....Aidan Dwyer on his ‘tree leaf’ design for solar panels.

Video:

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1463131003001/14-year-olds-game-changing-solar-power-design/?playlist_id=87247

Oren writes:

...Aidan Dwyer on his €˜tree leaf design for solar panels.

Video:

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1463131003001/14-year-olds-game-changing-solar-power-design/?playlist_id=87247

Took one look and thought "this is completely nuts".

Obviously a bunch of small collectors pointed in random directions is
not going to complete with a flat panel aimed to the south.

Don't take my word for it:

http://www.eco-scams.com/archives/746

--
Dan Espen

On 2/22/2012 1:31 AM, harry wrote:
On Feb 21, 10:51 pm, wrote:
...Aidan Dwyer on his ‘tree leaf’ design for solar panels.

Video:

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1463131003001/14-year-olds-game-changi...

Load of complete drivel.
But then typical of the **** put out by Fox News to their dopey,
credulous, uneducated watchers.

Silly Limey, Fox News isn't the only news organization that reported it.
The story was even reported by the Liberal elite alphabet news
programs to their uber-intelligent super educated P.L.L.C.F. admirers
and Trash Baggers of The Occupy WETF movement. ^_^

TDD

On 2/22/2012 2:31 AM, harry wrote:
On Feb 21, 10:51 pm, wrote:
...Aidan Dwyer on his ‘tree leaf’ design for solar panels.

Video:

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1463131003001/14-year-olds-game-changi...

Load of complete drivel.
But then typical of the **** put out by Fox News to their dopey,
credulous, uneducated watchers.

I don't know of any news service that actually validates the news before
they report it.

Does this concept actually work? **** if I know but I'd rather have a
freestanding 'solar tree' in my yard than a bunch of solar panels bolted
to my roof.

Hugh Jass wrote in :

Does this concept actually work? **** if I know but I'd rather have a
freestanding 'solar tree' in my yard than a bunch of solar panels
bolted to my roof.

No.

The amount of energy that can be collected by an array of solar collectors depends on the size of
the array. Ten thousand 5cm-square solar "leaves" won't harvest any more energy than five panels
1x5 meters.

The "tree" arrangement is almost guaranteed to harvest considerably *less* energy than an array
of flat panels bolted to your roof, because the amount of energy harvested also depends on the
angle of the panel(s). An array bolted to the roof can (and should) be adjusted to the proper
elevation to maximize the energy gain, whereas the angles of the "leaves" cannot be.

On 2/22/2012 2:31 AM, harry wrote:
On Feb 21, 10:51 pm, wrote:
...Aidan Dwyer on his ‘tree leaf’ design for solar panels.

Video:

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1463131003001/14-year-olds-game-changi...

Load of complete drivel.
But then typical of the **** put out by Fox News to their dopey,
credulous, uneducated watchers.

All the networks do it.
They are approached by the person that wants to put it out and if story
looks good will use it.
Skips all the technical/engineering/scientific scrutiny and casual
watchers believe it.

On 2/22/2012 7:33 AM, wrote:
....

Call me nuts, but I say it's impossible to achieve more
power with solar cells pointed every which way instead
of south....

Maybe he should put his collectors on sunflowers...

--

On Feb 21, 5:51*pm, Oren wrote:
...Aidan Dwyer on his ‘tree leaf’ design for solar panels.

Video:

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1463131003001/14-year-olds-game-changi...

Wait...

I just realized, this is FOX News.

I thought they were the bastions of the conservative agenda.
Conservatives are supposed to HATE solar energy. How can FOX report a
story that promotes solar energy?

writes:

On Feb 21, 5:51Â*pm, Oren wrote:
...Aidan Dwyer on his €˜tree leaf design for solar panels.

Video:

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1463131003001/14-year-olds-game-changi...

Wait...

I just realized, this is FOX News.

I thought they were the bastions of the conservative agenda.
Conservatives are supposed to HATE solar energy. How can FOX report a
story that promotes solar energy?

