"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"Rod Hewitt" wrote in message
.. .

"IMM" wrote in
:


A car has no insulation, as they produce so much waste heat the
engines can provide enough even in the coldest conditions. Adding
insulation, bonded to the cars sheet metal around the cabin, would
improve matters. The drive motors and batteries produce heat, so this
must be available for use.


And also add to the cost and weight...


Insulation should not add that much weight. Cost? Mass production will
bring that down.


I doubt that any heat would be available from motors if they are fitted
into the wheel hubs.


If they are. Most electric cars have one motor.


There may be problems supplying enough electrical power for the
demisters,
seat heaters (oops, well I have a Saab), and other things (maybe needing
a
heater for the screen/headlamp wash and other currently
unnecessary/rarely
fitted devices).


Cars are full of unnecessary crap which add cost and weight affecting
fuel
consumption, such as rev counters. Why does anyone need to know how
much
the engine is revving in a normal road car? Beats me. I know when it
is
revving, I hear and feel it. If it is revved too much the management
system
cuts it out.


True. Fashion accessory.

An electric window on the drivers side is unnecessary too


IMHO its mandatory. Its the window you use the most in paying for
parking tickets, and pulling them out of silly little slots only to feed
them into other sily little slots later...not to mention tossing coins
into teh darford crossing machines. The ability to get it down, and up,
quickly, without doing more than touch a button is essential.

, as
are electric sunroofs, which are a British fascination. The French
don't
want to know them.


Did you know IMM that it has been calculated that the weight, ad cost,
of winding handles exceeeds teh weight, and cost, of electrically driven
windows and sunroofs?

No. I don't suppose you do.

Or that the loss in power due to aerodynamic compromise of an open
window in hot weather is greater than the loss due to using a modern
efficient aircon?

No, I don't suppose you do.


Or that the losses in colling an engine via teh viscous fan exceed the
losses in blowing hopt airt into te caboin in winter?

You probably could work tat one out..

I knew all them, and knew them before you.

Why isn't the a/c an absorption system using waste engine heat, instead
of
taking power off the crank, reducing mpg?

Because its low grade power, and would need a HUGE HEAVY installation to
get colling out of it.

In the US absorption systems were found to be viable in cars.

Its time you enlisted in a snotty uni and learnt basic engineering.

The sort of engineering I should engage in is demolition engineering, and
run bulldozers through Oxbridge, Eton, Harrow, etc. Then we will all be
better off.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

The radioactive contamination by a nuclear station is negligible,
despite
the protestations of the anti-nuclear lobby.

If every power staionin the world was nuclear we would be in big trouble
getting rid of the waste.

Might cost less than trying to get rid of all the CO2 tho.

And even that contamination is
largely caused by irresponsible practices.

The human element. When it breaks down, big, big problems. Best forgot
nuclear as cleaner, lower tech alternatives are around right now.

The biggest single disaters have been caused by other things.

Warped logic. Two wrongs don't make a right. What you are saying is that
the odd nuclear disaster affecting millions of people is acceptable ......
because other disasters have been worse.

Earthquake in Iran, 30,000 dead. Smilar erahquake in San francisco with
modern building regs, 3 dead.

Lets make a nuclear disaster and all join in. The earthquake was a human
failure. They knew it was am earthquake zone.

How many die when monsoons fail, or bangladesh gets flooded (again)
Strong evidnce to link with fossil fuel burning.

Fossil fuel burning can be drastically reduced by simple low tech means.

In short, the Nuclear power scenario stacks up to one or two accidents -
five mile island and chernobyl.

And Windscale in 1958...and others around the world.

Chernobyl was probably no more expensive
than an oil tanker sinking in terms of clean up.

100,000s are suffering long term effects from the fall out.

Fve mile island - I
forget, but it hasn't ruined the country.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Franz Heymann wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Martin Brown wrote:



Solar power works reasonably at latitudes below about 45 degrees, but
it
is quite frankly a complete non-starter at latitudes 55N and above.
Unless you count biomass conversion in forests for indirect fuel
generation.



Agreed. Horses for courses.

However tide power is not impossible either. Not an easy one tho.

If only we could get fusion power working...


Fusion power is going to turn out to be a great deal filthier than
fission
power.



I don't think so. The fisson products would all be relatively short
lived isoptopes, and teh main product is helieum. Non radioactve helieum

Its only the vast amounts of radiation intereacting with the shielding
that would cause some radioactive compounds to be generated.


