In message .com,
cynic writes
John Beardmore wrote:
In message .com,
cynic writes

I installed a system a few weeks ago. My vacuum tube array collector is
vertical on the gable end. I was faced with a cylinder replacement and
decided to go solar rather than stay limited to fossil.

OK. Reflector below ?

No - behind

Yes - know what you mean...


The whole batch of kit and pipes came to £1100.

Does that include pump, controller, antifreeze etc ?

Everything except the 1.0mm t&E I used to extend the array pt1000
sensor down to the airing cupboard. I had a roll lying around.

OK. And cylinder ?


What's the collector area ? Who made the panel ?

See previous post, Chinese panel

Navitron import ?


I was dubious about
the effectiveness of having the panel vertical so I have used 4 "L"
brackets to mount it to the wall. If I find it lacks performance when
the spring comes round I can simply extend the bottom brackets with
mild steel bar.

You should certainly be able to boost it some.


with the present dull weather we do notice an elevation of the
temperature of the cylinder bottom by about 15 to 20 degree C on many
days (the sensor is about 300mm above the base of the cylinder)

Where is that relative to the solar coil ?

Solar coil is a flat pancake coil on the bottom of the cylinder.

OK.


It will
be interesting to see what happens to our energy bill over the next
twelve months.
Obviously I would like a decent saving but its an experiment with a
potential for economy

Let us know how it goes !

I'll post any developments as and when. I'll try to give an assessment
in twelve months.

Thanks !


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Joe Fischer
writes
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 19:42:44 +0000, John Beardmore
wrote:
In message , Joe Fischer
writes
On 19 Nov 2006 01:36:41 -0800, wrote:
The solution really needs to focus on renewable

energy, and that should help with any global warming
problem,

Seems fair.

if there is one.

Seems probable.

I am searching for something to convince me,
right now I am looking for __THE__ current global
mean temperature.

I'm sure it shouldn't be too hard to track down.


But there is likely to be no solution to rising
sea level, even without undersea volcanos or mountain
building, sediment runoff from the worlds rivers will
eventually cause sea level to rise, it is inevitable.

Though presumably geological activity will also provide new land.

New land raises sea level,

But it also puts new land above it.


and doesn't help buildings
going underwater.

I suspect geological time scale we can move fairly fast.


In the immediate future, global warming is
not the scary thing, volcanic activity on the continent
of Antarctica should be the most feared thing by
property owners in low lying coastal areas.

And second, maybe volcanic activity in Greenland.

Why these areas as opposed to say Yellowstone ?

Yellowstone is something else entirely, 500,000 years
vs 30,000 for ice ages.

Yes, but the geologists tell us that the caldera is rising and that an
eruption is any time soon. Granted on a 500,000 year cycle, 'a bit
late' can be 10,000 years, but to have the ground rise measurably in a
human lifetime should be a cause for concern I would have thought ?


If something caused the ice sheets in either Antarctica
or Greenland to slide into the ocean,

Or melt.


water would be in the
streets of london and New York.

1000 years sooner than otherwise.

Yes. Expected...


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Joe Fischer
writes
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 Matt wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 15:55:25 -0500, Joe Fischer

wrote:
And I am not convinced there is a problem,
about the only pollution that may spread outside
North America is from forest fires.

How long have you had this crack habit?

Sorry, you asked the wrong guy, I have never
used illegal drugs, never used alcohol, never smoked,
and have been widowed and carrying the torch for
45 years.

Now what is the pollution you think is being
spread outside the US?

Well, apart from the things you put in the air and ocean, there is all
the pollution due to the manufacture of the good you import, and their
transport...


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , AJH
writes
Xposts reduced
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:19:27 +0000, John Beardmore
wrote:
In message , Peter Parry
writes
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 17:44:52 +0000, John Beardmore
wrote:

One development in the UK is state intervention in the market to
accredit installers and equipment.

A great pity the accreditation didn't involve actual testing of
devices to prove they worked and that their performance was at least
close to the sellers invariably vastly overstated claims.

Too bad you don't know what on earth you are talking about then. That's
precisely what the accreditation of equipment does cover !!

Was that "does cover" or "is supposed to cover".

I know certain aspects of accreditation for the clear skies grant
thingy resembled the CE certification scam but I shall claim 5th
amendment (??) on that.

All the products are sent to independent testing laboratories at
considerable cost to the manufacturers and the results are published -
not that most consumers can be bothered to read them, even when you
point them at them !

In what respect was CE a scam ?


As far as I recall the Windsave machine quotes a rated power at a given
wind speed - and there is nothing wrong that per se, it probably meets
that spec, though a proper power curve would be nice.

Yes, do you have any?

Not for the Windsave - that's another of my criticisms of it.

It's pretty much axiomatic in the wind industry that you don't buy
anything without seeing a power curve !


I've been given some detailed data, c/o a poster
to uk.d-i-y, and a curve to map it to other than a simple cube law
would be nice.

Yes. The one I saw in B&Q looked as if it has some sort of dynamic
blade pitch control, so it won't be a simple cube.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , AJH
writes
Xposts reduced
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 01:40:26 +0000, John Beardmore
wrote:

At the other end of the domestic scale, we did a 7.2sqm
evacuated tube system we did last week was £3,700 ex VAT, ex cylinder
change.

And the rate of return on the investment was calculated at what?