I don't know if I'd go as far as to insert politics into this.
But those 2 interviewers did seem pretty dumb as far as the science.

I believe that the kids real accomplishment was constructing the tree
shape using math. The kid mentions that but the interviewers gloss
right over it.

As for people actually wanting a "solar tree", I'm guessing that
part of the motivation is the "art work" value. If you google "solar
tree", you see a lot of attractive sculptures and some practical designs
that move the panels to track the sun.

--
Dan Espen

On 2/22/2012 8:25 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
Hugh wrote in :

Does this concept actually work? **** if I know but I'd rather have a
freestanding 'solar tree' in my yard than a bunch of solar panels
bolted to my roof.

No.

The amount of energy that can be collected by an array of solar collectors depends on the size of
the array. Ten thousand 5cm-square solar "leaves" won't harvest any more energy than five panels
1x5 meters.

The "tree" arrangement is almost guaranteed to harvest considerably *less* energy than an array
of flat panels bolted to your roof, because the amount of energy harvested also depends on the
angle of the panel(s). An array bolted to the roof can (and should) be adjusted to the proper
elevation to maximize the energy gain, whereas the angles of the "leaves" cannot be.


Is an asphalt shingled roof much more difficult/expensive to replace
when it has solar panels bolted on it?

On Feb 22, 7:10*pm, Harry Johnson wrote:
On 2/22/2012 8:25 AM, Doug Miller wrote:





Hugh *wrote :

Does this concept actually work? **** if I know but I'd rather have a
freestanding 'solar tree' in my yard than a bunch of solar panels
bolted to my roof.

No.

The amount of energy that can be collected by an array of solar collectors depends on the size of
the array. Ten thousand 5cm-square solar "leaves" won't harvest any more energy than five panels
1x5 meters.

The "tree" arrangement is almost guaranteed to harvest considerably *less* energy than an array
of flat panels bolted to your roof, because the amount of energy harvested also depends on the
angle of the panel(s). An array bolted to the roof can (and should) be adjusted to the proper
elevation to maximize the energy gain, whereas the angles of the "leaves" cannot be.

Is an asphalt shingled roof much more difficult/expensive to replace
when it has solar panels bolted on it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Depends on your definition of much more. They just
fasten to the roof with brackets so there isn't all that
much involved in interaction with the roof itself.
You'd have to remove
the panels, remove the brackets, then re-install. That
typically would require a contractor that installs solar
systems to do that portion of the work. It might also
require using the original contractor to maintain a
warranty. If I had to take a guess, I'd think it could
run $1500 or so for the panel work. But if they have
you over the barrel because you have to use the
company that installed it, then who knows.

On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 02:19:40 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 2/22/2012 1:31 AM, harry wrote:
On Feb 21, 10:51 pm, wrote:
...Aidan Dwyer on his ‘tree leaf’ design for solar panels.

Video:

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1463131003001/14-year-olds-game-changi...

Load of complete drivel.
But then typical of the **** put out by Fox News to their dopey,
credulous, uneducated watchers.

Silly Limey, Fox News isn't the only news organization that reported it.
The story was even reported by the Liberal elite alphabet news
programs to their uber-intelligent super educated P.L.L.C.F. admirers
and Trash Baggers of The Occupy WETF movement. ^_^

TDD

harry gets his information from "Wiki" and his news from The Onion.
Then he tries to spin it off on grown adults.

He can't look at alternative views, but prefers to turn a simple video
into a political argument.

He should be de-boned and sold as a wet suit for divers.

On 2/22/2012 5:33 PM, wrote:
On Feb 22, 7:10 pm, Harry wrote:
On 2/22/2012 8:25 AM, Doug Miller wrote:





Hugh wrote :

Does this concept actually work? **** if I know but I'd rather have a
freestanding 'solar tree' in my yard than a bunch of solar panels
bolted to my roof.

No.

