Siting of panels for solar water heating

John Beardmore wrote:

In message , cynic writes
I installed a system a few weeks ago. My vacuum tube array collector is vertical on the gable end. I was faced with a cylinder replacement and decided to go solar rather than stay limited to fossil.
OK. Reflector below ?

No - behind

The whole batch of kit and pipes came to �1100.
Does that include pump, controller, antifreeze etc ?

Everything except the 1.0mm t&E I used to extend the array pt1000 sensor down to the airing cupboard. I had a roll lying around.

What's the collector area ? Who made the panel ?

See previous post, Chinese panel

I was dubious about the effectiveness of having the panel vertical so I have used 4 "L" brackets to mount it to the wall. If I find it lacks performance when the spring comes round I can simply extend the bottom brackets with mild steel bar.
You should certainly be able to boost it some.
with the present dull weather we do notice an elevation of the temperature of the cylinder bottom by about 15 to 20 degree C on many days (the sensor is about 300mm above the base of the cylinder)
Where is that relative to the solar coil ?

Solar coil is a flat pancake coil on the bottom of the cylinder.

It will be interesting to see what happens to our energy bill over the next twelve months. Obviously I would like a decent saving but its an experiment with a potential for economy
Let us know how it goes !

I'll post any developments as and when. I'll try to give an assessment in twelve months.

Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

Cheers

meow2222@care2.com wrote:

John Beardmore wrote: In message , cynic writes
I was dubious about the effectiveness of having the panel vertical so I have used 4 "L" brackets to mount it to the wall. If I find it lacks performance when the spring comes round I can simply extend the bottom brackets with mild steel bar.
You should certainly be able to boost it some.
With vac tubes it makes no difference whether theyr flat to the wall or not, as long as the tubes run horizontally. One simply rotates the tube to face the incoming sun angle, and each tube sees exactly the same regardless of panel mounting position. This holds true so long as the panel mounting angle isnt so far off that tubes start to shade each other.
NT

Not sure about your configuration but my tubes are vertical with a horizontal header at the top of them. The reflector behind the tube is fitted after installation but extends down most of the length of the tubes. How does your horizontal tube set up an internal convection to transfer collected heat to the header at the top? I simply cannot visualise your layout unless it has an entirely different arrangement/principal to mine

On 19 Nov 2006 11:23:16 -0800, meow2222@care2.com wrote:

Joe Fischer wrote: On 18 Nov 2006 02:47:08 -0800, meow2222@care2.com wrote: Triplewall construction only gives a 2nd cavity, and this can be achieved at far lower cost in other ways.
I was thinking of getting more mass inside the insulation, masonry only has a specific heat about half that of water, but 100,000 pounds of concrete inside the insulation would mean that 50,000 BTU would have to be lost for the temperature to drop one degree.
Right. Is that much needed though? NT

That would only buffer the temperature for 24 hours without much heating or cooling.
What I was trying to convey is that traditionally masonry was the outside finish, now it needs to be inside to save energy.
Joe Fischer

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 19:35:39 -0000, "Mary Fisher" wrote:

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message The solution really needs to focus on renewable energy,
You standing for President?

No, I am too old.

In the immediate future, global warming is not the scary thing, volcanic activity on the continent of Antarctica should be the most feared thing by property owners in low lying coastal areas.
And second, maybe volcanic activity in Greenland.
I've been told that the volcano which formed Yellowstone National Park (or is it the Grand Canyon - you know Brits, we don't know the difference) is about to blow at any time.
By a citizen of USA.

That is a super volcano, there are only a few of those in the world, and while speculative, it is something that could possibly almost obliterate the US and part of Canada.
Pray it never happens.
Joe Fischer

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 19:42:44 +0000, John Beardmore wrote:

In message , Joe Fischer joe@westpointracing.com> writes On 19 Nov 2006 01:36:41 -0800, meow2222@care2.com wrote: The solution really needs to focus on renewable energy, and that should help with any global warming problem,
Seems fair.
if there is one.
Seems probable.

I am searching for something to convince me, right now I am looking for __THE__ current global mean temperature.

