Posted by Josepi on January 22, 2010, 1:17 pm
Open your mind a little, Wayne, and let the vaccuum out.
wrote:
>On Jan 20, 11:38 am, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Panels should be mounted with at least 100mm between them
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> > and 200m -
>> >300mm gap between the bottom of the panels and the mounting surface.
>> >This reduces the wind loading.
>>
>> Exactly how? It improves the cooling and/or angle, which is why it's
>> generally done, but probably aggravates lifting compared to tight
>> mounting.
>>
>Ah yes, think of a parachute with holes in it.
Why would anyone other than a quack want to think of parachutes when
mounting PV modules? Do you imagine that your wisdumb includes
aerodynamics? Of course you do!
But for sane people it's much easier to simply look at how all the
other normals mount their modules, as I encouraged you to do five
years ago by including links to about a dozen different photos of
closely-spaced modules, including these,
http://www.solar-electric.com/images/Dsc_0041a.jpg
http://www.solar-electric.com/images/TOP_Mount2.jpg
http://www.mrsolar.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=MSOS&Category_Code=ground
http://www.wholesalesolar.com/products.folder/mount-folder/dpw_ptgmsp.html
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/images/trackers/solarexspacing.jpg
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/images/trackers/photowattspacing.jpg
in order to rebut your asinine assertion that 4" spacing is "industry
standard". Why didn't you do yourself a favor and accept reality,
rather than being the incorrigible Johnny Appleseed of ignorance?
>> Why do you suppose that mount and tracker manufactures mostly ignore
>> your pigheaded piffle?
http://simplythebest.net/sounds/WAV/sound_effects_WAV/sound_effect_WAV_files/crickets_1.wav
Wayne
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm A one-stop compilation
of the most flavors of ghinius wisdumb
Search bots --> george Ghio, bealiba, Renegade writing, mount Moliagul
Posted by ghio on January 24, 2010, 4:53 pm
Pics of LED module and assembly in lamp.
http://s78.photobucket.com/home/GGhio
> Open your mind a little, Wayne, and let the vaccuum out.
Posted by Josepi on January 19, 2010, 11:45 pm
That is not correct. From a photograph it cannot be told whether the sun was
out or it was in pitch black. many moonlight films are done in full sun with
compensating filters and camera settings.
These spot lights could be 500 watt halogens in full sunlight, single candle
power lamps in pitch darkness or 100 watt halogens at dusk, when most
nighttime photography takes place.
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.
Posted by ghio on January 20, 2010, 7:10 am
Hmm, you sound just like wayne, call me a liar because you can't
accept the fact that correctly used LED can actually be very
effective.
Faux moon light on film is so easy to spot.
This picture was taken at around 11pm on a moonless night. The lamp in
the centre has 8 modules of 4 LEDs(luxans) each. The lamps on the left
and right have 6 modules each. I have 12 such lamps right around the
house. The trick is the white glass covers glass covers. Far more
effective than plastic covers for spreading the light. All the leds
actually point straight down.
No halogens, no daylight tricks, not shot at dusk. Give me a day or so
and I will post pictures of the modules and their mounting. They will
be at the same link.
> That is not correct. From a photograph it cannot be told whether the sun was
> out or it was in pitch black. many moonlight films are done in full sun with
> compensating filters and camera settings.
> These spot lights could be 500 watt halogens in full sunlight, single candle
> power lamps in pitch darkness or 100 watt halogens at dusk, when most
> nighttime photography takes place.
> 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.
Posted by ghio on January 20, 2010, 10:45 pm
> Hmm, you sound just like wayne, call me a liar because you can't
> accept the fact that correctly used LED can actually be very
> effective.
> Faux moon light on film is so easy to spot.
> This picture was taken at around 11pm on a moonless night. The lamp in
> the centre has 8 modules of 4 LEDs(luxans) each. The lamps on the left
> and right have 6 modules each. I have 12 such lamps right around the
> house. The trick is the white glass covers glass covers. Far more
> effective than plastic covers for spreading the light. All the leds
> actually point straight down.
> No halogens, no daylight tricks, not shot at dusk. Give me a day or so
> and I will post pictures of the modules and their mounting. They will
> be at the same link.
> > That is not correct. From a photograph it cannot be told whether the sun was
> > out or it was in pitch black. many moonlight films are done in full sun with
> > compensating filters and camera settings.
> > These spot lights could be 500 watt halogens in full sunlight, single candle
> > power lamps in pitch darkness or 100 watt halogens at dusk, when most
> > nighttime photography takes place.
> > 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.
he answer was in response to;
"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."
This is a significant wind loading. Correct spacing reduces the wind
loading by allowing some of the wind, that otherwise would cause
pressure on the panels, to pass through the obstruction. Still, it
comes as no surprise that you can't understand this, you understand so
little about design to begin with.
XML site map
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Panels should be mounted with at least 100mm between them
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> > and 200m -
>> >300mm gap between the bottom of the panels and the mounting surface.
>> >This reduces the wind loading.
>>
>> Exactly how? It improves the cooling and/or angle, which is why it's
>> generally done, but probably aggravates lifting compared to tight
>> mounting.
>>
>Ah yes, think of a parachute with holes in it.