Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Water cooled solar panels for significant output boost

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • J.P.M.
    replied
    Originally posted by DanKegel View Post
    I'm not sure what your problem is, but I'd suggest you look at the guy in the mirror and ask if your behavior is helping the atmosphere on this board.
    I can't speak about what others think of the atmosphere on this forum.

    I can say I'm less concerned about what you call atmosphere than I am about clear, objective, accurate information that is communicated without an agenda.

    I believe I'm one of the biggest fans of R.E. that I know of. I changed careers, returned to school and became an engineer because of my interest in it. After 40 years, I'm still at it. I believe that covers enthusiasm, both for my professional practice of mechanical engineering and the R.E. that got me kick started. Maybe that's one way of many how I differ from those who don't know much about R.E. but claim to like science. I don't claim know much about R.E., and keep my mouth shut when I'm ignorant about something, but when I think I know enough to recognize B.S. when I smell it, and call it. FWIW, I probably forgot more about R.E. and solar in particular than you're going to know for quite some time. Pay attention to some of my spoor, you might learn some stuff.

    If my opinions disagree with yours, so be it. Opinions vary. One of those opinions, which is mine, is that a lot of what you post does more harm than good. You're a loose cannon and a lot of solar ignorant readers of your stuff wind up as cannon fodder. That's the stuff I call B.S. on. You keep posting what I think is B.S. and I'll keep calling it like I see it.

    The last word on this is again yours. I'm moving off this waste of time.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanKegel
    replied
    When I post about research, I very clearly state that it's research and might not make it out of the lab. I doubt anyone who reads them is likely to think any one of them is likely to make it to market this decade, let alone save the world.

    Perhaps you object to my posts because you can't stand enthusiasm about engineering, and want everyone to be as bored as you seem to be? That'd be sad.
    Or perhaps you dislike posts about things not yet available off the shelf? That might be fair, but you haven't come out and said that's your criterion.

    I'm not sure what your problem is, but I'd suggest you look at the guy in the mirror and ask if your behavior is helping the atmosphere on this board.
    Last edited by DanKegel; 06-09-2016, 01:34 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • J.P.M.
    replied
    Originally posted by DanKegel View Post

    Yes, you call B.S. quite often, and you do so with a heavy hand. It's painful to be on the receiving end, especially when it's unwarranted.
    Then save us both a lot of time and knock off the B.S.

    To the degree the heavy handed comment might be correct, if at all, it probably has more to do with the amount of B.S. from Pollyanna type treehuggers and blowhards who think they're experts because they've read a news piece but know precisely dick about R.E. Knowledgeable folks self regulate. I leave them alone and try to learn stuff from them.

    I've observed, for me anyway and only, that criticism about my actions are painful to me when there's a kernel or a lot of truth to the criticism and I know it. Been there, done that. Take that FWIW.

    Unwarranted is a matter of opinion as is the weight of the hand. I call'em like I see'em. Nothing personal. Don't like it ? Don't read it. Can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
    Or, vet your stuff more so it doesn't cause others equally as ignorant as you are about R.E. to think it can save the world.
    Or, come up with something that makes more sense than a me-too finger point to someone else's ideas that get cherry picked from the R.E. press. At the least, understand what you're referencing.
    I've seen and been dealing with your ilk, watching and picking up the mess left behind by such folks and such actions for about 40 years or so. Nothing new there. Or here.

    As usual, take what you want of the above. Scrap the rest.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanKegel
    replied
    Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post
    I don't believe I condemn anything around here. ...

    I am, however, not real fond of willful ignorance and opportunistic charlatanism that does harm or at least causes potential difficulty to those seeking some reality and common sense in R.E.

    I'm simply trying to share opinions formed as a result of some things I've picked up in the last 40 or so years, and also call B.S. when I think I see it.
    Yes, you call B.S. quite often, and you do so with a heavy hand. It's painful to be on the receiving end, especially when it's unwarranted.

    Leave a comment:


  • easye
    replied
    I don't want to add much here other than to point out that $.15 of water a day for me is roughly equal to 2Kwh.

    Leave a comment:


  • ncs55
    commented on 's reply
    No, not at all directed to you or anyone personally. More towards the tone around here.

  • J.P.M.
    replied
    Originally posted by ncs55 View Post
    From what I have read it does not matter, everything receives condemnation. LOL.
    If that's meant in reference to me, I don't believe I condemn anything around here. Condemnation is not my characterization, but Dan's.

    I am, however, not real fond of willful ignorance and opportunistic charlatanism that does harm or at least causes potential difficulty to those seeking some reality and common sense in R.E.

    I'm simply trying to share opinions formed as a result of some things I've picked up in the last 40 or so years, and also call B.S. when I think I see it.

