The Solar Stik... fact or fiction? ...the debate:
- Thread starter h2ocruizers
- Start date
- Status
Did you ever see how Einstein dressed?
Hmmm, as I recall, some of the brightest minds in history weren't exactly fashion statements either. Hey Brian, I wouldn't worry about what these people say about your clothes! You've got bigger fish to fry! Now if we could just do something with your hair... <G>
Hmmm, as I recall, some of the brightest minds in history weren't exactly fashion statements either. Hey Brian, I wouldn't worry about what these people say about your clothes! You've got bigger fish to fry! Now if we could just do something with your hair... <G>
had to laugh...
It must've been the brains, sure aint anything else. (speaking solely for my self) Brian, subliminal message "grouper sandwich and a coldie"
It must've been the brains, sure aint anything else. (speaking solely for my self) Brian, subliminal message "grouper sandwich and a coldie"
Setting the record straight.
I went over to the sailnet forum to see what was going on... and it seems to me that Conchy was the one who brought it on himself, as did LaLeLu. Both of them were saying that the Blue Sky controller would give you more power from the panels than you could get with out using one. This is clearly either a lie or a complete misrepresentation of how a Blue Sky charge controller works. Unfortunately, it appears that neither LaLeLu or Conchy have enough of a basic understanding to realize that an MPPT controller increases the amperage sent to the batteries by reducing the voltage—this does not yield an increase in power from the panels, but probably does increase the efficiency of the charging process, losing less energy to heat. I also think it was somewhat deceitful that Conchy didn't clearly identify himself as having an existing relationship with the SolarStik manufacturer. That strikes me as being less than ethical. Then, from what I saw on that thread, Conchy Joe seems to take every criticism of the product or question about the product as a personal attack, and attacked most of the people who weren't SolarStik advocates. I doubt that Brian wants to have his product identified with obnoxious behavior like that. Also, LaLeLu were confusing the amperage reading on the Blue Sky controller for amp hours—which are clearly not the same thing. Finally, Conchy Joe posted some impossible message about the military having gotten 100 Amp-hours out of a single SolarStik in a single day, in Kuwait, due to the 16 hour day there. Unfortunately, Kuwait is too close to the equator to ever have a 16-hour day, so that would be out and out lying. Brian- It looks like an interesting product. When you get an evaluation of it that is done by a group of qualified, impartial people, who don't have their heads up the butts, please let me know. I'd be interested in hearing about it. You can e-mail me at willsmith87@gmail.com
I went over to the sailnet forum to see what was going on... and it seems to me that Conchy was the one who brought it on himself, as did LaLeLu. Both of them were saying that the Blue Sky controller would give you more power from the panels than you could get with out using one. This is clearly either a lie or a complete misrepresentation of how a Blue Sky charge controller works. Unfortunately, it appears that neither LaLeLu or Conchy have enough of a basic understanding to realize that an MPPT controller increases the amperage sent to the batteries by reducing the voltage—this does not yield an increase in power from the panels, but probably does increase the efficiency of the charging process, losing less energy to heat. I also think it was somewhat deceitful that Conchy didn't clearly identify himself as having an existing relationship with the SolarStik manufacturer. That strikes me as being less than ethical. Then, from what I saw on that thread, Conchy Joe seems to take every criticism of the product or question about the product as a personal attack, and attacked most of the people who weren't SolarStik advocates. I doubt that Brian wants to have his product identified with obnoxious behavior like that. Also, LaLeLu were confusing the amperage reading on the Blue Sky controller for amp hours—which are clearly not the same thing. Finally, Conchy Joe posted some impossible message about the military having gotten 100 Amp-hours out of a single SolarStik in a single day, in Kuwait, due to the 16 hour day there. Unfortunately, Kuwait is too close to the equator to ever have a 16-hour day, so that would be out and out lying. Brian- It looks like an interesting product. When you get an evaluation of it that is done by a group of qualified, impartial people, who don't have their heads up the butts, please let me know. I'd be interested in hearing about it. You can e-mail me at willsmith87@gmail.com
Brian, help me believe you
Brian, I would really like to believe you, because if you can get twice the output compared to conventional panels, then that means solar becomes twice as cost-effective for me. I'd like that! But when you say "Despite what some in the forums have stated, It IS possible to exceed the output ratings of a solar panel. Let me explain: ... Solar panel operating characteristics (watts, amps, volts) are rated at "STC", or "standard operating conditions", which are set and vary by individual manufacturers. Current, voltage and wattage at STC are NOT "maximums", and these values can be higher at times depending on operating conditions and panel brand. " That doesn't doesn't jibe with everything else I've found from every other source about solar panels, including the state of California (who have their own more conservative ratings), the solar panel makers, and the federal guidelines. Perhaps I don't understand