XPM78 - Explorer Yacht

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
We can charge 60kWh batteries in an hour if we have to or better 2 hours without stressing them.

Charging lifepo or any lithium chemistry batteries at 1C rate should not _really_ stress them that much, as long as depth of charging is not very "deep" - they do charge them at crazy rates routinely in the EV world. Ie. charging at 1C from say 40% DOD -> 80% DOD is not that stressfull.

But if you charge them often from almost empty to almost full, then slower charging is always much better for their lifetime. Well, if charging from almost empty to almost full happens often, that is an indication of insufficient battery capacity me thinks. I would personally maybe consider a little bigger battery bank, if it is used for propulsion also - say double or even quad that.

Lifepo prices have come down a lot, I know a Nordhavn N64 that has 60+ kWh lifepo pack just for the hotel loads, and it is good functional ballast... But the spread in pricing is huge, anything from 100 usd to 5000 usd per kWh.

Battery bank can be always extended afterwards, especially if room and wiring is planned during construction for that. So at very least, I would reserve room for a 200 kWh ish bank in the basement.
 
Last edited:
Charging lifepo or any lithium chemistry batteries at 1C rate should not _really_ stress them that much, as long as depth of charging is not very "deep" - they do charge them at crazy rates routinely in the EV world. Ie. charging at 1C from say 40% DOD -> 80% DOD is not that stressfull.

Point well taken Dav. I'm not a battery guru and have spent the last month or so reading up on what's out there. For large battery banks with marine approval I've found Corvis and Praxis offering products in the $600-$800/kWh range. We have made space for 120kWh but are starting with 60. Weighs about 1000kg so installed low down as ballast. We've also put in between 60 & 100kWh of charging capacity just in case. I won't need them for 18 months yet so wanted to wait and see if technology changed over that time. The shaft drives can take 200 plus.

The advent of EV's seems to be driving some crazy developments in the pursuit of range. I spoke to one UK based battery manufacture who started making solid state LiS units. 6 times the power density of LiPO's at present production tech. Unfortunately he indicated satellites and aircraft as the target industry $$$$$ ouch! I heard they are also working on LiNa, raw material for that one is sea water! Ha.
 
How about that 80kW DC diesel generator instead of that wing engine? 80 kW is just a rough estimate, but it should equal conventional 160 hp wing engine pretty much.

Have backup propulsion as a 80kW electric motor driving the same second shaft with folding prop, or even more ideally 2 smaller similar 40kW props / underbody pods so that the thrust is symmetrical? This backup propulsion is always available within seconds, if two shafts / pods maneuverability comes as a free bonus.

Could also have a backup / aux motor on main shaft for entering / exiting marinas in priceless silence.

Then for the generator loading, have a sufficient battery bank to absorb full output of generator at 1C max, ideally 0.5C. Then generator only runs for a short time, and all the hotel loads are supplied by an inverter.


This approach could certainly be made to work, and is a good example of one I considered.


Here's how it works out in a bit more detail.


First, a 160hp propulsion engine in a generator would be 100kw, using Northern Lights as an example. Let's stick with that so we don't compromise emergency propulsion speed too much. It's less available power because the engine that produces 160hp at 2300 rpm for direct propulsion, produces less at 1800 rpm generating electricity. That 100kw turns back into 130hp in an electric motor, but let's assume it's close enough. Physically, it's the same size as the wing engine and gear that it would replace.


Now I need to electrically power my loads, so let's look at them one at a time. Note that the generator is 440/240V, three phase.



Propulsion: I want to use all the available power, so I need a 130hp electric motor. That's a big motor - about 24" diameter and 48" long. And it weighs 1800 lbs. Cost is about $17k. It will also require a VFD, and a mighty big one at that. Physical space is probably half again what the motor is. Cost? I don't know? I'm also assuming that there is no reduction gear and that you can prop to match the motors 1700 rpm speed. If you need to run slower than that, like to match the 1000 rpm shaft speed of the traditional wing engine, you would need a larger electric motor to get the desired 130hp at a lower RPM.



Hydraulics: I need nearly the same power as for propulsion, but let's say I can go down to a 100 hp motor. That's a bit smaller at around 20" diameter and 40" long, and weights 1300 lbs. Cost is about $14k. And we need another VFD to drive it.