Search me - I didn't have to work it out. The guy buying it was a GP
and quite smart enough to work it out for himself, and understand his
motivations. I guess he knows what his fuel bills amount to.

His family look as if they use a fair bit of water and have a couple of
fairy high consumption showers though, one of them electric, to be
converted, so he has a 300 litre cylinder.


I've helped on a couple of wood burning heating schemes which have
been "gold plated" to the extent that even if all their wood were free
it still looked like the capital charges would exceed the cost of the
previous oil use, it pleased the planners though and that presumably
made it all worthwhile.

Hmmm... The desire to reduce CO2 trumping other sorts of pollution too
to some extent I guess ?

Yes - I know what you mean, but short term cost isn't the only
consideration for a lot of people - me included I guess.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 16:26:18 -0500, Joe Fischer
wrote:
That is a super volcano, there are only a few of those
in the world, and while speculative, it is something that
could possibly almost obliterate the US and part of Canada.

Pray it never happens.

Getting rid of the USA would solve a lot of the problems in the world
today. Its a shame about Canada but its an acceptable price to pay.

So fingers crossed for a mega eruption asap.


--

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:19:27 +0000, John Beardmore
wrote:

In message , Peter Parry
writes

A great pity the accreditation didn't involve actual testing of
devices to prove they worked and that their performance was at least
close to the sellers invariably vastly overstated claims.

Too bad you don't know what on earth you are talking about then. That's
precisely what the accreditation of equipment does cover !!

Neither of the toy windmills have had any performance testing or
validation of performance claims whatsoever. Their "accreditation"
is a carry over from Clearskies which didn't require any performance
testing of windmills whatsoever.

That of solar panels is, to put it mildly, rudimentary. What testing
do installers get?

and offered a report about it if anybody is interested,

Yes please.

As far as I recall the Windsave machine quotes a rated power at a given
wind speed - and there is nothing wrong that per se,

Depends if it is accurate as their earlier claims, some of which
comfortably exceeded the theoretical maximum a perfect turbine could
produce.

though a proper power curve would be nice.

Yes it would, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for it though.

The real problem is that the quoted wind speed is 12 m/s, and there is a
cube law between wind speed and the energy that can be extracted. This
is something the public - and indeed many of the sales people at B&Q
level may not appreciate.

I think the senior sales people appreciate it very clearly and
produce copy for their juniors appropriately. That's why they are so
enthusiastic about using the wildly optimistic NOABL database (when
used for urban wind) with no correction for surface roughness.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On 2006-11-19 21:26:18 +0000, Joe Fischer said:

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 19:35:39 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
...
The solution really needs to focus on renewable
energy,

You standing for President?

No, I am too old.

So's Dubya, but it didn't stop him.

In message , Mary Fisher
writes

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
.. .


The solution really needs to focus on renewable
energy,


You standing for President?

In the immediate future, global warming is
not the scary thing, volcanic activity on the continent
of Antarctica should be the most feared thing by
property owners in low lying coastal areas.


And second, maybe volcanic activity in Greenland.

I've been told that the volcano which formed Yellowstone National Park (or
is it the Grand Canyon - you know Brits, we don't know the difference)

Don't include me in your clueless meanderings

I really don't think that the GC was created by volcanic activity, do
you ?


--
geoff

In message , Joe Fischer
writes
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 19:35:39 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
. ..
The solution really needs to focus on renewable
energy,

You standing for President?

No, I am too old.

In the immediate future, global warming is
not the scary thing, volcanic activity on the continent
of Antarctica should be the most feared thing by
property owners in low lying coastal areas.

And second, maybe volcanic activity in Greenland.

I've been told that the volcano which formed Yellowstone National Park (or
is it the Grand Canyon - you know Brits, we don't know the difference) is
about to blow at any time.

By a citizen of USA.

That is a super volcano, there are only a few of those
in the world, and while speculative, it is something that
could possibly almost obliterate the US and part of Canada.

Pray it never happens.

I dunno, Canada would be a shame

collateral damage, as they say
--
geoff

In message , Joe Fischer
writes
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 19:42:44 +0000, John Beardmore
wrote:

In message , Joe Fischer
writes
On 19 Nov 2006 01:36:41 -0800, wrote:
The solution really needs to focus on renewable
energy, and that should help with any global warming
problem,

Seems fair.

if there is one.

Seems probable.

I am searching for something to convince me,
right now I am looking for __THE__ current global
mean temperature.

Easy - stick a thermometer up it's arse

anywhere in Septicstan would prolly do


--
geoff

In message , John Beardmore
writes
In the immediate future, global warming is
not the scary thing, volcanic activity on the continent
of Antarctica should be the most feared thing by
property owners in low lying coastal areas.

And second, maybe volcanic activity in Greenland.

Why these areas as opposed to say Yellowstone ?

Yellowstone is something else entirely, 500,000 years
vs 30,000 for ice ages.

Yes, but the geologists tell us that the caldera is rising and that an
eruption is any time soon. Granted on a 500,000 year cycle, 'a bit
late' can be 10,000 years, but to have the ground rise measurably in a
human lifetime should be a cause for concern I would have thought ?

Now, if we could just get Gran Canaria to collapse at the same time ...
--
geoff

In message , Peter Parry
writes
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:19:27 +0000, John Beardmore
wrote:
In message , Peter Parry
writes

A great pity the accreditation didn't involve actual testing of
devices to prove they worked and that their performance was at least
close to the sellers invariably vastly overstated claims.