what everyone else is saying, so correct me on these, would you? Panels are rated at "STC" and you say that "Current, voltage and wattage at STC are NOT "maximums"," but the industry says that STC represents full direct "noon" sunlight under perfect atmospheric and climate conditions, including optimum airflow over the panels to cool them. On this planet, you just don't get more solar power going INTO a panel, than it does under STC rating conditions. And if you can't get more power IN, you can't get more power OUT. Please note that "power" is rated in WATTS, and the question of trading volts for amps like the BlueSky controller does, will not affect the maximum WATTS available from a panel. So please, tell me how you see a panel exceeding the environmental conditions that are used to provide the STC ratings, when everyone else says those ratings are based on the best possible conditions that can be obtained? I fully understand that re-orienting the panels every once in a while will help them to operate at greater efficiency, but once you get outside the "noon" window, touside the four hours or so when there is direct strong sunlight overhead, even orienting the panel directly at the sun will not regain the solar power that is lost as the sun has to slant down through a much greater amount of the atmosphere. Again, the STC ratings are based on that full noon sunlight. Re-orienting the panels could help you maintain the full rated power--for as many hours as it is available--but they won't help you beat it. What am I missing here? How many hours of how much power do you claim you can get from a 100W-rated array, in what location? How many times do the panels have to be moved, in order to obtain that much power in one day? I want to believe you have a revolutionary product, I just haven't seen any objective, repeatable, scientific explanation to back it up. If your numbers are right--be patient, we should all be able to understand the logic and see it.
Brian, I would really like to believe you, because if you can get twice the output compared to conventional panels, then that means solar becomes twice as cost-effective for me. I'd like that! But when you say "Despite what some in the forums have stated, It IS possible to exceed the output ratings of a solar panel. Let me explain: ... Solar panel operating characteristics (watts, amps, volts) are rated at "STC", or "standard operating conditions", which are set and vary by individual manufacturers. Current, voltage and wattage at STC are NOT "maximums", and these values can be higher at times depending on operating conditions and panel brand. " That doesn't doesn't jibe with everything else I've found from every other source about solar panels, including the state of California (who have their own more conservative ratings), the solar panel makers, and the federal guidelines. Perhaps I don't understand what everyone else is saying, so correct me on these, would you? Panels are rated at "STC" and you say that "Current, voltage and wattage at STC are NOT "maximums"," but the industry says that STC represents full direct "noon" sunlight under perfect atmospheric and climate conditions, including optimum airflow over the panels to cool them. On this planet, you just don't get more solar power going INTO a panel, than it does under STC rating conditions. And if you can't get more power IN, you can't get more power OUT. Please note that "power" is rated in WATTS, and the question of trading volts for amps like the BlueSky controller does, will not affect the maximum WATTS available from a panel. So please, tell me how you see a panel exceeding the environmental conditions that are used to provide the STC ratings, when everyone else says those ratings are based on the best possible conditions that can be obtained? I fully understand that re-orienting the panels every once in a while will help them to operate at greater efficiency, but once you get outside the "noon" window, touside the four hours or so when there is direct strong sunlight overhead, even orienting the panel directly at the sun will not regain the solar power that is lost as the sun has to slant down through a much greater amount of the atmosphere. Again, the STC ratings are based on that full noon sunlight. Re-orienting the panels could help you maintain the full rated power--for as many hours as it is available--but they won't help you beat it. What am I missing here? How many hours of how much power do you claim you can get from a 100W-rated array, in what location? How many times do the panels have to be moved, in order to obtain that much power in one day? I want to believe you have a revolutionary product, I just haven't seen any objective, repeatable, scientific explanation to back it up. If your numbers are right--be patient, we should all be able to understand the logic and see it.
Bill, I went to the almanac and found thatKuwait
is 30 degrees north, about the same as Jacksonville, FL. From sun rise to sun set on June 21 is 14 hours and 12 minutes. From twilight to twilight would be close to 16 hours so labeling a statement as an "out and out lie" is at the least heavy handed. My feeling concerning your remarks falls into the realm of "if you don't like the product don't but it" but I think that you on coming close to defaming a person whom you do not know.
is 30 degrees north, about the same as Jacksonville, FL. From sun rise to sun set on June 21 is 14 hours and 12 minutes. From twilight to twilight would be close to 16 hours so labeling a statement as an "out and out lie" is at the least heavy handed. My feeling concerning your remarks falls into the realm of "if you don't like the product don't but it" but I think that you on coming close to defaming a person whom you do not know.
14.2 ≠ 16
Ross- I don't see how saying 14.2 hours of daylight is not equal to 16 hours of daylight can be anything but the truth. Saying that someone who claims to get 16 hours of operation out of a solar panel, when the day is only 14.2 hours long, is a liar, is really quite accurate in my opinion. Also, last I checked, truth is a defense for defamation actions, at least in the United States. Jacksonville, FL is at 30°19'55.00"N. The northern border of Kuwait is approximately at 30° 4'40.26"N, which means that the day in Kuwait is slightly shorter than those of Jacksonville, FL. Also, exactly how much power do you think a solar panel generates when the sun is down and it is twilight? My guess is that the contribution from the twilight hours is neglible. It is statements like yours, where your claiming that twilight to twilight is a useful measurement of the effective day for a solar panel that makes Brian and his product look ridiculous. I would like to understand the science behind how the product works, and how Brian can claim to make the panels generate more power than the STC ratings on a consistent basis. The mathematics and numbers I saw on the Sailfar thread seemed to be pretty spot on to me, and if Brian has any real evidence to dispute those figures, I would like to see them.
Ross- I don't see how saying 14.2 hours of daylight is not equal to 16 hours of daylight can be anything but the truth. Saying that someone who claims to get 16 hours of operation out of a solar panel, when the day is only 14.2 hours long, is a liar, is really quite accurate in my opinion. Also, last I checked, truth is a defense for defamation actions, at least in the United States. Jacksonville, FL is at 30°19'55.00"N. The northern border of Kuwait is approximately at 30° 4'40.26"N, which means that the day in Kuwait is slightly shorter than those of Jacksonville, FL. Also, exactly how much power do you think a solar panel generates when the sun is down and it is twilight? My guess is that the contribution from the twilight hours is neglible. It is statements like yours, where your claiming that twilight to twilight is a useful measurement of the effective day for a solar panel that makes Brian and his product look ridiculous. I would like to understand the science behind how the product works, and how Brian can claim to make the panels generate more power than the STC ratings on a consistent basis. The mathematics and numbers I saw on the Sailfar thread seemed to be pretty spot on to me, and if Brian has any real evidence to dispute those figures, I would like to see them.
Bill that would put the northern border of Kuwait
15 miles south of Jacksonville. We are concerned about daylight versus sunlight and one can speak in generalities or in specifics. But if a man should speak in generalities and another listens in specifics then there evolves a question of interpretation. I know and care nothing about this particular system But I know that all solar panels are rated as if they are of fixed orientation. Should someone devise a means of having them track the sun like a flower then it follows that they will collect more energy than a fixed panel.
15 miles south of Jacksonville. We are concerned about daylight versus sunlight and one can speak in generalities or in specifics. But if a man should speak in generalities and another listens in specifics then there evolves a question of interpretation. I know and care nothing about this particular system But I know that all solar panels are rated as if they are of fixed orientation. Should someone devise a means of having them track the sun like a flower then it follows that they will collect more energy than a fixed panel.
this belongs on Sailnet
This is one of a very few forums where people are both informative and respectful and where differences of opinion are treated in that manner. If you want to argue and be impolite, you will be more welcome on Sailnet where that behavior seems acceptable.
This is one of a very few forums where people are both informative and respectful and where differences of opinion are treated in that manner. If you want to argue and be impolite, you will be more welcome on Sailnet where that behavior seems acceptable.
Well I'm a believer
Did some research on tracking collectors. Seems that a fully tracking 2-axis collector does in fact (according to the University of North Carolina) collect 75% more energy than one that is simply facing south at the optimum angle for that time of year. It certainly would have to beat a horizontal (deck top) mounting. So if a deck top mounting is working for folks then a system that tracks in 2 axises has to be better even if you only have it "generally" aimed at the sun. A great example of taking a simple idea and making a profit on it. Good luck with your military showcase Brian.
Did some research on tracking collectors. Seems that a fully tracking 2-axis collector does in fact (according to the University of North Carolina) collect 75% more energy than one that is simply facing south at the optimum angle for that time of year. It certainly would have to beat a horizontal (deck top) mounting. So if a deck top mounting is working for folks then a system that tracks in 2 axises has to be better even if you only have it "generally" aimed at the sun. A great example of taking a simple idea and making a profit on it. Good luck with your military showcase Brian.
