Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:35:58 -0700
Reply-To: Rocket J Squirrel <camping.elliott@GMAIL.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Rocket J Squirrel <camping.elliott@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: me too (solar)
In-Reply-To: <25755759-1346-43A5-98B6-B0A15290E426@mac.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
If you have that "remember not to connect the turbine to the charge
controller" thing under control then a single inlet and a switch to
determine where the power goes to would work fine. I always give thought
to idiot-proofing things as much as is reasonable. This because I
designed products for consumers for a couple decades; but mainly because
life informs me, day after day, that I are an idiot.
But, yeah -- once you open the door for Honda generators then . . . why,
the sky's the limit! Fuel cells! Steam-driven magnetos! Child-powered
treadles! Poaching off forestry service power poles! Tidal generators!
The mind boggles.
Power. I must have POWER!
Silliness aside, I like the Anderson powerpoles. They seem to be pretty
darn impervious to dirt and dust, and are robust enough to being knocked
about. They have worked fine for me for several years.
-- RJS
On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 19:59 -0400, Kim Brennan wrote:
> Yah, I could go to the trouble of putting yet another hole in the side
> of the van. I'd have to use a different orientation of the powerpole
> connectors to assure that you couldn't plug the wrong one in. It's far
> more likely that I won't have both along at the same time I only have
> so much roof space to carry stuff, and hence decisions need to be made
> as to the best energy for the given trip. I could also bring my Honda
> generator along (though some places don't allow generators.)
>
>
> On Jun 28, 2011, at 7:34 PM, Rocket J Squirrel wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 18:34 -0400, David Beierl wrote:
> >
> >> I wouldn't be surprised if you could run the turbine
> >> right into the controller and not worry about switching
> >> (I also wouldn't be surprised if you could not...).
> >
> > Depends on the type of controller. An MPPT type controller ekes more
> > current out of solar panels than a less-expensive controller because the
> > MPPT controller will continually adjust the load it presents to the
> > panels to maximize panel efficiency (panels are typically more efficient
> > when running around 16 - 17 volts) while outputting lower voltage and
> > more current to the battery than the panels are putting out. I typically
> > see 4 or so amps going into the controller (at a higher voltage) and 5
> > to 6 amps coming out. Watts in = watts out, but different
> > voltage/current levels. It's kind of an impedance-matching device.
> >
> > It pauses every couple seconds to adjust itself as needed to keep the
> > panels at their maximum output.
> >
> > This might cause a collision of worlds if a turbine is connected to this
> > type of controller. Two active circuits fighting each other. The
> > controller would be changing the load presented to the turbine, looking
> > for maximum power, but the turbine, trying to drive a battery but seeing
> > the load change, would continually adjust its output.
> >
> > Sounds like a fun science project, to see what would happen, but I leave
> > that as an exercise for the student. Safer to put in a switch. Depending
> > on how ugly this collision of two worlds might be,
> >
> > My guess is, that as a load, other controller types will also confuse
> > the wind turbine's electronics. They expect to see a battery load.
> >
> > I, myself, might be tempted to mount two sets of inputs: one for the
> > panels, one for the turbine, to avoid a chance that the turbine might
> > accidentally be connected to the charge controller. There should be no
> > problem connecting their outputs together.
> >
> > I mean, look: when you're camped out in the woods waiting for a zombie
> > infestation to burn itself out, the last thing you need is a smoked
> > charge controller or wind turbine.
> >
> > -- RJS
>
| 