Fission power is the cleanest and least polluting energy source ever
produced on earth.



Yes, I tend to agree with you.


The number of deaths per kilowatt hour which occur in the extraction and
processing of fossil fuels is a lot higher than the corresponding
number
for the extraction of uranium



I would not be surprised.


The pollution of the atmosphere by fossil fuel stations is vastly worse
than
the pollution caused by nuclear power stations.

That is certainly true.

If all power stations were nuclear around the world the waste would pile up
and be a huge problem in the future. Silly idea and should be forgotten.

The radioactive contamination by a nuclear station is negligible,
despite
the protestations of the anti-nuclear lobby. And even that
contamination is
largely caused by irresponsible practices.

Yes, the arguments are kind of curious:-

"We mustn't use nuclear power because the waste it generates might after
a few hundred years cause a little environmental change in certain deep
caves or the bottom of the ocean, so we had better stick to natural gas
and oil and coal, which are running out, are absolutely known TO BE
causing MAJOR environmental impact, and WILL DEFINITELY affect the WHOLE
HUMAN RACE in a few years, extremely adversely".

The real reason is probably to limit the suppies of enriched uranium in
case some gets into the wrong hands...


Franz







---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


As you may know, I have a little hobby.
Flying electric model aircraft.
Up to tow years ago there was no way
to even approach the power and
energy densities of a tank of fuel. There
is now. And its tipped the balance so that
applied to cars, it comes out damn near
equal overall in terms of power and range
to weight of a tank of petrol and what is
needed to make it turn the wheels..

I can buy all I need to use this
technology NOW.


So, electric cars are "equal" to petrol right now in range and
performance.


They CAN be. One allegedly is.


Apart from the zero emissions at point of use (brilliant as cities are
cleaned right up), what else is there to tip the balance? Generating
more
electricity (very dirty procedure at present) at power stations is going
to
produce more emissions. Cleaning this up is an expensive nightmare, not
to
mention the electrical distribution system for re-charging vehicles.



Yes, but the alternatives are worse. At least the potential to generate
electricty from non fossil sources exists: hydrogen cars still need
hydrogen, and have neither the range, nor indeed the possibility to
generate the hydrogen cheaply except by electricity. The battery wins
over the hydrogen car. Period.

Whatever is dirty in a power statin is dirtier in a car. If you can go
froim fuel to power in a car at a certain level ofeffciency, then
certainly you can go from fuel to power, and electricity at least as
efficiently and at least at same level of pollution in a power station.
In fact its possible to do better when the weight limitations of car
engines are removed.


Otherwise we would have to look at biofuels - methanol, biodiesl etc. -
and hope that the economics of production make more sense.

I don;t think they do.

Deserts are waiting to be farmed.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"Rod Hewitt" wrote in message
.. .

"IMM" wrote in
:


A car has no insulation, as they produce so much waste heat the
engines can provide enough even in the coldest conditions. Adding
insulation, bonded to the cars sheet metal around the cabin, would
improve matters. The drive motors and batteries produce heat, so this
must be available for use.


And also add to the cost and weight...


Insulation should not add that much weight. Cost? Mass production will
bring that down.


I doubt that any heat would be available from motors if they are fitted
into the wheel hubs.


If they are. Most electric cars have one motor.


There may be problems supplying enough electrical power for the
demisters,
seat heaters (oops, well I have a Saab), and other things (maybe needing
a
heater for the screen/headlamp wash and other currently
unnecessary/rarely
fitted devices).


Cars are full of unnecessary crap which add cost and weight affecting
fuel
consumption, such as rev counters. Why does anyone need to know how
much
the engine is revving in a normal road car? Beats me. I know when it
is
revving, I hear and feel it. If it is revved too much the management
system
cuts it out.


True. Fashion accessory.

An electric window on the drivers side is unnecessary too


IMHO its mandatory. Its the window you use the most in paying for
parking tickets, and pulling them out of silly little slots only to feed
them into other sily little slots later...not to mention tossing coins
into teh darford crossing machines. The ability to get it down, and up,
quickly, without doing more than touch a button is essential.

, as
are electric sunroofs, which are a British fascination. The French
don't
want to know them.


Did you know IMM that it has been calculated that the weight, ad cost,
of winding handles exceeeds teh weight, and cost, of electrically driven
windows and sunroofs?

No. I don't suppose you do.

Or that the loss in power due to aerodynamic compromise of an open
window in hot weather is greater than the loss due to using a modern
efficient aircon?

No, I don't suppose you do.


Or that the losses in colling an engine via teh viscous fan exceed the
losses in blowing hopt airt into te caboin in winter?

You probably could work tat one out..

I knew all them, and knew them before you.

Why isn't the a/c an absorption system using waste engine heat, instead
of
taking power off the crank, reducing mpg?

Because its low grade power, and would need a HUGE HEAVY installation to
get colling out of it.

In the US absorption systems were found to be viable in cars.

Its time you enlisted in a snotty uni and learnt basic engineering.

The sort of engineering I should engage in is demolition engineering, and
run bulldozers through Oxbridge, Eton, Harrow, etc. Then we will all be
better off.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"Rod Hewitt" wrote in message
.. .

"IMM" wrote in
:


A car has no insulation, as they produce so much waste heat the
engines can provide enough even in the coldest conditions. Adding
insulation, bonded to the cars sheet metal around the cabin, would
improve matters. The drive motors and batteries produce heat, so this
must be available for use.


And also add to the cost and weight...


Insulation should not add that much weight. Cost? Mass production will
bring that down.


I doubt that any heat would be available from motors if they are fitted
into the wheel hubs.


If they are. Most electric cars have one motor.


There may be problems supplying enough electrical power for the
demisters,
seat heaters (oops, well I have a Saab), and other things (maybe needing
a
heater for the screen/headlamp wash and other currently
unnecessary/rarely
fitted devices).


Cars are full of unnecessary crap which add cost and weight affecting
fuel
consumption, such as rev counters. Why does anyone need to know how
much
the engine is revving in a normal road car? Beats me. I know when it
is
revving, I hear and feel it. If it is revved too much the management
system
cuts it out.


True. Fashion accessory.

An electric window on the drivers side is unnecessary too


IMHO its mandatory. Its the window you use the most in paying for
parking tickets, and pulling them out of silly little slots only to feed
them into other sily little slots later...not to mention tossing coins
into teh darford crossing machines. The ability to get it down, and up,
quickly, without doing more than touch a button is essential.

, as
are electric sunroofs, which are a British fascination. The French
don't
want to know them.


Did you know IMM that it has been calculated that the weight, ad cost,
of winding handles exceeeds teh weight, and cost, of electrically driven
windows and sunroofs?

No. I don't suppose you do.

Or that the loss in power due to aerodynamic compromise of an open
window in hot weather is greater than the loss due to using a modern
efficient aircon?

No, I don't suppose you do.


Or that the losses in colling an engine via teh viscous fan exceed the
losses in blowing hopt airt into te caboin in winter?

You probably could work tat one out..

I knew all them, and knew them before you.

Why isn't the a/c an absorption system using waste engine heat, instead
of
taking power off the crank, reducing mpg?

Because its low grade power, and would need a HUGE HEAVY installation to
get colling out of it.

In the US absorption systems were found to be viable in cars.

Its time you enlisted in a snotty uni and learnt basic engineering.

The sort of engineering I should engage in is demolition engineering, and
run bulldozers through Oxbridge, Eton, Harrow, etc. Then we will all be
better off.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"Rod Hewitt" wrote in message
.. .

"IMM" wrote in
:


A car has no insulation, as they produce so much waste heat the
engines can provide enough even in the coldest conditions. Adding
insulation, bonded to the cars sheet metal around the cabin, would
improve matters. The drive motors and batteries produce heat, so this
must be available for use.


And also add to the cost and weight...


Insulation should not add that much weight. Cost? Mass production will
bring that down.


I doubt that any heat would be available from motors if they are fitted
into the wheel hubs.


If they are. Most electric cars have one motor.


There may be problems supplying enough electrical power for the
demisters,
seat heaters (oops, well I have a Saab), and other things (maybe needing
a
heater for the screen/headlamp wash and other currently
unnecessary/rarely
fitted devices).


Cars are full of unnecessary crap which add cost and weight affecting
fuel
consumption, such as rev counters. Why does anyone need to know how
much
the engine is revving in a normal road car? Beats me. I know when it
is
revving, I hear and feel it. If it is revved too much the management
system
cuts it out.


True. Fashion accessory.