Bill, if you read the thread,
You will see that people WERE in fact personally attacking Myself as well as Susan. If you want to come over here and start another fight, that is fine, but you will find it much harder, as this forum is not a "Fox guarding the henhouse" forum, and Phil will not put up with it for a moment. If you wish to make a valid argument, As Red has, instead of arguing what word or words was used when, despite the fact you fail to note that I corrected Susan and myself, then have at it. Otherwise, I suggest you take your argument elsewhere. If, given wording to your satisfaction, you do not think the SolarStik performs as advertised, simply speak in that manner, and you will find a spirited debate. If you think BlueSky and BP AND the people that make SorarStik, as well as myself and Susan are full of crap, you will find that majority rules around here. If you wish to call me or others out, and post a lot of the stupid crap that was posted over there, once again, I suggest you take it back to Sailnet, or give Sailing Anarchy a try. I would ask, simply, who are you and what qualifies you to speak about the three products that make up the SolarStik? We like to make sure around here that people actually have a boat, maybe a few solar panels, maybe even a Blue Sky controller, and such, and are not just looking to get in a fight about the usage of amps -vs- amp hours -vs- amps per hours in a sentance. PS. You sound suspiciously like SailingDog..........
You will see that people WERE in fact personally attacking Myself as well as Susan. If you want to come over here and start another fight, that is fine, but you will find it much harder, as this forum is not a "Fox guarding the henhouse" forum, and Phil will not put up with it for a moment. If you wish to make a valid argument, As Red has, instead of arguing what word or words was used when, despite the fact you fail to note that I corrected Susan and myself, then have at it. Otherwise, I suggest you take your argument elsewhere. If, given wording to your satisfaction, you do not think the SolarStik performs as advertised, simply speak in that manner, and you will find a spirited debate. If you think BlueSky and BP AND the people that make SorarStik, as well as myself and Susan are full of crap, you will find that majority rules around here. If you wish to call me or others out, and post a lot of the stupid crap that was posted over there, once again, I suggest you take it back to Sailnet, or give Sailing Anarchy a try. I would ask, simply, who are you and what qualifies you to speak about the three products that make up the SolarStik? We like to make sure around here that people actually have a boat, maybe a few solar panels, maybe even a Blue Sky controller, and such, and are not just looking to get in a fight about the usage of amps -vs- amp hours -vs- amps per hours in a sentance. PS. You sound suspiciously like SailingDog..........
Don's right
It takes just a little bit of effort -- a fraction of a second, really -- to be respectful of other owners. Disagreement is not the problem, but how the disagreements are stated can be. Thanks for your cooperation.
It takes just a little bit of effort -- a fraction of a second, really -- to be respectful of other owners. Disagreement is not the problem, but how the disagreements are stated can be. Thanks for your cooperation.
Hmmm....
I guess the truth is in denial here. I don't believe a solar panel will be effective during the twilight hours. It does not matter who makes it, what kind of charge controller you are using, or which direction the panel is facing. It also appears that the people on this board are unwilling to look at an honest and open discussion of a product. In a democracy, the minority voices are just as important, if not more so, than the majority voices. Bill, if you would post a link to that North Carolina study, I would like to see it. Conchy Joe, I am trying to get some honest information on how this product works. I would like to see how what Brian says about his product, rather than listening to someone who doesn't seem to know what they are talking about. From what I saw, from reading on Sailnet, you were attacking at least as much as you were attacked, and many of the "attacks" on you were simple criticisms or questions of what you had posted. I did not read the entire thread, as it seems to have wandered off topic into wind generation. As for my qualifications, I don't have any specific, beyond what I've learned necessary to doing things like re-wiring my house and boat electrical systems, and working on car electrical systems. I do have a fairly strong background in basic electrical and electronic theory, as I've spent the better part of 10 years installing alarm systems and telephone systems, but have no degrees or licenses in the field. I've read as much of the literature that the different manufacturers have put out, including what I was able to find on Blue Sky's website. I've also spoken with the people at Hamilton Ferris in Massachusetts regarding solar panels. The people over at Hamilton Ferris have said that what SolarStik is claiming is very unlikely to be possible, given the limitations of two 50-watt solar panels. Blue Sky's own information seems to back that up. I'm all for an open discussion of the product, but would like to hear what Brian has to say about it first. I'd rather get my information from the source.