Too bad you don't know what on earth you are talking about then. That's
precisely what the accreditation of equipment does cover !!

Neither of the toy windmills have had any performance testing or
validation of performance claims whatsoever. Their "accreditation"
is a carry over from Clearskies which didn't require any performance
testing of windmills whatsoever.

As I said - for wind, I criticised it, it was fairly weak.


That of solar panels is, to put it mildly, rudimentary.

I don't think so. Have you actually seen any test results, or is this
just rank speculation on your part ?


What testing
do installers get?

Well - proof of experience by case study or mentored installations,
inspection of installations while provisionally accredited, random
inspection of installations thereafter. There are also codes of
practice, insurance requirements etc, which is plenty of bureaucracy to
be going on with thanks.


and offered a report about it if anybody is interested,

Yes please.

You have mail, though as I said in it, please do not redistribute
without the consent of CREST. (Happy to ask them if you want to use it
for anything in particular.)


As far as I recall the Windsave machine quotes a rated power at a given
wind speed - and there is nothing wrong that per se,

Depends if it is accurate as their earlier claims, some of which
comfortably exceeded the theoretical maximum a perfect turbine could
produce.

Well - I've no reason apart from your cynicism to assume that it won't
deliver 1kW at 12 m/s.


though a proper power curve would be nice.

Yes it would, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for it though.

I don't plan to.


The real problem is that the quoted wind speed is 12 m/s, and there is a
cube law between wind speed and the energy that can be extracted. This
is something the public - and indeed many of the sales people at B&Q
level may not appreciate.

I think the senior sales people appreciate it very clearly

Really ? I doubt most of know a cube law from a short plank ?


and
produce copy for their juniors appropriately. That's why they are so
enthusiastic about using the wildly optimistic NOABL database (when
used for urban wind) with no correction for surface roughness.

Just how enthusiastic are they ? You seem very quick to criticise, but
judging by your questions, you are keen to 'score points', and not
enormously well informed about some of the targets you choose.

Don't get me wrong - I don't think horizontal axis wind turbine urban
wind is a good idea, and I fear that there may be a backlash against
renewables as a whole if it is marketed cynically. None the less I
don't know the details of who is making what claims about urban turbines
- we just warn people off them in our consultancy work, decline to
install them, and discourage others from doing so.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 22:39:56 +0000, John Beardmore
wrote:

In message , Joe Fischer
writes
I am searching for something to convince me,
right now I am looking for __THE__ current global
mean temperature.

I'm sure it shouldn't be too hard to track down.

http://education.arm.gov/studyhall/g...eginwhatis.stm

Says 14 degrees (57), but

release 1982 0987
The current average global temperature is l5 (59 F).
A gradual trend toward cooler climate began about
l00 million years ago, resulting in the glacial ...
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/80s...1982_0987.html
- 8k - Cached - Similar pages

is from 1982, (page may be busy, try again), and
contains wording almost identical to what I read in
some of the pro posts, only the quoted temp then
is a degree warmer than the first link above written
after 1995.

And this second link contains this;

During most of Earth's history, the climate appears
to have been considerably warmer, with average global
temperatures about 25 (77 F). The current average global
temperature is l5 (59 F).

in 1982.

It will take me a while to read and absorb

http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-e...discussion.htm

which I do not see anything definitive in.

And here the temperature is back to 57 degrees.

http://www.pbs4549.org/antarcti/ozone.htm

And

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/5d.html

gives some interesting history, but I didn't see a
current temperature mentioned.

And in 1993, we are back to 59 degrees in

http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/icecore2.htm

Just to be safe, I am going to study

http://www.solstation.com/habitable.htm
http://members.fcac.org/~sol/solcom/habitable.htm

to see if a way to find another planet with the right
temperature orbiting a star in the "Habitable Zone".
I don't think many of us will be able to wait for
the sun to brighten enough for Mars to be in the HZ.

The link

http://www.gpiatlantic.org/pdf/greenhouse/ghg.pdf

talks about the reduction of emissions in millions
of tons.
What doesn't seem to be discussed is the CO2 emissions
of people and animals. I emit about 2 pounds of CO2 daily,
and I only weight 200 pounds, so the emissions of the population
of the world must be many millions of tons, and including all the
animals, life forms may emit more CO2 than burning fossil fuels.


There were only about 39 hits using

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22th...&start=20&sa=N

and I didn't try any PDF links because I am on dialup.

Joe Fischer

On Mon, raden wrote:

In message x Joe Fischer
writes
I am searching for something to convince me,
right now I am looking for __THE__ current global
mean temperature.

anywhere in Septicstan would prolly do

I found 15 degrees, and danger of 2 or 3 degrees
higher in the next 50 years.

Now should I start worrying about a few other
possibilities, like the asteroid in 2028, or one of these

http://www.iceagenow.com/Five-Potent...rvolcanoes.htm

and a 100 year winter?

Joe Fischer

On 2006-11-20 08:38:41 +0000, AJH said:

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 22:47:26 +0000, John Beardmore
wrote:

In what respect was CE a scam ?

In the respect it's a declaration that the maker says it conforms to a
set of standards, not like the kitemark where it was submitted to
independent testing prior to being able to display it.

AJH

Always assuming that there *is* a set of relevant standards.