The amount of energy that can be collected by an array of solar collectors depends on the size of
the array. Ten thousand 5cm-square solar "leaves" won't harvest any more energy than five panels
1x5 meters.

The "tree" arrangement is almost guaranteed to harvest considerably *less* energy than an array
of flat panels bolted to your roof, because the amount of energy harvested also depends on the
angle of the panel(s). An array bolted to the roof can (and should) be adjusted to the proper
elevation to maximize the energy gain, whereas the angles of the "leaves" cannot be.

Is an asphalt shingled roof much more difficult/expensive to replace
when it has solar panels bolted on it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Depends on your definition of much more. They just
fasten to the roof with brackets so there isn't all that
much involved in interaction with the roof itself.
You'd have to remove
the panels, remove the brackets, then re-install. That
typically would require a contractor that installs solar
systems to do that portion of the work. It might also
require using the original contractor to maintain a
warranty. If I had to take a guess, I'd think it could
run $1500 or so for the panel work. But if they have
you over the barrel because you have to use the
company that installed it, then who knows.

on a shingled roof, they're just screwed down to the decking.

unscrew a leg, slide out the old shingle, slide in the new one, screw
down, cover with tar. do one leg at a time. done.

on my flat foam roof, they're attached to the trusses. they had to dig a
hole in the foam, attach, then refoam and recoat. recoating is just
spraying a new layer of elastomeric.

On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:16:35 -0800 (PST), wrote:

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1463131003001/14-year-olds-game-changi...

Wait...

I just realized, this is FOX News.

What's the matter? You don't catch on the first time. Wasn't the link
clear enough for you? You must really be slow, or more likely, very
slow in the head.

On 2/22/2012 6:38 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 02:19:40 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 2/22/2012 1:31 AM, harry wrote:
On Feb 21, 10:51 pm, wrote:
...Aidan Dwyer on his ‘tree leaf’ design for solar panels.

Video:

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1463131003001/14-year-olds-game-changi...

Load of complete drivel.
But then typical of the **** put out by Fox News to their dopey,
credulous, uneducated watchers.

Silly Limey, Fox News isn't the only news organization that reported it.
The story was even reported by the Liberal elite alphabet news
programs to their uber-intelligent super educated P.L.L.C.F. admirers
and Trash Baggers of The Occupy WETF movement. ^_^

TDD

harry gets his information from "Wiki" and his news from The Onion.
Then he tries to spin it off on grown adults.

He can't look at alternative views, but prefers to turn a simple video
into a political argument.

He should be de-boned and sold as a wet suit for divers.

Oh come on, don't wish any harm to come to Harry. He gets people stirred
up and makes them think to take a look at a subject and
you can often learn something. Remember "Liberals are the barking
dogs of society, they bark at everything and nothing but you have
to go look before you yell at them to shut up." ^_^

TDD

On Feb 22, 7:39*pm, chaniarts wrote:
On 2/22/2012 5:33 PM, wrote:





On Feb 22, 7:10 pm, Harry *wrote:
On 2/22/2012 8:25 AM, Doug Miller wrote:

Hugh * *wrote :

Does this concept actually work? **** if I know but I'd rather have a
freestanding 'solar tree' in my yard than a bunch of solar panels
bolted to my roof.

No.

The amount of energy that can be collected by an array of solar collectors depends on the size of
the array. Ten thousand 5cm-square solar "leaves" won't harvest any more energy than five panels
1x5 meters.

The "tree" arrangement is almost guaranteed to harvest considerably *less* energy than an array
of flat panels bolted to your roof, because the amount of energy harvested also depends on the
angle of the panel(s). An array bolted to the roof can (and should) be adjusted to the proper
elevation to maximize the energy gain, whereas the angles of the "leaves" cannot be.

