I've been Solar Struck by the SolarStik

[Giulietta]

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]

HS-

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

[hellosailor]

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. 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?

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.

[Giulietta]

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]

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.
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]

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

[camaraderie]

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.

[SchoonerMISTRESS]

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]

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?) For a boat your size, that solar mizzen mast 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.
"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. 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.)

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]

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.