Battery charging: I'll assume a 48V system. 100kw of charging at 52V (operating voltage of LFP) is about 1900A. That's a fork load of current. Typical chargers are 100A, so I would need 19 of them. At an estimated $2k each, that's about $40k in chargers. To constrain charging to 1C, that means 100kwh of batteries which is $100k, give or take. But all the LFP manufacturers call for .3C to .5C, so if I keep it to .5C I need to double the battery bank side to 200kwh, or only use half of the generator's capacity. I would probably use half the capacity, and also reduce my chargers from 19 to 10.


Inverters: Now I assume we want to run the electric stuff off of batteries, so we need Inverters. First blush would suggest 100kw of inverters. Even if you could get a 10kw, 48V inverter, you would need 10 of them running parallel. Someone probably makes that, but I don't know who. And keep in mind that the generator, VFDs, and motors are all 440V 3 phase, so the inverters probably need to be the same. Estimates cost, $50k.



House loads: Yes, those pesky 120V house loads. You would need to sort out how to spread the loads across the three phase power system, and you would need a transformer(s) to create 120/240 split phase, assuming a North American house power system. If it's a 230V single phase house system it's a bit easier.


My take is that it gets complicated and expensive very fast, and for no obvious gain. It can't do anything that the traditional system can't do. It takes up the same or more physical space. It costs a lot more money. And there is a lot more to go wrong, and requiring spares. Yes, I could silently approach and depart a dock. But I can buy a lot of muffler and sound proofing for less $$, and with less space. And sound proofing doesn't break in disabling ways.
 
Charging lifepo or any lithium chemistry batteries at 1C rate should not _really_ stress them that much, as long as depth of charging is not very "deep" - they do charge them at crazy rates routinely in the EV world. Ie. charging at 1C from say 40% DOD -> 80% DOD is not that stressfull.




The issue with 1C charging vs .3C or .5C is that the batteries heat up. You can either accept the reduction in lifespan that results from that, or you need to cool them. The boats I know what run their batteries at high rates all have them in air conditioned compartments to keep the temps under control.
 
The issue with 1C charging vs .3C or .5C is that the batteries heat up. You can either accept the reduction in lifespan that results from that, or you need to cool them. The boats I know what run their batteries at high rates all have them in air conditioned compartments to keep the temps under control.

I am going by information from third parties here Mr Twistedtree but here it is. Both Corvis and Praxis have inbuilt charging, bank balancing and cooling systems. Their batteries come with them by default. They are connected in series to output something in the range of 500-800VDC charge dependent. I've had deeper conversations with Praxis and they are nervous of charge heating (join my club!) so for Class Type Approval have installed water/glycol cooling at 50/50 mixture inlet <35deg.C. Above that inlet temp batteries are derated automatically. I'll probably run this via a skin tank so as not to need even more raw water and an additional circulatory system. Electric motors are similarly cooled. I'd give a shout out for TEMA here also, very helpful but did not have a parallel drive in our size range.

I've seen some BIG motors quoted in the threads above. The propeller curve is not so friendly and to limit their size we have chosen a step up/down drive from Esco having 1.5:1 so the motor can run a lot faster than the prop in both drive and generator mode. That's limited its size/cost and it also come with a 24Vdc clutch so we can decouple the diesel engines.

I've also seen descriptions of drives and frequency inverters in this thread which we certainly need. The ones we went for are Praxis, again Glycol/water cooled at 30ekW each for 30kW motors, they make 50kW units also. They are expensive but cheaper than paralleling smaller commercial units such as Victron. We will use Victron for the hotel loads and other smaller power systems. The advantage of reducing the parts count outweighs the cost for us. More parts-more potential service failures. We've done the same with solar MPPT, arranging the panels in to similarly oriented banks rather than individual. A small give on efficiency for a potentially bigger gain on reliability and simpler wiring.

To be honest, if I'd have known the potential brain pain of designing all this I probably would have convinced my long suffering wife that sails were a good idea and we will only head west about, following the trades. Too late now.
 
My take is that it gets complicated and expensive very fast, and for no obvious gain.

I just wrote you a _long_ reply covering these points, but it disappeared. Strange.

One point in my missed post was that modern 200kW motor is like 20 kg, liquid cooled. They are not so massive anymore.

This is all I could save from my post, I'll put it here anyway, but it was way much more:

Propulsion: I want to use all the available power, so I need a 130hp electric motor. That's a big motor - about 24" diameter and 48" long. And it weighs 1800 lbs.