Is an asphalt shingled roof much more difficult/expensive to replace
when it has solar panels bolted on it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Depends on your definition of much more. *They just
fasten to the roof with brackets so there isn't all that
much involved in interaction with the roof itself.
You'd have to remove
the panels, remove the brackets, then re-install. *That
typically would require a contractor that installs solar
systems to do that portion of the work. *It might also
require using the original contractor to maintain a
warranty. *If I had to take a guess, I'd think it could
run $1500 or so for the panel work. *But if they have
you over the barrel because you have to use the
company that installed it, then who knows.

on a shingled roof, they're just screwed down to the decking.

unscrew a leg, slide out the old shingle, slide in the new one, screw
down, cover with tar. do one leg at a time. done.

on my flat foam roof, they're attached to the trusses. they had to dig a
hole in the foam, attach, then refoam and recoat. recoating is just
spraying a new layer of elastomeric.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Are you suggesting that as the method when you're
replacing the whole roof?

Hugh Jass wrote:

On 2/22/2012 2:31 AM, harry wrote:
On Feb 21, 10:51 pm, wrote:
...Aidan Dwyer on his €˜tree leaf design for solar panels.

Video:

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1463131003001/14-year-olds-game-changi...

Load of complete drivel.
But then typical of the **** put out by Fox News to their dopey,
credulous, uneducated watchers.

I don't know of any news service that actually validates the news before
they report it.

This story was an interview with the kid who invented it. He also
was invited to meet the POTUS for his accomplishment.

Does this concept actually work?

Did you watch the video? Yes, it works - well.

**** if I know but I'd rather have a
freestanding 'solar tree' in my yard than a bunch of solar panels bolted
to my roof.

Again, had you watched the interview, you would know it was
discussed and a primary reason for alternative to roof-mounting.

Doug Miller wrote:

Hugh Jass wrote in :

Does this concept actually work? **** if I know but I'd rather have a
freestanding 'solar tree' in my yard than a bunch of solar panels
bolted to my roof.

No.

The amount of energy that can be collected by an array of solar collectors depends on the size of
the array. Ten thousand 5cm-square solar "leaves" won't harvest any more energy than five panels
1x5 meters.

The "tree" arrangement is almost guaranteed to harvest considerably *less* energy than an array
of flat panels bolted to your roof, because the amount of energy harvested also depends on the
angle of the panel(s). An array bolted to the roof can (and should) be adjusted to the proper
elevation to maximize the energy gain, whereas the angles of the "leaves" cannot be.

I'm seriously thinking about making one. I was thinking about using
servos to rotate the panels with the sun's path. And use more
panels than he did.

I'd like to shoot for 400W for the first on a inverter and battery
array, plus a transfer switch if I get nuts with it to backup one
circuit in the house.

Nice thing about a project like this is you can add to its capacity
little by little as you can afford.

wrote:

If I had to take a guess, I'd think it could
run $1500 or so for the panel work.


That would be a "yes" to his question.

wrote:

Do a bit of googling. The kid was measuring the open
circuit voltage of the solar arrays, without any load and using
that as a measure of the power. It's not.

He fully admitted the mistake when he got called on it by a
Youtube'er. Then he made a 2nd one that can not be laughed at.

On Feb 23, 10:09*am, G. Morgan wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
Hugh Jass wrote :

Does this concept actually work? **** if I know but I'd rather have a
freestanding 'solar tree' in my yard than a bunch of solar panels
bolted to my roof.

No.

The amount of energy that can be collected by an array of solar collectors depends on the size of
the array. Ten thousand 5cm-square solar "leaves" won't harvest any more energy than five panels
1x5 meters.

The "tree" arrangement is almost guaranteed to harvest considerably *less* energy than an array
of flat panels bolted to your roof, because the amount of energy harvested also depends on the
angle of the panel(s). An array bolted to the roof can (and should) be adjusted to the proper
elevation to maximize the energy gain, whereas the angles of the "leaves" cannot be.

I'm seriously thinking about making one. *I was thinking about using
servos to rotate the panels with the sun's path. *And use more
panels than he did.

If you're looking for something that's for real use, not
an experiment, I'd look at what's already used and
works. Lots of solars installs around here and not
one of them uses servos. The reason would be that
the increased cost, complexity just isn't worth it.




