victorian/edwardian houses or new houses?

Yes. Cars ARE in fact insulated very well. You only need to take a ride in e.g. my old series III landrover woith nowt but a sheet of aluminium between you and the elements to see how MUCH insulation a modern car has by comparison.

Most cars have something like 1/4" of fibre and carpet on teh floors, the rear seats line that part of the car, and the doors usually have a

2-4" aiorgap in them. Dreaughts are of necssity totally absent by and large, and roofs are normally lined with headlining and again about 1/4" of insulation. some cars even have double glazed windows.

Even with a U value of about 5 - equivalent to a totally single glazed car, and a square meterage area of - what - 16 sq meters of cabin, that is 80W per degree C differential, so AT WORST for -5 outside and 25C inside, it only needs 2.4Kw to heat it. In practice that is a fairly ludicrous U vcale, becaseu teh glass is thicker than window glass, and most of the cabin is well insulated.

Lets face it, a lining of 15mm celotex is not going to cost very much. And there is going to be a wedge of batteries and electronics under the floor kicking out a hundred watts. Getting heat from the motors - if thse are ouboard on the wheels - is not so easy, but even there, if wound with pipe istead of solid wire, the heat could be removed bu circulatng coolant through them..

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher
Loading thread data ...

Well he has been talking about "the laying on of hands" and Wankel engines in the last few days.........

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Reply to
Andy Hall

I have acrobat 6 and it has checkers on the background.

Reply to
IMM

LOL. Boiled beef and carrots, boiled beef and carrots....

Reply to
IMM

True. Fashion accessory.

IMHO its mandatory. Its the window you use the most in paying for parking tickets, and pulling them out of silly little slots only to feed them into other sily little slots later...not to mention tossing coins into teh darford crossing machines. The ability to get it down, and up, quickly, without doing more than touch a button is essential.

, as

Did you know IMM that it has been calculated that the weight, ad cost, of winding handles exceeeds teh weight, and cost, of electrically driven windows and sunroofs?

No. I don't suppose you do.

Or that the loss in power due to aerodynamic compromise of an open window in hot weather is greater than the loss due to using a modern efficient aircon?

No, I don't suppose you do.

Or that the losses in colling an engine via teh viscous fan exceed the losses in blowing hopt airt into te caboin in winter?

You probably could work tat one out..

Because its low grade power, and would need a HUGE HEAVY installation to get colling out of it.

Its time you enlisted in a snotty uni and learnt basic engineering.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

It is not. Solar collectors produce hot water. Some produce more than others for the same area, hence more efficient for a given area.

Reply to
IMM

Warped logic. Two wrongs don't make a right. What you are saying is that the odd nuclear disaster affecting millions of people is acceptable ...... because other disasters have been worse.

Lets make a nuclear disaster and all join in. The earthquake was a human failure. They knew it was am earthquake zone.

Fossil fuel burning can be drastically reduced by simple low tech means.

And Windscale in 1958...and others around the world.

100,000s are suffering long term effects from the fall out.
Reply to
IMM

If all power stations were nuclear around the world the waste would pile up and be a huge problem in the future. Silly idea and should be forgotten.

contamination is

Reply to
IMM

Deserts are waiting to be farmed.

Reply to
IMM

unnecessary/rarely

I knew all them, and knew them before you.

In the US absorption systems were found to be viable in cars.

The sort of engineering I should engage in is demolition engineering, and run bulldozers through Oxbridge, Eton, Harrow, etc. Then we will all be better off.

Reply to
IMM

No.

Efficiency is the ratio of converted power out to power in .

The area doesn't come into it.

Are you saying that for a given solar collector, if you have two installations of _the identical model_ but with installation X having a 1sq m area but Y having a 2 sq m area, then because installation Y has an output that is twice that of installation X it is necessarily twice as efficient?

No?

Well, that is the implication of quoting a bogus specification like "efficiency per square metre".

Or to put it another way. I have installation X which is 1 sq m and I can calculate it's efficiency is 60%. The efficiency of installation Y is still

60%. It has twice the input power, but also twice the output power.

-- Richard Sampson

email me at richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

Reply to
RichardS

In this case it does. Area is the most important factor as it is limited on a roof. Solar panel X can be more efficient (ratio of converted power out to power in) than panel Y. But panel X may take up four times the area of panel Y. It means eff all if the area is not taken into account. For a given area which is the most efficient? Area, area, area.

Reply to
IMM

Also, with solar panels the input doesn't really matter as you don't pay for it. The output per square foot, or metre (hot water generated), is what matters. The efficiency of a boiler comes into the "ratio of converted power out to power in", and is important as you pay for the fuel.

Reply to
IMM

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 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

Reply to
RichardS

Technically Richard's right. You keep switching your definitions.

Quote: Solar panel X can be more efficient (ratio of converted power out to power in) than panel Y For a given area which is the most efficient? Answer: Obviously panel X. You said so yourself.

Quote: panel X may take up four times the area of panel Y OK. So you could swap each panel X for four Y's in the same area. This effectively gives you a large panel Y with the same area as a panel X and all that matters is the relative efficiency.

But practically you are right as well - area is very important assuming the area cannot be tiled by panels because it is too small. But, the efficiency is still the same. Surely all you have to do is:

  1. For each panel type, work out how many (if any) you can fit on the roof.
  2. Multiply by the efficiency

Whichever gets the highest score will give you the most energy output from your roof.

Reply to
Martin Sykes

efficient?

Reply to
IMM

I don't.

efficient?

Reply to
IMM

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.

Reply to
stefek.zaba

Which is lacking.

< snip inane babble >
Reply to
IMM

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

Reply to
RichardS

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.