An electric window on the drivers side is unnecessary too


IMHO its mandatory. Its the window you use the most in paying for
parking tickets, and pulling them out of silly little slots only to feed
them into other sily little slots later...not to mention tossing coins
into teh darford crossing machines. The ability to get it down, and up,
quickly, without doing more than touch a button is essential.

, as
are electric sunroofs, which are a British fascination. The French
don't
want to know them.


Did you know IMM that it has been calculated that the weight, ad cost,
of winding handles exceeeds teh weight, and cost, of electrically driven
windows and sunroofs?

No. I don't suppose you do.

Or that the loss in power due to aerodynamic compromise of an open
window in hot weather is greater than the loss due to using a modern
efficient aircon?

No, I don't suppose you do.


Or that the losses in colling an engine via teh viscous fan exceed the
losses in blowing hopt airt into te caboin in winter?

You probably could work tat one out..

I knew all them, and knew them before you.

Why isn't the a/c an absorption system using waste engine heat, instead
of
taking power off the crank, reducing mpg?

Because its low grade power, and would need a HUGE HEAVY installation to
get colling out of it.

In the US absorption systems were found to be viable in cars.

Its time you enlisted in a snotty uni and learnt basic engineering.

The sort of engineering I should engage in is demolition engineering, and
run bulldozers through Oxbridge, Eton, Harrow, etc. Then we will all be
better off.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"IMM" wrote in message
...


I could use 400 squ foot of flat plate collector on the roof, twice
the
area, and produce the same volume of solar hot water as the Thermomax
solar
collectors which takes up half as much square footage.

The area is "very" important in this instant. Is that clear?

Yes, but efficiency is independent of that IMM.

Thats tantamount to saying a 5oKw boiler is twice as efficient as a 25Jw
one.

It is not. Solar collectors produce hot water. Some produce more than
others for the same area, hence more efficient for a given area.




No.

Efficiency is the ratio of converted power out to power in .

The area doesn't come into it.

Are you saying that for a given solar collector, if you have two
installations of _the identical model_ but with installation X having a 1sq
m area but Y having a 2 sq m area, then because installation Y has an output
that is twice that of installation X it is necessarily twice as efficient?

No?

Well, that is the implication of quoting a bogus specification like
"efficiency per square metre".


Or to put it another way. I have installation X which is 1 sq m and I can
calculate it's efficiency is 60%. The efficiency of installation Y is still
60%. It has twice the input power, but also twice the output power.



--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

"RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote in message
...
"IMM" wrote in message
...


I could use 400 squ foot of flat plate collector on the roof, twice
the
area, and produce the same volume of solar hot water as the
Thermomax
solar
collectors which takes up half as much square footage.

The area is "very" important in this instant. Is that clear?

Yes, but efficiency is independent of that IMM.

Thats tantamount to saying a 5oKw boiler is twice as efficient as a
25Jw
one.

It is not. Solar collectors produce hot water. Some produce more than
others for the same area, hence more efficient for a given area.

No.

Efficiency is the ratio of converted power out to power in .

The area doesn't come into it.

In this case it does. Area is the most important factor as it is limited on
a roof. Solar panel X can be more efficient (ratio of converted power out
to power in) than panel Y. But panel X may take up four times the area of
panel Y. It means eff all if the area is not taken into account. For a
given area which is the most efficient? Area, area, area.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote in message
...
"IMM" wrote in message
...


I could use 400 squ foot of flat plate collector on the roof,
twice
the
area, and produce the same volume of solar hot water as the
Thermomax
solar
collectors which takes up half as much square footage.

The area is "very" important in this instant. Is that clear?

Yes, but efficiency is independent of that IMM.

Thats tantamount to saying a 5oKw boiler is twice as efficient as a
25Jw
one.

It is not. Solar collectors produce hot water. Some produce more
than
others for the same area, hence more efficient for a given area.

No.

Efficiency is the ratio of converted power out to power in .

The area doesn't come into it.

In this case it does. Area is the most important factor as it is limited
on
a roof. Solar panel X can be more efficient (ratio of converted power
out
to power in) than panel Y. But panel X may take up four times the area of
panel Y. It means eff all if the area is not taken into account. For a
given area which is the most efficient? Area, area, area.

