Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

solar cooking under clouds - Page 2

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by Morris Dovey on October 4, 2010, 2:21 am
 
On 10/3/2010 7:37 PM, dow wrote:

Hmm - I think I must be out of phase today. From a point on the
Antarctic Circle, the noon-day sun on the summer solstice (sometime
around the third week of June) should be right on the horizon, yes?


That would be good. In clear sun we can approximate insolation as
perhaps 1 kW/m^2. If the intensity were reduced to 10% then that would
drop to 100 W/m^2, and at 1% we'd be working with 10 W/m^2.

If we build our collector with unobtanium (a perfect thermal insulator
and perfectly transparent in only one direction) we may still need
somewhere close to 100 m^2 of collector to cook our Christmas penguin.

Let's move that feast back to the Arctic Circle and make polar bear stew
for our summer solstice celebration.


Admittedly, I haven't looked seriously at Peltier devices for some time
- but resistance heat is already 100% efficient and the heating elements
are (probably) still a lot less expensive.


It really does sound as if you're looking for a one-size-fits-all solar
solution. Methinks we might be more productive if we start picking the
low-hanging fruit first. There's a lot that can be done (and isn't) that
doesn't require high-tech solutions.

--
Morris Dovey
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
PGP Key ID EBB1E70E


Posted by Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds on October 4, 2010, 12:04 am
 


When I was doing such things we had anecdotal evidence that using a "gold" foil
instead of a "silver" foil would increase performance during overcast
conditions. YMMV

--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.

Posted by Josepi on October 4, 2010, 12:20 am
 The PV setup would be more expensive (probably) but would be useful for more
than cooking. A solar stove would only be useful when needed.

Solar burner would need to have a tracking mechanism.

Solar burner designed for no direct sun could be a problem if direct sun
hit..ie. burning bottom, over boiling, exploding mechanism etc..


Solar cooking is a topic of wide interest and utility. Many effective
types of cooker have been developed that work when the sun is shining.
But the sun does not shine all the time, even during daylight hours.
In many parts of the world, it shines only very rarely. So can we
design a cooker that would work under cloudy conditions?
Of course it is possible. Photo-Voltaic cells generate some
electricity even when the light intensity is low. Put enough of them
together, and make them power an electric oven, and you've got a solar
cooker that will work in dim light.

But is there a simpler and cheaper way to do it? I just looked at the
"Solar cooker" page on Wikipedia, and saw under "solar kettles" a
mention of a technology using evacuated tubes that can cook food in
diffuse light. The general idea is that the food is in a dark-coloured
tube that is suspended inside a larger glass tube, and the space
between the tubes is evacuated. The inner tube is heated by incoming
light, and the heat cannot easily escape so the temperature rises,
even when the light level is low.

This sounds cheaper than using a whole lot of PV cells, but can we
think of (and build) something simpler and cheaper still? Let's
brainstorm about this...

              dow



Posted by Josepi on October 4, 2010, 12:25 am
 Under extreme low light conditions, obviously an energy storage mechanism
may be necessary to boost the power level delivered compared to power level
received. I am not sure how this could be accomplished using a solar thermal
arrangement.

Possibly slowly heating a large thermal mass to more than a desired
temperature and then placing the pot in contact with the large thermal mass
to cook for a lessor time?

PV may still work better for extreme conditions provided your batteries work
in the Antarctic.


Solar cooking is a topic of wide interest and utility. Many effective
types of cooker have been developed that work when the sun is shining.
But the sun does not shine all the time, even during daylight hours.
In many parts of the world, it shines only very rarely. So can we
design a cooker that would work under cloudy conditions?
Of course it is possible. Photo-Voltaic cells generate some
electricity even when the light intensity is low. Put enough of them
together, and make them power an electric oven, and you've got a solar
cooker that will work in dim light.

But is there a simpler and cheaper way to do it? I just looked at the
"Solar cooker" page on Wikipedia, and saw under "solar kettles" a
mention of a technology using evacuated tubes that can cook food in
diffuse light. The general idea is that the food is in a dark-coloured
tube that is suspended inside a larger glass tube, and the space
between the tubes is evacuated. The inner tube is heated by incoming
light, and the heat cannot easily escape so the temperature rises,
even when the light level is low.

This sounds cheaper than using a whole lot of PV cells, but can we
think of (and build) something simpler and cheaper still? Let's
brainstorm about this...

              dow



Posted by Morris Dovey on October 4, 2010, 2:37 am
 On 10/3/2010 7:25 PM, Josepi wrote:


I have difficulty digesting this. Solar thermal has no conversion losses
(because there is no conversion).

PV loses most of the energy in the initial radiation-to-electrical
conversion, with additional losses in the electrical-to-chemical and the
chemical-to-electrical conversions at the battery. Charge controller and
inverter, if present, lose still more...

--
Morris Dovey
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
PGP Key ID EBB1E70E


This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread