Having too much of a good thing is an everyday occurrence for me ;-)
Sadly, no. There is no tank. I mentioned this system before, then failed to provide a diagram. Oops. I'll get onto it Real Soon Now(TM).
The evacuated tube collectors feed directly into a mixer which mixes cold with it to keep the temp down to what the boiler can cope with, i.e. 25C. Or at least if the idiot plumbers (solar installers?) had done it tirght at their *second* attempt it would - actually they have fed the hot output from the boiler to the output of the mixer then taken the hot input from the mixer to the cold input of the boiler, so effectively it does NOTHING. It's currently a rented house, though, so I'm waiting until we (possibly) buy it before sorting it out.
That's correct.
I suppose it might just work out to cap it at a sensible temperature before we get issues. I'm more likely to fit a dual coil tank or this idea might develop into a workable one when I work it out more thoroughly. Adding a single preheat tank and a mixer would certainly be easier than changing to a dual-coil tanked system instead of combi-fed direct heating..
I hadn't run the figures but that sounds about right. And like it could actually work out as a sensible solution. Hmm.
As for showers, although there is a nice combi installed, the previous owners have a 9.6kW electric shower fitted. Go figure. I suppose I could feed the shower directly from the panels for now with some temporary push fit connections, and just get a decent flow through it for a change. Lots to ponder on there...
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) saying something like:
No, just every arse that thinks that by parroting something that someone else misunderstood about Eisenhower's speech makes them a credible, left wing political savant.
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) saying something like:
Hmm... he wasn't exactly complimentary about it at the time.
----------------------------------
" This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. "
--------------------------
What's to misunderstand? He sounded a warning bell when leaving office and was untouchable by powerful interests. A warning that went unheeded thereafter, even moreso now.
Eisenhower referred to the military-industrial complex and qualified his definition. You have quoted that qualification:
"the huge industrial and military machinery of defense "
Hansen, and others of his ilk use "the military-industrial complex" when referring to any element of (the American) industrial infrastructure, extending the scope far beyond anything that Eisenhower seemed to intend. Presumably this is done because it makes it easier to loathe something if it is associated by name-calling with the military.
If you do (Bob forbid) have a Physics A level from these people, it's either a condemnation of just how far standards have fallen or else you've done some powerful drugs in the years since.
Imperial college is a red brick university (in fact the red brick uni for science).. they don't do A levels. You have to have A levels or the equivalent to get there in the first place.
Now you have shown how stupid you are why don't you sod off.
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 12:35:55 +0100 someone who may be "dennis@home" wrote this:-
Indeed. However, both "physicists" in the thread have yet to say which parts of physics their experience is in.
Meanwhile those with open minds may like to consider what the Royal Society has to say. Their paper can be downloaded from from which the introduction is:
"Facts and fictions about climate change
"It has become fashionable in some parts of the UK media to portray the scientific evidence that has been collected about climate change and the impact of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities as an exaggeration. Some articles have claimed that scientists are ignoring uncertainties in our understanding of the climate and the factors that affect it. Some have questioned the motives of the scientists who have presented the most authoritative assessments of the science of climate change, claiming that they have a vested interest in playing up the potential effects that climate change is likely to have.
"This document examines twelve misleading arguments (presented in bold typeface) put forward by the opponents of urgent action on climate change and highlights the scientific evidence that exposes their flaws. It has been prepared by a group led by Sir David Wallace FRS, Treasurer of the Royal Society, and Sir John Houghton FRS, former chair of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This document has been endorsed by the Council of the Royal Society, and draws primarily on scientific papers published in leading peer-reviewed journals and the work of authoritative scientific organisations, such as the IPCC and the United States National Academy of Sciences."
No-doubt all part of the grand conspiracy, which exists only in the minds of the antis.
How long have you been paranoid about conspiracies?
How about you show some evidence that CO2 levels are actually in advance of GW? The graphs for the last 100 years are not and the data prior to that doesn't have the resolution to say AFAICS, however you obviously have access to different data so why not post it.
Just because you are 'green' enough to believe this ecobollox doesn't mean its true.