I'd like to shoot for 400W for the first on a inverter and battery
array, plus a transfer switch if I get nuts with it to backup one
circuit in the house.

Nice thing about a project like this is you can add to its capacity
little by little as you can afford.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'd look at the new generation of solar panels that have
a built-in inverter. Those can be incrementally expanded.
You could start off with one panel.

On Feb 23, 10:12*am, G. Morgan wrote:
wrote:
Do a bit of googling. *The kid was measuring the open
circuit voltage of the solar arrays, without any load and using
that as a measure of the power. *It's not.

He fully admitted the mistake when he got called on it by a
Youtube'er. *Then he made a 2nd one that can not be laughed at.

I'd like to see a link to anything about the second one.
Are you claiming that it too has the solar cells pointed
every which way and it puts out more power than
a similar size panel that is pointed at the optimum
solar direction? If so, I'd like to hear an explanation
of the new physics.

On Feb 23, 10:29*am, "
wrote:
On Feb 23, 10:09*am, G. Morgan wrote:





Doug Miller wrote:
Hugh Jass wrote :

Does this concept actually work? **** if I know but I'd rather have a
freestanding 'solar tree' in my yard than a bunch of solar panels
bolted to my roof.

No.

The amount of energy that can be collected by an array of solar collectors depends on the size of
the array. Ten thousand 5cm-square solar "leaves" won't harvest any more energy than five panels
1x5 meters.

The "tree" arrangement is almost guaranteed to harvest considerably *less* energy than an array
of flat panels bolted to your roof, because the amount of energy harvested also depends on the
angle of the panel(s). An array bolted to the roof can (and should) be adjusted to the proper
elevation to maximize the energy gain, whereas the angles of the "leaves" cannot be.

I'm seriously thinking about making one. *I was thinking about using
servos to rotate the panels with the sun's path. *And use more
panels than he did.

If you're looking for something that's for real use, not
an experiment, I'd look at what's already used and
works. *Lots of solars installs around here and not
one of them uses servos. *The reason would be that
the increased cost, complexity just isn't worth it.



I'd like to shoot for 400W for the first on a inverter and battery
array, plus a transfer switch if I get nuts with it to backup one
circuit in the house.

Nice thing about a project like this is you can add to its capacity
little by little as you can afford.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'd look at the new generation of solar panels that have
a built-in inverter. *Those can be incrementally expanded.
You could start off with one panel.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Actually the above suggestion would be good if
you were not seeking the battery backup capability.
The built-in inverter panels I've seen are designed
to be tied to the grid. Not sure if there are ones
with built-in inverters that could be
used with a battery backup system. Probably
99% of the ones being installed today are grid
tied and don't have batteries.

On Feb 23, 10:04*am, G. Morgan wrote:
Hugh Jass wrote:
On 2/22/2012 2:31 AM, harry wrote:
On Feb 21, 10:51 pm, *wrote:
...Aidan Dwyer on his ‘tree leaf’ design for solar panels.

Video:

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1463131003001/14-year-olds-game-changi...

Load of complete drivel.
But then typical of the **** put out by Fox News to their dopey,
credulous, uneducated watchers.

I don't know of any news service that actually validates the news before
they report it.

This story was an interview with the kid who invented it. *He also
was invited to meet the POTUS for his accomplishment.

Does this concept actually work?

Did you watch the video? *Yes, it works - well.

Watch which video? The video provided in this thread
only shows the kid giving an interview. It shows
nothing to support the claim that the design provides
more power than the same size fixed array pointing in
the optimum solar direction or that it's going to
revolutionize the solar industry. It's been pointed out
that the kid apparently measured the open circuit
voltage, NOT power. And despite this having been
pointed out months ago, the kid says "I guess I
measured the wrong kind of ....thing....." Host chimes
in with "Voltage versus power." So, despite having
been told that what he measured is totally wrong, he's
too lazy to even understand what it is he's trying to do.
At his age, I understood voltage, power and current.
And this is supposed to be some kind of genius?

