After 300 years of simple heatflow physics, most people still doubt
that a house can be close to 100% solar heated outside of the Southwest,
inexpensively. We might move 8' D-cubes into regional Infestations of Doubt,
with 2" double-foil foamboard walls and ceiling and polycarbonate over
the south wall and an EPDM-rubber-lined heat storage tank under the floor,
which also serves as a ballast foundation. We might deploy these devices
near churches and schools and green building conferences and Renewable
Energy Festivals...

We might warm a small low-mass house with sunspace air for 6 hours on
an average January day in Phila with 250 Btu/h-ft^2 of direct sun and a 34 F
average daytime temp and simultaneously store 18 hours of overnight heat
in hot water, using a low-power PV pump in a slow draindown system...

If we collect 200 Btu/h of 170 F overnight heat in B ft^2 of Rich Komp's
homemade Big Fins (a 1/2" copper pipe pounded into a groove in a strip of
brown-painted aluminum coil stock) behind A ft^2 of R1 glazing with 90%
solar transmission (eg $1/ft^2 Dynaglas) and we also collect 50 Btu/h of
T (F) air and 200 = 225B-(170-T)1.5B = 1.5TB-30B for the Fins,
T = (200+30B)/(1.5B).

If A=B and 225B=250+(T-34)B, B=1.6 ft^2 and T=103 F, with a 250/(1.6x250)
= 0.625 collection efficiency. We could move 50 Btu/h in a 50/(103-70)
= 1.5 cfm airstream.

If the Fins cost more than the Dynaglas, which is likely, with more labor
and rising aluminum coil stock (60 cents/ft^2) and copper pipe prices,
we could make B smaller and A larger, with a lower cost and a higher temp
and a lower collection efficiency, but easier hot air thermosyphoning.

For instance, A = 2 ft^2 makes 450 = 250+(T-43)2, so T = 143 F, and
200 = 225B-(170-143)B makes B = 1 ft^2. Scaling this up to A = 4'x8',
we could move 16x50/(143-70) = 11 cfm with an 8' height difference
through upper and lower sunspace vents, each having an area
Av = 11cfm/(16.6sqrt(8'(143F-70F)) = 0.0273 ft^2, ie 4 in^2.

Scaling up more, 2 $12 8"x16" automatic foundation vents might handle
16.6x8x16/144sqrt(8)(143-70)^1.5/(16x50) = 32 4'x8' glazing panels,
collecting 25.6K Btu/h of 143 F air and 102.4K Btu/h of 170 F water
(or more, with an average Fin temp less than 170 F) with about $1K of
Dynaglas and $1K of Fins, and this can be dry in full sun as a draindown
system with no damage. What's the equivalent evacuated tube system cost?

Leslie Locke's AF1B foundation vent has aluminum louvers and a bimetallic
coil spring which opens the louvers when the air temp near the spring rises
to about 60 F, but that soft threshold temp can be changed by turning
the spring mounting screw, and the spring can be removed and reversed
to make the louvers close vs open as the air temp rises, so it can work
as a crude room air temp thermostat in a thermosyphoning sunspace system.
For more accurate room temp control, we might add a $20 thermostat and
a $50 2-watt Honeywell 6161B1000 damper motor.

Nick

They are correct.

wrote in message
...
After 300 years of simple heatflow physics, most people still doubt
that a house can be close to 100% solar heated outside of the
Southwest,
inexpensively.

Nick

Solar Flaire wrote:

They are correct.

wrote in message
...
After 300 years of simple heatflow physics, most people still doubt
that a house can be close to 100% solar heated outside of the
Southwest, inexpensively.

No, they're not. It can work in Nova Scotia and it has worked in Germany.
--
derek

On Apr 14, 5:48 pm, Derek Broughton wrote:
Solar Flaire wrote:
They are correct.

wrote in message
...
After 300 years of simple heatflow physics, most people still doubt
that a house can be close to 100% solar heated outside of the
Southwest, inexpensively.