That is a big motor. Industrial induction type, I presume? They are indeed heavy.

Oceanvolt AXC40 is designed to be used on a boat and at 40kW electrical and advertises equivalent hp of 80-100. Two of these would be way more than equivalent to one 130hp diesel, they are modular so either could be bolted back to back on a same shaft, or parallel on two shafts. They weight 168 kg, 370 lbs each.

Oceanvolt AXC30 is 30kW electrical and advertises equivalent hp of 60-80. Two of these would be more than equivalent to one 130hp diesel, they are modular so either could be bolted back to back on a same shaft, or parallel on two shafts. They weight 128 kg, 280 lbs each.

For a more modern motor, EMRAX 268 is not really a marine motor, but is available liquid cooled and has been used on boats. Requires a reduction gear though. Maximum 200 kW and continuous 107 kW weights massive 20 kg, 45 lbs. High voltage though.
 
Last edited:
First, a 160hp propulsion engine in a generator would be 100kw, using Northern Lights as an example. Let's stick with that so we don't compromise emergency propulsion speed too much. It's less available power because the engine that produces 160hp at 2300 rpm for direct propulsion, produces less at 1800 rpm generating electricity. That 100kw turns back into 130hp in an electric motor, but let's assume it's close enough. Physically, it's the same size as the wing engine and gear that it would replace.

DC generator is a key, a variable RPM type.

Something like this:

https://www.praxis-automation.nl/uploads/default_site/files/brochures/519.01_DCG.pdf

Hydraulics: I need nearly the same power as for propulsion, but let's say I can go down to a 100 hp motor. That's a bit smaller at around 20" diameter and 40" long, and weights 1300 lbs. Cost is about $14k. And we need another VFD to drive it.

Preferably no hydraulics.

If needed, Electric DC motor pumps, multiple in parellel. 10-20kW range, constant displacement type. Ability to run a split system in case of major leak.

Also one big pump is an option, if one wants to.

Battery charging:

Direct from the DC generator.

Inverters:
House loads:

Enough inverters to run the house loads.
 
Last edited:
That's limited its size/cost and it also come with a 24Vdc clutch so we can decouple the diesel engines.

The clutch is which side of the electric motor?

Ie with clutch open, can you drive the boat on electric motors alone or charge the batteries with diesels? Or is there another clutch in the marine drive? Just trying to picture this out, sorry if this sounds like a bit stupid question :)
 
The clutch is which side of the electric motor?

Ie with clutch open, can you drive the boat on electric motors alone or charge the batteries with diesels? Or is there another clutch in the marine drive? Just trying to picture this out, sorry if this sounds like a bit stupid question :)

Dav - does not sound stupid at all. Caused me enough problems. Here goes:

The set up has a clutch between diesel engine and everything else. Gearbox between e-motor drive (its a step up/down drive) and prop shaft. Duplicate drive lines in parallel.

Clutch engaged. Diesel engine drives e-motor (backwards freewheeling) and prop. In this mode it can drive the prop and charge the batteries if needed via the e-motor.

Clutch disengaged. E-motor drives the prop from batteries or other diesel and other e-motor running in parallel.

Clutch engaged - Gearbox in Neutral. Diesel engine drives the e-motor charging batteries. Use this at anchor or in port if no shore power.

Props are Bruntons Autoprop 750mm OD and will feather is the shaft is not turning (like a sail drive).

I hope that translates?
 
I hope that translates?

Yes makes perfect sense, thanks!

Option/alternative would be to have two sets of electric motors, one direct on shaft to drive when transmission on neutral, another direct tied to diesel. Means an extra motor, but saves the clutch in between, more flexibility with rpm ranges. Lots of choices to make...
 
Hydraulics: I need nearly the same power as for propulsion, but let's say I can go down to a 100 hp motor.

What is actually the maximum hydraulic load needed ever? Both thrusters at max? Windlass should not operate together with them both, not when they're fully loaded, right?

I bet not more than 50kW, ever. Am I far off?
 
OK, you guys are into much higher tech stuff than I would put in an expedition style boat, but that's just me. Regardless it's pretty cool stuff and I look forward to seeing what you come up with.
 
Last edited:
What is actually the maximum hydraulic load needed ever? Both thrusters at max? Windlass should not operate together with them both, not when they're fully loaded, right?

I bet not more than 50kW, ever. Am I far off?