    As usual, take what you want of it. Scrap the rest.

    Leave a comment:


  • ncs55
    commented on 's reply
    From what I have read it does not matter, everything receives condemnation. LOL.

  • DanKegel
    replied
    Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post
    This is, IMO only, a fair example of the kind of stuff you often and usually come up with that, while not intentionally misleading, is not vetted to separate practical and meaningful information from what amounts to junk science.
    I did say it might never make it out of the lab.

    What's your threshold on "too uncertain to post"? Does it have to be available off the shelf to avoid your condemnation?

    Leave a comment:


  • J.P.M.
    replied
    Originally posted by DanKegel View Post

    Yup, they overlay a layer of silicon dioxide (possibly roughened to avoid dips near 10 and 20 μm) that is transparent for the wavelengths that the solar cells are sensitive to (shorter than 1.2 um), and opaque at longer wavelengths. It just makes the cell a better blackbody emitter for heat.

    But there's that pesky front glass sheet on real solar panels which probably masks the effect. That's what's going to keep this technique in the lab, I bet.
    Increasing the emissivity above, say 0.88 to ~ .96 or so won't get you much.

    By the way, and, FWIW, as a practical matter that emissivity increase will probably result in a decrease the temp. of the outer surface of the panel, which will decrease the rate of convective heat transfer due to the reduced temp. difference between the surface and the ambient air.

    To a fist approx., the two effects will tend to counter one another, decreasing or entirely eliminating any benefit of increased radiant energy transfer.

    Also, any radiation to the sky will be more effective at night when the effective radiant sky temp. lower than during the day.

    There are other things that the sources you cite didn't consider.

    This is, IMO only, a fair example of the kind of stuff you often and usually come up with that, while not intentionally misleading, is not vetted to separate practical and meaningful information from what amounts to junk science.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanKegel
    replied
    Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post
    Sounds like the hemispherical emissivity is being increased from the currently accepted value of ~ 0.88 - 0.90 to something higher, w/ reflectivity in the IR being increased, perhaps by some surface treatment.
    Yup, they overlay a layer of silicon dioxide (possibly roughened to avoid dips near 10 and 20 μm) that is transparent for the wavelengths that the solar cells are sensitive to (shorter than 1.2 um), and opaque at longer wavelengths. It just makes the cell a better blackbody emitter for heat.

    But there's that pesky front glass sheet on real solar panels which probably masks the effect. That's what's going to keep this technique in the lab, I bet.

    Leave a comment:


  • J.P.M.
    replied
    Originally posted by DanKegel View Post
    There's still this cooling trick which might be cost effective some day: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum...v-solar-panels
    (They're giving a talk on it Thursday at CLEO.) But it's just one of many tricks that has yet to make it out of the lab.
    Doesn't sound that revolutionary to me. Sounds like the hemispherical emissivity is being increased from the currently accepted value of ~ 0.88 - 0.90 to something higher, w/ reflectivity in the IR being increased, perhaps by some surface treatment. Sort of the inverse of a thermal selective surface treatment.

    I'd expect some increase in the emissive power of a panel w/such treatment as the references describe, but I'd also expect the reflectivity of the surface to change in the upward direction in some unspecified way. That's not very good news for the anti - reflection coatings duties of reducing surface reflection.

    In any case, a 13 deg. C. decrease seems like a lot. Call me cynical, but it looks a little snake-oily to me, and one of those things that looks good in a lab and great for a white collar welfare job justification.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sunking
    replied
    Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post

    Pretty much. Seems like a no brainer until it's tried. Then the no brain part becomes evident when it's discovered A/C condensers are not designed to function as cooling towers.

    I know several folks who know a lot about cooling towers. They have plain old A/C condensers as far as I know. I guess it would be funnier to me if fewer people tried it.
    If it is designed for it yeah. But they are called Dry Coolers for a reason. Otherwise Chilled Water (glycol) for commercial industrial. Cannot count the number of Liebert (Emmerson Network Power Today) units we have put in Telco, banks, military, and data centers.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanKegel
    replied
    There's still this cooling trick which might be cost effective some day: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum...v-solar-panels
    (They're giving a talk on it Thursday at CLEO.) But it's just one of many tricks that has yet to make it out of the lab.

    Leave a comment:


  • J.P.M.
    replied
    Originally posted by Sunking View Post

    Know what this reminds me of? I think you will agree and get a laugh out of it. [B]Misting your AC condenser coils. [/B]
    Pretty much. Seems like a no brainer until it's tried. Then the no brain part becomes evident when it's discovered A/C condensers are not designed to function as cooling towers.

    I know several folks who know a lot about cooling towers. They have plain old A/C condensers as far as I know. I guess it would be funnier to me if fewer people tried it.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X