Mike Scott wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
In fact, there is a puzzle, in that the earths actual temperature is
more than can be accounted for by the solar radioation and its initial
temperature post formation, leading to a lot of speculation that it is
in fact a large fission reactor in its own right.

Isn't there a large molten iron core that makes up the difference? Been
there since year dot, or thereabouts, cooling all the time.

yes, there is, but the surface temps don't match that. Hence speculation
about fission being in the mix somewhere.

- There certainly HAVE been natural reactors in the past. (Gabon)
- The concentrations of Uranium isotopes today, show that by and large
there was a LOT of fission going on to leave what's left. How much heat
this priduced nd where is ..debated.
- cheock out 'georactor' in google for a theory that isn;t that
respactable, and nowhere near esastblished thinking, but is inetersting
to say the least.


But out of curiosity, what happened to all the research into fusion
reactors? Anyone else remember ZETA?



Still going on. The last gasp of the last torus was actually
significantly energy positive,and a new thing is being built in France
IIRC too go one step furher..only about another 9 steps to a commercial
proposition.

David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:41:08 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

This whole topic is too important to be left to touchy feely qualitative
analysis.

Indeed.

Some may claim to have spent months doing calculations. However, if
it was a mine's bigger then yours competition they should realise
that some have spent years and decades doing the same.



Shame they haven;yt come up with the right answers then.

I note you have failed to summarise them for all to criticise, and you
haven't actually refuted mine.

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Mike Scott" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
In fact, there is a puzzle, in that the earths actual temperature is more
than can be accounted for by the solar radioation and its initial
temperature post formation, leading to a lot of speculation that it is in
fact a large fission reactor in its own right.
Isn't there a large molten iron core that makes up the difference? Been
there since year dot, or thereabouts, cooling all the time.

There are other theories now.
But out of curiosity, what happened to all the research into fusion
reactors? Anyone else remember ZETA?

There was a programme about it last week on R4.

I remember ZETA well, the problem was containing the temperature.

Mary


Well in a touchy feely qualitaive way, thats approximately correct.

In the same way that its kind of hard to fit the sun into a plastic bag...

On 28 Jan, 13:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Mike Scott wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
In fact, there is a puzzle, in that the earths actual temperature is
more than can be accounted for by the solar radioation and its initial
temperature post formation, leading to a lot of speculation that it is
in fact a large fission reactor in its own right.

Isn't there a large molten iron core that makes up the difference? Been
there since year dot, or thereabouts, cooling all the time.

yes, there is, but the surface temps don't match that. Hence speculation
about fission being in the mix somewhere.

- There certainly HAVE been natural reactors in the past. (Gabon)
- The concentrations of Uranium isotopes today, show that by and large
there was a LOT of fission going on to leave what's left. How much heat
this priduced nd where is ..debated.
- cheock out 'georactor' in google for a theory that isn;t that
respactable, and nowhere near esastblished thinking, but is inetersting
to say the least.



But out of curiosity, what happened to all the research into fusion
reactors? Anyone else remember ZETA?

Still going on. The last gasp of the last torus was actually
significantly energy positive,and a new thing is being built in France
IIRC too go one step furher..only about another 9 steps to a commercial
proposition.

Actually the commercial demonstration reactor will be the one after
the one in Provence.

T

wrote:
On 28 Jan, 13:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Mike Scott wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
In fact, there is a puzzle, in that the earths actual temperature is
more than can be accounted for by the solar radioation and its initial
temperature post formation, leading to a lot of speculation that it is
in fact a large fission reactor in its own right.
Isn't there a large molten iron core that makes up the difference? Been
there since year dot, or thereabouts, cooling all the time.
yes, there is, but the surface temps don't match that. Hence speculation
about fission being in the mix somewhere.

- There certainly HAVE been natural reactors in the past. (Gabon)
- The concentrations of Uranium isotopes today, show that by and large
there was a LOT of fission going on to leave what's left. How much heat
this priduced nd where is ..debated.
- cheock out 'georactor' in google for a theory that isn;t that
respactable, and nowhere near esastblished thinking, but is inetersting
to say the least.



But out of curiosity, what happened to all the research into fusion
reactors? Anyone else remember ZETA?
Still going on. The last gasp of the last torus was actually
significantly energy positive,and a new thing is being built in France
IIRC too go one step furher..only about another 9 steps to a commercial
proposition.

Actually the commercial demonstration reactor will be the one after
the one in Provence.


I remember Clive Sinclair with 'commercially demonstrable' pocket TVS
around 1962. He had an aerial booster hidden under the booth at the
trade fair..

Even today its pretty hard to get a decent picture on a portable TV...

The sort of vision he had, is pretty much what an I-phone is ..today.

Only 45 years later...

So I see no reason to take back 'only another 9 steps to go' ;-)

So far we have, after 40 years demonstrated that:-

- fusion reaction can be done other than using an atomic bomb as a
detonator.
- demonstrated that in smaller scales, it can in fact be energy positive.

We haven't yet demonstrated that it *could* be commercial, though that
may be closer..

We have certainly demonstrated that right now it isn't *remotely*
commercial.

;-)



T

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:12:02 GMT someone who may be Mike Scott
wrote this:-

But out of curiosity, what happened to all the research into fusion
reactors? Anyone else remember ZETA?

Historically such research has always been close enough to producing
usable machines not to cut off funding, but not close enough for
questions to be asked about when the breakthrough will be made.

I haven't noticed anything which changes that.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:09:45 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Some may claim to have spent months doing calculations. However, if
it was a mine's bigger then yours competition they should realise
that some have spent years and decades doing the same.

Shame they haven;yt come up with the right answers then.

Ah, a change from, "anyone who doesn't agree hasn't studied the
facts for long enough", approach to the, "anyone who disagrees with
me is wrong", approach.

I note you have failed to summarise them for all to criticise,

Not in that particular posting.

and you haven't actually refuted mine.

I will rebut anything that needs rebutting, at a time and in a
method of my choosing.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:12:02 GMT someone who may be Mike Scott
wrote this:-

But out of curiosity, what happened to all the research into fusion
reactors? Anyone else remember ZETA?

Historically such research has always been close enough to producing
usable machines not to cut off funding, but not close enough for
questions to be asked about when the breakthrough will be made.

I haven't noticed anything which changes that.


I think however in real terms real progress has been made.

But the size of the problem has become perceptibly greater as well.

Instead ofg how dp we contain a small H bomb, its now a series of
smaller priblems that are just as horrendous. It ca be contained, by
magnets. But its unstable. We can get stability if we find the right
shape and feedback. etc.

One is almost tempted to sy 'why not stick an H-bomb underground, and
then tap of the heat for a year, and then set of another one'

;-)

David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:09:45 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Some may claim to have spent months doing calculations. However, if
it was a mine's bigger then yours competition they should realise
that some have spent years and decades doing the same.

Shame they haven;yt come up with the right answers then.

Ah, a change from, "anyone who doesn't agree hasn't studied the
facts for long enough", approach to the, "anyone who disagrees with
me is wrong", approach.


No. I decided not to copy you on that Dave.

I am fully willing to have my mind changed by FACTS but not by religious
opinion, or wholly qualittaive 'surely it musts be trues' or 'the
guardian says'



I note you have failed to summarise them for all to criticise,

Not in that particular posting.

and you haven't actually refuted mine.

I will rebut anything that needs rebutting, at a time and in a
method of my choosing.


Well I am glad you feel that the last post did not need rebutting. I
take you agree with me then that in the overall context of preserving
what we call civilzation, we have no option but to build loads of
nuclear sets and windmills are basically unable to do the job?

Good.

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:09:31 +0000 Andy Hall wrote :
Where are the disinterested sources of information?

By this I mean disinterested from the commercial sales aspect
and also from the eco sales aspect......

Organisations like BRE. According to the hard numbers SAP 2005 if
I install a 2m2 solar panel on my home I can expect to save around
620kWh per year, say £20. If I let a solar panel salesman in, I
somehow doubt that he'd tell me not to waste my money ...

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

Huge wrote:

But out of curiosity, what happened to all the research into fusion
reactors? Anyone else remember ZETA?

Have you been paying attention? Apparently not!

http://www.iter.org/

Should be named PITSGOE.

"Pie In The Sky Generation of Electricity."

Mary Fisher wrote:

I remember ZETA well, the problem was containing the temperature.

Umm no that really wasn't the problem. Not that Zeta was intended to
produce electricity anyway since it was just a research rig for the
problem of containment of fusion.

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:09:31 +0000 Andy Hall wrote :
Where are the disinterested sources of information?

By this I mean disinterested from the commercial sales aspect
and also from the eco sales aspect......

Organisations like BRE. According to the hard numbers SAP 2005 if
I install a 2m2 solar panel on my home I can expect to save around
620kWh per year, say �20. If I let a solar panel salesman in, I
somehow doubt that he'd tell me not to waste my money ...


Mm. I don't get my electricity that cheap. more like £62...but if its
replacing GAS of course, thats a fair crack.