No, they're not. It can work in Nova Scotia and it has worked in Germany.
--
derek


If it works so well and inexpensively as claimed, then perhaps you can
tell us why it,s not widely implemented. Are all builders and
consumers stupid? Don't they want homes that our only heated by the
sun? Has the free market broken down in this case? Or could it
be that they know more about the real world, heating, construction and
costs than those spouting a bunch of equations trying to impress folks?

wrote:

| On Apr 14, 5:48 pm, Derek Broughton wrote:
|| Solar Flaire wrote:
||| They are correct.
||
||| wrote in message
||| ...
|||| After 300 years of simple heatflow physics, most people still
|||| doubt that a house can be close to 100% solar heated outside of
|||| the Southwest, inexpensively.
||
|| No, they're not. It can work in Nova Scotia and it has worked in
|| Germany.
|
| If it works so well and inexpensively as claimed, then perhaps you
| can tell us why it,s not widely implemented. Are all builders and
| consumers stupid? Don't they want homes that our only heated by the
| sun? Has the free market broken down in this case? Or could it
| be that they know more about the real world, heating, construction
| and costs than those spouting a bunch of equations trying to
| impress folks?

No - they're not stupid, and the free market hasn't broken down.

People, in general, don't change from something they know has worked
well in the past unless/until their pain threshold has been exceeded
by a sufficient margin to motivate change.

In case you hadn't noticed, most people /don't/ know much about
designing and constructing a home - just like they don't know much
about how their vehicle was designed and built. Both products rely
heavily on design folks working with equations.

If you think they do that just to "impress folks" you might want to
think again.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

wrote:

On Apr 14, 5:48 pm, Derek Broughton wrote:
Solar Flaire wrote:
They are correct.

wrote in message
...
After 300 years of simple heatflow physics, most people still doubt
that a house can be close to 100% solar heated outside of the
Southwest, inexpensively.

No, they're not. It can work in Nova Scotia and it has worked in
Germany.

If it works so well and inexpensively as claimed, then perhaps you can
tell us why it,s not widely implemented. Are all builders and
consumers stupid? Don't they want homes that our only heated by the
sun? Has the free market broken down in this case? Or could it
be that they know more about the real world, heating, construction and
costs than those spouting a bunch of equations trying to impress folks?

It isn't widely done, because (a) while inexpensive, it isn't _without_
cost. People buy cheap. Never mind if they can save money in just a
couple of years, they won't pay the cost up front. (b) where's the free
market? I have a friend who has been building homes getting 50-70% solar
heating (for the same price as similar sized homes in the area) for 30
years now. He's an engineer and an architect, and he _still_ has to fight
building inspectors at every turn who tell him that his systems won't work,
can't work and are illegal besides. Another architect I know is trying to
get a development approved for St. Margaret's Bay, Nova Scotia, which will
involve homes with no fossil-fuel heating systems - solar heat & waste heat
from appliances with deep-rock storage, with a target of making them _less_
than market price. She's been at it for years, but is blocked by people
like you who say it can't be done.
--
derek

Solar Flaire wrote:
Many projects of this style have been attempted over the years all
with failure as a result.

Many times "green" homes are over-hyped and under-designed.
This doesn't mean that solar heating doesn't work but rather
that there are a lot of dishonest salesmen and poor home
"Designers" out there in the world and the give the rest a
bad name.

I remember a big green home built in Mississaga, Ontario back in the
late 70s having an open house. One of the audience asked where the
vertical axis windmill in the artists's conception drawing was. The
reply?..It cost more than it would generate in a human's lifetime and
was left out.

If the building site didn't have very good wind resources then any
kind of wind turbine would be uneconomical. Most people don't like
to build in places that are exceptionally windy so few homes have
good wind resources.

Even today PV is totally impractical where grid power is available. In
Canada, my system cost me under $20K and I got most at a discount. I
will break even, at today's rate, in 70-80 years. verdict? A fun toy.
This is not "inexpensively". Logically it is a waste of money.

Today PV is practical where grid power is not available. This means
you can build a house places where you couldn't before without the
noise and cost of a generator. Besides, I've seen people spend more
than $20K on sports cars, off-road trucks and the like. I can think
of a lot worse ways to spend $20K than to buy 50+ years of power.

Anthony

Many projects of this style have been attempted over the years all
with failure as a result.

SO far, it hasn't been fesible with reasonable costs and no resistance
by building standard people.

I remember a big green home built in Mississaga, Ontario back in the
late 70s having an open house. One of the audience asked where the
vertical axis windmill in the artists's conception drawing was. The
reply?..It cost more than it would generate in a human's lifetime and
was left out.

