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
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.
email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk
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.
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
email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk
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
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
No. Not more efficient for a given area. Just more efficient. The area is
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
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
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
"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
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".
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.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.