I guess the truth is in denial here. I don't believe a solar panel will be effective during the twilight hours. It does not matter who makes it, what kind of charge controller you are using, or which direction the panel is facing. It also appears that the people on this board are unwilling to look at an honest and open discussion of a product. In a democracy, the minority voices are just as important, if not more so, than the majority voices. Bill, if you would post a link to that North Carolina study, I would like to see it. Conchy Joe, I am trying to get some honest information on how this product works. I would like to see how what Brian says about his product, rather than listening to someone who doesn't seem to know what they are talking about. From what I saw, from reading on Sailnet, you were attacking at least as much as you were attacked, and many of the "attacks" on you were simple criticisms or questions of what you had posted. I did not read the entire thread, as it seems to have wandered off topic into wind generation. As for my qualifications, I don't have any specific, beyond what I've learned necessary to doing things like re-wiring my house and boat electrical systems, and working on car electrical systems. I do have a fairly strong background in basic electrical and electronic theory, as I've spent the better part of 10 years installing alarm systems and telephone systems, but have no degrees or licenses in the field. I've read as much of the literature that the different manufacturers have put out, including what I was able to find on Blue Sky's website. I've also spoken with the people at Hamilton Ferris in Massachusetts regarding solar panels. The people over at Hamilton Ferris have said that what SolarStik is claiming is very unlikely to be possible, given the limitations of two 50-watt solar panels. Blue Sky's own information seems to back that up. I'm all for an open discussion of the product, but would like to hear what Brian has to say about it first. I'd rather get my information from the source.
Ok ... here it comes:
Bill & Red, I welcome this direct debate with you regarding the claims of the power output of the Solar Stik. Before I begin, I am extending an invitation for you to perform an independent test of the Solar Stik that would meet your criteria. Practical Sailor (a "qualified, impartial entity with their head on straight") just completed a thorough review of our system in Virginia, and I think you will be surprised at what you will see. I unfortunatley cannot openly discuss the results yet, and we are still waiting to see which issue will have the results. So stay tuned... Now, as far as the Solar Stik ratings are concerned, we absolutely stand by the 80 to 100 amp-hour claims. Let me back up for a minute and qualify this: When we developed the first Solar Stik in 1998, we didn't re-invent the solar wheel, the solar wheel ultimately ran over us. I am sure that you have read by now about the Genesis of the Solar Stik; three boats initially sailed with Stiks in 1998, but they used a different solar panel than the one we currently use (it is no longer in production). In 2003, we decided to develop the mounting because it had proven itself through the roughest of seas, and allowed for constant aiming of the panels toward the sun and cooler operating temperatures than a "fixed" panel (subsequently providing more power). Our level of "solar understanding" at that time was pretty basic. In 2004, I bought a 3024I MPPT control with a shunt/pro-remote setup for our boat, and "optimized it" according to the manufacturer's recommendation. That is when we first noticed the total amp-hours for the day constantly floating around 80AH (in March). We had to backtrack to find out why we were getting so much power, because with two 50 watt panels, we didn't believe our own math either. For the next two years, we sought the answers and believe me, they were NOT easy to find. Most people (even many in the industry) simply repeat what they have been told... but don't actually perform any "STC" testing. So with no one able to help us decipher the opinions from reality, we performed much of our own testing & research IN ADDITION TO getting answers from qualified industry leaders such as Mr. Cullen from Blue Sky Energy Inc and BP Solar. Now about the ratings, "STC" ratings are NOT maximums, despite what you have heard or seen. Solar panel output IS directly affected by the cell operating temperature. Panels are rated at a nominal temperature of 77 degrees Farenheit. The output of a solar panel can be expected to vary by about 2.5% for every 5 degrees variation in temperature from the STC rating. As the temperature increases, the output decreases. We have purchased and tested 14 brands of solar panels to determine which one actually performed the best on the Solar Stik. We also tested the entire system (panels, mounting system, MPPT control) for two years to make sure that these numbers are correct. (The caveats are always "the weather" and the "condition of the battery".) During the summer months you will have the benefit of the long days, and in the winter, you have the benefit of the cooler temps. Most of our testing was done between Virginia and Florida, and the Bahamas. On boats, the average amount of pitches was four (including tide swing.) Kuwait and "16 hours" was not my statement, and I suspect that it was a simple miscommunication somewhere. The total hours may have been incorrect, but we have collected data from the military in the Mid East that shows the Stik operating at around 7.5 amps for better than 12 hours, plus the 30 min after sunrise and 30 min before sunset to total more than 90 AH. This is, of course, because of the intensity of the sun over there. Susan and Bob are not alone with their "results" reporting, and I tremendously appreciate their spirit and initiative to venture into the forums to discuss the Stik. They do so on their own and they are NOT compensated in ANY way by us. There would probably be more people discussing their experiences with the Solar Stik, but the reality is that most of the people who have bought these systems are out sailing/cruising, and don't have access to forums. We have been selling these systems since early last year, with many sailors regularly contacting us to tell us just how much power they are getting. We just had a boat come back to St. Aug from the Bahamas