I've found the biggest simultaneous load is Windless+anchor wash+ bow thruster to keep in line with the incoming chain. That's about 75hp, so if electric, your 50kw is a good estimate. If for some reason you wanted the stern thruster too, that would bring it up to about 115hp.
 
I've found the biggest simultaneous load is Windless+anchor wash+ bow thruster to keep in line with the incoming chain. That's about 75hp, so if electric, your 50kw is a good estimate. If for some reason you wanted the stern thruster too, that would bring it up to about 115hp.

I think washdown pump is a natural candidate for being AC-powered. They (AC driven pumps) are widely available, very reliable and can run for unlimited time. Easy to duplicate for added redundancy and/or as a fire/crash pump if one wants to. With sufficient battery bank and multiple inverters AC should be always available, generator running or not.

Windlass is next candidate. VFD driven AC-windlass is a pretty robust solution, and runtime is enough for it not to be a problem. With VFD you get same proportional, smooth speed and torque control as with hydraulics. VFD:s are maybe the fragile part here, but for this power rating they are relatively cheap to carry a spare. With sufficient battery bank and multiple inverters AC should be always available, generator running or not.

I would even argue this gives more reliability than hydraulics, as people have had real problems with hydraulic hoses bursting and unable to operate the windlass, and for a heavy anchor hauling that up manually is fairly hard thing to do.

Then it leaves the thrusters, and stablilizers. Stabilizers are already available electrically driven, and they are naturally redundant by having a pair of them, so this is solved problem I think. Even Nordhavn is fitting new models with these.

Thrusters is more complicated. Lets leave them for now, but there are options.
 
OK, you guys are into much higher tech stuff than I would put in an expedition style boat, but that's just me.

I think it is not so much the drive for high tech stuff, but eliminating stuff.

Typical boat of this class discussed, be it N68 or XPM78, has four diesel engines in the engine room, main + wing + 2 x genset.

By combining functions this can be reduced to two diesel engines, main and combo genset/wing. There is no better engine than no engine, when it comes to price, maintenance, weight and space in the ER.

The technology involved is not really that high tech, it has been used in the cruise ships and offshore vessels for decades. What is new is it being applied to smaller scale, and the availability of high capacity - almost magic - batteries thanks to progress in the EV side.

I think in 5 to 10 years time this what we discuss here will be mainstream tech, and it will trickle not down but up to expedition style boats as well.
 
bow thruster

One "simple" option would be to replace the hydraulic motor of ABT thruster (38hp) with a electric one from Praxis:

https://www.praxis-automation.nl/products/electric-propulsion-motor

Suitable 25kW motor depends on the RPM of thruster input shaft, but is very light at like 70-80 ish lbs.

With proper (liquid circulation) cooling, you could cross an ocean with that thruster at full thrust, without overheating.

Another, a notch more conservative option would be just to run a constant displacement hydraulic pump with that same motor, or one similar for 48 VDC if lower voltage was selected.
 
I think washdown pump is a natural candidate for being AC-powered. They (AC driven pumps) are widely available, very reliable and can run for unlimited time. Easy to duplicate for added redundancy and/or as a fire/crash pump if one wants to. With sufficient battery bank and multiple inverters AC should be always available, generator running or not.

Windlass is next candidate. VFD driven AC-windlass is a pretty robust solution, and runtime is enough for it not to be a problem. With VFD you get same proportional, smooth speed and torque control as with hydraulics. VFD:s are maybe the fragile part here, but for this power rating they are relatively cheap to carry a spare. With sufficient battery bank and multiple inverters AC should be always available, generator running or not.

I would even argue this gives more reliability than hydraulics, as people have had real problems with hydraulic hoses bursting and unable to operate the windlass, and for a heavy anchor hauling that up manually is fairly hard thing to do.

Then it leaves the thrusters, and stablilizers. Stabilizers are already available electrically driven, and they are naturally redundant by having a pair of them, so this is solved problem I think. Even Nordhavn is fitting new models with these.

Thrusters is more complicated. Lets leave them for now, but there are options.


I agree all could be electric, and in fact are on many larger boats. But the power requirements remain more or less the same. That would get rid of the large electric motor driving a hydraulic pump. But in it's place you have larger individual motors driving each device in place of the very compact hydraulic motors. The hydraulic motor on my anchor wash pump is about the size of a grapefruit. An equivalent 5-6hp electric motor is a lot bigger than that.


