# victorian/edwardian houses or new houses?

Page 9 of 14
• posted on January 14, 2004, 11:15 pm

as
power
area
For
to
efficient?
the
efficiency
roof.
Qiute correct. And you did not need a mention of the spurious and non-existent concept of "efficiency per square foot".
Franz

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 14, 2004, 11:15 pm

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

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 14, 2004, 1:37 pm

on
out
Have removed the x-posting to u.r.g so as not to inflict them further with this ridiculous thread. Wish I'd never asked about bloody lichens and mosses now.
This is simple.
So X is more efficient (ratio of converted power out to power in) than Y. But it takes up 4 times the area. Therefore it has four times the input power, as this is directly proportional to it's area (radiant energy from the sun is <some number> Watts per Square Metre).
IF X is 4x the area of Y, AND it is more efficient, then it must necessarily output more than 4x the output power of Y.
If it does not, and you are saying that X requires four times the surface area (and therefore four times the input power) that Y requires in order to _output the same amount of power_ then it is not more efficient than Y, but it instead has only 1/4 of the efficiency of Y.
Or to put this another way, if you had an installation of X and Y with both the same area, X would only output 1/4 of the power of Y for the same input power (being proportional to the area). Once again, X is only one quarter as effiicient as Y.
-- Richard Sampson
email me at richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 14, 2004, 2:09 pm

It is. There's a universally-agreed on meaning of the word "efficiency" in its technical sense. But our resident eccentric, IMM, will insist on treating it as a synonym for "effectiveness", "utility", "fitness for purpose", or a slew of other terms. He will (on all past form) refuse to back down on terminology; if you're not careful he'll accuse you soon of having been blinded to the iniquities of land taxation and word abuse by your time at a snotty Uni.
Please don't feed the trolls. Benign neglect is working reasonbly on the oh-so-humourous cross-posting brigade. Even the wish to not leave Google /dejanews history uncorrected is served better in the long term by removing the encouragement to polemic which answering IMM provides.
Just walk on by. This is not the thread you're looking for. Nothing to see here, folks, Move along. Move along. They'll turn to rock when the sun comes out. Move along.

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 14, 2004, 2:19 pm

Which is lacking.
< snip inane babble >
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 14, 2004, 4:21 pm

Perhaps you'd consider trimming correctly your other posts?
--
*What boots up must come down *

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@argonet.co.uk London SW 12

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 14, 2004, 2:26 pm

I was waiting for some bizzare twist of logic and relevance to come from IMM, but we were spared of that! Not sure that a Northern Redbrick (however accomplished) quite qualifies for the usual vitriol from IMM. I'm sure I'll be proven wrong on that score soon, tho.
Perhaps the motto I ought to remember is to never argue with a fool. They bring you down to their level and then win on experience....

(I don't see those posts, excepting when someone replies to them and drops the xposts. Gonna drop a post in about NewsProxy at some point 'cos it's doing sterling work for me in filtering out all of this crap)
Even the wish to not leave Google

ah, you beat me to it - this was pretty much my last post on the subject, and even my usual morbid curiosity would have failed me had the thread continued.
-- Richard Sampson
email me at richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 14, 2004, 2:59 pm

That is why I have backed out.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 15, 2004, 1:32 am
IMM wrote:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
QED.

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 15, 2004, 1:31 am
RichardS wrote:

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

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 15, 2004, 9:07 am

with
side.
LOL, such fun.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 14, 2004, 11:15 pm

twice
than
on
out
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.

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 14, 2004, 11:15 pm

"efficiency
the
it.
sales
perfect
much
is
is
maybe
in
flat
certain
same
the
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

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 14, 2004, 11:15 pm

"efficiency
applied
it.
perfect
is
maybe
oil...The
would
probably,
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.>

Themomax
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.

solar
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

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 15, 2004, 1:38 am
Franz Heymann wrote:

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.

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 15, 2004, 9:08 am

that
the
I did. Thankfully not one of those snotty uni ones, full of half-breds.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 15, 2004, 10:13 am

But is so proud of it he's ashamed to name it...
--
*If a turtle doesn't have a shell, is he homeless or naked?

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@argonet.co.uk London SW 12

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 15, 2004, 3:01 pm

Really.... Which one??

.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 15, 2004, 3:38 pm

is
"twice
Not a snotty one that is for sure.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 15, 2004, 6:15 pm

Uh huh.... So come on then, which illustrious institution had the pleasure of your presence?

.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl