Post by Chris J Dixon on uk.tech.digital-tv:

I don't know which way this one faces, but I guess it can't
really make it much worse:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jim_eas...ok/5937685450/

Chris

On Nov 30, 11:58*am, "Tim Downie" wrote:
Post by Chris J Dixon on uk.tech.digital-tv:



I don't know which way this one faces, but I guess it can't
really make it much worse:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jim_eas...ok/5937685450/

Chris- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Jeeze!
You're right about that. I reckon you'd be lucky to get 10% of the
possible output from that installation. I wonder which way South is?

Installed by Bodgit & Scarper Ltd??

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 11:58:14 -0000, Tim Downie wrote:

I don't know which way this one faces, but I guess it can't
really make it much worse:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jim_eas...ok/5937685450/

Bloody hell what absolute waste of resources. As these things should
be done by accredited installers to get the FIT payments the company
that did that needs to be struck off the list and all their work
checked. Then corrected at that companies expense, taking the
directors assets if need be.

Surely such and installation cannot comply with that required for a
FIT installation. Can it?

Might have been DIY of course and no FIT but who in their right mind
would DIY so badly and not get the FIT as well.

--
Cheers
Dave.

harry wrote:
On Nov 30, 11:58 am, "Tim Downie" wrote:
Post by Chris J Dixon on uk.tech.digital-tv:



I don't know which way this one faces, but I guess it can't
really make it much worse:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jim_eas...ok/5937685450/
Chris- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Jeeze!
You're right about that. I reckon you'd be lucky to get 10% of the
possible output from that installation. I wonder which way South is?

What does it matter? he is almost certainly getting paid anyway, and its
probably there to justify the fact he's tapped into his neighbours
mains feed and wants to sell some power back to the grid.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ...
harry wrote:
On Nov 30, 11:58 am, "Tim Downie" wrote:
Post by Chris J Dixon on uk.tech.digital-tv:



I don't know which way this one faces, but I guess it can't
really make it much worse:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jim_eas...ok/5937685450/
Chris- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Jeeze!
You're right about that. I reckon you'd be lucky to get 10% of the
possible output from that installation. I wonder which way South is?

What does it matter? he is almost certainly getting paid anyway, and its
probably there to justify the fact he's tapped into his neighbours
mains feed and wants to sell some power back to the grid.

Do you think with that layout he's going to be getting much return on his investment, even with the FIT?

Tim

Tim Downie wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ...
harry wrote:
On Nov 30, 11:58 am, "Tim Downie" wrote:
Post by Chris J Dixon on uk.tech.digital-tv:



I don't know which way this one faces, but I guess it can't
really make it much worse:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jim_eas...ok/5937685450/
Chris- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Jeeze!
You're right about that. I reckon you'd be lucky to get 10% of the
possible output from that installation. I wonder which way South is?
What does it matter? he is almost certainly getting paid anyway, and its
probably there to justify the fact he's tapped into his neighbours
mains feed and wants to sell some power back to the grid.

Do you think with that layout he's going to be getting much return on his investment, even with the FIT?


Massive, if he really is stealing grid electricity and selling it back a
45p a unit.


Tim

On Nov 30, 3:53*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Nov 30, 11:58 am, "Tim Downie" wrote:
Post by Chris J Dixon on uk.tech.digital-tv:

I don't know which way this one faces, but I guess it can't
really make it much worse:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jim_eas...ok/5937685450/
Chris- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Jeeze!
You're right about that. I reckon you'd be lucky to get 10% of the
possible output from that installation. *I wonder which way South is?

What does it matter? he is almost certainly getting paid anyway, and its
probably there *to justify the fact he's tapped into his neighbours
mains feed and wants to sell some power back to the grid.

He won't get hardly any money. Maybe a couple of hundred a year.
When the array is registered an assessment of the power generated is
put in also. They must have lied about the assessment

On 30/11/2011 11:58, Tim Downie wrote:
Post by Chris J Dixon on uk.tech.digital-tv:

I don't know which way this one faces, but I guess it can't
really make it much worse:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jim_eas...ok/5937685450/

Must be those new panels a very "enlightened" representative was telling
me about when I dropped into the Eco Show in Totness a few months ago..
I suggested my roof didn't face the right direction and was told the new
panels don't use direct sunlight but ambient U.V. which is all around
and means they work just as well facing any direction although directly
north isn't ideal...

--
http://www.Water-Rower.co.uk
The best rowing maching you'll ever use.
http://www.GymRatZ.co.uk Commercial Gym Equipment

On Dec 1, 9:14 am, "www.GymRatZ.co.uk" wrote:
On 30/11/2011 11:58, Tim Downie wrote:

Post by Chris J Dixon on uk.tech.digital-tv:

I don't know which way this one faces, but I guess it can't
really make it much worse:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jim_eas...ok/5937685450/

Must be those new panels a very "enlightened" representative was telling
me about when I dropped into the Eco Show in Totness a few months ago..
I suggested my roof didn't face the right direction and was told the new
panels don't use direct sunlight but ambient U.V. which is all around
and means they work just as well facing any direction although directly
north isn't ideal...

c'mon name'n'shame the bstrds ;)

Jim K

harry wrote:
He won't get hardly any money. Maybe a couple of hundred a year.
When the array is registered an assessment of the power generated is
put in also. They must have lied about the assessment

I wonder if this is a 'slap 'em up any old how before the FIT deadline'
installation, then they'll move them at their leisure afterwards? Or do
TPTB smell a rat if the output power suddenly jumps during the FIT period?

Theo

On 01 Dec 2011 11:34:14 +0000 (GMT), Theo Markettos wrote:

I wonder if this is a 'slap 'em up any old how before the FIT deadline'

But why not just stack 'em up in the back garden and not bother with
all time consuming drilling of holes, fitting of frames etc. I notice
that the wiring is just flapping in the breeze...

No this is just a cowboy installation from Bodgeit & Scarper (2011)
Ltd who have only the very basic idea about what they are doing. I
expect that company will go bust once they notice any regulators or
customers are on to them. A couple of months later Bodgeit & Scarper
(2012) Ltd will arise, pheonix like, with the assets of Bodgeit &
Scarper (2011) Ltd bought at a knock down price from the liquidators.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Must be those new panels a very "enlightened" representative was telling
me about when I dropped into the Eco Show in Totness a few months ago..
I suggested my roof didn't face the right direction and was told the new
panels don't use direct sunlight but ambient U.V. which is all around
and means they work just as well facing any direction although directly
north isn't ideal...

Perhaps the same bloke who wanted to insulate my aged mum's loft (which
was boarded and full up to the boards) by squashing another 8 inches of
glass fibre in there).

On Dec 1, 11:34*am, Theo Markettos
wrote:
harry wrote:
He won't get hardly any money. Maybe a couple of hundred a year.
When the array is registered an assessment of the power generated is
put in also. *They must have lied about the assessment

I wonder if this is a 'slap 'em up any old how before the FIT deadline'
installation, then they'll move them at their leisure afterwards? *Or do
TPTB smell a rat if the output power suddenly jumps during the FIT period?

Theo

That's a possibility I suppose.

On 30/11/2011 14:48, harry wrote:
On Nov 30, 11:58 am, "Tim wrote:
Post by Chris J Dixon on uk.tech.digital-tv:



I don't know which way this one faces, but I guess it can't
really make it much worse:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jim_eas...ok/5937685450/

Chris- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Jeeze!
You're right about that. I reckon you'd be lucky to get 10% of the
possible output from that installation. I wonder which way South is?


I have been trying to work out the orientation based on the clear shadow
from the rear of the house next door and have come to a tentative
conclusion that the panel array is facing approximately SW (at worst)
which puts the camera pointing approximately due north. If the array was
facing more west than south it would have made sense to put the panels
on the SE facing roof. However if the choice is very much even stephen
it might not be quite such a poor placement after all. Assuming there is
nothing nasty that we can't see the other side of the road the array is
going to get uninterrupted sun from about mid morning to early afternoon
but at a poorer angle than the optimum placement.I wouldn't be at all
surprised if this situation got at least 30% of optimum output and maybe
a bit more.

--
Roger Chapman

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 09:14:41 +0000, "www.GymRatZ.co.uk"
wrote:

On 30/11/2011 11:58, Tim Downie wrote:
Post by Chris J Dixon on uk.tech.digital-tv:

I don't know which way this one faces, but I guess it can't
really make it much worse:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jim_eas...ok/5937685450/

Must be those new panels a very "enlightened" representative was telling
me about when I dropped into the Eco Show in Totness a few months ago..
I suggested my roof didn't face the right direction and was told the new
panels don't use direct sunlight but ambient U.V. which is all around
and means they work just as well facing any direction although directly
north isn't ideal...

Monocrystalline cells are less fussy than polycrystalline cells in
which way the point. They aren't new though.


--

Roger Chapman wrote:

On 30/11/2011 14:48, harry wrote:
On Nov 30, 11:58 am, "Tim wrote:
Post by Chris J Dixon on uk.tech.digital-tv:



I don't know which way this one faces, but I guess it can't
really make it much worse:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jim_eas...ok/5937685450/

Jeeze!
You're right about that. I reckon you'd be lucky to get 10% of the
possible output from that installation. I wonder which way South is?


I have been trying to work out the orientation based on the clear shadow
from the rear of the house next door and have come to a tentative
conclusion that the panel array is facing approximately SW (at worst)
which puts the camera pointing approximately due north. If the array was
facing more west than south it would have made sense to put the panels
on the SE facing roof. However if the choice is very much even stephen
it might not be quite such a poor placement after all. Assuming there is
nothing nasty that we can't see the other side of the road the array is
going to get uninterrupted sun from about mid morning to early afternoon
but at a poorer angle than the optimum placement.I wouldn't be at all
surprised if this situation got at least 30% of optimum output and maybe
a bit more.

They're facing SSE. Won't the shade from the neighbouring house have a
serious effect?

They went up in May or June this year, IIRC, and haven't come down yet.
--
Jim

On 03/12/2011 15:02, Jim Easterbrook wrote:

I have been trying to work out the orientation based on the clear shadow
from the rear of the house next door and have come to a tentative
conclusion that the panel array is facing approximately SW (at worst)
which puts the camera pointing approximately due north. If the array was
facing more west than south it would have made sense to put the panels
on the SE facing roof. However if the choice is very much even stephen
it might not be quite such a poor placement after all. Assuming there is
nothing nasty that we can't see the other side of the road the array is
going to get uninterrupted sun from about mid morning to early afternoon
but at a poorer angle than the optimum placement.I wouldn't be at all
surprised if this situation got at least 30% of optimum output and maybe
a bit more.

They're facing SSE. Won't the shade from the neighbouring house have a
serious effect?

So the camera is facing about due west?

They went up in May or June this year, IIRC, and haven't come down yet.

That would probably be a bit worse than my original conclusion but begs
the question why the panels are not of the rear face of the roof.
Perhaps this is the house of a panel installer and he wanted his
installation to be seen. That will get most of the morning sun and the
late afternoon sun at least in the summer months.

The shadow looked to me that it was of the rear corner of the
neighbouring house and I still can't my head round the shape of that
shadow if it is the front of the house.

At midday on July 14 the sun's maximum altitude would be about 60
degrees so was the photo about 1pm BST?.

--
Roger Chapman

Roger Chapman wrote:

On 03/12/2011 15:02, Jim Easterbrook wrote:

They're facing SSE. Won't the shade from the neighbouring house have a
serious effect?

So the camera is facing about due west?

Getting on for that.

The shadow looked to me that it was of the rear corner of the
neighbouring house and I still can't my head round the shape of that
shadow if it is the front of the house.

I think that's a reflection rather than a shadow. It was an overcast day,
IIRC.

At midday on July 14 the sun's maximum altitude would be about 60
degrees so was the photo about 1pm BST?.

Ah, you haven't discovered Flickr's 'view exif data' option. (-:
It was taken at 16:56.
--
Jim

On 03/12/2011 17:34, Jim Easterbrook wrote:

They're facing SSE. Won't the shade from the neighbouring house have a
serious effect?

So the camera is facing about due west?

Getting on for that.

The shadow looked to me that it was of the rear corner of the
neighbouring house and I still can't my head round the shape of that
shadow if it is the front of the house.

I think that's a reflection rather than a shadow. It was an overcast day,
IIRC.