I don't doubt you can get all this to work, or that there are many ways to arrange the systems in a boat. There are lots of right answers. But it's also much like trying to compress a balloon. No matter where you squeeze it, it just pops out somewhere else. Now you may prefer it squeezed into one shape or another, but there aren't many things that actually make the balloon any smaller, other than letting out some air.
 
If trying to simplify, I think the first thing I'd go after would be a second genset. Given enough battery capacity, adequate solar and/or wind power, and big alternators on at least one engine for backup, a single genset should be fine. You'd just plan to run it either for rainy-day catch up for the batteries, or when you have big loads that need it (and size the unit accordingly). Avoiding the need to run a smaller genset during lighter load periods (by planning to not run a genset at all during those times) would cut some complexity.

Yeah, you'd lose a little redundancy, but given good batteries, inverters, and big alternators on the main / wing (or twins) you'd be able to get along fine until you could fix a generator issue.
 
If trying to simplify, I think the first thing I'd go after would be a second genset. Given enough battery capacity, adequate solar and/or wind power, and big alternators on at least one engine for backup, a single genset should be fine. You'd just plan to run it either for rainy-day catch up for the batteries, or when you have big loads that need it (and size the unit accordingly). Avoiding the need to run a smaller genset during lighter load periods (by planning to not run a genset at all during those times) would cut some complexity.

Yeah, you'd lose a little redundancy, but given good batteries, inverters, and big alternators on the main / wing (or twins) you'd be able to get along fine until you could fix a generator issue.


That's how I had my last boat set up. The backup to the generator was run the main engine to charge batteries, and use the inverters.
 
But the power requirements remain more or less the same.

True, to a degree.

Firstly, direct electric drive has substantially better efficiency. Many tens of percent more. This brings power requirement down, sometimes halves it. Depends on... variables.

Secondly, this "electric wing engine" concept we discuss only needs to be sized to supply the longer term propulsion needs. Short burst of energy, enough for any manoeuvring are available in almost unlimited fashion from the battery bank. In fact, during normal operations, the wing does not need to be running at all. Hydraulic power cannot be stored in same fashion.

Actually, even the main engine could be sized down a bit for more optimal loading during normal cruising speed - roughly by size of the wing engine or thereabouts, or maybe half of this to be on the safe side. For the top speed, that 0.1% of time of lifetime of a vessel, it could be supported by wing engine driven electric boost motor, which could also drive the boat by itself if needed.

This auxiliary motor hooked to main motor would then also act as a backup source of electric power, in case the wing/gen fails. Quite an elegant setup, really.

Two independent sources of electric power, two (or more) independent means of propulsion.
 
Last edited:
True, to a degree.

Firstly, direct electric drive has substantially better efficiency. Many tens of percent more. This brings power requirement down, sometimes halves it. Depends on... variables.


In what way is electric more efficient? I have heard people say things like "a 10 hp electric motor is like a 20 hp diesel", so something along those lines. I don't get that. It takes X hp to move any give boat at any given speed. Whether that's the output shaft of an electric motor or a diesel motor, it's still the same X hp. So I must me missing something?


Secondly, this "electric wing engine" concept we discuss only needs to be sized to supply the longer term propulsion needs. Short burst of energy, enough for any manoeuvring are available in almost unlimited fashion from the battery bank. In fact, during normal operations, the wing does not need to be running at all. Hydraulic power cannot be stored in same fashion.


When used to move the boat, the wing will be running flat out, or nearly so, simply because it's intentionally under powered for the boat. So I think any replacement strategy needs to offer like HP, assuming we aren't changing the performance requirements. And it needs to be a continuous rated power output. I took a look at some of the electric motors you referenced, and they are indeed pretty neat. But at least one of them was only half the power for continuous duty, presumably because of cooling. So sizing would have to be commensurate with that requirement.



Actually, even the main engine could be sized down a bit for more optimal loading during normal cruising speed - roughly by size of the wing engine or thereabouts, or maybe half of this to be on the safe side. For the top speed, that 0.1% of time of lifetime of a vessel, it could be supported by wing engine driven electric boost motor, which could also drive the boat by itself if needed.

This auxiliary motor hooked to main motor would then also act as a backup source of electric power, in case the wing/gen fails. Quite an elegant setup, really.

Two independent sources of electric power, two (or more) independent means of propulsion.