Otherwise, the manufacturer can quite legitimately declare CE based on
some of the components.

There are a few classes of product, such as certain machine tools,
where the manufacturer is *required* to have certification from an
independent test house. However, for the most part, manufacturers and
importers are not required to do that - they can simply keep records
of their own tests if any.

Added to this, the teeth behind it are pathetic. In the UK, Trading
Standards are responsible for policing and bringing prosecutions in
respect of CE labelling. Very few have been brought and the penalty
is max. a £5000 fine or in extreme cases a 6 month holiday at one of
E2R's residences.
The risk is very low and even if caught, £5k can come out of the pencil budget.

In short, plenty of scope for the less than honest to abuse a system.

John Beardmore wrote:
In message . com,
writes

To understand that
they'd need to see the connection
between supply & fit cost and the energy input in supplying and fitting
it. Very briefly, money is a form of measure of energy.

It may be an indicator, but not a very good one !

I wrote about / explained the money -energy connection in detail just
recently, so I dont want to again.

No need - it was unconvincing the first time as indeed I pointed out
giving at least one example of why.

your example illustrates your unfamiliarity with the concept. I'll go
see if I've got the link...

http://periodpropertyshop.co.uk/phpB...81a94 40c4fc2
Relevant posts are mostly on the first few page and the last.


NT

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-20 08:38:41 +0000, AJH said:

Always assuming that there *is* a set of relevant standards.

Otherwise, the manufacturer can quite legitimately declare CE based on
some of the components.

There are a few classes of product, such as certain machine tools,
where the manufacturer is *required* to have certification from an
independent test house. However, for the most part, manufacturers and
importers are not required to do that - they can simply keep records
of their own tests if any.

Added to this, the teeth behind it are pathetic. In the UK, Trading
Standards are responsible for policing and bringing prosecutions in
respect of CE labelling. Very few have been brought and the penalty
is max. a £5000 fine or in extreme cases a 6 month holiday at one of
E2R's residences.
The risk is very low and even if caught, £5k can come out of the pencil budget.

In short, plenty of scope for the less than honest to abuse a system.



The only comment I would add to that, is if you are a small scale
producer just starting out, producing in very small volume, this is
another set of bureaucracy you really don't need !


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
...


I've been told that the volcano which formed Yellowstone National Park (or
is it the Grand Canyon - you know Brits, we don't know the difference) is
about to blow at any time.

By a citizen of USA.

That is a super volcano, there are only a few of those
in the world, and while speculative, it is something that
could possibly almost obliterate the US and part of Canada.

Pray it never happens.

Oh, I shall pray :-)

"John Beardmore" wrote in message
...
In message , Mary Fisher
writes

Given that the only realistic saving is in hot water (an optimistic
70%),
not house heating (when it's REALLY required)

I wonder what is thought of as REALLY required.

Our thermostat is set at 10C - that is, the thermostat is wound to its
lowest setting. When it comes on in the night, as it did last night when
we
had a frost, it's too hot for us.

Turn down the boiler then ?

I've turned off the bedroom RTV.

But that doesn't answer what is REALLY required in terms of house heating.
Most houses I go into seem to have the thermostat at 25C, the inhabitants
wear minimal clothing.

Daft, I call it.

Mary

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 19:46:16 GMT someone who may be raden
wrote this:-

Today, with the outside temperature at 6C (and overcast sky)
we had water at 25C. That's not hot enough for Spouse's washing up or my
baths but it's fine for hand washing and it means that the boiler won't
need
to be on as long to raise the water temperature to his acceptable level.

So, considering it's not really cold and your system's struggling

Not really cold? You'd be happy to have your room temperature at that?

Solar water heating works on the sun, not the external temperature.
The two do have some relationship, but the temperature from a solar
system essentially depends on the length and intensity of the
sunlight, the external temperature is largely irrelevant (except for
frost protection in some systems).

not really very good then

It is very good. Even if the temperature in the cylinder needs to be boosted
it will use far less gas and time than if the mains cold feed were being
heated.

I'm not trying to persuade anyone to have solar water heating, I do wonder
why people try to prove that our system isn't good.

Look at the subject and note that the manufacturers say that solar
water heating will provide nearly all the hot water in the summer,
assuming a properly sized system, but need some boosting in autumn,
winter and spring, depending on the amount of sunlight. The hot
water requirement does not change much with the seasons.

That's true for us. In summer we sweat so have to change clothes more
frequently but in winter we wear more layers.

Mary

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 01:28:09 +0000, John Beardmore
wrote:

In message , Peter Parry
writes

That of solar panels is, to put it mildly, rudimentary.

I don't think so. Have you actually seen any test results,

Yes, but to be fair the devices themselves are fairly simple so
rudimentary testing is probably quite adequate.

As it is we do at least have some independent field testing of solar
water panels done for the DTI (Side by Side testing of 8 Solar Water
Heating Systems - ETSU S/P3/00275/REP/2) and the follow up which
looked at the methodology used in the first test compared with ISO
9459-2.

Per panel this showed an annual energy contribution between 3,200 and
4,000 MJ (890 - 1100 kWh). Take an average of 1,000 kWh and a fuel
cost of about 3p per kWh and you save about GBP30 per year per panel.

Three of the eight systems on test had failures of some sort at some
point during the one years testing.

and offered a report about it if anybody is interested,

Yes please.