That explains it. I did wonder why the chimney didn't appear to be
casting a shadow.

At midday on July 14 the sun's maximum altitude would be about 60
degrees so was the photo about 1pm BST?.

Ah, you haven't discovered Flickr's 'view exif data' option. (-:
It was taken at 16:56.

No.

By 16.56 the whole of that side of the house would be in shadow. Sun
would be at an altitude of less than 37 degrees in the direction of 80
degrees west of south. (On the basis that the house is somewhere
reasonably close to London).

--
Roger Chapman

On 30/11/2011 19:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Downie wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
harry wrote:
On Nov 30, 11:58 am, "Tim Downie" wrote:
Post by Chris J Dixon on uk.tech.digital-tv:



I don't know which way this one faces, but I guess it can't
really make it much worse:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jim_eas...ok/5937685450/
Chris- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Jeeze!
You're right about that. I reckon you'd be lucky to get 10% of the
possible output from that installation. I wonder which way South is?
What does it matter? he is almost certainly getting paid anyway, and
its probably there to justify the fact he's tapped into his
neighbours mains feed and wants to sell some power back to the grid.

Do you think with that layout he's going to be getting much return on
his investment, even with the FIT?


Massive, if he really is stealing grid electricity and selling it back a
45p a unit.


You couldn't make it up.

Oh my mistake, you did!

Are all your posts made up of the same **** lies ?

Bob Neumann wrote:
On 30/11/2011 19:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Downie wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
harry wrote:
On Nov 30, 11:58 am, "Tim Downie" wrote:
Post by Chris J Dixon on uk.tech.digital-tv:



I don't know which way this one faces, but I guess it can't
really make it much worse:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jim_eas...ok/5937685450/
Chris- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Jeeze!
You're right about that. I reckon you'd be lucky to get 10% of the
possible output from that installation. I wonder which way South is?
What does it matter? he is almost certainly getting paid anyway, and
its probably there to justify the fact he's tapped into his
neighbours mains feed and wants to sell some power back to the grid.

Do you think with that layout he's going to be getting much return on
his investment, even with the FIT?


Massive, if he really is stealing grid electricity and selling it back a
45p a unit.


You couldn't make it up.

Oh my mistake, you did!

Are all your posts made up of the same **** lies ?

Golly. sense of humour failure and a touched nerve eh?

Guilt at ripping off your neighbours with your massive array?

Tell you what, feck off and see a psychiatrist.

On 05/12/2011 08:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Bob Neumann wrote:
On 30/11/2011 19:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Downie wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
harry wrote:
On Nov 30, 11:58 am, "Tim Downie" wrote:
Post by Chris J Dixon on uk.tech.digital-tv:



I don't know which way this one faces, but I guess it can't
really make it much worse:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jim_eas...ok/5937685450/
Chris- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Jeeze!
You're right about that. I reckon you'd be lucky to get 10% of the
possible output from that installation. I wonder which way South is?
What does it matter? he is almost certainly getting paid anyway, and
its probably there to justify the fact he's tapped into his
neighbours mains feed and wants to sell some power back to the grid.

Do you think with that layout he's going to be getting much return on
his investment, even with the FIT?


Massive, if he really is stealing grid electricity and selling it back a
45p a unit.


You couldn't make it up.

Oh my mistake, you did!

Are all your posts made up of the same **** lies ?

Golly. sense of humour failure and a touched nerve eh?

Guilt at ripping off your neighbours with your massive array?

Tell you what, feck off and see a psychiatrist.


It's just that you're so boring and predictable.

On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 17:34:47 +0000, Jim Easterbrook
wrote:

Ah, you haven't discovered Flickr's 'view exif data' option. (-:
It was taken at 16:56.

Assuming the camera owner had a clue or could be bothered settiing
the time.

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:06:28 +0000, Bob Neumann wrote:

It's just that you're so boring and predictable.

Isn't he though?
Like a stuck record - I assume he remembers them.

wrote:

On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 17:34:47 +0000, Jim Easterbrook
wrote:

Ah, you haven't discovered Flickr's 'view exif data' option. (-:
It was taken at 16:56.

Assuming the camera owner had a clue or could be bothered settiing
the time.

I am the camera owner. Yes, and yes. (-:
--
Jim