Personally I'd be much more comfortable with some of these more adventurous approaches on a coastal cruiser vs an expedition type boat. Understandable systems and more off-the-shelf parts have a lot of value the further afar you travel. Heck, lots of people on this forum feel that an engine with an ECU is an unacceptable complication. Just look at sister-ship Mobeus. They resurrected a 1960's Gardner for just this reason. So the choice of a hybrid system for an XMP 78 is an interesting combination.
 
I agree that electric, diesel, or whatever, 10hp is 10hp. HP is a measure of work done over time, so that's a pretty universal concept.



Now, in some applications, electric may allow a slight downsizing of needed HP as the ability to produce full power at lower speeds or other factors could have a positive impact. But in those applications, a diesel would have been slightly over-sized to make up for a performance deficit somewhere in the operating range. If it's sized based on full load HP output being the limiting constraint, switching to electric won't allow any downsizing.
 
In what way is electric more efficient? I have heard people say things like "a 10 hp electric motor is like a 20 hp diesel", so something along those lines. I don't get that. It takes X hp to move any give boat at any given speed. Whether that's the output shaft of an electric motor or a diesel motor, it's still the same X hp. So I must me missing something?

Power is power, and kilowatt is a kilowatt.

What I mean is in order to have that one kilowatt of power transferred to end of the drive shaft of that bow thruster, between 1.5kW and 2kW need to be injected on the PTO end, depending on the pump and motor type - gear, vane, piston, in order of increasing efficiency - and design of the system, constant running open loop vs variable speed closed loop, and system parameters like operating pressure, flow rates and hose diameters, and operating regime nominal vs actual vs optimal. In short, it depends.

With modern BLDC motor with 98% efficiency, this rounds to 1kW.

Once it is converted into mechanical work, that 1 kilowatt is 1 kilowatt, whatever the method of spinning that shaft.

Of course we need _much_ more power from the primary side, as diesel engine still wastes 60-80%, but that is another story and another discussion. That will change though when the diesel reformer type fuel cells mature, but they surely seem to take their time. They have a potential of almost doubling the diesel -> electricity conversion efficiency. Lot of research, both academic and commercial, is being put into that.
 
Last edited:
Personally I'd be much more comfortable with some of these more adventurous approaches on a coastal cruiser vs an expedition type boat. Understandable systems and more off-the-shelf parts have a lot of value the further afar you travel. Heck, lots of people on this forum feel that an engine with an ECU is an unacceptable complication. Just look at sister-ship Mobeus. They resurrected a 1960's Gardner for just this reason. So the choice of a hybrid system for an XMP 78 is an interesting combination.

If you refer to choice of parallel hybrid for the main engine, and potential for downsizing the main, I don't see how it is really that adventurous.

Idea behind it is choosing a little smaller main, than what would be chosen otherwise.

Lets take a Nordhavn 68 as an example. It is specified with 425hp main engine, and can do 11kts max speed. Cruise speed is 8kts.

When it is going at that 8kts, the main engine is loaded a little lighter than ideal.

Lets choose one size smaller main engine, coupled with an electric engine, same size as the electric wing we are discussing, same coupling clutch as XPM7802 (*). I don't really want to give a figure without calculations, but lets say a 350hp main would do.

Now when we cruise with the main alone at the original cruising speed of 8kts, it is better (more) loaded than bigger main at same powerpoint, right? Electric engine is not engaged at all at this stage, the reliability of the system is just like the original, even higher than before as our main engine will run happily better and longer with better loading, and with better BSFC, all other things being equal, right?

As a bonus, with that electric engine on paralleling coupling/clutch, we can use it for charging with roughly double the efficiency vs conventional alternators. Less heat in the ER, less fuel burned. In fact, we can disconnect the driving belts of original alternators and leave them for ultimate backup.

Now when we want to go higher than top speed of this smaller main engine, at original/desired top speed of 11kts, we boost it with the electric engine. Short term boost comes from the batteries, if we want to go longer than an hour / two we spin up the wing generator as well.

If we want to go slower, we shut down the main. Short term boost comes from the batteries, if we want to go longer than an hour / two we spin up the wing generator as well. This way we could go maybe 4-5kts?