Unbelievable how naive and totally lacking of any
knowledge of science or scientific methods the media
are and how gullible some people can be. But sadly
it does show where the country is from an education
standpoint. No child left behind indeed.




**** if I know but I'd rather have a
freestanding 'solar tree' in my yard than a bunch of solar panels bolted
to my roof.

You probably wouldn't when you find out the cost and that it
produces substantially LESS power than a conventional
array. For certain applications
where aesthetics override, a tree could be
a viable alternative. But that apparently has been done
before and isn't anything new.



Again, had you watched the interview, you would know it was
discussed and a primary reason for alternative to roof-mounting.

I did watch the video, where it's claimed that this is a
discovery that is gonna change the solar industry and
offered NOTHING to substantiate it. What video did
you watch?

On Feb 23, 3:09*pm, G. Morgan wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
Hugh Jass wrote :

Does this concept actually work? **** if I know but I'd rather have a
freestanding 'solar tree' in my yard than a bunch of solar panels
bolted to my roof.

No.

The amount of energy that can be collected by an array of solar collectors depends on the size of
the array. Ten thousand 5cm-square solar "leaves" won't harvest any more energy than five panels
1x5 meters.

The "tree" arrangement is almost guaranteed to harvest considerably *less* energy than an array
of flat panels bolted to your roof, because the amount of energy harvested also depends on the
angle of the panel(s). An array bolted to the roof can (and should) be adjusted to the proper
elevation to maximize the energy gain, whereas the angles of the "leaves" cannot be.

I'm seriously thinking about making one. *I was thinking about using
servos to rotate the panels with the sun's path. *And use more
panels than he did.

I'd like to shoot for 400W for the first on a inverter and battery
array, plus a transfer switch if I get nuts with it to backup one
circuit in the house.

Nice thing about a project like this is you can add to its capacity
little by little as you can afford.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well that is not actually viable..

On 2/23/2012 9:32 AM, wrote:
On Feb 23, 10:12 am, G. wrote:
wrote:
....
He fully admitted the mistake when he got called on it by a
Youtube'er. Then he made a 2nd one that can not be laughed at.

I'd like to see a link to anything about the second one.
Are you claiming that it too has the solar cells pointed
every which way and it puts out more power than
a similar size panel that is pointed at the optimum
solar direction? If so, I'd like to hear an explanation
of the new physics.

Can you say "cold fusion"?

--

On 2/23/2012 7:33 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
....

The kid isn't the issue. The fact that the news media thought it was a good
idea dreadful, though not unexpected.
....

If there's 24/7 of air time to fill, _something_ has to fill it. Drivel
is as good a filler as anything else (and probably better than some that
wouldn't be as far as ratings are concerned).

Commentators/interviewers aren't being paid to think; they're there
simply as actors to read the script/follow the interview outline to have
something to put out over the air so the advertisers can be billed for
their air time.

Whether there's any content, factual or not, is totally immaterial and
secondary (or tertiary or even lower yet in ranking) to not having dead air.

--

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:54:17 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 2/23/2012 7:33 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
...

The kid isn't the issue. The fact that the news media thought it was a good
idea dreadful, though not unexpected.
...

If there's 24/7 of air time to fill, _something_ has to fill it. Drivel
is as good a filler as anything else (and probably better than some that
wouldn't be as far as ratings are concerned).

Factually incorrect "fill" doesn't do anyone any good. The problem is that
the reporters don't know the difference. They're scientifically illiterate.

Commentators/interviewers aren't being paid to think; they're there
simply as actors to read the script/follow the interview outline to have
something to put out over the air so the advertisers can be billed for
their air time.

....and that's a good thing?

Whether there's any content, factual or not, is totally immaterial and
secondary (or tertiary or even lower yet in ranking) to not having dead air.

....and that's...