But there is likely to be no solution to rising sea level, even without undersea volcanos or mountain building, sediment runoff from the worlds rivers will eventually cause sea level to rise, it is inevitable.
Though presumably geological activity will also provide new land.

New land raises sea level, and doesn't help buildings going underwater.

In the immediate future, global warming is not the scary thing, volcanic activity on the continent of Antarctica should be the most feared thing by property owners in low lying coastal areas.
And second, maybe volcanic activity in Greenland.
Why these areas as opposed to say Yellowstone ? Cheers, J/.

Yellowstone is something else entirely, 500,000 years vs 30,000 for ice ages.
If something caused the ice sheets in either Antarctica or Greenland to slide into the ocean, water would be in the streets of london and New York.
1000 years sooner than otherwise.
Joe Fischer

In message , cynic writes

How does your horizontal tube set up an internal convection to transfer collected heat to the header at the top? I simply cannot visualise your layout unless it has an entirely different arrangement/principal to mine

You mean you have an ET system with an unpumped primary ?
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 Matt wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 15:55:25 -0500, Joe Fischer joe@westpointracing.com> wrote: And I am not convinced there is a problem, about the only pollution that may spread outside North America is from forest fires.
How long have you had this crack habit?

Sorry, you asked the wrong guy, I have never used illegal drugs, never used alcohol, never smoked, and have been widowed and carrying the torch for 45 years.
Now what is the pollution you think is being spread outside the US?
Joe Fischer

In message , cynic writes

John Beardmore wrote: In message , cynic writes
I installed a system a few weeks ago. My vacuum tube array collector is vertical on the gable end. I was faced with a cylinder replacement and decided to go solar rather than stay limited to fossil.
OK. Reflector below ?
No - behind

Yes - know what you mean...

The whole batch of kit and pipes came to �1100.
Does that include pump, controller, antifreeze etc ?
Everything except the 1.0mm t&E I used to extend the array pt1000 sensor down to the airing cupboard. I had a roll lying around.

OK. And cylinder ?

What's the collector area ? Who made the panel ?
See previous post, Chinese panel

Navitron import ?

I was dubious about the effectiveness of having the panel vertical so I have used 4 "L" brackets to mount it to the wall. If I find it lacks performance when the spring comes round I can simply extend the bottom brackets with mild steel bar.
You should certainly be able to boost it some.
with the present dull weather we do notice an elevation of the temperature of the cylinder bottom by about 15 to 20 degree C on many days (the sensor is about 300mm above the base of the cylinder)
Where is that relative to the solar coil ?
Solar coil is a flat pancake coil on the bottom of the cylinder.

OK.

It will be interesting to see what happens to our energy bill over the next twelve months. Obviously I would like a decent saving but its an experiment with a potential for economy
Let us know how it goes !
I'll post any developments as and when. I'll try to give an assessment in twelve months.

Thanks !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Joe Fischer writes

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 19:42:44 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote: In message , Joe Fischer joe@westpointracing.com> writes On 19 Nov 2006 01:36:41 -0800, meow2222@care2.com wrote: The solution really needs to focus on renewable
energy, and that should help with any global warming problem,
Seems fair.
if there is one.
Seems probable.
I am searching for something to convince me, right now I am looking for __THE__ current global mean temperature.

I'm sure it shouldn't be too hard to track down.

But there is likely to be no solution to rising sea level, even without undersea volcanos or mountain building, sediment runoff from the worlds rivers will eventually cause sea level to rise, it is inevitable.
Though presumably geological activity will also provide new land.
New land raises sea level,

But it also puts new land above it.

and doesn't help buildings going underwater.

I suspect geological time scale we can move fairly fast.

In the immediate future, global warming is not the scary thing, volcanic activity on the continent of Antarctica should be the most feared thing by property owners in low lying coastal areas.
And second, maybe volcanic activity in Greenland.
Why these areas as opposed to say Yellowstone ?
Yellowstone is something else entirely, 500,000 years vs 30,000 for ice ages.

Yes, but the geologists tell us that the caldera is rising and that an eruption is any time soon. Granted on a 500,000 year cycle, 'a bit late' can be 10,000 years, but to have the ground rise measurably in a human lifetime should be a cause for concern I would have thought ?

