X5 sheet film camera. I was an early adopter of CFL because at the time 25 years ago I was designing off grid power for remote home sites. When you have to roll your own power and store it, a bulb that gives 5X the lumens per given watt is the way to go.

If I used LA batteries for my kayak that would give 80 nm range, the weight would sink it. For a catamaran sailboat weight is also an issue, and if you want electric propulsion with good range, the the only option is lithium.
__________________
Bob
USCG Unlimited Tonnage Open Ocean (CMA)
deckofficer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 12:27 PM   #55
Guru
 
SomeSailor's Avatar
 
City: Everett, WA
Vessel Name: Honey Badger
Vessel Model: 42' CHB Europa
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 784
Quote:
Originally Posted by deckofficer View Post
For a catamaran sailboat weight is also an issue, and if you want electric propulsion with good range, the the only option is lithium.
For a trawler though (37,400# worth) the extra battery weight is not an issue, and electric propulsion isn't an option... then LA is still the best solution.
SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 12:40 PM   #56
Senior Member
 
deckofficer's Avatar
 
City: Northern California
Country: US
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeSailor View Post
For a trawler though (37,400# worth) the extra battery weight is not an issue, and electric propulsion isn't an option... then LA is still the best solution.
Some trawlers give you that option. The PDQ 34 at 15,000 lbs displacement can cover 1 nm @ 4 kt and only use 600 w-hr. If your not in a hurry, why not cruise at 4 kt? A 75 KW-hr lithium bank would give a range of 100 nm to 80% DOD, at which point you could spend a day at a marina and recharge or have enough solar panels to recharge in a week on the hook in some pristine anchorage.
__________________
Bob
USCG Unlimited Tonnage Open Ocean (CMA)
deckofficer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 02:14 PM   #57
Guru
 
MurrayM's Avatar
 
City: Kitimat, North Coast BC
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Badger
Vessel Model: 30' Sundowner Tug
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by deckofficer View Post
I used to have a Linhof 4X5 sheet film camera.
Them's nice for sure, but I opted for a field camera for hiking and sea kayaking (see avatar).
__________________
"The most interesting path between two points is not a straight line" Murray Minchin
MurrayM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 02:36 PM   #58
Guru
 
SomeSailor's Avatar
 
City: Everett, WA
Vessel Name: Honey Badger
Vessel Model: 42' CHB Europa
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 784
Quote:
Originally Posted by deckofficer View Post
Some trawlers give you that option. The PDQ 34 at 15,000 lbs displacement can cover 1 nm @ 4 kt and only use 600 w-hr.
First of all, I'm closer to 3 times that than 2 all up, and I'm starting to be skeptical about your numbers

Given your claim of .6KWH(and 1 kW = 1.341 HP)

You'd only need only: 0.8 HP

Just tear out your motors and install a Honda EU1000.
SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 03:17 PM   #59
Senior Member
 
deckofficer's Avatar
 
City: Northern California
Country: US
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 409
Not quite. If 600 w-hr per nm, and your travelling at 4 kt, then that is 2400 watts / 746 = 3.2 hp.
__________________
Bob
USCG Unlimited Tonnage Open Ocean (CMA)
deckofficer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 06:01 PM   #60
Guru
 
SomeSailor's Avatar
 
City: Everett, WA
Vessel Name: Honey Badger
Vessel Model: 42' CHB Europa
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 784
Still kind of hard to believe you could push a trawler at 4kts for only 3.2HP. Wouldn't do you much good if you ever had a current to deal with.
__________________

SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012