You have mail,

Not got it yet, if it is quite large could you please try (peter at
wppltd dot demon dot co dot uk) as the mail relay has a limit of
either 3 or 5M.

though as I said in it, please do not redistribute
without the consent of CREST.

No problem.

Really ? I doubt most of know a cube law from a short plank ?

You are probably right :-). I'm pretty sure they know what the
realistic performance of their devices in an urban environment is
going to be though and don't want it mentioned under any
circumstances. Wasn't there a comment recently that windmills are
now B&Q's single biggest profit earner?

That's why they are so
enthusiastic about using the wildly optimistic NOABL database (when
used for urban wind) with no correction for surface roughness.

Just how enthusiastic are they ?

It's what they appear to be using to judge wind suitability of a
site, the "on site inspection" appears to be no more than a check the
house isn't actually surrounded by trees.

When I asked about one here the site was "checked on the computer"
and found to be "suitable" subject to on site check of the
surroundings.

The NOABL estimate for here is 4.4m/s average. However, if you
include surface roughness in the calculation that drops to about
1.5m/s which isn't far from reality and wholly unsuitable for a
windmill.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On 2006-11-20 09:41:36 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-20 08:38:41 +0000, AJH said:

Always assuming that there *is* a set of relevant standards.

Otherwise, the manufacturer can quite legitimately declare CE based on
some of the components.

There are a few classes of product, such as certain machine tools,
where the manufacturer is *required* to have certification from an
independent test house. However, for the most part, manufacturers and
importers are not required to do that - they can simply keep records
of their own tests if any.

Added to this, the teeth behind it are pathetic. In the UK, Trading
Standards are responsible for policing and bringing prosecutions in
respect of CE labelling. Very few have been brought and the penalty
is max. a £5000 fine or in extreme cases a 6 month holiday at one of
E2R's residences.
The risk is very low and even if caught, £5k can come out of the pencil budget.

In short, plenty of scope for the less than honest to abuse a system.



The only comment I would add to that, is if you are a small scale
producer just starting out, producing in very small volume, this is
another set of bureaucracy you really don't need !


I'm the last person to be in favour of any form of bureaucracy, but
OTOH, I have the nous to appropriately research for any major purchase
I would make.

The original intent of CE labelling was good, in principle, in that it
was meant to facilitate free movement of goods around the EU and to
prevent individual countries from erecting or maintaining trade
barriers through the use of their own standards for products that were
easy for their indigenous manufacturers to meet but difficult for
others to meet or have tested.

The idea of self certification was to reduce bureaucracy. In the
early 90s, I suppose that people didn't foresee the huge volumes of
product that would be dumped into the EU originating from countries
where cultural standards of honesty are not the same (let's say it that
way).

Hence we have a situation where the less than honest can get away with
it, and the honest large manufacturer can afford it.

It is difficult for a small manufacturer starting to meet standards and
bear the cost of testing, I agree.
On the other side, consumers do need to have some form of protection
and a metre stick by which to judge products that they buy.
Another solution could be trade associations. The problem here is that
so many have become discredited (e.g. FENSA) because of their lack of
willingness to pursue customer issues against members.

Either way, it's a cost of doing business. If consumers want a level
of protection, and I think most do, then there is a cost associated
with it that they will ultimately and quite reasonably have to pay.

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 13:23:55 +0000 Peter Parry wrote :
As it is we do at least have some independent field testing of solar
water panels done for the DTI (Side by Side testing of 8 Solar Water
Heating Systems - ETSU S/P3/00275/REP/2) and the follow up which
looked at the methodology used in the first test compared with ISO
9459-2.

Per panel this showed an annual energy contribution between 3,200 and
4,000 MJ (890 - 1100 kWh). Take an average of 1,000 kWh and a fuel
cost of about 3p per kWh and you save about GBP30 per year per panel.

Three of the eight systems on test had failures of some sort at some
point during the one years testing.

What sort of failures? One wonders what this rate might extrapolate to
during the estimated payback period - progressively worse, or once the
weaknesses are knocked out, long-term reliability?

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:24:06 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 13:23:55 +0000 Peter Parry wrote :


Three of the eight systems on test had failures of some sort at some
point during the one years testing.

What sort of failures?

In total there were 6 failures, 3 on delivery and three in use.

The three on delivery were -

A defective controller PCB. (Zen)
Tube in vacuum array mounted upside down (Riomay)
Blocked non return valve (Filsol)

in service the three faults we-

1. System boiled after power cut - melted manifold to supply plastic
pipe, during rectification non return valve found to have no internal
components. (Riomay)

2. System pump failed (Fieldway)

3. System boiled after power cut, afterwards overpressure release
valve leaked. (Thermomax).

There were two vacuum tube panels (Riomay and Thermomax) and 5 flat
panels.


--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

In message . com,
writes
John Beardmore wrote:
In message . com,
writes

To understand that
they'd need to see the connection
between supply & fit cost and the energy input in supplying and fitting
it. Very briefly, money is a form of measure of energy.

It may be an indicator, but not a very good one !

I wrote about / explained the money -energy connection in detail just
recently, so I dont want to again.

No need - it was unconvincing the first time as indeed I pointed out
giving at least one example of why.

your example illustrates your unfamiliarity with the concept. I'll go
see if I've got the link...

http://periodpropertyshop.co.uk/phpB...8&sid=5ca008e7
75816416ce3381a9440c4fc2
Relevant posts are mostly on the first few page and the last.

Well, they certainly restate your position, but they don't answer the
points I raised when this first came up in this thread, or deal with the
example I gave.

No professional environmental decision maker would see this as a viable
method - at best it's a poor indicator - at worst it's deeply
misleading !


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-20 09:41:36 +0000, John Beardmore said:

Always assuming that there *is* a set of relevant standards.
Otherwise, the manufacturer can quite legitimately declare CE based
on some of the components.
There are a few classes of product, such as certain machine tools,
where the manufacturer is *required* to have certification from an
independent test house. However, for the most part, manufacturers
and importers are not required to do that - they can simply keep
records of their own tests if any.
Added to this, the teeth behind it are pathetic. In the UK,
Trading Standards are responsible for policing and bringing
prosecutions in respect of CE labelling. Very few have been brought
penalty is max. a £5000 fine or in extreme cases a 6 month holiday
at one of E2R's residences.
The risk is very low and even if caught, £5k can come out of the
pencil budget.
In short, plenty of scope for the less than honest to abuse a
system.

The only comment I would add to that, is if you are a small scale
producer just starting out, producing in very small volume, this is
another set of bureaucracy you really don't need !

I'm the last person to be in favour of any form of bureaucracy, but
OTOH, I have the nous to appropriately research for any major purchase
I would make.

The original intent of CE labelling was good, in principle, in that it
was meant to facilitate free movement of goods around the EU and to
prevent individual countries from erecting or maintaining trade
barriers through the use of their own standards for products that were
easy for their indigenous manufacturers to meet but difficult for
others to meet or have tested.

The idea of self certification was to reduce bureaucracy. In the
early 90s, I suppose that people didn't foresee the huge volumes of
product that would be dumped into the EU originating from countries
where cultural standards of honesty are not the same (let's say it that
way).

Hence we have a situation where the less than honest can get away with
it, and the honest large manufacturer can afford it.

It is difficult for a small manufacturer starting to meet standards and
bear the cost of testing, I agree.

Quite...


On the other side, consumers do need to have some form of protection

Discuss... Yes - they do, though I always felt that common sense
should be the first line of defence.


and a metre stick by which to judge products that they buy.
Another solution could be trade associations.

Or professional bodies - or insurance companies...

Free range as opposed to state sponsored parasites...


The problem here is that so many have become discredited (e.g. FENSA)
because of their lack of willingness to pursue customer issues against
members.

Either way, it's a cost of doing business. If consumers want a level
of protection, and I think most do, then there is a cost associated
with it that they will ultimately and quite reasonably have to pay.

Yes - though they may get to stifle a lot of innovation in the process.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore, MSc EDM (Open), B.A. Chem (Oxon), MIOSH, AIEMA, MEI.

In message , Peter Parry
writes
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 01:28:09 +0000, John Beardmore
wrote:
In message , Peter Parry
writes

That of solar panels is, to put it mildly, rudimentary.

I don't think so. Have you actually seen any test results,

Yes, but to be fair the devices themselves are fairly simple so
rudimentary testing is probably quite adequate.

As it is we do at least have some independent field testing of solar
water panels done for the DTI (Side by Side testing of 8 Solar Water
Heating Systems - ETSU S/P3/00275/REP/2) and the follow up which
looked at the methodology used in the first test compared with ISO
9459-2.

Per panel this showed an annual energy contribution between 3,200 and
4,000 MJ (890 - 1100 kWh). Take an average of 1,000 kWh and a fuel
cost of about 3p per kWh and you save about GBP30 per year per panel.

Three of the eight systems on test had failures of some sort at some
point during the one years testing.

Yes, but the stuff for clear skies goes way beyond this, and covered all
the approved products !

See for example

http://www.solarenergy.ch/spf.php?lang=en&fam=2&tab=3

http://www.solarenergy.ch/spf.php?lang=en&fam=21&tab=1

http://www.solarenergy.ch/spf.php?lang=en&fam=1&tab=1

http://www.solarenergy.ch/spf.php?lang=en&fam=1&tab=1

and as an example of details on the standardised tests on a specific
collector

http://www.solarenergy.ch/factsheets/scf500en.pdf


and offered a report about it if anybody is interested,

Yes please.

You have mail,

Not got it yet, if it is quite large could you please try (peter at
wppltd dot demon dot co dot uk) as the mail relay has a limit of
either 3 or 5M.

It was 1172k encoded so should be OK, and I've had no bounce or
rejection message. There yet ?


though as I said in it, please do not redistribute
without the consent of CREST.

No problem.

Thanks.


Really ? I doubt most of know a cube law from a short plank ?

You are probably right :-). I'm pretty sure they know what the
realistic performance of their devices in an urban environment is
going to be though and don't want it mentioned under any
circumstances.

Maybe, but maybe most of there other products are crap
too ?


Wasn't there a comment recently that windmills are
now B&Q's single biggest profit earner?

Somebody was saying that the had 24,000,000 worth of orders, which is
certainly very depressing if true !!


That's why they are so
enthusiastic about using the wildly optimistic NOABL database (when
used for urban wind) with no correction for surface roughness.

Just how enthusiastic are they ?

It's what they appear to be using to judge wind suitability of a
site, the "on site inspection" appears to be no more than a check the
house isn't actually surrounded by trees.