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:56:20 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 2/23/2012 9:32 AM, wrote:
On Feb 23, 10:12 am, G. wrote:
wrote:
...
He fully admitted the mistake when he got called on it by a
Youtube'er. Then he made a 2nd one that can not be laughed at.

I'd like to see a link to anything about the second one.
Are you claiming that it too has the solar cells pointed
every which way and it puts out more power than
a similar size panel that is pointed at the optimum
solar direction? If so, I'd like to hear an explanation
of the new physics.

Can you say "cold fusion"?

Can you say "stimulus"?

On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:42:08 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:16:35 -0800 (PST), wrote:

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1463131003001/14-year-olds-game-changi...

Wait...

I just realized, this is FOX News.

What's the matter? You don't catch on the first time. Wasn't the link
clear enough for you? You must really be slow, or more likely, very
slow in the head.

What did you expect from a Democrat?

On 2/23/2012 9:51 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
....

Factually incorrect "fill" doesn't do anyone any good. The problem is that
the reporters don't know the difference. They're scientifically illiterate.

Commentators/interviewers aren't being paid to think; they're there
simply as actors to read the script/follow the interview outline to have
something to put out over the air so the advertisers can be billed for
their air time.

....and that's a good thing?
....

You miss the whole point--the point isn't to do anything good or bad;
it's simply to have a time slot for the broadcasters can charge advertisers.

The concept of "good" or "bad" never enters into it; only whether they
can continue to sell advertising.

--

On Feb 24, 5:35*am, dpb wrote:
On 2/23/2012 9:51 PM, wrote:
...

Factually incorrect "fill" doesn't do anyone any good. *The problem is that
the reporters don't know the difference. *They're scientifically illiterate.

Commentators/interviewers aren't being paid to think; they're there
simply as actors to read the script/follow the interview outline to have
something to put out over the air so the advertisers can be billed for
their air time.

....and that's a good thing?

...

You miss the whole point--the point isn't to do anything good or bad;
it's simply to have a time slot for the broadcasters can charge advertisers.

The concept of "good" or "bad" never enters into it; only whether they
can continue to sell advertising.

--

I think he believes the viewer should be able to draw some benifit
from watchingTV. Clearly not in this case, the exact opposite in
fact.

It's obvious the that "Fox News" is accustomed to trotting out drivel,
easily provable in this case to anyone with the slightest education.

One can conclude that other stuff they come up with is also drivel
though not so easily proved/disproved.

Best not to watch it. Lowered viewing rates is the best way to punish
them.

And the creepy kid needs to be put down to prevent him from spreading
his genes.

harry wrote:

On Feb 23, 3:09*pm, G. Morgan wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
Hugh Jass wrote :

Does this concept actually work? **** if I know but I'd rather have a
freestanding 'solar tree' in my yard than a bunch of solar panels
bolted to my roof.

No.

The amount of energy that can be collected by an array of solar collectors depends on the size of
the array. Ten thousand 5cm-square solar "leaves" won't harvest any more energy than five panels
1x5 meters.

The "tree" arrangement is almost guaranteed to harvest considerably *less* energy than an array
of flat panels bolted to your roof, because the amount of energy harvested also depends on the
angle of the panel(s). An array bolted to the roof can (and should) be adjusted to the proper
elevation to maximize the energy gain, whereas the angles of the "leaves" cannot be.

I'm seriously thinking about making one. *I was thinking about using
servos to rotate the panels with the sun's path. *And use more
panels than he did.

I'd like to shoot for 400W for the first on a inverter and battery
array, plus a transfer switch if I get nuts with it to backup one
circuit in the house.

Nice thing about a project like this is you can add to its capacity
little by little as you can afford.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well that is not actually viable..

Why not? Add more panels and batteries.

wrote:


Actually the above suggestion would be good if
you were not seeking the battery backup capability.
The built-in inverter panels I've seen are designed
to be tied to the grid. Not sure if there are ones
with built-in inverters that could be
used with a battery backup system. Probably
99% of the ones being installed today are grid
tied and don't have batteries.