that never saw a dock for four months. They reported an average of 75-80 AH daily with their system. As far as the California site, do we really know what THEIR test conditions were? I could probably "pick apart" their testing just as many have tried to pick apart the Solar Stik... by splitting hairs. And for the record, where is the CA listing for the BP350U? It isn't there that I can find... The "Bottom Line" is this: The Solar Stik will produce as much as 80 to 100 amp-hours in good conditions and depending on where it is utilized... and we stand by that. Just this evening, I am coming in from yet another "test" where the Solar Stik system output was 5.6 Amps at forty minutes before sunset. Total for today: 63AH (It was cloudy with rain until 10:30 AM). Here is another link to a document called the "Synopsis of the Solar Stik". I hope that helps. Let me know if I missed anything or can be of further assistance. You can always contact me at the tech support e-mail/phone-line as well. Best Regards, Brian Bosley
Bill & Red, I welcome this direct debate with you regarding the claims of the power output of the Solar Stik. Before I begin, I am extending an invitation for you to perform an independent test of the Solar Stik that would meet your criteria. Practical Sailor (a "qualified, impartial entity with their head on straight") just completed a thorough review of our system in Virginia, and I think you will be surprised at what you will see. I unfortunatley cannot openly discuss the results yet, and we are still waiting to see which issue will have the results. So stay tuned... Now, as far as the Solar Stik ratings are concerned, we absolutely stand by the 80 to 100 amp-hour claims. Let me back up for a minute and qualify this: When we developed the first Solar Stik in 1998, we didn't re-invent the solar wheel, the solar wheel ultimately ran over us. I am sure that you have read by now about the Genesis of the Solar Stik; three boats initially sailed with Stiks in 1998, but they used a different solar panel than the one we currently use (it is no longer in production). In 2003, we decided to develop the mounting because it had proven itself through the roughest of seas, and allowed for constant aiming of the panels toward the sun and cooler operating temperatures than a "fixed" panel (subsequently providing more power). Our level of "solar understanding" at that time was pretty basic. In 2004, I bought a 3024I MPPT control with a shunt/pro-remote setup for our boat, and "optimized it" according to the manufacturer's recommendation. That is when we first noticed the total amp-hours for the day constantly floating around 80AH (in March). We had to backtrack to find out why we were getting so much power, because with two 50 watt panels, we didn't believe our own math either. For the next two years, we sought the answers and believe me, they were NOT easy to find. Most people (even many in the industry) simply repeat what they have been told... but don't actually perform any "STC" testing. So with no one able to help us decipher the opinions from reality, we performed much of our own testing & research IN ADDITION TO getting answers from qualified industry leaders such as Mr. Cullen from Blue Sky Energy Inc and BP Solar. Now about the ratings, "STC" ratings are NOT maximums, despite what you have heard or seen. Solar panel output IS directly affected by the cell operating temperature. Panels are rated at a nominal temperature of 77 degrees Farenheit. The output of a solar panel can be expected to vary by about 2.5% for every 5 degrees variation in temperature from the STC rating. As the temperature increases, the output decreases. We have purchased and tested 14 brands of solar panels to determine which one actually performed the best on the Solar Stik. We also tested the entire system (panels, mounting system, MPPT control) for two years to make sure that these numbers are correct. (The caveats are always "the weather" and the "condition of the battery".) During the summer months you will have the benefit of the long days, and in the winter, you have the benefit of the cooler temps. Most of our testing was done between Virginia and Florida, and the Bahamas. On boats, the average amount of pitches was four (including tide swing.) Kuwait and "16 hours" was not my statement, and I suspect that it was a simple miscommunication somewhere. The total hours may have been incorrect, but we have collected data from the military in the Mid East that shows the Stik operating at around 7.5 amps for better than 12 hours, plus the 30 min after sunrise and 30 min before sunset to total more than 90 AH. This is, of course, because of the intensity of the sun over there. Susan and Bob are not alone with their "results" reporting, and I tremendously appreciate their spirit and initiative to venture into the forums to discuss the Stik. They do so on their own and they are NOT compensated in ANY way by us. There would probably be more people discussing their experiences with the Solar Stik, but the reality is that most of the people who have bought these systems are out sailing/cruising, and don't have access to forums. We have been selling these systems since early last year, with many sailors regularly contacting us to tell us just how much power they are getting. We just had a boat come back to St. Aug from the Bahamas that never saw a dock for four months. They reported an average of 75-80 AH daily with their system. As far as the California site, do we really know what THEIR test conditions were? I could probably "pick apart" their testing just as many have tried to pick apart the Solar Stik... by splitting hairs. And for the record, where is the CA listing for the BP350U? It isn't there that I can find... The "Bottom Line" is this: The Solar Stik will produce as much as 80 to 100 amp-hours in good conditions and depending on where it is utilized... and we stand by that. Just this evening, I am coming in from yet another "test" where the Solar Stik system output was 5.6 Amps at forty minutes before sunset. Total for today: 63AH (It was cloudy with rain until 10:30 AM). Here is another link to a document called the "Synopsis of the Solar Stik". I hope that helps. Let me know if I missed anything or can be of further assistance. You can always contact me at the tech support e-mail/phone-line as well. Best Regards, Brian Bosley
one more thing...
Just so I am clear, today we were using an "optimized" Solar Boost control with temp sensor, a battery bank with a starting voltage of 11.5, and the temperature outdoors was about 66 degrees. ...I am on the road headed to Oakland for the Strictly Sail Show, so any future responses may be a few days away. My apologies in advance for any delays. I do have e-mail capability on the road and can be reached here: research@solarstik.com
Just so I am clear, today we were using an "optimized" Solar Boost control with temp sensor, a battery bank with a starting voltage of 11.5, and the temperature outdoors was about 66 degrees. ...I am on the road headed to Oakland for the Strictly Sail Show, so any future responses may be a few days away. My apologies in advance for any delays. I do have e-mail capability on the road and can be reached here: research@solarstik.com
More! More! More!
Brian, your explanation has given me 3 ideas for getting more power for American style cruising. It's easy to daydream, hard to run a company; so they're yours if interested. 1 Double the power by using 4 panels. Consider making a frame, hinged in the middle, supporting a panel in each half, like a picture frame that could be locked open. When the frame is closed, the panels would face each other for protection of the glass. A frame on each side of the solar stik would give 4 panels, twice the power. It appears your stik is plenty strong. The support for the wind generator, radar, antennas, etc. might need to be longer to get sun off the panels. Consider this an upgrade that spreads the cost of the stik over the performance of more panels to make it comparable to a larger fixed array that most cannot place due to space. The solar panels would be easily removable as now (if too much wind remove one on each side). ideas 2 and 3 are crazier 2 Could the frame be engineered such that the back of each solar panel be cooled by some evaporative process using seawater wicked up or dripping down from a resevoir in order to improve performance by cooling the panel. A fan to enhance evaporation might improve performance more than the power it uses. Another alternative is to have a heat sink like for a CPU. My panels are two inches thick, so i'm not sure how much idea #2 is going to help. 3 Would there be any advantage to using a mirrored surface (maybe mylar film on ribbed plastic panels) hinged from above and below the frame that opens to a 45' angle from the solar panel to reflect sunlight, increasing solar intensity and turning Anywhere into Kuwait. Obviously, this would add a lot of wind resistance or could bother neighbors, so the mirrored panels would need to be removeable. So i'm thinking of a frame supported on each side of the solar stik that when closed would have two solar panels facing each other with two thin plastic plates in between with the mirrored surfaces facing the solar panel glass. Each frame could be easily disconnected from the stik and would protect the panels during storage. Oh, and they should float, or have a lanyard, have rounded edges, have a satellite dish option, and kill mosquitos after sunset.
Brian, your explanation has given me 3 ideas for getting more power for American style cruising. It's easy to daydream, hard to run a company; so they're yours if interested. 1 Double the power by using 4 panels. Consider making a frame, hinged in the middle, supporting a panel in each half, like a picture frame that could be locked open. When the frame is closed, the panels would face each other for protection of the glass. A frame on each side of the solar stik would give 4 panels, twice the power. It appears your stik is plenty strong. The support for the wind generator, radar, antennas, etc. might need to be longer to get sun off the panels. Consider this an upgrade that spreads the cost of the stik over the performance of more panels to make it comparable to a larger fixed array that most cannot place due to space. The solar panels would be easily removable as now (if too much wind remove one on each side). ideas 2 and 3 are crazier 2 Could the frame be engineered such that the back of each solar panel be cooled by some evaporative process using seawater wicked up or dripping down from a resevoir in order to improve performance by cooling the panel. A fan to enhance evaporation might improve performance more than the power it uses. Another alternative is to have a heat sink like for a CPU. My panels are two inches thick, so i'm not sure how much idea #2 is going to help. 3 Would there be any advantage to using a mirrored surface (maybe mylar film on ribbed plastic panels) hinged from above and below the frame that opens to a 45' angle from the solar panel to reflect sunlight, increasing solar intensity and turning Anywhere into Kuwait. Obviously, this would add a lot of wind resistance or could bother neighbors, so the mirrored panels would need to be removeable. So i'm thinking of a frame supported on each side of the solar stik that when closed would have two solar panels facing each other with two thin plastic plates in between with the mirrored surfaces facing the solar panel glass. Each frame could be easily disconnected from the stik and would protect the panels during storage. Oh, and they should float, or have a lanyard, have rounded edges, have a satellite dish option, and kill mosquitos after sunset.
