Ctek D250S 12v to 12v charger for camper battery

[Dion]

Absolutely agree and I suppose that's why i wounder what the over all cost set-ups wold be of various solutions. As we were crossing Aus we didn't have concerns about sun etc but would I if I was down South? maybe then the DC-DC would be the better option.

Anyway, it's all good - good discussion

I still have the heavy/thick cables between car and camper; that's the primary bulk charge.  The DC-DC is the top-up and top-off charger; used mainly at camp.

[RebsWA]

I still have the heavy/thick cables between car and camper; that's the primary bulk charge.  The DC-DC is the top-up and top-off charger; used mainly at camp.

Dion, help me out here. You are using a battery in the car to "top up" a battery in the camper right. Don't these 12v to 12v things consume more power than they output?
I can imagine some benefit if a fridge is running in the stationary camper all day and you drive around a lot, else its it seems a bit like robbing Peter to pay Paul? What am I missing?
Regards

[Dion]

Dion, help me out here. You are using a battery in the car to "top up" a battery in the camper right. Don't these 12v to 12v things consume more power than they output?
I can imagine some benefit if a fridge is running in the stationary camper all day and you drive around a lot, else its it seems a bit like robbing Peter to pay Paul? What am I missing?
Regards

There are some losses in the DC-DC chargers, yes.

A fridge is powered off the camper during long stays (should have added that).

[BigBlock1DT6]

Yep, it gets boring.  It's an argument that goes around in circles....we need a yawn emoticon.

or he is a good one


Here you may find what you looking for http://www.pic4ever.com/index.htm

[BigBlock1DT6]

Well I'm learning more and more with every post in this thread
And i am more than happy to take on board all that is said from all sides
who knows a little from here, a little from there
I'm going to end up with the "DUCKS NUTS" Setup for charging my camper trailer

[drivesafe]

As we were crossing Aus we didn't have concerns about sun etc but would I if I was down South? maybe then the DC-DC would be the better option.

Anyway, it's all good - good discussion

Steve

Hi Steve, DC-DC devices work, it just that they are no where near the wonder, end all answer that the manufacturers and sellers of these devices make out.

For instance, if your a heavy power user when free camping, but don’t tend to drive long enough, these devices have no hope of replacing the amount of bulk used capacity that your alternator can do.

Or if you find you are in need of even more power than a single battery can supply, again, the adding of a second battery means your alternator is not only going to replace more used capacity, it will do it in a shorter drive time, as much as close to half the time a DC-DC device needs.

As I have pointed out on many occasions, we are only shown the glossy side of using these devices and are never told the full story.

One more point, and the reason I emphasised the way chargers, of any form, worked, in that they are dependant on the load being applied to them to set the voltage they charge at, is because this fundamental operating procedure is the one thing an alternator is NOT restricted by and why alternators, in the vast majority of uses, can charge faster than these devices can.

Put simply, most alternators are big enough so that they are not restricted by current limitations.

Again, these devices work, but just no where near as well as we are lead to believe and if they were such a fantastic leap forward over what an alternator can do, why is it that not one single seller of these devices has ever posted up a graph that honestly comperes the charging ability of these devices against the charging ability of an alternator.

Again, we are continually told that these devices do a better job, so why no hard evidence to back the claims?

[SteveandViv]

Hi Steve, DC-DC devices work, it just that they are no where near the wonder, end all answer that the manufacturers and sellers of these devices make out.

For instance, if your a heavy power user when free camping, but don’t tend to drive long enough, these devices have no hope of replacing the amount of bulk used capacity that your alternator can do.

Or if you find you are in need of even more power than a single battery can supply, again, the adding of a second battery means your alternator is not only going to replace more used capacity, it will do it in a shorter drive time, as much as close to half the time a DC-DC device needs.

As I have pointed out on many occasions, we are only shown the glossy side of using these devices and are never told the full story.

One more point, and the reason I emphasised the way chargers, of any form, worked, in that they are dependant on the load being applied to them to set the voltage they charge at, is because this fundamental operating procedure is the one thing an alternator is NOT restricted by and why alternators, in the vast majority of uses, can charge faster than these devices can.

