Lithium Batteries are SOOO yesterday

[zboss]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

It is relevant because a major advantage that was being touted for the new technology this thread is about was "faster charging".
Faster charging is not what we need. On a boat the charging sources are all low powered, so batteries that charge faster are not really needed.

The most important things for boaters are
a) price
b) total system efficiency

At the moment it would appear the for world cruisers the traditional approach, using a main diesel engine is best. Using Lithium in stead of lead acid is starting to become an option.

For day sailors however electrical propulsion is however a viable option. Especially in my country where boats need to pass an emissions test every couple of years, and when your boat fails to you need to re-motorise. If you're on a lake and anyway always return to the same port electric propulsion is perfect.

There is one other advantage to the "dual carbon" batteries and that is they are fairly heat neutral. I assume this is because of the low resistance to charging. So it seems that its a lot safer than Lithium batteries without having to jump through hoops to deal with potential accidents.

Anyhow, Ryden looks like core of their approach is based around this new formulation of carbon that has different properties depending on how it is grown, it just happens that the battery is their main focus. They claim the same carbo material can be heated to 800 degrees and instantly returned to be cool enough to touch. They also see it as a next generation active charcoal.

[gonesail]

When you plug in that electric car to re-charge it, the power has to come from somewhere, currently there is no where near enough generating capacity to replace a significant amount of gasoline

agree and then calculate the new improved price of the lithium batteries that are SOOO yesterday: over 10 times that of the lead acid. wait until the electric car proponents have to replace the battery banks of their money savers.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by gonesail

agree and then calculate the new improved price of the lithium batteries that are SOOO yesterday: over 10 times that of the lead acid. wait until the electric car proponents have to replace the battery banks of their money savers.

When calculating the running cost of an electric vehicle it is correct to assume the Battery is a "consumable" as well. I have an electric bicycle, and I depreciate the battery by about 1,- $ per charging cycle. (The charge itself only costs 0,05 $...).

In Europe Renault is now marketing electric cars where you rent the battery. This makes a lot of sense.
However, Tesla intends to lower the cost of lithium batteries significantly. If that works then lithium becomes very interesting for boaters as well...

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

so who is responsible in such crashes, Apple and Google.

I know that technically pilotless airlines can be achieved today. I dont see any serious moves to allow them

No auto pilot would have managed to land US Airways Flight 1549 on the Hudson. That's why we still have human pilots.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

A car is not just a means of transport for many people, it is also a lifestyle choice, a statement of status, and other things. Driverless case may suit those that eschew cars, but in fact today they have alternatives in taxis , and public transport . Its hard to see what driverless cars will actually bring to the party.

Car as a "lifestyle choice" is exactly something that I see the younger generation no longer care about. Where I live if you want to watch beautiful people on a Friday night you go to the main railway station.
The problem is that public transit doesn't go everywhere, and not all the time. Driverless cars could be a game changer here. It would make ubiquitous public transport possible. But there are indeed legal obstacles.
But then again, if we allow a African Refugee with minimal knowledge of the language or the town drive a decrepit taxi, why shouldn't we allow software developed by google?

[a64pilot]

This sounds silly, but at first automatic elevators were hard for people to get used to, many wouldn't ride one, they didn't trust the thing.

[hellosailor]

"No auto pilot would have managed to land US Airways Flight 1549 on the Hudson. That's why we still have human pilots. "
Once again, someone blames poorly written software instead of the people who wrote it?


An autopilot is in fact sometimes capable of landing an aircraft. Neither the airlines nor the passengers want to see that happen, so it normally is just not done, not discussed. But as a matter of capabilities?


Come on, piece of trivial programming to tell an autopilot "any waterway can be used as an emergency landing strip. Engage the "water landing" button one second before contact."


A vastly under-credited part of Scully's landing (by everyone except him) was the fact that the cheapo Airbus did in fact have a "DITCH" button which closed numerous vents in the aircraft, allowing it to float high and dry long after many older aircraft would have sunk. With their passengers.


Landing a glider on a flat surface, water, asphalt, or concrete, is a trivial programming exercise. Avoiding speedbumps (trucks, boats, trees) just calls for good "eyesight" and a little more coding.

[crazyoldboatguy]

Originally Posted by rwidman

No, protest and debate is what makes people stupid. As in the quote above yours.
The general public is dumb enough about technology that they are easily scared away from it. Or led to it in the case of electric (uses no fuel) cars.

Protest and debate are a reality, whether they keep us from being stupid as ex-calif says or that it actually makes folks stupid.

The general public is not knowledgeable on the subject and allow themselves to be persuaded by folks with agendas. Again, it is a reality. Nuclear power has the potential, with current technology, to provide relatively inexpensive, consistent, safe electricity. The incessant environmental impact studies that are forced on power companies increases the cost to the point of making it unprofitable to build the power plant. If folks want more electric cars, the electricity has to come from somewhere, right? At this point, solar and wind generation, in no way, can get anywhere near providing the power we need today, let alone the power needed if everyone was driving a Tesla.

There hasn't been a sizeable electric generating plant, powered by ANYTHING (coal, natural gas, nuclear) in this country in many years. Same goes with oil refineries - not a single new one in decades has been built on US soil. Some folks think that is a good thing. It sure proves that despite the fact that we are driving many more new cars and buying/using more electrical appliances we are capable of making them so efficient that we don't have increased demand. That is a good thing but it can't be sustained. The battle to prevent new generation capacity will have a negative effect on the economy and on the lives of many folks - mainly lower income - who have to pay more to stay warm.