You didn't answer my previous question about the hole in the ozone layer - remember the one that was going to end the world? That seems to have closed or been forgotton by you tree huggers.
Thats the problem with ecowankers, never happy. Always got to have something to whinge about.
My degree's in Applied Physics and Lasers (as mentioned in the past, I'm sure). I cheerfully admit I haven't the first clue what an LHC might be about and whether it really is likely to make us all disappear up our own jacksies.
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 18:51:18 +0100 someone who may be "dennis@home" wrote this:-
An interesting swerve. The people complaining about the grand conspiracy are the antis, but you try and imply that those who understand the science are complaining about a grand conspiracy. Nice try, but few will be fooled by the swerve.
As for the science, I have already pointed people to a number of places.
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:06:42 GMT someone who may be "The Medway Handyman" wrote this:-
Ah, a newspaper of record referring to the Great Global Warming Swindle swindle. I refer people to
"Two eminent British scientists who questioned the accuracy of a Channel 4 programme that claimed global warming was an unfounded conspiracy theory have received an expletive-filled tirade from the programme maker."
The replies they got remind me of certain postings on this group, where the "arguments" tend to consist largely of personal insults.
Turning now to the science I refer people to
"On Thursday March 8th, the UK TV Channel 4 aired a programme titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". We were hoping for important revelations and final proof that we have all been hornswoggled by the climate Illuminati, but it just repeated the usual specious claims we hear all the time. We feel swindled. Indeed we are not the only ones: Carl Wunsch (who was a surprise addition to the cast) was apparently misled into thinking this was going to be a balanced look at the issues (the producers have a history of doing this), but who found himself put into a very different context indeed".
"The programme purported to debunk the science of Global Warming describing it as ?lies? and an invention of hundreds of scientists around the world who have conspired to mislead governments, and the general public. The most prominent person in the programme was Lord Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer who is not a scientist and who shows little knowledge of the science but who is party to the creation of a conspiracy theory that questions the motives and integrity of the world scientific community, especially as represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
"The material presented was a mixture of truth, half truth and falsehood put together with the sole purpose of discrediting the science of global warming as presented by the main world community of climate scientists and by the IPCC."
"Those who promote fringe scientific views but ignore the weight of evidence are playing a dangerous game. They run the risk of diverting attention from what we can do to ensure the world's population has the best possible future."
There is an introduction to the psychology of the issue at
"Though the programme was 90 minutes of nonsense, I find this quite easy to believe. Faced with the overwhelming realities of climate change, people clutch at any reassurance. We want someone to tell us that everything will be alright, that we can carry on enjoying this marvellous feast of fossil fuels without adverse effects."
A story from 2002. The science has not stood still since then, it has become clearer and more worrying. It is put well at
"The Met Office recognises that climate change is a complex subject. There are genuine areas of uncertainty and scientific controversy. There are also a number of misunderstandings and myths which are recycled, often by non-climate scientists, and portrayed as scientific fact. Recent coverage has questioned the influence of humans on the climate. While the arguments used might have been regarded as genuine areas of sceptical enquiry 20 years ago, further observed warming and advances in climate science render these out of touch."
That leads on to the counter arguments at and the other sources I have provided.
I'll short circuit the claim that the Meteorological Office know nothing about the weather and cannot forecast it even a week ahead by producing the answer to that claim
"While climate models are now able to reproduce past and present changes in the global climate rather well, they are not, as yet, sufficiently well-developed to project accurately all the detail of the impacts we might see at regional or local levels. They do, however, give us a reliable guide to the direction of future climate change. The reliability also continues to be improved through the use of new techniques and technologies."
into "the whole thing is bogus". An old trick which fools some. The spinning tells us much about the spinners, but little about the science.
There is a good discussion of the recent papers on the subject at
However, for those who don't want to read things that contradict with their viewpoint the papers are really about the quote from the Royal Society a few paragraphs up. It is a most interesting scientific discussion, but it does not debunk the science on climate change.
Well, those three were easily rebutted.
Excellent, personal abuse. Do keep it up.
Incorrect. You may not have seen or may not have liked my answer, but that is a different matter.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.