Also, with solar panels the input doesn't really matter as you don't pay for
it. The output per square foot, or metre (hot water generated), is what
matters. The efficiency of a boiler comes into the "ratio of converted
power out to power in", and is important as you pay for the fuel.






---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote in message
...
"IMM" wrote in message
...


I could use 400 squ foot of flat plate collector on the roof,
twice
the
area, and produce the same volume of solar hot water as the
Thermomax
solar
collectors which takes up half as much square footage.

The area is "very" important in this instant. Is that clear?

Yes, but efficiency is independent of that IMM.

Thats tantamount to saying a 5oKw boiler is twice as efficient as
a
25Jw
one.

It is not. Solar collectors produce hot water. Some produce more
than
others for the same area, hence more efficient for a given area.

No.

Efficiency is the ratio of converted power out to power in .

The area doesn't come into it.

In this case it does. Area is the most important factor as it is
limited
on
a roof. Solar panel X can be more efficient (ratio of converted power
out
to power in) than panel Y. But panel X may take up four times the area
of
panel Y. It means eff all if the area is not taken into account. For
a
given area which is the most efficient? Area, area, area.

Also, with solar panels the input doesn't really matter as you don't pay
for
it. The output per square foot, or metre (hot water generated), is what
matters. The efficiency of a boiler comes into the "ratio of converted
power out to power in", and is important as you pay for the fuel.






---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004



Technically Richard's right. You keep switching your definitions.

Quote: Solar panel X can be more efficient (ratio of converted power out to
power in) than panel Y snip For a given area which is the most efficient?
Answer: Obviously panel X. You said so yourself.

Quote: panel X may take up four times the area of panel Y
OK. So you could swap each panel X for four Y's in the same area. This
effectively gives you a large panel Y with the same area as a panel X and
all that matters is the relative efficiency.

But practically you are right as well - area is very important assuming the
area cannot be tiled by panels because it is too small. But, the efficiency
is still the same. Surely all you have to do is:

1. For each panel type, work out how many (if any) you can fit on the roof.
2. Multiply by the efficiency

Whichever gets the highest score will give you the most energy output from
your roof.

--
Martin & Anna Sykes
( Remove x's when replying )
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~sykesm

"Martin Sykes" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote in message
...
"IMM" wrote in message
...


I could use 400 squ foot of flat plate collector on the roof,
twice
the
area, and produce the same volume of solar hot water as the
Thermomax
solar
collectors which takes up half as much square footage.

The area is "very" important in this instant. Is that clear?

Yes, but efficiency is independent of that IMM.

Thats tantamount to saying a 5oKw boiler is twice as efficient
as
a
25Jw
one.

It is not. Solar collectors produce hot water. Some produce more
than
others for the same area, hence more efficient for a given area.

No.

Efficiency is the ratio of converted power out to power in .

The area doesn't come into it.

In this case it does. Area is the most important factor as it is
limited
on
a roof. Solar panel X can be more efficient (ratio of converted
power
out
to power in) than panel Y. But panel X may take up four times the
area
of
panel Y. It means eff all if the area is not taken into account.
For
a
given area which is the most efficient? Area, area, area.

Also, with solar panels the input doesn't really matter as you don't pay
for
it. The output per square foot, or metre (hot water generated), is what
matters. The efficiency of a boiler comes into the "ratio of converted
power out to power in", and is important as you pay for the fuel.






---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004



Technically Richard's right. You keep switching your definitions.

Quote: Solar panel X can be more efficient (ratio of converted power out
to
power in) than panel Y snip For a given area which is the most
efficient?
Answer: Obviously panel X. You said so yourself.

Quote: panel X may take up four times the area of panel Y
OK. So you could swap each panel X for four Y's in the same area. This
effectively gives you a large panel Y with the same area as a panel X and
all that matters is the relative efficiency.

But practically you are right as well - area is very important assuming
the
area cannot be tiled by panels because it is too small. But, the
efficiency
is still the same. Surely all you have to do is:

1. For each panel type, work out how many (if any) you can fit on the
roof.
2. Multiply by the efficiency

Whichever gets the highest score will give you the most energy output from
your roof.

--
Martin & Anna Sykes
( Remove x's when replying )
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~sykesm




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"Martin Sykes" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote in message
...
"IMM" wrote in message
...


I could use 400 squ foot of flat plate collector on the roof,
twice
the
area, and produce the same volume of solar hot water as the
Thermomax
solar
collectors which takes up half as much square footage.

The area is "very" important in this instant. Is that clear?

Yes, but efficiency is independent of that IMM.

Thats tantamount to saying a 5oKw boiler is twice as efficient
as
a
25Jw
one.

It is not. Solar collectors produce hot water. Some produce more
than
others for the same area, hence more efficient for a given area.

No.

Efficiency is the ratio of converted power out to power in .

The area doesn't come into it.

In this case it does. Area is the most important factor as it is
limited
on
a roof. Solar panel X can be more efficient (ratio of converted
power
out
to power in) than panel Y. But panel X may take up four times the
area
of
panel Y. It means eff all if the area is not taken into account.
For
a
given area which is the most efficient? Area, area, area.

Also, with solar panels the input doesn't really matter as you don't pay
for
it. The output per square foot, or metre (hot water generated), is what
matters. The efficiency of a boiler comes into the "ratio of converted
power out to power in", and is important as you pay for the fuel.

Technically Richard's right.
You keep switching your definitions.

I don't.

Quote: Solar panel X can be more efficient (ratio of converted power out
to
power in) than panel Y snip For a given area which is the most
efficient?
Answer: Obviously panel X. You said so yourself.

Quote: panel X may take up four times the area of panel Y
OK. So you could swap each panel X for four Y's in the same area. This
effectively gives you a large panel Y with the same area as a panel X and
all that matters is the relative efficiency.

But practically you are right as well - area is very important assuming
the
area cannot be tiled by panels because it is too small. But, the
efficiency
is still the same. Surely all you have to do is:

1. For each panel type, work out how many (if any) you can fit on the
roof.
2. Multiply by the efficiency

Whichever gets the highest score will give you the most energy output from
your roof.

--
Martin & Anna Sykes
( Remove x's when replying )
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~sykesm




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 23:35:34 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Rod Hewitt" wrote in message
. ..
"IMM" wrote in
:

A car has no insulation, as they produce so much waste heat the
engines can provide enough even in the coldest conditions. Adding
insulation, bonded to the cars sheet metal around the cabin, would
improve matters. The drive motors and batteries produce heat, so this
must be available for use.

And also add to the cost and weight...

Insulation should not add that much weight. Cost? Mass production will
bring that down.

I doubt that any heat would be available from motors if they are fitted
into the wheel hubs.

If they are. Most electric cars have one motor.

but efficient ones have 4.


There may be problems supplying enough electrical power for the demisters,
seat heaters (oops, well I have a Saab), and other things (maybe needing a
heater for the screen/headlamp wash and other currently unnecessary/rarely
fitted devices).

Cars are full of unnecessary crap

people like you?

which add cost and weight affecting fuel
consumption, such as rev counters.

joke or what or watts?

Why does anyone need to know how much
the engine is revving in a normal road car? Beats me. I know when it is
revving, I hear and feel it. If it is revved too much the management system
cuts it out. An electric window on the drivers side is unnecessary too, as
are electric sunroofs, which are a British fascination. The French don't
want to know them.

That's funny the only car I ever had, that had electric windows as
standard was a model of Citroen BX.


Why isn't the a/c an absorption system using waste engine heat, instead of
taking power off the crank, reducing mpg?

Why are you asking all these stupid questions on urg?
--
Martin

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:14:55 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote in message
.. .
"IMM" wrote in message
...


I could use 400 squ foot of flat plate collector on the roof, twice
the
area, and produce the same volume of solar hot water as the
Thermomax
solar
collectors which takes up half as much square footage.

The area is "very" important in this instant. Is that clear?

Yes, but efficiency is independent of that IMM.

Thats tantamount to saying a 5oKw boiler is twice as efficient as a
25Jw
one.

It is not. Solar collectors produce hot water. Some produce more than
others for the same area, hence more efficient for a given area.

No.

Efficiency is the ratio of converted power out to power in .

The area doesn't come into it.

In this case it does. Area is the most important factor as it is limited on
a roof. Solar panel X can be more efficient (ratio of converted power out
to power in) than panel Y. But panel X may take up four times the area of
panel Y. It means eff all if the area is not taken into account. For a
given area which is the most efficient? Area, area, area.

balls balls balls

Efficiency is expressed as a percentage and is unit less.
I think Franz has been trying to teach you this for some days.
You don't say there is 5% pounds inflation or perhaps you do.
--
Martin