Even today PV is totally impractical where grid power is available. In
Canada, my system cost me under $20K and I got most at a discount. I
will break even, at today's rate, in 70-80 years. verdict? A fun toy.
This is not "inexpensively". Logically it is a waste of money.

BTW: "Inexpensively" is a relative term and has no absolute value.
Thanx Nick...LOL

"Derek Broughton" wrote in message
news
wrote:

On Apr 14, 5:48 pm, Derek Broughton wrote:
Solar Flaire wrote:
They are correct.

wrote in message
...
After 300 years of simple heatflow physics, most people still
doubt
that a house can be close to 100% solar heated outside of the
Southwest, inexpensively.

No, they're not. It can work in Nova Scotia and it has worked in
Germany.

If it works so well and inexpensively as claimed, then perhaps you
can
tell us why it,s not widely implemented. Are all builders and
consumers stupid? Don't they want homes that our only heated by
the
sun? Has the free market broken down in this case? Or could
it
be that they know more about the real world, heating, construction
and
costs than those spouting a bunch of equations trying to impress
folks?

It isn't widely done, because (a) while inexpensive, it isn't
_without_
cost. People buy cheap. Never mind if they can save money in just
a
couple of years, they won't pay the cost up front. (b) where's the
free
market? I have a friend who has been building homes getting 50-70%
solar
heating (for the same price as similar sized homes in the area) for
30
years now. He's an engineer and an architect, and he _still_ has to
fight
building inspectors at every turn who tell him that his systems
won't work,
can't work and are illegal besides. Another architect I know is
trying to
get a development approved for St. Margaret's Bay, Nova Scotia,
which will
involve homes with no fossil-fuel heating systems - solar heat &
waste heat
from appliances with deep-rock storage, with a target of making them
_less_
than market price. She's been at it for years, but is blocked by
people
like you who say it can't be done.
--
derek

Anthony Matonak wrote:

Solar Flaire wrote:
Many projects of this style have been attempted over the years all
with failure as a result.

Right. Then you go on to talk about projects that have no relationship at
all to what we're talking about.

Many times "green" homes are over-hyped and under-designed.
This doesn't mean that solar heating doesn't work but rather
that there are a lot of dishonest salesmen and poor home
"Designers" out there in the world and the give the rest a
bad name.

Even today PV is totally impractical where grid power is available. In
Canada, my system cost me under $20K and I got most at a discount. I
will break even, at today's rate, in 70-80 years. verdict? A fun toy.
This is not "inexpensively". Logically it is a waste of money.

Today PV is practical where grid power is not available.

As in my home.

However, the subject was homes that could be heated almost entirely with
solar. Slab-on-grade building, with passive solar heating, and in-slab
heat storage costs _no_ more than standard building techniques, and can net
you 50-70% of your heating (that's typical of the homes built by my
friend). Super-insulation can increase that significantly (admittedly for
some small cost - but still "inexpensive" when designed into the home in
the first place.
--
derek

Well, everybody has had their chance to twist the words to suit their
fancy and defend against their imagined enemies. Let's go back to the
OP's statement.

"After 300 years of simple heatflow physics, most people still doubt
that a house can be close to 100% solar heated outside of the
Southwest,
inexpensively."

Now he did state "close to 100%". This has been proven to be true for
decades, depending how you define "close to". If he stated 50%, I
would agree it is false. I read "close to" as more like 98-99.9%.

Not happenning and it hasn't yet. We are talking sufficient heat
storage for upwards to a month with temps down to -10c with no sun
last December and January in the location I have my solar toys. The
other word he stated is "inexpensively".

Not happenning and it hasn't yet.

"Derek Broughton" wrote in message
...
Anthony Matonak wrote:

Solar Flaire wrote:
Many projects of this style have been attempted over the years all
with failure as a result.

Right. Then you go on to talk about projects that have no
relationship at
all to what we're talking about.

Many times "green" homes are over-hyped and under-designed.
This doesn't mean that solar heating doesn't work but rather
that there are a lot of dishonest salesmen and poor home
"Designers" out there in the world and the give the rest a
bad name.

Even today PV is totally impractical where grid power is
available. In
Canada, my system cost me under $20K and I got most at a discount.
I
will break even, at today's rate, in 70-80 years. verdict? A fun
toy.
This is not "inexpensively". Logically it is a waste of money.