Put simply, most alternators are big enough so that they are not restricted by current limitations.

Again, these devices work, but just no where near as well as we are lead to believe and if they were such a fantastic leap forward over what an alternator can do, why is it that not one single seller of these devices has ever posted up a graph that honestly comperes the charging ability of these devices against the charging ability of an alternator.

Again, we are continually told that these devices do a better job, so why no hard evidence to back the claims?

Tim, I agree with you and always have regarding the 12-12 chargers..I have no intention of ever getting one, I don't need one and I'm happy with my charging set up. As you know we have traveled a lot over the last year and had no issues at all. I would rather use solar and I do. When I get the chance at a camp ground I will give the batteries a top up. While I'm sure these devices do a great job of getting the battery topped up I'm happy with the 95% I'm getting from my current system

steve

[drivesafe]

Hi again Steve and contrary to what you and everybody else thinks, I’m not trying to talk people out of buying these devices, I just prefer that if someone does buy one, they get it for the correct reasons and not just based on the advertising hype.

Steve thats a good point you made about the 95%, most people are of the opinion that you need to fully charge their batteries every time they use them.

The only time that they MUST BE fully charged is when the CT is going to be stored away between trips.

While on a trip you can safely cycle any type of deep cycle battery between 30% and 80% and not do any harm.

The lower a battery is, the greater the problems of sulfation can be, BUT this is only if the battery is not in use for at least 24 hours.

If the battery is in use, and thats either charging or discharging while running accessories, sulfation won’t occur and so, continuos cycling as above won’t pose any problems.

[drivesafe]

Steve, as far as solar goes, here something I heard today.

A company is bringing in some new 135w solar panels. These panels are going to sell for around $1500 each.

Not cheap I hear you say and true, but they also have a solar hot water system incorporated into them.

This will have a number of advantages. The obvious is the hot water but the water circulating through the solar panel means the panel will stay much cooler and as such be for more efficient.

Still not sure if thats value at $1500?

[Symon]

This is a bit of a thread hijack, but I'm in two minds about a photovoltaic array and water heater in the one unit.  Sounds great in theory but I wonder how much of the stored heat in the water would be radiated back into the panel.  Like you say panel efficiency drops off rapidly with an increase in temperature.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see the design and some performance figures.

[drivesafe]

Hi Symon, and I apologies for the hijack.

I don’t sell solar panels and have no intentions of selling these, I just posted up the info as a point of interest.

I got the info via one of the companies I deal with and know little more than what I’ve posted.

They are a few months away but I believe the importer is seeking approval for the panels so the fed and state solar rebates will apply.

Don’t think they will be big in the RV side of things, but who knows?

[BigBlock1DT6]

$1500 is a lot of coin for an added water feature in one 135watt panel
add in the cost of this 130 watt panel at $1500 on top of the current solar Scheme seriously, should we as tax payers keep flipping the bill
Gee the next thing the government will be funding a scheme for Nano-technology and infrared energy, oh and maybe even the Solar Sun Jar 

[geordie4x4]

I also heard from a friend in Belgum that there is now some research into solar thermal cells that work like a solar cell but become more efficient as they get hot. Aparrently they are a thermoelectric cell and use a diamond film. I haven't been able to find much out about them though so might only be a new idea.

[drivesafe]

I also heard from a friend in Belgum that there is now some research into solar thermal cells that work like a solar cell but become more efficient as they get hot. Aparrently they are a thermoelectric cell and use a diamond film. I haven't been able to find much out about them though so might only be a new idea.

A story on PayTV in the last week or so also had info on some new solar cells that tolerated much higher temps and as such could have Fresnel lenses placed above them to increase the power output without worrying about the higher temperatures this would cause.

[geordie4x4]

Ah that is interesting. I gather that the lenses act to gather and direct more intense light onto the area of cell. That would eb a great advantage for smaller area of pannels and not having to angle them up as much.
 I have mine flat on the roof rack but I'm out in prety bright sun for most of the year so the angle has not been an issue in performance.