Posted by Josepi on January 18, 2010, 6:34 pm
I think you may find, with more research, that much of the LED effieciencies
are a bit stretched. It has been reported that the efficiencies stated in
some cases are for a bare LED segment,
- not the encapsulated element,
- not in the bulb structure,
- not including the ballast current controlling elements,
- not the final encasement (including all the non-reflected light) to make
it market useable.
To quote Wayne (he is quite experienced in some areas). LEDs may be the next
Another point that was often overlooked was that individual colour LEDs are
much more efficiet but when combined the total white light output is not
higher and yet consumes the power of three single LEDs. Photographers
experience a very similar effect to this with multiple light sources in
GE dropped their high efficiency incandescent bulb research, unfortunately.
Research ESL lighting. It shows some promise.
Efficiency is an exact term. Luminous efficiency in this case..Output
power divided by input power, usually expressed as a percentage or
lumens per watt. I think the maximum is 683 lumens per watt. ie if
all the electricity was converted to visible light.
An incandescent lamp is only 2% efficient, LEDs are about 18% so we've
a long way to go!
Posted by Josepi on January 19, 2010, 1:56 pm
Thanx for the link. It would be hard to determine how good the lighting
works from a photograph, with the exposure being mechanically settable, of
I have been trying to design a way to flex-angle mount my PV panels, more
permanently, and I see you have a single point fulcrum mount. I like it but
it wouldn't be much good here as we experience 120km winds on odd days from
December to June, most years. I had to take my turbine down until I can
plant better guy anchors for the thing.
You might find this example of LED lighting of interest.
Posted by ghio on January 19, 2010, 10:15 pm
Yes, exposure can be set but can't really add more light than there
is. You will notice that the lamps themselves are blown out. Still the
photo is a fair representation.
The panel rack described is the one I have used on all the
installations I have done, none of which have ever lost a panel.
Panels should be mounted with at least 100mm between them and 200m -
300mm gap between the bottom of the panels and the mounting surface.
This reduces the wind loading. In a cyclone all bets are off.
Posted by wmbjkREMOVE on January 20, 2010, 12:38 am
Do you have any credible evidence for that article of faith? Of course
you don't, and yet your belief in it persists despite having been
corrected several years ago. I think I gave you links previously, but
obviously that was a waste of time. Are you also still telling people
not to put batteries on concrete because it sucks the energy out of
them, and to wait 24 hours to take SG readings? Do you know why so
many people believe that they can catch a cold by going out in the
cold? It's because of nitwits like you who cling to misconceptions as
if their life depended on it.
Exactly how? It improves the cooling and/or angle, which is why it's
generally done, but probably aggravates lifting compared to tight
Why do you suppose that mount and tracker manufactures mostly ignore
your pigheaded piffle? Why do you keep repeating advice that's long
since been proven nonsense?
Saving a step, I'm going to presume that you will say as you often do
that it's another conspiracy, probably by "yanks". In this case, that
would have to be a secret plan hatched by the mount and module makers
to wreck arrays in the hope of selling more product. And yet, here
some unaffected 14 year-old modules with tight spacing that have been
torture-tested on a tracker in a very windy location. So the plot is
going to pay off for Wattsun and Solarex... when and how exactly?
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm - home of dozens more
ghinius pearls of wisdumb
Attention search bots: george Ghio, bealiba, Renegade writing,
Posted by ghio on January 20, 2010, 4:03 am
On Jan 20, 11:38am, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:
Ah yes, think of a parachute with holes in it. Better yet, do the
world a favor and try a parachute with holes in it yourself.