When I asked about one here the site was "checked on the computer"
and found to be "suitable" subject to on site check of the
surroundings.

The NOABL estimate for here is 4.4m/s average. However, if you
include surface roughness in the calculation that drops to about
1.5m/s which isn't far from reality and wholly unsuitable for a
windmill.

Yes - were typically expecting a 1 or 2% capacity factor.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 13:54:56 -0500, Joe Fischer
wrote:

In the immediate future, global warming is
not the scary thing, volcanic activity on the continent
of Antarctica should be the most feared thing by
property owners in low lying coastal areas.

I hate to break the news to you but there is volcanic activity in
Antarctica. In fact Mount Erebus is classified as a stratovolcano,
the same as Krakatoa and Mount St Helens and we all know what a bang
they made.

Do SUV's float?


--

On 2006-11-20 15:08:21 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes

It is difficult for a small manufacturer starting to meet standards and
bear the cost of testing, I agree.

Quite...


On the other side, consumers do need to have some form of protection

Discuss... Yes - they do, though I always felt that common sense
should be the first line of defence.

In one sense I agree with you and there is the sense that a fool and
his money are soon parted. The other side of the coin is if there
isn't some form of product accreditation then inevitably the less than
honest will move into the field, discredit the whole technology and
then there will be a much harder sale for those who are honest.






and a metre stick by which to judge products that they buy. Another
solution could be trade associations.

Or professional bodies - or insurance companies...


Free range as opposed to state sponsored parasites...

I'm not a fan of state involvement in anything more than the barest minimum.

Unfortunately, the industry is littered with so called professional
bodies who like to position themselves in that way, but who in reality
are trade associations. At best they are a lobbying group for the
interests of their members and at worst do little for members or
consumers.

Given all of that, a set of internationally recognised standards for
test and manufacturers getting that done at least gives a known
starting point.





The problem here is that so many have become discredited (e.g. FENSA)
because of their lack of willingness to pursue customer issues against
members.

Either way, it's a cost of doing business. If consumers want a level
of protection, and I think most do, then there is a cost associated
with it that they will ultimately and quite reasonably have to pay.

Yes - though they may get to stifle a lot of innovation in the process.

Again there are two sides. In the early phases of an innovation, the
customers are likely to be the early adopters for a variety of reasons.
To reach the mass market needs product acceptance and the correct
price point.

In message , Peter Parry
writes
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:24:06 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 13:23:55 +0000 Peter Parry wrote :

Three of the eight systems on test had failures of some sort at some
point during the one years testing.

What sort of failures?

In total there were 6 failures, 3 on delivery and three in use.

The three on delivery were -

A defective controller PCB. (Zen)

Think they generally supply Resol controllers. It does happen, but I
don't recall us ever having a duff one. Well - maybe one.


Tube in vacuum array mounted upside down (Riomay)

ROFL ! We've never seen that either, but it would be a sod to fix as
the tubes are brazed or silver soldered into the manifold, and might go
bang, (big bang with those !), if you go mad with a torch !


Blocked non return valve (Filsol)

Interesting. Filsol don't normally use NRVs - these days at least.

Sometimes the problem with NRVs is not so much that they are stuck, as
that a pump won't develop enough pressure to open them. Got to choose
them with some care.


in service the three faults we-

1. System boiled after power cut - melted manifold to supply plastic
pipe, during rectification non return valve found to have no internal
components. (Riomay)

ROFL !!!

(You might think that - I couldn't possibly comment !)


2. System pump failed (Fieldway)

Never heard of them.


3. System boiled after power cut, afterwards overpressure release
valve leaked. (Thermomax).

Unlucky - I guess these days people do tent to fit high temperature
ABVs and 'blow offs' which they didn't always in the early days. What's
more, if the expansion vessels had been sized correctly, it shouldn't
have blown off, another mistake that used to be pretty common.

But 'Shine 21' and 'Clear Skies' requirements have got the industry out
of many bad habits !


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Mary Fisher
writes

"John Beardmore" wrote in message
...
In message , Mary Fisher
writes

Given that the only realistic saving is in hot water (an optimistic
70%),
not house heating (when it's REALLY required)

I wonder what is thought of as REALLY required.

Our thermostat is set at 10C - that is, the thermostat is wound to its
lowest setting. When it comes on in the night, as it did last night when
we
had a frost, it's too hot for us.

Turn down the boiler then ?

I've turned off the bedroom RTV.

But that doesn't answer what is REALLY required in terms of house heating.
Most houses I go into seem to have the thermostat at 25C, the inhabitants
wear minimal clothing.

Hmm... I can't get our family under 18...


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

"John Beardmore" wrote in message
...


But that doesn't answer what is REALLY required in terms of house heating.
Most houses I go into seem to have the thermostat at 25C, the inhabitants
wear minimal clothing.

Hmm... I can't get our family under 18...

You're very young! you didn't live through coal rationing ... not that I'd
wish that on you.

Mary

On Mon, 20 Nov Matt wrote:

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 13:54:56 -0500, Joe Fischer
wrote:
In the immediate future, global warming is
not the scary thing, volcanic activity on the continent
of Antarctica should be the most feared thing by
property owners in low lying coastal areas.