Today PV is practical where grid power is not available.

As in my home.

However, the subject was homes that could be heated almost entirely
with
solar. Slab-on-grade building, with passive solar heating, and
in-slab
heat storage costs _no_ more than standard building techniques, and
can net
you 50-70% of your heating (that's typical of the homes built by my
friend). Super-insulation can increase that significantly
(admittedly for
some small cost - but still "inexpensive" when designed into the
home in
the first place.
--
derek

On Apr 15, 11:10 am, "Morris Dovey" wrote:
wrote:

| On Apr 14, 5:48 pm, Derek Broughton wrote:|| Solar Flaire wrote:

||| They are correct.
||||| wrote in message

...
|||| After 300 years of simple heatflow physics, most people still
|||| doubt that a house can be close to 100% solar heated outside of
|||| the Southwest, inexpensively.
||
|| No, they're not. It can work in Nova Scotia and it has worked in
|| Germany.
|
| If it works so well and inexpensively as claimed, then perhaps you
| can tell us why it,s not widely implemented. Are all builders and
| consumers stupid? Don't they want homes that our only heated by the
| sun? Has the free market broken down in this case? Or could it
| be that they know more about the real world, heating, construction
| and costs than those spouting a bunch of equations trying to
| impress folks?

No - they're not stupid, and the free market hasn't broken down.

People, in general, don't change from something they know has worked
well in the past unless/until their pain threshold has been exceeded
by a sufficient margin to motivate change.



Complete BS. Pay attention to how fast consumers are adopting new
technology.
Products come out and within a few years, they are everywhere. There
are lots of
people who would jump on a home that could be 100% solar and built
inexpensively,
if it were really possible and practical.



In case you hadn't noticed, most people /don't/ know much about
designing and constructing a home - just like they don't know much
about how their vehicle was designed and built. Both products rely
heavily on design folks working with equations.


Well, Duh! I guess that's why we have cell phones and Ipods.
Funny though
I don't see these close to 100% solar energy inexpensive homes being
built in NJ
or anywhere else. If it's such a damn fine idea, why don't you and
Nick go do it
and get rich?




If you think they do that just to "impress folks" you might want to
think again.

No, I just think a certain clown that posts here from time to time
with loads of equations
and no practical common sense does it to impress. I guess
that point went over your head.




--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On 16 Apr 2007 06:41:07 -0700, wrote:

On Apr 15, 11:10 am, "Morris Dovey" wrote:
wrote:

| On Apr 14, 5:48 pm, Derek Broughton wrote:|| Solar Flaire wrote:

||| They are correct.
||||| wrote in message

...
|||| After 300 years of simple heatflow physics, most people still
|||| doubt that a house can be close to 100% solar heated outside of
|||| the Southwest, inexpensively.
||
|| No, they're not. It can work in Nova Scotia and it has worked in
|| Germany.
|
| If it works so well and inexpensively as claimed, then perhaps you
| can tell us why it,s not widely implemented. Are all builders and
| consumers stupid? Don't they want homes that our only heated by the
| sun? Has the free market broken down in this case? Or could it
| be that they know more about the real world, heating, construction
| and costs than those spouting a bunch of equations trying to
| impress folks?

No - they're not stupid, and the free market hasn't broken down.

People, in general, don't change from something they know has worked
well in the past unless/until their pain threshold has been exceeded
by a sufficient margin to motivate change.



Complete BS. Pay attention to how fast consumers are adopting new
technology.
Products come out and within a few years, they are everywhere. There
are lots of
people who would jump on a home that could be 100% solar and built
inexpensively,
if it were really possible and practical.



In case you hadn't noticed, most people /don't/ know much about
designing and constructing a home - just like they don't know much
about how their vehicle was designed and built. Both products rely
heavily on design folks working with equations.


Well, Duh! I guess that's why we have cell phones and Ipods.
Funny though
I don't see these close to 100% solar energy inexpensive homes being
built in NJ
or anywhere else. If it's such a damn fine idea, why don't you and
Nick go do it
and get rich?




If you think they do that just to "impress folks" you might want to
think again.

No, I just think a certain clown that posts here from time to time
with loads of equations
and no practical common sense does it to impress. I guess
that point went over your head.




--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/