Endurance voyages - Battery vs Diesel

[Letum]

I thought of a simpler way of saying it:


With a 100% efficient charging system you get as much out of the batteries as you put in.

No charging system is 100% efficient , so you get slightly less out of the batteries then you put in.

Lets say charging efficiency is at 90%
1 unit of fuel = 1 unit of energy
If you burn 100units of fuel you will put 90units of energy in the battery.
If you can go 1 mile one one unit of fuel/energy you will go 90 miles, but burn 100 units of fuel.
10 units of fuel have been lost as heat because the charging system is only 90% efficient.

On the surface you will go 100 miles on 100 units of fuel because you don't have the 10% loss in charging the batteries.

Claiming you go further running on batteries is saying that you get more out of your batteries than you put in. This is obviously impossible!


*edit* sorry, my spell check bugger things up for a second there

[IRONxMortlock]

Originally Posted by Letum

Claiming you go further running on batteries is saying that you get more out of your batteries than you put in. This is obviously impossible!

I think this real life concept is understood by all, otherwise we'd all be cruising around on perpetual motion machines wouldn't we.

The question is, has this been modelled into the game? According to Ducimus's information it appears that we can in fact create energy in game.
________
karinASS

[Letum]

Originally Posted by IRONxMortlock

I think this real life concept is understood by all

Apperantly not....

Originally Posted by IRONxMortlock

The question is, has this been modelled into the game? According to Ducimus's information it appears that we can in fact create energy in game.

Ducimus neither proves or disproves it.
I'm going to run the test* so I can find out. I will post the results soon.

*see above

[Letum]

OK, first test results are in from this test:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...48&postcount=3


Boat:IXC with IX/2 conning tower, deck gun and MAN Turbocharger

For the periscope depth run and the battery charge after:
Weather: 5
Test Distance:155.9km
Max distance1: 14120km
Max distance2: 10936km

For the surface only run:
Weather: 6
Test Distance: Test distance (115.9km)
Max distance3: 14488km
Max distance4: 13901km

Conclusion

Indecisive; further tests needed.
The submerged run used 3184kms worth of fuel in 155.9km. It is using almost 20.5kms worth of fuel to go 1km.
The surface run used 587kms worth of fuel to go 155.9km. It is using 3.7 kms worth of fuel to go 1km.

On the surface these number suggest that surface running is far more efficient, This is made even more dramatic when you account for the worse weather on the surface run. However, if the numbers where totally accurate then the surface run should have used 155.9kms worth of fuel to go 155.9km. i.e. 1kms worth of fuel to go 1km!

This difference could have been caused by:
1) Innacurate testing
2) Inaccurate NO maximum range prediction
3) The weather.

I will conduct the test twice more to get better results and reach a proper conclusion.

[Corsair]

If I were you, I'd rather spend my time playing...

[Hakahura]

Corsairs right!

What are we doing here, when theres tonnage to rack up!

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Hakahura

Corsairs right!

What are we doing here, when theres tonnage to rack up!

The more you know your self and your boat; the more you will sink.

Anyway, Ive just finished another 2 runs. I took a average of 4 max range predictions this time.

Something went seriously wrong with the 3rd test as my results made no sense. the 2nd test however got results similar to the first test.

It looks like SH3 models batteries correctly.

According to my test results
It is less efficient to run submerged (in GWx at least)
know thine self