I make that an average output of 35W/sq meters

That' actually quite GOOD .

let's see..about 2KWh per day, So I could save that much by..mmm. in
winter I need about 5KW continuous to heat the place if its freezing, so
putting on a jumper and living at 16C instead of say 19C would save
about 15% of that..say 750W..or about 540 kwh per month.

How much does a set of thermal underware and a wooly pully costs? cant
be over 100 quid a year. OTOH the electricity/gas would be cheaper.
Certainly for a family. Dang., there goes another theory. Its cheaper to
heat the house than buy thick jumpers..

What about simply NOT watching TV..well there's a 100 quid plus license
gone for a start, and 70W for 4 hours a say. 365 days of the year.

Thats 102Kwh saved. Except dang it, I'd need to replace that 70W in some
other way...Ditto CFL lightbulbs. You gotta admit it, when it comes to
all these popular green ideas, solar panels ain't the worst by a long
chalk. I guess windmills on yer roof have to be as crap as it gets.

y'know, the best bet has simply got to be signing up for every brochure
you can find, ans using a special name like 'Mr Freenergy' and simply
sorting your mail every day and putting all those straight into a
woodburner. Along with as many free supermarket plastic bags, and egg
cartons and anything else you can find.


Sod the dioxins. We are saving the planet aren't we?

Huge wrote:
On 2008-01-28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

One is almost tempted to sy 'why not stick an H-bomb underground, and
then tap of the heat for a year, and then set of another one'

Already suggested by Teller.


I vaguely remember that..what came of it?

On 2008-01-28 16:03:41 +0000, The Natural Philosopher said:

Huge wrote:
On 2008-01-28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

One is almost tempted to sy 'why not stick an H-bomb underground, and
then tap of the heat for a year, and then set of another one'

Already suggested by Teller.


I vaguely remember that..what came of it?

Oppenheimer gave him the push.

Then McCarthy gave Oppenheimer the push.

Then alcohol gave McCarthy the push.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-01-28 16:03:41 +0000, The Natural Philosopher said:

Huge wrote:
On 2008-01-28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

One is almost tempted to sy 'why not stick an H-bomb underground,
and then tap of the heat for a year, and then set of another one'

Already suggested by Teller.


I vaguely remember that..what came of it?

Oppenheimer gave him the push.

Then McCarthy gave Oppenheimer the push.

Then alcohol gave McCarthy the push.


And then we got George Bush...

On 28 Jan, 13:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
On 28 Jan, 13:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Mike Scott wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
In fact, there is a puzzle, in that the earths actual temperature is
more than can be accounted for by the solar radioation and its initial
temperature post formation, leading to a lot of speculation that it is
in fact a large fission reactor in its own right.
Isn't there a large molten iron core that makes up the difference? Been
there since year dot, or thereabouts, cooling all the time.
yes, there is, but the surface temps don't match that. Hence speculation
about fission being in the mix somewhere.

- There certainly HAVE been natural reactors in the past. (Gabon)
- The concentrations of Uranium isotopes today, show that by and large
there was a LOT of fission going on to leave what's left. How much heat
this priduced nd where is ..debated.
- cheock out 'georactor' in google for a theory that isn;t that
respactable, and nowhere near esastblished thinking, but is inetersting
to say the least.

But out of curiosity, what happened to all the research into fusion
reactors? Anyone else remember ZETA?
Still going on. The last gasp of the last torus was actually
significantly energy positive,and a new thing is being built in France
IIRC too go one step furher..only about another 9 steps to a commercial
proposition.

Actually the commercial demonstration reactor will be the one after
the one in Provence.

I remember Clive Sinclair with 'commercially demonstrable' pocket TVS
around 1962. He had an aerial booster hidden under the booth at the
trade fair..

Even today its pretty hard to get a decent picture on a portable TV...

The sort of vision he had, is pretty much what an I-phone is ..today.

Only 45 years later...

So I see no reason to take back 'only another 9 steps to go' ;-)

So far we have, after 40 years demonstrated that:-

- fusion reaction can be done other than using an atomic bomb as a
detonator.
- demonstrated that in smaller scales, it can in fact be energy positive.

We haven't yet demonstrated that it *could* be commercial, though that
may be closer..

We have certainly demonstrated that right now it isn't *remotely*
commercial.

;-)

T

How long it will take to get a commercial fusion reactor is purely a
matter of funding. I believe the total UK budget for fusion research
is ~14m per annum. Compare that to the subsidies that go to wind
power, which are of the order of 100s of millions - projected to be 1
billion by 2010, and the number gets lost in rounding errors. When
fusion eventually produces power, it will be one of the best
investments society has ever made.

By the way, fusion fuel produces about 10,000,000 times the energy of
fossil fuels per kg.

T

wrote:
On 28 Jan, 13:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
On 28 Jan, 13:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Mike Scott wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
In fact, there is a puzzle, in that the earths actual temperature is
more than can be accounted for by the solar radioation and its initial
temperature post formation, leading to a lot of speculation that it is
in fact a large fission reactor in its own right.
Isn't there a large molten iron core that makes up the difference? Been
there since year dot, or thereabouts, cooling all the time.
yes, there is, but the surface temps don't match that. Hence speculation
about fission being in the mix somewhere.
- There certainly HAVE been natural reactors in the past. (Gabon)
- The concentrations of Uranium isotopes today, show that by and large
there was a LOT of fission going on to leave what's left. How much heat
this priduced nd where is ..debated.
- cheock out 'georactor' in google for a theory that isn;t that
respactable, and nowhere near esastblished thinking, but is inetersting
to say the least.
But out of curiosity, what happened to all the research into fusion
reactors? Anyone else remember ZETA?
Still going on. The last gasp of the last torus was actually
significantly energy positive,and a new thing is being built in France
IIRC too go one step furher..only about another 9 steps to a commercial
proposition.
Actually the commercial demonstration reactor will be the one after
the one in Provence.
I remember Clive Sinclair with 'commercially demonstrable' pocket TVS
around 1962. He had an aerial booster hidden under the booth at the
trade fair..

Even today its pretty hard to get a decent picture on a portable TV...

The sort of vision he had, is pretty much what an I-phone is ..today.

Only 45 years later...

So I see no reason to take back 'only another 9 steps to go' ;-)

So far we have, after 40 years demonstrated that:-

- fusion reaction can be done other than using an atomic bomb as a
detonator.
- demonstrated that in smaller scales, it can in fact be energy positive.

We haven't yet demonstrated that it *could* be commercial, though that
may be closer..

We have certainly demonstrated that right now it isn't *remotely*
commercial.

;-)

T

How long it will take to get a commercial fusion reactor is purely a
matter of funding.

Is it though..?

If it were that simple it wouldn't NEED funding.The private equity boys
would be in there like ferrets up a trouser leg.

The fact is there are problems still in there with no known solutions.
Or none that equal commercial viability.

Until the investment/return is more quantifiable, it will be a research
project and nothing more.

I agree that throwing more top notch engineers and phsyicists and
mathematicians at it would not be a waste, but infinite funding would be.


I believe the total UK budget for fusion research
is ~14m per annum. Compare that to the subsidies that go to wind
power, which are of the order of 100s of millions - projected to be 1
billion by 2010, and the number gets lost in rounding errors. When
fusion eventually produces power, it will be one of the best
investments society has ever made.

And windmills will prove to be the worst. Sure.;-)

By the way, fusion fuel produces about 10,000,000 times the energy of
fossil fuels per kg.


I know. It better had really, the fuel is light and hard to extract :-)

T

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:12:02 +0000, Mike Scott wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
In fact, there is a puzzle, in that the earths actual temperature is
more than can be accounted for by the solar radioation and its initial
temperature post formation, leading to a lot of speculation that it is
in fact a large fission reactor in its own right.

Isn't there a large molten iron core that makes up the difference? Been
there since year dot, or thereabouts, cooling all the time.

If you do the calculations assuming that no energy is being added into
the core then the Earth would cool down in about 10-30 million years.

The fact that it seems to have been staying rather hot is down to some
extra energy begin generated in the core.

I have not done the calculations or found the links but the debate seems
to be between whether the energy is derived from radioactive of heavy
elements or whether there are (relatively) high density pockets of
fissile elements allowing for some naturally occurring reactors.






--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:19:49 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Ed Sirett wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 13:13:49 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

David Hansen wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 11:48:14 -0000 someone who may be "Pete Smith"
wrote this:-

I looked in to it for hot water, but it's of no use in the winter !
It's too cold!
What is too cold?
Te sky is too cold.

The exterior temperature? Solar panels work on the
sun, not the external temperature.


Exactly. Something that is in such short supply in winter, that peopl
need vitamin supplements..


In the winter it is highly likely not to be sunny enough to produce
all the hot water one needs. However, the heating that is provided
means less other fuels are needed.

On a bright winter day a well insulated house which has been warmed
up by the boiler can be maintained at a reasonable temperature by a
solar panel for the daylight hours. This does involve a heating
system designed for this.


On a sunny winters day, my room that has been warmed up by the boiler,
simply needs the curtrinsns drawing back to absorb far more sunlight
than a stupid panel on the roof.

In the summer you don't want scalding hot water.
Any properly designed solar system will have at least one
thermostatic mixing valve on the hot water system.

Why not use curtains?

Should it be necessary to control the store temperature there are a
variety of ways of doing this.

The solar panels charge huge batteries which power the inverters.
That rather depends on the system. You have described a solar only
island system. However, such systems generally have other means of
charging the battery as well. They also practice energy efficiency
and so tend to avoid electric fires.

A grid tied system has no battery. In effect it uses the grid as a
big battery.

Lord. All this cost an complexity and heavy use of energy to produce
less energy than the things took to make.

It reminds me of the 'we will never run out of oil' brigade. True, but
when it takes more energy to get it out of the ground than is released
by burning it, you do end up with some absurd economics.

Not something *you* would be bothered by, mind you.


True, the oil companies stop pumping long before that point is reached
because of all the other overheads. This means there is quite a lot of
reserves which are held back until the price of oil is sustainably high
enough. Therefore there will a longish transition period from oil to
other sources of energy, which currently are not worth the effort.



Longish in what terms?

a decade or two?

I have no idea. I was merely making the point that fossil fuels won't
stop 'overnight'.

As fossil fuels rise in price then all other forms of energy are
promoted. (Provided they can actually save/produce energy).

What's really weird/sad is that if I had to place a bet on which fuel
will move back into the spot light, I'd reckon that coal will be the most
obvious choice. Possibily reprocessed into gas and/or oil for convenience.
No matter how much noise is made about this it will simply happen because
it's there, it's possible and it's economic. Unless of course some sort
of holocaust/extinction event occurs first.

Nuclear (fission) will of course be an option, even in democracies govts
just do what they want to anyway, so as soon as they see it's a winner
(rather than merely a front for their military Pu production) they'll do
it even if most people object.


--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html

"AJH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:46:15 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

The point was the system stayed permanently satisfied by the gas
system because of the heating periods, so the panel was never able to
contribute.

I suspect that most people who get a solar dhw system change the rest of
their lifestyle to suit. That would include adjusting 'heating periods',
surely.

I agree Mary but I was trying to show that your idea that the problem
arose from poor insulation was not the case.

Going back to the original post in this thread; it was about an
elderly gentleman that had been sold a solar heating panel with no
recourse to canceling the agreement after a large deposit had been
taken.

I described how a similar thing had happened to my father and worse it
didn't even contribute to his heating, because there were a number of
things wrong with the installation and how it was used.

So to my mind there were three problems, it was a hard sell and once
the sale was made there was no interest in helping the customer use it
properly, it was too expensive to make a decent return on the
investment ( but my father may not have minded that) and the equipment
was not matched with the gas central heating system.

Again referring to the original post I gave the opinion that it did
not add its cost or any value to the house.

I've no prejudices against renewable energy, I work in the field, but
I see no reason to promote firms that are the follow on bandwagon to
dubious double glazing installers.

Nor would I.

Hard cases make bad laws, I believe that there are more good companies than
bad ones. It's up to an individual (aided by his/her family and friends if
s/he's not confident) to make decisions and not rush into things.

We've never been approached by a company selling anything 'green'. We
thought long and hard about investing in our dhw solar system and we
certainly haven't been disappointed. There was no hard sell at all, on the
contrary, the company explained what might be seen as drawbacks and bent
over backwards to answer every question.

When we asked a local company about wind power they said that we didn't live
in a suitable area for one and couldn't recommend it.

Some you win ...

Mary

AJH

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 08:56:04 +0000, David Hansen wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:30:59 +0000 someone who may be AJH
wrote this:-

Hence by
the time the panel was able to provide heat from its non optimal SSE
orientation the tank was still full of hot water.

Nothing wrong with the orientation. Anything from SW to SE will give
good results compared to the ideal direct southerly orientation. What
was wrong was the installation, in particular the setting of controls. A
good installer will return to check that everything is working well.

Indeed so. However IME when dealing with the far simpler requirement of
setting up a conventional heating system the combination of user
misunderstanding, incompetent installation and inadeqaute design and
broken controls is a large proportion of /all systems/.

The situation that AJH describes is absolutely typical of type of error
that users bring on themselves. With a solar assisted HW system the
possibility for errors are greater still.


--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html

Mary Fisher wrote:

Ours doesn't. We don't need to drain it.

Why? http://www.solartwin.com/questions_a...hp#reliability

Mary



Mary,

I read that article yesterday, then thought about it.

Your system wouldn't suit me.

I can't be sure exactly how much hot water we use each day.

When I have a shower, I don't want the temperature to be down at ...
what was it? 31 centigrade? when I finish. So the temp in the top of
the tank needs to be 40 plus. Better 45.

Your system pulls in cold water from the bottom of the tank, warms it a
bit, then dumps it back in the top. Where it will mix with the *hotter*
water left over from the last boiler run. And ruin the stratification.

What *would* work would be a second cylinder to preheat the water before
delivering it to the hot one, which would be gas (or something) heated.
By raising the input temperature to the hot tank from... er... 8.5
degrees (I just went and measured it) to 31 I'm saving 23 degrees worth
of heating. I then need to dump in another 40 degrees or so to get it
to a legionella-safe 60. Lets make it easy and bring it up by only 35,
which means the solar is going to save me 40% of my gas bill.

Of the part that is for hot water only.

OK, in summer it'll be more effective - but in winter it'll be doing
nothing much, or freezing wouldn't be an issue.

My last summer quarter gas bill was £65 - no heating, so that tells me
the hot water cost. I'll save 40% of that, by 4 quarters, about £100
per year.

Remember that installed cost is going to have to include a 2nd cylinder
to even get that efficiency...

Now I can get 5% on investments with no problem. So if the installed
cost is over £2000 *including* the 2nd cylinder - forget it. Better
things to do with my money. Say buying a really fuel efficient car for
the commute.

Andy.

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:49:31 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Mike Scott" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
In fact, there is a puzzle, in that the earths actual temperature is more
than can be accounted for by the solar radioation and its initial
temperature post formation, leading to a lot of speculation that it is in
fact a large fission reactor in its own right.

Isn't there a large molten iron core that makes up the difference? Been
there since year dot, or thereabouts, cooling all the time.

There are other theories now.

But out of curiosity, what happened to all the research into fusion
reactors? Anyone else remember ZETA?

There was a programme about it last week on R4.

I remember ZETA well,

Oh well you'll be able to describe the experiment in detail then. A
mere bagattelle for such as yourself. A "Classicist" and all.

the problem was containing the temperature.

Incorrect, that's the "People's Friend" version.

I went to the same school as one of the ZETA team

The problem was that they weren't measuring what they thought they
were.

They were wrong.

It wasn't happening.

This is a matter of public record.

Now tell us more about what your understanding is of these little
problems of "Containing the temperature". Or did you mean "Heat"?
Please expand.

BTW good day today in Leeds ( 9c) how much solar energy did your solar
water heating system aquire ?

DG

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:06:19 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
David Hansen writes:
On 27 Jan 2008 13:29:58 GMT someone who may be
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote this:-

For a few
people, energy payback might be a consideration, but photo-
voltaics really struggle to produce more energy during their
lifetime than they consume in manufacture,

It is a common claim, but still an incorrect one. It may have been
true in the 1970s, but that was a long time ago and engineering has
moved on since then.

Not much. In spite of much research, their efficiency has
only doubled in the ~50 years since they were invented, and
almost none of that was recently

If the research you read was differnt would you be persuaded?


No I'd buy a spell checker before I mouthed off at other people's
typos.

DG

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:05:01 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

Take the cost of a kitchen (I think mine was around £4k, but
as I did it piecemeal, I never actually added it up) and
divide by, say, 15 years life, and that's around £260/year,
i.e. it's costing me less than £1/day for a kitchen. That
seems like very good value.

For some values of 'value'.


Depreciated Cash Flow.

You wouldn't inderstand it.

Since you have claimed to be both a Classicist and Nuclear Physicist
I assume you're not also claiming to have accountancy qualifications
as well.

DG

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:01:43 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"AJH" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:46:15 -0000, "Mary Fisher"

snip

Nor would I.

Hard cases make bad laws, I believe that there are more good companies than
bad ones.

And a fool and her money is soon parted.

It's up to an individual (aided by his/her family and friends if
s/he's not confident)

And if they know jack **** ?

to make decisions and not rush into things.

We've never been approached by a company selling anything 'green'. We
thought long and hard about investing in our dhw solar system and we
certainly haven't been disappointed.

How much solar energy did you collect today (28/01/2008) ? A very
favourable day here in Leeds?

There was no hard sell at all, on the
contrary, the company explained what might be seen as drawbacks and bent
over backwards to answer every question.

Yes, Yes, Yes, The salesman was a nice man, a very, very nice man.

Am I correct. He took your money did he?

OK. How much solar energy did you collect today (28/01/2008) ? A very
favourable day here in Leeds?

When we asked a local company about wind power they said that we didn't live
in a suitable area for one and couldn't recommend it.

Getting sued eliminates the profit on 10 - 30 sales. Go figure.


Some you win ...

When you lose you keep quiet about it, at least in public forums ...

DG

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 09:50:37 +0000, Dynamo Hansen
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 11:48:14 -0000 someone who may be "Pete Smith"
wrote this:-

I looked in to it for hot water, but it's of no use in the winter ! It's
too cold!

What is too cold? The exterior temperature? Solar panels work on the
sun, not the external temperature.


Hrmmph.

"Work on the sun"?

Does the sun not heat parts of the earth on a seasonal basis and raise
the external temperature ? Is summer not warmer than winter? Is not
the warmth-tude not dependant on the received energy flux from the
sun?

I am surprised I have to assert this, my daughter teaches this in
primary school I could arrange for private coaching for you (And Mary
"Classicist, and Quantum Physicist" Fisher) if it is really needed.

DG


















In the winter it is highly likely not to be sunny enough to produce
all the hot water one needs. However, the heating that is provided
means less other fuels are needed.

On a bright winter day a well insulated house which has been warmed
up by the boiler can be maintained at a reasonable temperature by a
solar panel for the daylight hours. This does involve a heating
system designed for this.

In the summer you don't want scalding hot water.

Any properly designed solar system will have at least one
thermostatic mixing valve on the hot water system.

Should it be necessary to control the store temperature there are a
variety of ways of doing this.

The solar panels charge huge batteries which power the inverters.

That rather depends on the system. You have described a solar only
island system. However, such systems generally have other means of
charging the battery as well. They also practice energy efficiency
and so tend to avoid electric fires.

A grid tied system has no battery. In effect it uses the grid as a
big battery.

Mike P wrote:
I am trying to amass some information re solar panals for a domestic
dwelling .. pros and cons etc ... any web sites ? .... plz

Mike P

Mike P

Apologies if this is mentioned in another message in this thread, but
There are now so many I don't want to read them all. I've got a book
called 'Tapping the Sun' by Chris Laughton ISBN 1-90217-529-8 website
www.cat.org.uk. It's a bit pricy for its size but it does have a good
summary of water heating systems. Might be worth a read.

Peter Scott

In message , Mary Fisher
writes
If they were more efficient or significantly cheaper, I
might be persuaded.

Early motor cars were neither. Those who bought them were pleased with
them - and more R&D was done on the back of that.

It might happen again :-)

By the way, we live on the state pension but could afford a dhw panel.
They're not that expensive.

Buy me one, then

--
geoff

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:30:44 +0000 someone who may be Derek Geldard
wrote this:-

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:05:01 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

Take the cost of a kitchen (I think mine was around £4k, but
as I did it piecemeal, I never actually added it up) and
divide by, say, 15 years life, and that's around £260/year,
i.e. it's costing me less than £1/day for a kitchen. That
seems like very good value.

For some values of 'value'.


Depreciated Cash Flow.

You wouldn't inderstand it.

Since you have claimed to be both a Classicist and Nuclear Physicist
I assume you're not also claiming to have accountancy qualifications
as well.

I have never noticed Mary making claims of any sort regarding her
background, unlike some of those who disagree with her.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 01:03:08 +0000 someone who may be Derek Geldard
wrote this:-

I looked in to it for hot water, but it's of no use in the winter ! It's
too cold!

What is too cold? The exterior temperature? Solar panels work on the
sun, not the external temperature.


Hrmmph.

"Work on the sun"?

Correct. If you wish to assert that they work differently you might
like to explain your theory.

Does the sun not heat parts of the earth on a seasonal basis and raise
the external temperature ? Is summer not warmer than winter? Is not
the warmth-tude not dependant on the received energy flux from the
sun?

Many words, but they add little to the discussion.

The facts are quite simple. Solar panels work by absorbing heat from
sunlight. As they have a small mass they warm up more quickly than
the surroundings. This heat can then be transferred elsewhere. The
external temperature has nothing to do with this process, which is
why they can be used in the antarctic.

A solar panel will lose heat to the surroundings. However, this is
minimised by various forms of insulation.

Thus the assertion that it is too cold in winter for solar panels is
incorrect.

I am surprised I have to assert this, my daughter teaches this in
primary school I could arrange for private coaching for you (And Mary
"Classicist, and Quantum Physicist" Fisher) if it is really needed.

Excellent, more personal abuse. Do keep it up.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:05:44 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Ed
Sirett wrote this:-

With a solar assisted HW system the
possibility for errors are greater still.

Yes and no. It depends on the design. In particular, as I have said
before, some solar controllers will also control a boiler. They will
suppress boiler output if there is solar input and storage is above
a minimum temperature. Instead of controlling the boiler directly
such a controller can control the heating of a hot water cylinder.
Once set up such controllers can be left alone, unless the household
contains a fiddler.

Of course such a system involves more work and so at the moment
tends to be more a DIY option.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:41:40 +0000 someone who may be Andy Champ
wrote this:-

I can't be sure exactly how much hot water we use each day.

Do you think anyone can say exactly how much hot water they will use
in a day? Solar water heating works by slowly warming the water and
storing enough of it to overcome variable draw offs.

Your system pulls in cold water from the bottom of the tank, warms it a
bit, then dumps it back in the top. Where it will mix with the *hotter*
water left over from the last boiler run. And ruin the stratification.

"Ruin" is a rather strong term. It would be the correct term if the
Solartwin system involved high flow rates, but it doesn't.

What *would* work would be a second cylinder to preheat the water before
delivering it to the hot one, which would be gas (or something) heated.

That used to be the fashion. However, as well as cost it has the
disadvantage of extra heat losses, due to the extra volume of water
stored at above ambient temperature). This reduces the effectiveness
of the system. For a number of reasons few offer such systems these
days.

OK, in summer it'll be more effective - but in winter it'll be doing
nothing much, or freezing wouldn't be an issue.

Any freezing generally happens overnight, when there is no sun to
warm the collector. When/if the sun rises the frozen collector is
rapidly thawed out and will then start warming the water in the
cylinder. On a very cloudy day the collector might stay frozen all
day, which is no problem.

With a drainback system the collector will be empty overnight and
thus not frozen. When/if the sun is out enough to make collecting
its heat worthwhile the panel is filled up and it is then obviously
not frozen.

With a non-drainback system the system either has antifreeze added
or the controller uses a little heat from the store to keep the
water temperature above freezing. When/if the sun comes out hot
water production starts.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 01:03:08 +0000 someone who may be Derek Geldard
wrote this:-

I looked in to it for hot water, but it's of no use in the winter ! It's
too cold!
What is too cold? The exterior temperature? Solar panels work on the
sun, not the external temperature.

Hrmmph.

"Work on the sun"?

Correct. If you wish to assert that they work differently you might
like to explain your theory.

Does the sun not heat parts of the earth on a seasonal basis and raise
the external temperature ? Is summer not warmer than winter? Is not
the warmth-tude not dependant on the received energy flux from the
sun?

Many words, but they add little to the discussion.

The facts are quite simple. Solar panels work by absorbing heat from
sunlight. As they have a small mass they warm up more quickly than
the surroundings. This heat can then be transferred elsewhere. The
external temperature has nothing to do with this process, which is
why they can be used in the antarctic.


Completely wrong, but one expects nothing else.
Google 'black body radiation' for the facts.


A solar panel will lose heat to the surroundings. However, this is
minimised by various forms of insulation.

Thus the assertion that it is too cold in winter for solar panels is
incorrect.

Correct, there is too little direct sunlight. Again an understanding of
various things like the relationship between energy transfer and the
perceived temperature of the source, and what cloud cover intersperse
atmosphere does to it, would be somewhat better than blank erronoeus
assertions.



I am surprised I have to assert this, my daughter teaches this in
primary school I could arrange for private coaching for you (And Mary
"Classicist, and Quantum Physicist" Fisher) if it is really needed.

Excellent, more personal abuse. Do keep it up.


At least its based on reason, not pseudo scientific blather.

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:02:13 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

The facts are quite simple. Solar panels work by absorbing heat from
sunlight. As they have a small mass they warm up more quickly than
the surroundings. This heat can then be transferred elsewhere. The
external temperature has nothing to do with this process, which is
why they can be used in the antarctic.

Completely wrong, but one expects nothing else.

Another assertion. Strongly expressed, but not backed up by anything
convincing.

Google 'black body radiation' for the facts.

I did black body radiation a long time ago.

At least its based on reason, not pseudo scientific blather.

Yawn. Do keep it up though as it is probably revealing.

You may have the last word at the moment.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:02:13 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

The facts are quite simple. Solar panels work by absorbing heat from
sunlight. As they have a small mass they warm up more quickly than
the surroundings. This heat can then be transferred elsewhere. The
external temperature has nothing to do with this process, which is
why they can be used in the antarctic.
Completely wrong, but one expects nothing else.

Another assertion. Strongly expressed, but not backed up by anything
convincing.

Google 'black body radiation' for the facts.

I did black body radiation a long time ago.


And didn't understand a word of it one assumes.

At least its based on reason, not pseudo scientific blather.

Yawn. Do keep it up though as it is probably revealing.

You may have the last word at the moment.