I hate to break the news to you but there is volcanic activity in
Antarctica. In fact Mount Erebus is classified as a stratovolcano,
the same as Krakatoa and Mount St Helens and we all know what a bang
they made.

Do SUV's float?

For a little while, if you don't open a door or window.

It is difficult to imagine how just the ice sheet on
Greenland could raise sea level so much if it melts, but
somebody did the math.

And there is something that skews the data on
sea level rising, over the last 300 years, dams have been
built that reduced or delayed runoff into the ocean,
and about all the dams that can be built, have been built.

Joe Fischer

John Beardmore wrote:

In message . com, cynic
writes

How does your horizontal tube set up an internal convection to transfer
collected heat to the header at the top? I simply cannot visualise your
layout unless it has an entirely different arrangement/principal to mine

You mean you have an ET system with an unpumped primary ?


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

The first stage in the collection is twenty vertical tubes with partial
pressure fluid inside. These "plug-in" to a series of copper sockets
sealed into a top horizontal manifold tube thus can be changed without
depressurising if so needed. The manifold has a pt1000 temperature
sensor which monitors the temperature and if the differential between
manifold and cylinder is sufficient the controller runs the circulation
pump. If the top region of the cylinder is above a set point the pump
is inhibited. Among other points I am awaiting the right weather to
study is the effect of long periods of sunshine with the cylindewr up
to temperature. There is no heat dump facility but if needed I could
provide one relatively simply.

John Beardmore wrote:

In message .com,
cynic writes
John Beardmore wrote:
In message .com,
cynic writes

I installed a system a few weeks ago. My vacuum tube array collector is
vertical on the gable end. I was faced with a cylinder replacement and
decided to go solar rather than stay limited to fossil.

OK. Reflector below ?

No - behind

Yes - know what you mean...


The whole batch of kit and pipes came to £1100.

Does that include pump, controller, antifreeze etc ?

Everything except the 1.0mm t&E I used to extend the array pt1000
sensor down to the airing cupboard. I had a roll lying around.

OK. And cylinder ?


Yes the cylinder was included in the price. Its a slim tall unit with
solar coil flat to the bottom, a boiler fed coil about halfway up and
an immersion boss at the top. Without going up and raking out the
airing cupboard to measure i'd say about 400mm diameter and around
1700mm high with a thick foam insulation applied in manufacture.

In message , Mary Fisher
writes

"John Beardmore" wrote in message
...


But that doesn't answer what is REALLY required in terms of house heating.
Most houses I go into seem to have the thermostat at 25C, the inhabitants
wear minimal clothing.

Hmm... I can't get our family under 18...

You're very young!

Thanks - I think !


you didn't live through coal rationing ... not that I'd
wish that on you.

No - just the first 70s 'oil shock'.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message . com, cynic
writes

John Beardmore wrote:

In message . com, cynic
writes

How does your horizontal tube set up an internal convection to transfer
collected heat to the header at the top? I simply cannot visualise your
layout unless it has an entirely different arrangement/principal to mine

You mean you have an ET system with an unpumped primary ?


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

The first stage in the collection is twenty vertical tubes with partial
pressure fluid inside.

Heat pipes I guess ?


These "plug-in" to a series of copper sockets
sealed into a top horizontal manifold tube thus can be changed without
depressurising if so needed.

Sounds standard.


The manifold has a pt1000 temperature
sensor which monitors the temperature and if the differential between
manifold and cylinder is sufficient the controller runs the circulation
pump. If the top region of the cylinder is above a set point the pump
is inhibited. Among other points I am awaiting the right weather to
study is the effect of long periods of sunshine with the cylindewr up
to temperature. There is no heat dump facility but if needed I could
provide one relatively simply.

Yes. Cylinder stat and solenoid valve, but maybe better just to let the
pump stop and the water from the manifold displace to an expansion
vessel ?


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Matt
writes
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 13:54:56 -0500, Joe Fischer
wrote:

In the immediate future, global warming is
not the scary thing, volcanic activity on the continent
of Antarctica should be the most feared thing by
property owners in low lying coastal areas.

I hate to break the news to you but there is volcanic activity in
Antarctica. In fact Mount Erebus is classified as a stratovolcano,
the same as Krakatoa and Mount St Helens and we all know what a bang
they made.

Do SUV's float?

Volcanic activity seems to be generally on the rise ATM

I can think of at least three in Indonesia which are puffing away with
increased enthusiasm - Merapi, Anak Krakatau and one in Papua

and then there's a few sliding plates

something 's gonna happen soon


--
geoff

In message , Joe Fischer
writes
On Mon, 20 Nov Matt wrote:

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 13:54:56 -0500, Joe Fischer
wrote:
In the immediate future, global warming is
not the scary thing, volcanic activity on the continent
of Antarctica should be the most feared thing by
property owners in low lying coastal areas.

I hate to break the news to you but there is volcanic activity in
Antarctica. In fact Mount Erebus is classified as a stratovolcano,
the same as Krakatoa and Mount St Helens and we all know what a bang
they made.

Do SUV's float?

For a little while, if you don't open a door or window.

It is difficult to imagine how just the ice sheet on
Greenland could raise sea level so much if it melts, but
somebody did the math.

Maths ...

IIRC 76 metres

And there is something that skews the data on
sea level rising, over the last 300 years, dams have been
built that reduced or delayed runoff into the ocean,
and about all the dams that can be built, have been built.

Joe Fischer


--
geoff