I really like this setup on XPM7802. Only thing I would have done differently is I would have gone with single main engine, but this is a much longer discussion and would never end :)

Great blog post on main engine loading vs cruising speed vs main engine sizing:

https://mvdirona.com/2015/08/diesel-engine-underload/

I think the parellel hybrid concept is a (big) improvement in the right direction.

A bit like a CPP-prop, but done differently ie. electronically, the end result being the same: wider range of speed on ideal engine loading and resulting better overall fuel economy. In fact, Trasfluid, one manufacturer of these parallel marine transmissions, quotes 10-15% improvement on fuel economy without any other modifications, which to me sounds pretty good.

* something like this:

http://www.escopower.be/en/esco-power/parallel-hybrid-solutions

https://www.bateau-electrique.com/docs/moteurs-transfluid.pdf
 
Last edited:
Now, in some applications, electric may allow a slight downsizing of needed HP as the ability to produce full power at lower speeds or other factors could have a positive impact.

Propulsion this is indeed the case, with electric motors having high torque at low speeds.

For auxiliary loads like windlass, thrusters, hydraulics provides the control and torque at very low speeds in the same way, so in this regard they are equal.
 
Heck, lots of people on this forum feel that an engine with an ECU is an unacceptable complication. Just look at sister-ship Mobeus. They resurrected a 1960's Gardner for just this reason.

Unfortunately, emission standards make this inevitable development in the diesel engine side.

Though, as mentioned, once the diesel reformer fuel cells mature, there is a path forward. They have low emissions and very few moving parts, more a steam cooker than a computer :)
 
Props are Bruntons Autoprop 750mm OD and will feather is the shaft is not turning (like a sail drive).

Have you a rough estimate on the power required to drive this hull say 4/5/6/7 kts? Ie. how fast do you see yourself going on electric mode alone, and how much range would there be if slowed down a bit?
 
Even further possibilities for optimization via elimination might be possible:

When we have a wing and genset combined into a combo "electric wing", we could next look into wing propulsion itself. How about instead of having an electric wing motor on a shaft with folding propeller and a dedicated (electric / electrohydraulic) stern thruster, replace them both with one or two of these:

https://seadrive.no/products/pods/

Azimut lift-up going into the protection of the hull when not needed, or azimuthing pod equipped with a folding prop. I would quite like the lift-up version, it should be safe from a stray log or fishing net, if the main prop gets damaged or fouled.

With two of these installed wide apart even the bow thruster might be not needed, depending on the hull, its windage and pivot point it turns around - after all this is how they do it with the 360 joystick steering systems. Or maybe the bow thruster could be a lift up 360 degree azimut unit as well and able to take part in the propulsion. Then we could start talking about maneuverability!

With two of these in the back and one in the front, combined 90kW power total and triple redundancy as a bonus, you should be able to drive a XPM78 or even a N68 at fairly good speed back to home, or at respectable speed sideways or spin around faster than an amusement park carousel :)

Naturally next logical step would be eliminating the main engine and shaft from the equation, but lets not go there, not quite yet :)
 
Last edited:
Reaching out to see if anyone has experience of FLIR devices. I'm nervous of hitting small ice or logs in remote places or unlit navigation aids. Searchlight seemed the obvious first choice but time moves on and Infra Red seems more versatile. I'd also be interested in how they integrate with MFD displays running Time Zero. Maybe just stand along display is easier? Thanks for any input out there.

p.s. I also posted this on a. general thread.
 
Power is power, and kilowatt is a kilowatt.

What I mean is in order to have that one kilowatt of power transferred to end of the drive shaft of that bow thruster, between 1.5kW and 2kW need to be injected on the PTO end, depending on the pump and motor type - gear, vane, piston, in order of increasing efficiency - and design of the system, constant running open loop vs variable speed closed loop, and system parameters like operating pressure, flow rates and hose diameters, and operating regime nominal vs actual vs optimal. In short, it depends.

With modern BLDC motor with 98% efficiency, this rounds to 1kW.

Once it is converted into mechanical work, that 1 kilowatt is 1 kilowatt, whatever the method of spinning that shaft.

Of course we need _much_ more power from the primary side, as diesel engine still wastes 60-80%, but that is another story and another discussion. That will change though when the diesel reformer type fuel cells mature, but they surely seem to take their time. They have a potential of almost doubling the diesel -> electricity conversion efficiency. Lot of research, both academic and commercial, is being put into that.


Got it. What you are saying is as rslifkin predicted, and I agree.
 
Back
Top Bottom