Thanks, Gary.
I appreciate you pointing me in the right direction.
Steve
I can’t speak for the demand but I do there will be a great desire for the Solar Panel. Since we don’t know the price, some may want it but not buy it.
I know I will buy two for two locations.
1 Like
I would love to see it as well, as I would really like to get the SKY up to the optimum 10 metres but I need this option for sure to make it realistic here. I am sure the crew are working hard behind the scenes to realise this.
1 Like
Any kind of date for production as well as anticipated selling price?
Looks great - I’m ready to order.
No price yet but we’re aiming for availability in Q1 2019. Hope to start full-scale field testing soon.
7 Likes
Please include me if possible on this! I too would like to use this for my Sky. The Mrs. really doesn’t like me going up to the roof anymore, and I’m not relishing it either! 
3 Likes
I’m replying to my own last comment (#47), as it seems that I just had to go on the roof and replace the SKY batteries just ahead of a coming snowstorm.
WF notifies me via email last night that my Sky wasn’t reporting, and that the batteries needed replacing.
Which leaves me to a different question… why arent we getting notified that the batteries are about to die? (i.e.- fell below 3v-2.8v?)
All the more reason to get the solar panel ASAP.
My Sky’s 1st set of batteries lasted about 7 months without power save mode ON… I’m going to change it to Power Save mode for the winter and see how that affects the curve…
The manufacturer’s discharge graph for Energizer Ultimate Lithiums has been posted here several times in the past. Basically, they are awesome at holding constant voltage until the very end, at which time they take a cliff dive worse than the 1929 stock market in less than a day, as demonstrated by my own Sky last month:
No argument that a solar or remote battery box is needed in many installations…
4 Likes
@vreihen is correct: the voltage of ultimate lithiums “falls off the cliff” so quickly there’s very little warning. We’re hoping with more data we’ll be able to do a better job of sending out the “your batteries are low” heads-up.
None! Solar option coming sooooooon…
7 Likes
That’s good to hear.
Would it be correct to assume that the solar option will provide most if not all primary power while the panel receives light, and the lithium batteries pick up the slack at dark?
This is how my former WMR200A station worked, and my batteries lasted ‘forever’, metaphorically speaking.
No, the solar accessory will have its own internal, rechargeable battery that lasts many weeks without sun so the internal disposable batteries are not necessary with the solar accessory. In fact, the SKY doesn’t have the controlling circuitry necessary to manage both the internal batteries and an auxiliary power so removing them is important!
6 Likes
How about a new Sky with the solar built-in instead of the battery compartment? That could make the new Sky shorter.
1 Like
That’s even better! No batteries to purchase!!!
That would be a good idea for Rev. 2… I’m betting most folks who don’t already have the Sky would opt for that option.
Separation between the wind slot and solar panel’s turbulence might be an issue. Rumor has it that WF’s neighbor has a 285+ MPH wind tunnel, so I’d imagine that they are testing this before committing to the final design…
3 Likes
the B-version with the solar panels moved to the top would prevent water in sonar part, giving better measurements of wind when it rains. (needs recalibration of course)
That would kill the rain sensor.
1 Like
Good points. The panel certainly will cause a disturbance. Worst case, the number of parts and molds will be reduced and the bottom can have a much smaller diameter.
The area that listens to rain would be bigger, that’s why I said a recalibration is needed (both for wind and rain.