So most are just using solar to reduce the bill from the power
company? Screw that, if I go solar I want battery backups.

wrote:

Unbelievable how naive and totally lacking of any
knowledge of science or scientific methods the media
are and how gullible some people can be. But sadly
it does show where the country is from an education
standpoint. No child left behind indeed.

You have that right. Many graduates can not read or write above a
5th grade level.

I didn't learn about electronics until college. As much as I try, I
can not remember being taught Ohm's Law until 1st semester in
college.

On 2/24/2012 12:48 AM, harry wrote:
....

I think he believes the viewer should be able to draw some benifit
from watchingTV. Clearly not in this case, the exact opposite in
fact.
....

That's generally true of essentially all the 24/7 channels--there simply
isn't enough stuff to show new to fill the air time w/o the drivel (at a
cost to produce that will pay).

--

On Feb 24, 3:32*am, G. Morgan wrote:
wrote:

Actually the above suggestion would be good if
you were not seeking the battery backup capability.
The built-in inverter panels I've seen are designed
to be tied to the grid. *Not sure if there are ones
with built-in inverters that could be
used with a battery backup system. *Probably
99% of the ones being installed today are grid
tied and don't have batteries.

So most are just using solar to reduce the bill from the power
company? *Screw that, if I go solar I want battery backups.

Yes, either reduce, eliminate or generate a profit.
Also, another thing that isn't obvious. Without those
batteries, the system will NOT power the house even
during the day with the grid down. When it detects
grid down, it shuts off.

While battery backup may sound desirable, there
are serious drawbacks. The fact that it takes a lot
of batteries to get a reasonable amount of power
for a typical home and that they have to be replaced
periodically being the main one. Given that, other
alternatives like a generator become better options.

On 2/24/2012 8:36 AM, wrote:
....

Yes, either reduce, eliminate or generate a profit.
....

Only in the local sense; it's costing all the rest of us in subsidies to
make up the extra cost for the utility to do that. At some point it may
be an overall paying proposition, but it surely isn't yet.

--

On Feb 24, 9:51*am, dpb wrote:
On 2/24/2012 8:36 AM, wrote:
...

Yes, either reduce, eliminate or generate a profit.

...

Only in the local sense; it's costing all the rest of us in subsidies to
make up the extra cost for the utility to do that. *At some point it may
be an overall paying proposition, but it surely isn't yet. *

--

Yes, I agree. At least the cost is continuing to come
down. One thing that's particularly funny is what
happened at Solyndra. The govt backed the $500mil
loan as part of a govt plan to get the cost of solar
down. Yet in 18 months, the price decrease of
solar panels bankrupted the company. I mean, what
kind of business plan was that? Essentially what
they wanted to happen, happened and yet they're
broke and the taxpayers are stuck with the bill.

It's also interesting that their state of the art $700mil
fab that the govt money went into was incapable of
making a competitive product. It went from start
of contruction to useless in 18 months. I had a long
career at Intel and never saw such an event occur.
But then Intel stopped building new Fabs in silicon
valley 25 years ago. And they haven't built a new
one in CA in 15 years, because of the costs in
doing business there. No secret, except I guess
to Solyndra.

On 2/24/2012 9:42 AM, wrote:
....

Yes, I agree. At least the cost is continuing to come
down. One thing that's particularly funny is what
happened at Solyndra. The govt backed the $500mil
loan as part of a govt plan to get the cost of solar
down. Yet in 18 months, the price decrease of
solar panels bankrupted the company. I mean, what
kind of business plan was that? Essentially what
they wanted to happen, happened and yet they're
broke and the taxpayers are stuck with the bill.
....

The biggest problem there was that there really was no business plan
other than milk money from the government on the receiving side and that
it was insider cronyism on the giving side supporting a political rather
than truly technical/business agenda.

It was certainly foreseeable to anybody outside the loop (imo).

--