Posted by schooner on December 22, 2008, 1:43 pm
Ok thanks, again was just looking for some ballpark numbers was all, if your
not open to sharing them that is fine, not looking to get into a pissing
match over it.
I agree, many commercial numbers are often misleading, but I htink here most
people post their honest findings, granted most here are not in business
like yourself so that changes your take I suppose.
Posted by Morris Dovey on December 22, 2008, 2:58 pm
Good - me too. :)
Thank you - it does. Because I make a business of selling these things,
I feel a responsibility to not mislead - and to that end I limit myself
to saying simply that my panels work well.
That doesn't keep me from wanting /everyone's/ panels to work as well as
possible - and, however strange it may seem to anyone else, this
includes competitors' panels.
I don't try to conceal my agenda. If you're curious, you're welcome to
read about it at
where I've spelled it out as best I could. You might even find the web
of some interest. And finally, I took a try at showing how one might
approach measuring/monitoring device performance (to produce the numbers
I haven't been willing to publish) on the web page at
FWIW, I _really_ admire the appearance of your panels!
DeSoto, Iowa USA
Posted by Father Haskell on December 22, 2008, 1:10 am
On Dec 21, 7:49am, nicksans...@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
Simple construction, fewer parts, fewer joints to seal.
First try at building one of these things (have built several cold
frames). 2 x 3' should produce a useful working model / test
bed. I already have the materials at hand. At very least, I'll
end up with a nice solar bathroom heater.
Posted by nicksanspam on December 22, 2008, 2:43 pm
An empty box would have fewer parts :-)
Posted by Father Haskell on December 22, 2008, 8:20 pm
On Dec 22, 9:43am, nicksans...@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
No baffles or absorber panels?