Posted by RicodJour on February 24, 2006, 9:01 pm
nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
> >>>If it's supposed to be a house, people have to be able to walk inside of it.
> >>>Looking at a thermometer through a window won't convince someone as much as
> >>>personally experiencing that temperature.
> >>
> >> It needn't be a house, but a door sounds good for Ultimate Disbelievers.
> >
> >You need to expand your thinking. Stop thinking outside the box.
> >Inside is where it's at.
> We have 1) engineers and physicists who consider this an obvious and trivial
> accomplishment and require no physical proof, 2) doubters, eg architects,
> who are scientifically literate but have been confused by conventional wisdom
> and SBIC guidelines claiming that houses can only be 60% solar-heated outside
> of the southwest, and 3) ignorant arrogant actors like m ransley, who may
> always imagine hoaxes and secret energy sources that keep the cubes warm.
> The first and third groups can't be helped, but we might help the second :-)
> "... 84 ft^2 of tank surface with 5x84 = 420 Btu/h-F of slow-moving
> airfilm conductance could supply 840 Btu/h at 70 + 840/420 = 72 F.
> Keeping the cube 70 F for 8 hours and 50 F for 16 hours on a cloudy day
> takes (8h(70-30)+16(50-30))21 = 13440 Btu, so the tank might store heat
> for 2x6x6x62.33(115-72)/13440 = 14 30 F cloudy days in a row.
> Were m ransley less ignorant, he might have corrected the calc above:
> "... 84 ft^2 of tank surface with 2x84 = 168 Btu/h-F of slow-moving
> airfilm conductance could supply 840 Btu/h at 70 + 840/168 = 75 F.
> Keeping the cube 70 F for 8 hours and 50 F for 16 hours on a cloudy day
> takes (8h(70-30)+16(50-30))21 = 13440 Btu, so the tank might store heat
> for 2x6x6x62.33(115-75)/13440 = 13 30 F cloudy days in a row.
I stopped reading your numbers long ago after I ran across some errors
and gross assumptions. I'm not here to correct your math. I'm here to
correct your life outlook. :)
R
Posted by nicksanspam on February 24, 2006, 9:54 pm
>I stopped reading your numbers long ago after I ran across some errors
>and gross assumptions.
Feel free to elucidate.
Nick
Posted by Anthony Matonak on February 25, 2006, 6:15 am
nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
>
>>I stopped reading your numbers long ago after I ran across some errors
>>and gross assumptions.
>
> Feel free to elucidate.
I'm not here to do anything to anyone but I'll freely admit that I don't
bother to follow the math most of the time because I'm not an engineer
and I wouldn't be able to argue the point.
If I understand this thread correctly, the point is that Nick is
suggesting demonstration units to show that solar heating works in
places where most folks don't believe it will.
My suggestion is that if you want people to believe they can solar
heat their houses then a demonstration house is what they could
easily understand. Lots of folks make portable structures on wheels
for construction shacks and the like. Make your demo built on such
a trailer, give it the look of a small mobile home with carpeting
and a couch and let people walk through it. Maybe you could let them
sit for a while and watch a recorded TV presentation inside.
Then again, perhaps this is all overkill. If you want to convince
folks that they can heat with the sun then maybe all you need is
a solar air heating panel. Set it up outside so it vents hot air
at a single spot where people can warm their hands on bitter cold
days. Place a clear and very simple diagram with details about how
the panel works next to the thing. Put it in places where people
are going to be cold and standing around.
Anthony
Posted by SJC on February 25, 2006, 7:54 pm
> nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
>>
>>>I stopped reading your numbers long ago after I ran across some errors
>>>and gross assumptions.
>>
>> Feel free to elucidate.
>
> I'm not here to do anything to anyone but I'll freely admit that I don't
> bother to follow the math most of the time because I'm not an engineer
> and I wouldn't be able to argue the point.
>
> If I understand this thread correctly, the point is that Nick is
> suggesting demonstration units to show that solar heating works in
> places where most folks don't believe it will.
>
> My suggestion is that if you want people to believe they can solar
> heat their houses then a demonstration house is what they could
> easily understand. Lots of folks make portable structures on wheels
> for construction shacks and the like. Make your demo built on such
> a trailer, give it the look of a small mobile home with carpeting
> and a couch and let people walk through it. Maybe you could let them
> sit for a while and watch a recorded TV presentation inside.
>
> Then again, perhaps this is all overkill. If you want to convince
> folks that they can heat with the sun then maybe all you need is
> a solar air heating panel. Set it up outside so it vents hot air
> at a single spot where people can warm their hands on bitter cold
> days. Place a clear and very simple diagram with details about how
> the panel works next to the thing. Put it in places where people
> are going to be cold and standing around.
>
> Anthony
I tried to convince someone you could solar heat a house and they
asked "where has this been done?" I explained that in the US most
solar heating is for hot water and pools, but I read that up to 40%
of the solar heating was used to heat homes in Europe. If I had just
one example to show that person of an average house that was solar
heated, I think that they would have been convinced.
Posted by daestrom on February 26, 2006, 3:04 pm
<snip>
> I tried to convince someone you could solar heat a house and they
>asked "where has this been done?" I explained that in the US most
>solar heating is for hot water and pools, but I read that up to 40%
>of the solar heating was used to heat homes in Europe. If I had just
>one example to show that person of an average house that was solar
>heated, I think that they would have been convinced.
In some areas (NY for example), there were a lot of folks 'burned' by the
solar-heated home craze in the late '70's. So the building code now
requires a high burden of proof that a home is solar heated exclusively.
Otherwise, it must have a more conventional heating plant that is large
enough to fully heat the home. What a seller might consider 'solar heated'
may mean to the buyer, 'solar heated if you like to wear sweaters a lot and
enjoy 50-60 degree home'.
So, building a home in one of these areas means you pay the 'up-front' costs
for two heating plants, the conventional one required if you ever want to
get a building permit, and the solar one to save energy/planet.
Solar 'boosting' or 'supplementing' is a lot more appealing to many since
the solar plant doesn't have to be as large, and you still get some of the
benefits.
But a major factor to a lot of folks is, "How will this affect my resale
value?" If the average buyer and the bank don't agree on what you think is
the increase in home value, you may have a 'white elephant' on your hands.
Until the public at large (including mortgage companies) start to see the
true value of such systems, you may be better off just tearing it down when
it comes time to sell.
daestrom
XML site map
> >>>Looking at a thermometer through a window won't convince someone as much as
> >>>personally experiencing that temperature.
> >>
> >> It needn't be a house, but a door sounds good for Ultimate Disbelievers.
> >
> >You need to expand your thinking. Stop thinking outside the box.
> >Inside is where it's at.
> We have 1) engineers and physicists who consider this an obvious and trivial
> accomplishment and require no physical proof, 2) doubters, eg architects,
> who are scientifically literate but have been confused by conventional wisdom
> and SBIC guidelines claiming that houses can only be 60% solar-heated outside
> of the southwest, and 3) ignorant arrogant actors like m ransley, who may
> always imagine hoaxes and secret energy sources that keep the cubes warm.
> The first and third groups can't be helped, but we might help the second :-)
> "... 84 ft^2 of tank surface with 5x84 = 420 Btu/h-F of slow-moving
> airfilm conductance could supply 840 Btu/h at 70 + 840/420 = 72 F.
> Keeping the cube 70 F for 8 hours and 50 F for 16 hours on a cloudy day
> takes (8h(70-30)+16(50-30))21 = 13440 Btu, so the tank might store heat
> for 2x6x6x62.33(115-72)/13440 = 14 30 F cloudy days in a row.
> Were m ransley less ignorant, he might have corrected the calc above:
> "... 84 ft^2 of tank surface with 2x84 = 168 Btu/h-F of slow-moving
> airfilm conductance could supply 840 Btu/h at 70 + 840/168 = 75 F.
> Keeping the cube 70 F for 8 hours and 50 F for 16 hours on a cloudy day
> takes (8h(70-30)+16(50-30))21 = 13440 Btu, so the tank might store heat
> for 2x6x6x62.33(115-75)/13440 = 13 30 F cloudy days in a row.