So, the process to approve new technology and new generating construction is a long process and free speech rights are going to be a part of it, no matter our opinion on the usefulness of it.

So. you're both right, or you're both wrong - it really doesn't matter, does it? If you listen to me you will never go wrong - or right - take your pick.

[Cadence]

Since the thread has wandered any way.
Anyone have any experience with Sundanzer Reefers or freezers? Touted as low enough consumption to run on a solar panel boat feasible in size.

[kas_1611]

Autopilots frequently land planes. Every time you hear that "buda, buda, buda" as you roll down the runway that's an autopilot landing as it is so precise it will run the nose wheel down the catseyes in the middle of the runway. Even the most skilled human pilot would struggle to do that.

Peak Oil is a fact as we live on a finite planet with finite resources so eventually we will have extracted 50% of all the oil available. That's just simple mathematics. The scare over Peak Oil was before we started hydraulically fracturing shale rocks to get at the hydrocarbons trapped there. When the prediction was initially made this technology did not exist. It is purely advances in drilling technologies, extraction techniques and being able to build rigs that can position themselves accurately above a spot in 12,000ft of water in pretty much anything Mother Nature can throw at them that has allowed us to push back the date of Peak Oil.

Pumped Storage is about the only feasible storage system available for National Grid systems at this time but it needs a lot of them to be able to store enough power capacity. In the UK we have about 2.5GW of pumped storage, mostly in the mountains of Scotland and Wales compared to 50GW of coal and gas fired generators. Even our wind generation is capable of generating up to 12GW at the absolute max (although frequently doesn't provide anywhere near that, as I type it is running at 0.33GW) so pumped storage really is a miniscule part of the system. My gut instinct is we need to harness the rivers and the tides, you move that much water you have a massive reserve of power just waiting to be tapped. Do this and we can switch off the wind turbines and maybe even the coal stations as well. We did it in the Mediaeval Period, even having blast furnaces powered by waterwheels so why not now?

[crazyoldboatguy]

Originally Posted by Cadence

Since the thread has wandered any way.
Anyone have any experience with Sundanzer Reefers or freezers? Touted as low enough consumption to run on a solar panel boat feasible in size.

With refrigeration, it is all about the insulation. How thick is it? What type is it? An R factor of 20 is needed for refrigeration and an R factor of 30 is needed for freezing. How you remove the heat is important but compressor technology hasn't changed much. Physics laws can't be broken.

These units apparently use a compressor - nothing new there. Anything can be "run" by solar. It all depends on how much solar generating power you have, right?

[goboatingnow]

A vastly under-credited part of Scully's landing (by everyone except him) was the fact that the cheapo Airbus did in fact have a "DITCH" button which closed numerous vents in the aircraft, allowing it to float high and dry long after many older aircraft would have sunk. With their passengers.


Landing a glider on a flat surface, water, asphalt, or concrete, is a trivial programming exercise. Avoiding speedbumps (trucks, boats, trees) just calls for good "eyesight" and a little more coding.

IN fact Airbus was generally peeved that Scully landing was actually carried out mainly by Airbus software and he failed to credit that !!!

But then again, if we allow a African Refugee with minimal knowledge of the language or the town drive a decrepit taxi, why shouldn't we allow software developed by google?

As long as I can sue Google in a crash , thats fine.

I think people mix up technology that exists over technology that can be used . We have all sorts of technological solutions available to us today, not all are usable or want to be used.

Many countries for example do not want to scale up nuclear power , especially since Fuka sima etc. The tech is available , just the public dont trust it.


remember the craze of powered kitchen knives in the 70s , where are they today, why because people found a good proper carving knife was actually better.

I have no count we will see automated transport solutions, but I suspect it will be many many years before such thing safe commonplace.

I bought my first HP Windows CE smartphone in around 2000 I remember HP journada , severe years before the first iPhone and had been developing window CE apps before that .

ALL this stuff has a much longer timeline from invention to acceptance and widespread use and much of it is a dead end and gets forgotten.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by crazyoldboatguy

With refrigeration, it is all about the insulation. How thick is it? What type is it? An R factor of 20 is needed for refrigeration and an R factor of 30 is needed for freezing. How you remove the heat is important but compressor technology hasn't changed much. Physics laws can't be broken.

These units apparently use a compressor - nothing new there. Anything can be "run" by solar. It all depends on how much solar generating power you have, right?

Thanks! I didn't need a primer on refrigeration.
The question was product specific.

[zboss]

I'm not a pilot but I feel that commercial pilots days are numbered. The computers fly the plane anyhow, unless you are somehow pulling levers attached to pulleys that turn the plane. I suspect that is not the case.

Also, I think most of the major crashes (air france, the latest Malaysian air crash, etc) have all been attributed to human error. The computers knew what to do but were not allowed to do it. If the pilots had just let the plane fly itself then this would not have happened. Why was Air France not on autopilot anyhow?

Even if the plane in new york had crashed and burned we still would have more people alive than dead overall.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by zboss

Also, I think most of the major crashes (air france, the latest Malaysian air crash, etc) have all been attributed to human error. The computers knew what to do but were not allowed to do it. If the pilots had just let the plane fly itself then this would not have happened. Why was Air France not on autopilot anyhow?

Wrong.

The autopilot disengaged because it had experienced conditions beyond its programming.

Air France 447 crashed because the pilot handling the aircraft did not properly recognize a fairly common problem and did to react appropriately even when the aircraft captain returned to the cockpit from a rest period and told him what to do.

Deterioration of manual flying skills in the age of ubiquitous automation is a very serious issue the flying world is currently wrestling with. This is thought to be at the root of AF447s crash.


Adelie