CarpeDiem

I doubt any lfp could support that even a handful of times. The li-ions would be getting depleted very fast! SoC numbers literally become a random number generator after a few half cycles. Not even laboratory grade couloumb counters can get accurate SoC over many cycles without fully charging. I have to laugh when manufacturers claim they can maintain a SoC between 40%-80%... I encountered a so called system just recently which was under performing. We disconnected all the loads and fully charged the cells, surprise surprise, each cell some how magically absorbed

Yes! But that will still will crank your diesel... Unlike a 11v LA. All these things your encountering are the reason I shelved my LTO start battery project 🤣

Firstly the smashing is during the CC phase (typically called bulk). I charge at 0.9C the recommended is 0.5C the manufacturer max is 1C. Termination current occurs in the CV phase (typically called absorb). Termination current is a function of the manufacturers max voltage and term current. So if the manufacturer states 3.65v @ 0.05C (which mine does) Then we have: I_term=(V_absorb-3.37)/0.28 * 0.05 0.28 comes from 3.65 - 3.37 (3.37v is the voltage at which no charging is occurring). I have found that v_absorb of 3.5v/cell is perfect to provide a good tim

You will still need dc/dc... But 5S at 80% SoC is ~13.2v which is a bit less obnoxious than 14.8v Of course you lose Wh's Is this a trick question...? Cause tail current termination depends on voltage 😉😉

Yep you can use the full capacity. Yes it will reduce the lifetime. I smash ours, I charge it at double the recommended rate, but below the maximum, I take it to within an hour of being completely flat and shutting down. I charge it to whatever and then start discharging it again... and sometimes I leave it fully charged for a whole week... Following my current usage profile, of racing weekly and getting away for a couple of weekends a month, I will get, conservatively, 15 years out of the battery. I would like to get fewer years out of it - as that would mean I'd be out sail

Assuming YINGLONG then 80% is approximately 2.6v You could consider a 5 cell pack.

OGO.

"can you" The short answer is yes. Salt water is a great conductor, swimming with a 96v battery is a stupid idea. If you rewrote your question, perhaps to: Is it likely you'll get electrocuted when a correctly designed electric boat sinks? Then the short answer becomes no.

Or leave enough loads running overnight, like the fridge and freezer. It's not a weakness of lfp it's a weakness of the charging solution. Most solar chargers will start again each morning, If your lfp has no loads this will eventually lead to over charging. If you have no permanent house loads then disable charging. On CD we disable all charging including the alternator and shorepower. We can do about 6 winter races before the charging gets enabled again. We have a composting toilet that's continually running a fan but the draw is incidental and is far from enough to a

I think the cabin top is the least exciting part of this project. Anyone know what Li chemistry they are using?

I guess it's really isn't practiced properly till it's needed. Like how often are you in a position to practice heaving to in 40+ knots with 7m swells unless you are actually doing it for real? A few years ago I got caught out on a Farr 1020 heading to Fiji. 50knot winds and enormous seas. After 24hrs of completely exhausting ourselves we decided to give it a go in the middle of the night. We knew the theory but had no idea if it would work. For the next 8 hours we saw 60-70knot gusts and everyone slept like babies. I think technically we were forereaching but we were slow en

I wouldn't bother with a balance board. You're not going to reach a charge point where balancing is required. I feel quite strongly that the LFP will reach I=term long before the LTO reaches I=0A. So you'll end up dropping the charge voltage to prevent overcharging the LFP, that will happen long before the LTO reaches equilibrium. So I believe you will need a DC/DC to top up the LTO. Without a DC/DC I suspect that 60% SOC is more likely - BUT that would still be way more than adequate for starting purposes and you would also be able to run the windlass for quite a few ups/downs.

You must have missed the bit where the EPIRB track lined up with the drift modeling - proving that the Easterly turn wasn't Aliens but was actually the expected/modelled tidal drift. I think you have a better chance of convincing people that it was Aliens which moved the EPIRB, the Flybridge and all the debris from 1mile north east of the EPIRB activation point into the Northern tidal stream at the 10m contour. Cause you'll never convince anyone who knows anything about the tide, that a 1Nm wide eddy was moving at 6knots in a WSW direction.

I have begun to draw the conclusion that you have not actually read the report. You'll be pleased to know it wasn't Aliens. So, RCC were using a model at the time of the incident that said this is exactly what would happen - low and behold it is exactly what happened. The report further clarifies how the commission determined the location of the capsize: I am no expert, but from my simple calculations - for the flybridge to have drifted from the location the skipper claims the capsize occurred to the point where the EPIRB was activated and attached to the Fly Bridge,

Is this an expert opinion? Or one of those everyone-has-one opinions? If the former, then I strongly suggest you get in touch with the defense team, as they have produced no expert witness to discredit the tide modelling, and no other people that have local knowledge of the area have come forward to discuss phantom eddies. I also don't know how it was done, but that doesn't mean it wasn't and it certainly doesn't mean that I am qualified to discredit the people/teams/companies that did.

I disagree with your opinion My opinion is that seasoned fisherpeople, going on the trip of a lifetime to the Three Kings, would be smart enough to know not to inflate their LJ's until they are outside.

I think there is a bit of fact missing going on and a few assumptions being made, particularly that there was only one helicopter. Helicopter A was tasked at 2035, they were the most operationally ready helicopter in the area, they advised RCC they would be airborne in 30 minutes, but they took 2 hours to convert the aircraft into SAR mode and source qualified crew. Helicopter B was tasked at 2200 out of Auckland at the request of Helicopter A because they were taking longer than predicted to get ready. It's important to remember that at this point in the operation, this was a r

TAIC undertook an inquiry - that's their remit - that's what they do - yes they also investigate. That's why the documents title is: Maritime inquiry MO-2022-201 Charter fishing vessel Enchanter Capsize Inquiry's produce recommendations. Investigations produce facts for the inquiry to process into recommendations. You can't have an inquiry without an investigation. The TAIC report is full of recommendations, it even lists the recommendations that were accepted/rejected by NZSAR and MNZ. It is most certainly an inquiry in the true sense of the word.

They tasked the most appropriate asset available to go look for the Epirb. They then tasked two more when the gravity of the problem became apparent. MaritimeNZ were not responsible for the fuel cache. Fueling is the responsibility the local operator, in this case NEST. The local operator agrees to meet a national standard for rescue aircraft. MaritimeNZ can't have caches of fuel scattered around NZ waiting for what if. Jet fuel goes off if left to sit and needs careful management. Before the incident, NEST already knew they had a fuel availability issue at Kaitiaia

Correct I did say. And then, when you pointed that out, I acknowledged that you said North Island. Rather than accepting that I it wrong and acknowledging my acknowledgement your response was then to throw me an obnoxious geography lesson. I trust you now have enough clarification to move on? And possibly enough information to understand why people aren't engaging.

If you want people to participate in the conversation I would suggest that this isn't the way. I will bow out again. I feel very silly for re-engaging.

Oh yep, you said North Island.

Agreed. I dislike auto inflators for that very reason. Also they are very annoying when you take a wave on the bow...

The inquiry happened it's findings are documented. NZ SAR doesn't have rescue helicopters ready to go with wet winching capabilities. RCC task domestic commercial helicopters and air ambulance helicopters (naso). NASO helicopters are only available if they aren't already involved in ambulance work. The aircraft has to be reconfigured on the ground and set up for SAR, this takes a couple of hours to complete. Defense helicopters do not have wet rated winches - they also have a policy in place that requires that RCC engage commercial and NASO assets before they engage Defense as

Plenty of LTO start batteries from european cars at the wreckers I would use an AML fuse. Three years ago, the reason I didn't go LTO start was multiple, 1. they are too hard on the glow plugs. 2, they need a special charging regime 3, I needed to find some bespoke glow plugs 4, I will get 10yrs out of the current ($250) start battery (7yrs left) 5, the (maybe 10kg) weight savings just weren't worth the effort 6, ewofs, electrical standards and potential marina demands Maybe in 7 yrs time someone will have done the work for me