victorian/edwardian houses or new houses?

[IMM]

That is why I have backed out.

[Dave Plowman]

Perhaps you'd consider trimming correctly your other posts?

[John Rumm]

It's all down to those new fangled polymerised timber trees they grow now.... that where you get plastic wood from you know ;-)

[Franz Heymann]

It is not balls at all. Two readers have tried to help you out of the nonsense you have been speaking, but you appear not to have got the point at all yet.>

Firstly, 100% of what? Secondly, the number you quote is independent of the area of the panels, the correct way of making the claim is to say quite simply "Thermomax panels are twice as efficient as the flat plate units". That would be a precise statement, incapable of being misunderstood than the incorrect way you have been using for describing relative efficiencies.

Please believe me, an efficiency is only a ratio, and as such it is a dimensionless quantity. "Efficiency per square foot" is a meaningless concept, which can be misused in the way I have now tried to show you at least four times.

Absolutely correct. The Thermomax is twice as efficient as the flat panel. You therefore need only half as much thermomax as flat plate to produce the same power.

As clear as daylight. The reason for the reduced area of Thermomax is that it has twice the efficiency as the flat plate. *Not* that it has "twice the efficiency per square foot".

Franz

[Franz Heymann]

No. Not more efficient for a given area. Just more efficient. The area is irrelevant. Some unkmeasured area of flat panel may produce 1 kW. The same area of Thremomax may produce 2 kW. The thermomax is therefore twice as efficient as the flat panel. The area you have used for doing the comparison is quite irrelevant.

Franz

[Franz Heymann]

If the efficiency of a panel is 60% per square ft then, on the assumption that you understand what physical dimensions and units are, the efficiency of 1 sq.ft is 60%, the efficiency of 2 sq.ft is 120% and so on. I suppose you realise now that you have hit on a method of producing perpetual motion.

Let me ask a final question:

Given that, as you say, the efficiency is 60% per sq foot, what will the efficiency of a set of panels covering 200 sq. ft be? Note, I am asking for the efficiency of the whole set, not the "efficiency per sq.ft", as you put it.

I take it that we agree that the efficiency is the ratio between the power in the insolation and the power delivered to the heating system

Franz.

[Franz Heymann]

That was a trivial remark. Power transducers and transformers are usually compared in terms of their efficiencies, amongst othe things

Franz

[Franz Heymann]

efficient?

Qiute correct. And you did not need a mention of the spurious and non-existent concept of "efficiency per square foot".

Franz

[Franz Heymann]

[snip]

[IMM says:]

You do. You talk about "efficiency per square foot" and in the next line you refuse to multiply the efficiency per sq ft by the area to obtain the resultant efficiency.

[snip]

Franz

[Franz Heymann]

As is the case with flying machines. There have been many more deaths due to aeroplane crashes than due to the 3 Mile Island accident. Chernobyl does not count. That was as close as one can get to wilful negligence.

But for how long will they last, and for how long can we tolerate their insidious effects on the atmosphere? I will venture a guess that many more people all over the world are this moment dying from side effects of these lower tech alternatives than from anything ascribable to nuclear power plants.

Franz

[Franz Heymann]

No. In the reactions which are presently considered, there will be a lot of tritium around. Tritium is a gas and it has a long half life. It scares the pants off me.

contamination is

[IMM]

Grow up!

[The Natural Philosopher]

Its no use talking to IMM since the diodes went all down his left hand side.

[The Natural Philosopher]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

QED.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Don't be silly John. Everyone knows its because all the timbers now go to university and get a certificate of Political Correctness.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Its because he didn't go t uni. He's very sensitive about it.

He sort of graps the concept that a square foot of one is better than a square foot of another, but detailed explanatins of teh correct words to use just pass hum by.

He's a humpty dumpty. Words mean what HE wants them to mean.

[The Natural Philosopher]

or the noocooler bogglers will get you!!!

[Andy Hall]

Has to be a non-snotty one though.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[Franz Heymann]

unnecessary/rarely

Please have a feeling for quantitative matters. Your car is capable of producing more than 10^5 watts and you are mithering about an instrument which uses at most 5 watts to produce data which is very valuable for enabling you to use the engine effectively?

I find it a very useful device for helping me to decide on when to change gear. It is more quantitarive than just "having a feel for it"

At last we are in agreement about something

Franz

[Franz Heymann]

It is obvious that you have never given a moments intelligent thought to this question. You are just following the flock. The waste from a nuclear power station is in fact a great deal easier to dispose of safely than the waste from a fossil fuel plant. The trouble lies entirely in the fact that the shepherds who persistently lead the sheep astray on this matter have not even the faintest understanding of the issues involved in comparing methods of disposing of waste from power stations.

Franz