"RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote in message
...
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Franz Heymann wrote:


So with a large area of Thermolux you might get to 200% more easily
than
with other panels?
Please, please understand that there is no such concept as "efficiency
per
square foot" in either engineering or in physics. Efficiency is
usually
simply the ratio between the output power and the input power of a
system.



Actually that is not totally so. Efficency is a term that can be applied
to more things than power.

For example, one could define the efficiency of a roof in terms of the
amount of water that runs off versus the total amount that falls on it.


One can define an efficient business as one that has the highest sales
value, or margin value, per employee.

snip

quite.

but Efficiency _per square foot_????

if

efficiency = power of panel out per square metre / power put into panel
per
square metre

Quite. And you don't even have to measure the area to deduce the
efficiency.

Franz

In article ,
IMM wrote:
Since its specific fuel consumption is terrible for the power output,
who
cares what the nominal capacity is? Apart from the likes of you, of
course.

This is balls. Look at the power and the fuel consumption and compare.
The Mazda is at least as good in fuel consumption.

Since you love to quote figures, here's some for you. The Mazda RX-8 is a
four door coupe, so I'll compare it to the BMW 'standard' 3 Series 4 door
saloon - a larger heavier car in every way. Lets take the 323i as being
the closest in performance.

Top speed 0-60 0-100 30-70 Test MPG Touring route MPG
RX-8 142 7.1 18.1 6.8 12 27
323i 141 7.6 19.8 7.1 23 31

So drive a sports car like the RX-8 in a spirited fashion and it does
about half the MPG of a heavier saloon car with an engine near twice its
nominal capacity, but broadly similar performance. Drive it gently over a
mixed town and suburban main road route where its light weight should
really benefit, and it still does badly.

--
*Never slap a man who's chewing tobacco *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

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


So with a large area of Thermolux you might get to 200% more easily
than
with other panels?
Please, please understand that there is no such concept as "efficiency
per
square foot" in either engineering or in physics. Efficiency is
usually
simply the ratio between the output power and the input power of a
system.



Actually that is not totally so. Efficency is a term that can be applied
to more things than power.

For example, one could define the efficiency of a roof in terms of the
amount of water that runs off versus the total amount that falls on it.


One can define an efficient business as one that has the highest sales
value, or margin value, per employee.

Efficiency is a measure of the efficacy against a theoretically perfect
system,

That is the beginning of a circular argument.

of something doing the job it is designed to do. As normally
measured by how much it produces of the desired output versus how much
input it needs.

If we for example take solar energy, it is not menaingful to say that
e.g. civering every roof in lonbdon with a .3% efficient solar panel is
inefficient, if the cost of so doing would actually be less than
building and running an equivalent power station over the same .
timescales.

One could argue that in terms of various resources one or the other is
more efficient.

The power station takes up less space, but uses more fossil fuel. The
electric panel is inefficient in overall thermodynamic terms, but maybe
more efficient in the actual use of sunlight, since we don't have to
wait a couple of million years for the trees to turn back into oil...The

power station has far less labour content involved, but perhaps uses
more materials.

uppose fo an instant that we cracked fusion power. Who cares about
efficiency, since the actual waste products - helium and heat - are
totally insignificant in a global context. At that point electcity would
become the cheapest form of energy, subject to no taxes at all probably,
and we would all be driving electric cars, and heating our houses
electrically, immediately :-)

Thanks for the homily.

I agree that in general usage, "efficiecy" is bandied around with gay
abandon. However, the discussion about solar panels was a
scientific/engineering one. To talk about "efficiency per unit area" in
such a context is pure nonsense.

What balls!

I reserve a part of a roof of 20ft x 10ft, 200 squ foot. I put in flat
plate collectors, I get n volume of solar heated hot water on a certain
isolation at a certain time of year. I put in the same 200 squ foot
Thermomax solar collectors. I get n x 2 volume of hot water on the same
isolation and certain time of year. For each squ foot of roof the Themomax
is 100% more efficient. Is that clear?

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?



---
--

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

"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.

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.



---
--

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 22:10:07 -0000, "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.

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.



---
--

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


--
Martin

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 22:10:07 -0000, "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.

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.



---
--

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


--
Martin

"IMM" wrote in
:

How about heating the car in winter? This would be a traditional
electric element, which consumes a lot of power from batteries. The
car would probably need a layer of insulation to keep heat in and heat
out in summer. Do the batteries produce enough heat to heat the cars
cabin?

Last I heard, it sounded as if 'they' were going to add a small petrol
burner to provide heating. Apparently this was the most efficient/sensible
option, at least in the early days of such vehicles.

Perhaps we will get SEDBUK ratings on them as well as mpg equivalents?

Rod

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

How about heating the car in winter? This would be a traditional
electric element, which consumes a lot of power from batteries. The
car would probably need a layer of insulation to keep heat in and heat
out in summer. Do the batteries produce enough heat to heat the cars
cabin?

Last I heard, it sounded as if 'they' were going to add a small petrol
burner to provide heating. Apparently this was the most efficient/sensible
option, at least in the early days of such vehicles.

Perhaps we will get SEDBUK ratings on them as well as mpg equivalents?

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.


---
--

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
:

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...

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

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).

Rod

"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. 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.

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




---
--

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

IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Eh? Last report was september 2003?

http://www.acpropulsion.com/ACP_Bib_results.pdf
"AC PROPULSION INC. Dedicated to Creating Electric Vehicles that People
Want to Drive
www.acpropulsion.com
September 29, 2003
San Francisco
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
tzero Earns Highest Grade at 2003 Michelin Challenge Bibendum...."


Pity the background does people's eyes in, which makes it difficult to read.
I'll give one a miss.




How can a plain white PDF file do your eyes in?



---
--

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

RichardS wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Franz Heymann wrote:



So with a large area of Thermolux you might get to 200% more easily than
with other panels?
Please, please understand that there is no such concept as "efficiency

per

square foot" in either engineering or in physics. Efficiency is usually
simply the ratio between the output power and the input power of a

system.


Actually that is not totally so. Efficency is a term that can be applied
to more things than power.

For example, one could define the efficiency of a roof in terms of the
amount of water that runs off versus the total amount that falls on it.


One can define an efficient business as one that has the highest sales
value, or margin value, per employee.


snip

quite.

but Efficiency _per square foot_????



Is of course IMM spick ********.


if

efficiency = power of panel out per square metre / power put into panel per
square metre

then the area terms disappear.




No argument there.



--
Richard Sampson

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

IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Eh? Last report was september 2003?

http://www.acpropulsion.com/ACP_Bib_results.pdf
"AC PROPULSION INC. Dedicated to Creating Electric Vehicles that People
Want to Drive
www.acpropulsion.com
September 29, 2003
San Francisco
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
tzero Earns Highest Grade at 2003 Michelin Challenge Bibendum...."


Pity the background does people's eyes in, which makes it difficult to read.
I'll give one a miss.




How can a plain white PDF file do your eyes in?



---
--

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

IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


Performance with lithium polymer cells is more than adequate - in fact
it is stupendous. Distribution of energy exists in the national grid.
Overnight charging would actually improve power staion efficiency as it
happens when other electrical uses are low, so power stations run
continuosly - much better for efficiency. The only unknown to me is the
energy cost and lifetime of battery production and recycling. But I
doubt it is worse than making e.g aluminium for car engines, or steel
for transmissions.

The cars are simpler too - all wheel drive with motors integarted into
the hubs, no need for gearboxes by and large, or transmissions. In short
its a simpler beast. One enormous battery pack, 4 motors and a bit of
power electronics. That replaces engine, cooling system, transmiision,
axles - in short most of the heavy bulky bits. No maintenance, apart
from replacing defective cells and so on. No oil changes, or plug
changes. Performance with most of te weight slung low under the cahssis,
and a motor on every wheel, with de facto traction control - its a rally
drivers dream come true. No gears to go, no clutch to go. And easy
access to better than 800bhp if you need it, or the ability to trickle
along at 90% efficiency at much lower power levels. £00 miles + range on
an overnight charge.


How about heating the car in winter? This would be a traditional electric
element, which consumes a lot of power from batteries. The car would
probably need a layer of insulation to keep heat in and heat out in summer.
Do the batteries produce enough heat to heat the cars cabin?



Oh, I am sure it ouuld be triple insulated to latest building standards
and heat by dint of the sun shining on it...



---
--

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

RichardS wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Franz Heymann wrote:



So with a large area of Thermolux you might get to 200% more easily than
with other panels?
Please, please understand that there is no such concept as "efficiency

per

square foot" in either engineering or in physics. Efficiency is usually
simply the ratio between the output power and the input power of a

system.


Actually that is not totally so. Efficency is a term that can be applied
to more things than power.

For example, one could define the efficiency of a roof in terms of the
amount of water that runs off versus the total amount that falls on it.


One can define an efficient business as one that has the highest sales
value, or margin value, per employee.


snip

quite.

but Efficiency _per square foot_????



Is of course IMM spick ********.


if

efficiency = power of panel out per square metre / power put into panel per
square metre

then the area terms disappear.




No argument there.



--
Richard Sampson

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