Solar panel efficency
in [Design]
|
From: Michael A. Terrell on 31 May 2010 16:52 "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote: > > I didn't find the instrumentation all that uncomfortable. The bed, OTOH, was > enough to make a camel sway-back. It *had* to have been designed to prevent > sleep. Maybe their thought is, "If you can sleep here, you can sleep anywhere?" -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
From: Paul Keinanen on 31 May 2010 17:07 On Mon, 31 May 2010 07:43:21 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Mon, 31 May 2010 22:25:27 +1000, Sylvia Else ><sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > >>On 31/05/2010 1:54 PM, Robert Baer wrote: > >>> No real estate restrictions but do not need much panel area to light a >>> small room. >> >>I'd just open the curtains myself. > >--- >Where I live, sometimes it gets dark outside. Even if it does not get dark at night (during the summer), a fixed mounted solar panel will produce electricity only during 12 hours (180 degrees). Even with a 360 degree tracking system, the midnight sun does not produce much electricity due to low elevation atmospheric losses, unless you are in Svalbard or Point Barrow :-).
From: krw on 31 May 2010 17:24 On Mon, 31 May 2010 16:52:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >"krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote: >> >> I didn't find the instrumentation all that uncomfortable. The bed, OTOH, was >> enough to make a camel sway-back. It *had* to have been designed to prevent >> sleep. > > > Maybe their thought is, "If you can sleep here, you can sleep >anywhere?" If you don't sleep the session is a failure. Mine was anyway because I didn't have what they were digging for. No money to be made here.
From: Spehro Pefhany on 31 May 2010 17:29 On Mon, 31 May 2010 16:51:07 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >Spehro Pefhany wrote: >> >> On Mon, 31 May 2010 16:02:00 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" >> <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >MooseFET wrote: >> >> >> >> On May 31, 5:43 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, 31 May 2010 22:25:27 +1000, Sylvia Else >> >> > >> >> > <syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >> >> > >On 31/05/2010 1:54 PM, Robert Baer wrote: >> >> > >> No real estate restrictions but do not need much panel area to light a >> >> > >> small room. >> >> > >> >> > >I'd just open the curtains myself. >> >> > >> >> > --- >> >> > Where I live, sometimes it gets dark outside. >> >> >> >> Thats when you are supposed to go to bed and sleep. It is nicely >> >> arranged so the world is dark at bed time. >> > >> > >> > Great, if you can do it. I went to bed at 11:00 pm last night I woke >> >up at 1:30 and couldn't get back to sleep till 8:00 am. I woke up a few >> >minutes till 3:00 pm. My VA 'doctor' refuses to give me anything to >> >help me restore my sleep cycle. Instead, he told me to use an over the >> >counter cough medicine that requires a signature. Buy more than a couple >> >bottles a year, and you go to jail. >> > >> > >> > When he asked if I was in any pain I told him yes, and that it was >> >aggravating the sleep problems. He told me he wouldn't prescribe >> >anything, 'since you are already on a high dosage of Gabapentin. >> >Gabapentin only helps with pain from Diabetic Neuropathy, not back and >> >shoulder pain. >> >> Michael, have you been tested in a good sleep lab? You might have some >> other problems such as apnea or restless leg syndrome that are >> preventing you getting a good night's sleep, and they'll only >> aggravate other problems (up to and including triggering a heart >> attack or stroke). It's well worth doing IMHO, though uncomfortable >> being wired up to all the instrumentation. > > > I would have to get the VA to approve the test first. I have no >other medical coverage. This is very difficult when the VA doctors >won't listen to what you tell them. Tell them you wake up gasping for air.. they'll have to test you.
From: Artemus on 31 May 2010 17:31
"Robert Baer" <robertbaer(a)localnet.com> wrote in message news:8rOdnYruwPtjr57RnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d(a)posted.localnet... > Artemus wrote: > > "Robert Baer" <robertbaer(a)localnet.com> wrote in message > > news:9e-dnUxMSfcAS5_RnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d(a)posted.localnet... > >> I did a survey and this is the best i got. > >> Makers: (1) BP Solar technology: Advanced multicrystalline & > >> monocrystalline silicon nitride; (2) First Solar modules: Thin film > >> cadmium telluride; (3) Nanosolar: Thin film CIGS (copper indium gallium > >> selenium); (4) Sharp: Monocrystalline & polycrystalline (silicon?) (Thin > >> film?); (5) Evergreen Solar: Silicon (Mono? Poly? not mentioned). > >> > >> The questions in above are due to incompleteness of disclosure (on > >> the web). > >> > >> Of those technologies, which one is the MOST efficient in conversion > >> of light / solar energy to electrical power (assume ideal load for given > >> panel)? > >> Is there another (commercially available) technology even more efficient? > > > > Are you restricted in the available real estate on which to put your collector(s)? > > Are you concerned about the cost to place them in orbit? > > If not then you may want to consider the $/watt efficiency instead. > > Or not. > > Art > > > > > No real estate restrictions but do not need much panel area to light > a small room. > Orbit? Are you nuts? > Do you have an an answer to the posed question? Not anymore. Art |