Excuse Me?
Nautiduck- You might want to learn how to read. I never called anyone ridiculous. What I said was: "It is statements like yours, where your claiming that twilight to twilight is a useful measurement of the effective day for a solar panel that makes Brian and his product look ridiculous. " The time between twilight to sunrise and sunset to twilight is not going to generate any appreciable amperage with solar panels. They are solar panels, which kind of implies that the sun is necessary for them to operate. Claiming that they can operate effectively before the sun has risen or after it has set is clearly ridiculous. Also, claiming to have 16 hours of operation in a place that physics says only has a maximum of 14.3 hours of daylight is lying. You can not operate solar panels effectively if the sun is not in the visible sky. Given the definition of lying: "A lie is a statement made by someone who believes or suspects it to be false, in the expectation that the hearers may believe it." Either Conchy Joe is lying or he doesn't understand that Kuwait can't have 16 hours days. However, he has stated that Kuwait can't have 16 hour days... so draw your own conclusions. Conchy Joe- I also don't see where I took what you said on Sailnet out of context. Apparently, either does Ted. If you could point out specifically what I or Ted said that was taken out of context, I would appreciate it. Amps and Amp-hours are very different things. Being precise when talking about technology isn't being an english teacher, but trying to keep things honest and accurate. If you don't understand what you are talking about, maybe you should stop talking until you do. No one said that the SolarStik doesn't provide more electricity than a fixed mount panel of the same wattage. That claim isn't under question. The question is how did you arrive at the final figures of 80-100 Amp-hours, especially if you don't understand the physics behind it to calculate it properly. Instead of answering the questions, you seem to have a habit of insulting the questioners. As Ted has kindly pointed out... over on the Sailnet thread, most of the attacks were instigated by you, Conchy Joe. That also appears to be a pattern of your behavior on multiple sailing forums, from what I've read Ted to say. This is evident per se, from your posts on those forums. Bill- Thanks for the link.
Nautiduck- You might want to learn how to read. I never called anyone ridiculous. What I said was: "It is statements like yours, where your claiming that twilight to twilight is a useful measurement of the effective day for a solar panel that makes Brian and his product look ridiculous. " The time between twilight to sunrise and sunset to twilight is not going to generate any appreciable amperage with solar panels. They are solar panels, which kind of implies that the sun is necessary for them to operate. Claiming that they can operate effectively before the sun has risen or after it has set is clearly ridiculous. Also, claiming to have 16 hours of operation in a place that physics says only has a maximum of 14.3 hours of daylight is lying. You can not operate solar panels effectively if the sun is not in the visible sky. Given the definition of lying: "A lie is a statement made by someone who believes or suspects it to be false, in the expectation that the hearers may believe it." Either Conchy Joe is lying or he doesn't understand that Kuwait can't have 16 hours days. However, he has stated that Kuwait can't have 16 hour days... so draw your own conclusions. Conchy Joe- I also don't see where I took what you said on Sailnet out of context. Apparently, either does Ted. If you could point out specifically what I or Ted said that was taken out of context, I would appreciate it. Amps and Amp-hours are very different things. Being precise when talking about technology isn't being an english teacher, but trying to keep things honest and accurate. If you don't understand what you are talking about, maybe you should stop talking until you do. No one said that the SolarStik doesn't provide more electricity than a fixed mount panel of the same wattage. That claim isn't under question. The question is how did you arrive at the final figures of 80-100 Amp-hours, especially if you don't understand the physics behind it to calculate it properly. Instead of answering the questions, you seem to have a habit of insulting the questioners. As Ted has kindly pointed out... over on the Sailnet thread, most of the attacks were instigated by you, Conchy Joe. That also appears to be a pattern of your behavior on multiple sailing forums, from what I've read Ted to say. This is evident per se, from your posts on those forums. Bill- Thanks for the link.
- Status