If something caused the ice sheets in either Antarctica or Greenland to slide into the ocean,

Or melt.

water would be in the streets of london and New York.
1000 years sooner than otherwise.

Yes. Expected...
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Joe Fischer writes

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 Matt wrote: On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 15:55:25 -0500, Joe Fischer
joe@westpointracing.com> wrote: And I am not convinced there is a problem, about the only pollution that may spread outside North America is from forest fires.
How long have you had this crack habit?
Sorry, you asked the wrong guy, I have never used illegal drugs, never used alcohol, never smoked, and have been widowed and carrying the torch for 45 years.
Now what is the pollution you think is being spread outside the US?

Well, apart from the things you put in the air and ocean, there is all the pollution due to the manufacture of the good you import, and their transport...
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 16:26:18 -0500, Joe Fischer wrote:

That is a super volcano, there are only a few of those in the world, and while speculative, it is something that could possibly almost obliterate the US and part of Canada.
Pray it never happens.

Getting rid of the USA would solve a lot of the problems in the world today. Its a shame about Canada but its an acceptable price to pay.
So fingers crossed for a mega eruption asap.
--

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:19:27 +0000, John Beardmore wrote:

In message , Peter Parry peter@wpp.ltd.uk> writes
A great pity the accreditation didn't involve actual testing of devices to prove they worked and that their performance was at least close to the sellers invariably vastly overstated claims.
Too bad you don't know what on earth you are talking about then. That's precisely what the accreditation of equipment does cover !!

Neither of the toy windmills have had any performance testing or validation of performance claims whatsoever. Their "accreditation" is a carry over from Clearskies which didn't require any performance testing of windmills whatsoever.
That of solar panels is, to put it mildly, rudimentary. What testing do installers get?

and offered a report about it if anybody is interested,

Yes please.

As far as I recall the Windsave machine quotes a rated power at a given wind speed - and there is nothing wrong that per se,

Depends if it is accurate as their earlier claims, some of which comfortably exceeded the theoretical maximum a perfect turbine could produce.

though a proper power curve would be nice.

Yes it would, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for it though.

The real problem is that the quoted wind speed is 12 m/s, and there is a cube law between wind speed and the energy that can be extracted. This is something the public - and indeed many of the sales people at B&Q level may not appreciate.

I think the senior sales people appreciate it very clearly and produce copy for their juniors appropriately. That's why they are so enthusiastic about using the wildly optimistic NOABL database (when used for urban wind) with no correction for surface roughness.
-- Peter Parry. http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On 2006-11-19 21:26:18 +0000, Joe Fischer said:

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 19:35:39 -0000, "Mary Fisher" mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
"Joe Fischer" wrote in message The solution really needs to focus on renewable energy,
You standing for President?
No, I am too old.

So's Dubya, but it didn't stop him.

In message , Mary Fisher writes

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
The solution really needs to focus on renewable energy,
You standing for President?
In the immediate future, global warming is not the scary thing, volcanic activity on the continent of Antarctica should be the most feared thing by property owners in low lying coastal areas.
And second, maybe volcanic activity in Greenland.
I've been told that the volcano which formed Yellowstone National Park (or is it the Grand Canyon - you know Brits, we don't know the difference)

Don't include me in your clueless meanderings
I really don't think that the GC was created by volcanic activity, do you ?
-- geoff

In message , Joe Fischer writes

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 19:35:39 -0000, "Mary Fisher" mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
"Joe Fischer" wrote in message The solution really needs to focus on renewable energy,
You standing for President?
No, I am too old.
In the immediate future, global warming is not the scary thing, volcanic activity on the continent of Antarctica should be the most feared thing by property owners in low lying coastal areas.
And second, maybe volcanic activity in Greenland.
I've been told that the volcano which formed Yellowstone National Park (or is it the Grand Canyon - you know Brits, we don't know the difference) is about to blow at any time.
By a citizen of USA.
That is a super volcano, there are only a few of those in the world, and while speculative, it is something that could possibly almost obliterate the US and part of Canada.
Pray it never happens.
I dunno, Canada would be a shame

collateral damage, as they say -- geoff