# Solar Power for the Workshop??



## Effigy (5 Jun 2008)

I am preparing for my new workshop and got thinking about the electrics. As the workshop will be some distance from the house, I got to wondering if Solar Power is feasable for workshop use.

I know it will be ok for lighting and for the smaller power tools, but I do have a few toys that take upto 2000w, though I dont run them all at the same time. Without spending silly money, is it do'able? 

Presumably, it would need an array of leisure batteries plus a pretty big inverter, and a ?-size solar panel.

My reasons for going down this route are mainly to do with the practicallities of getting power to the workshop, while hopefully saving a bit on energy costs. Plus, in the event of any future possible power disruptions, I would still have a limited electric supply.

I suppose the main problem I have is my lack of knowledge with all of this - what size solar panel would I need to recharge the battery?
do I need more than one battery?
what is the largest inverter to safely use?
how long will the power last before needing a charge?
how long will charging take?
etc etc

I know that all of the above are interdependant variables, therefore without being specific it's difficult to come up with answers. So my initial thoughts are:

2 x 110ah leisure batteries
40w amorphous solar panel
charge controller
2000w inverter

Total cost £430

Has anyone else gone down the 'Alternative Energy' route?

Thoughts?


----------



## tnimble (5 Jun 2008)

My workshop is solar powered except for the lathe, drill press and air filter. :wink: 

Solar power is best when used collectively and connectrd to the normal mains.

In the case where there is no electricity available ie a remote location windpower, a baterry array and a backup genertor would be the best solution to have electricity solar powr could be an add on to save in the generator kicking in.


----------



## Effigy (5 Jun 2008)

tnimble":1dn0iyt4 said:


> My workshop is solar powered except for the lathe, drill press and air filter.



Can you give the details on your setup please?


----------



## bugbear (5 Jun 2008)

Effigy":27rqdtn0 said:


> I am preparing for my new workshop and got thinking about the electrics. As the workshop will be some distance from the house, I got to wondering if Solar Power is feasable for workshop use.
> 
> I know it will be ok for lighting and for the smaller power tools, but I do have a few toys that take upto 2000w, though I dont run them all at the same time. Without spending silly money, is it do'able?



You need to consider total kw/h (energy) as well as kw (power)

BugBear


----------



## tnimble (5 Jun 2008)

Effigy":2dnv1bgt said:


> tnimble":2dnv1bgt said:
> 
> 
> > My workshop is solar powered except for the lathe, drill press and air filter.
> ...



Two windows in the north north east wall, one door with windowed top half in the west west south wall.

Provide more than enough lighting during most of the day all year round. And enough heat in the spring and fall. :wink:


Which tools and what is tier power rating would you want to run? With this we can calculate how many minutes the bateries will last and how long it will take to recharge at peak solar production.


----------



## Digit (5 Jun 2008)

> Total cost £430


 


> My workshop is solar powered except for the lathe, drill press and air filter.


 
So in other words it _isn't_ solar powered, it is partly so. So in addition to the £430 there is still the cost of the cable and installation, that being the case the cable is the better option. 

Roy.


----------



## Effigy (5 Jun 2008)

Digit":193mwjh4 said:


> > Total cost £430
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hang on, you've quoted two different posts from two different people :roll: My workshop isn't even built yet!


----------



## TheTiddles (5 Jun 2008)

To generate enough power to run your machinery on would probably mean spending thousands on the panel alone, then there's the batteries, power management etc... However, I would love to see someone make it work

Aidan


----------



## Effigy (5 Jun 2008)

TheTiddles":27lfn3x5 said:


> To generate enough power to run your machinery on would probably mean spending thousands on the panel alone, then there's the batteries, power management etc... However, I would love to see someone make it work
> 
> Aidan



That's what I thought at first, however from my primitive understanding it is 

Load (Watts) ÷ Voltage (Volts) = Current (Amps)

Current x Time (Hrs) = Capacity needed (Ah) 
Then add 25% on to Ah Capacity for reserve.

So, to power my 2hp lathe for a couple of hours

1500w/12v= 125 A

125A x 2hrs = 250ah

3 X 110ah batteries = 330ah which will give enough power plus a reserve.

What I dont know is how fast a 40w solar panel will recharge the batteries.


----------



## Digit (5 Jun 2008)

> Hang on, you've quoted two different posts from two different people



I know I have! I was pointing out that if £430 was being spent, plus cable to supply power over and above what the solar source supplied, then the cable only option was the better bet.
Supplying cable and switch gear for mains supply on its own will cost the same whether or not the solar panels are installed.

Roy.


----------



## George_N (5 Jun 2008)

Effigy":adl1uaob said:


> TheTiddles":adl1uaob said:
> 
> 
> > To generate enough power to run your machinery on would probably mean spending thousands on the panel alone, then there's the batteries, power management etc... However, I would love to see someone make it work
> ...



One problem is that you are most likely to be using your machinery during the hours of daylight and solar panels won't provide much charge when the sun is low in the sky (early morning and evening) or on dull, rainy days and none at night (obviously). A wind turbine would work night and day as long as the wind blows (most of the time in Britain), so that might be worth investigating...there are loads of web sites dedicated to this sort of thing. I'm sure there is one called "Mother Earth News" or something like that, where you can pick up all sorts of ideas.


----------



## PaulO (5 Jun 2008)

A large coal fired power station can deliver power to your workshop a lot more cost effectively than any small solar panel, even allowing for the evil power companies profit.

If you want to go the solar route because you think you are saving the planet, then that is fine, go for it.

If you are going that route because you think it will save you money, then forget it.

I have seen solar installations in very remote sites (a mile or two from the grid), they usually use old submarine batteries. They usually have a genny backup. 

If you want any life out of your batteries you only discharge them to 70 or 80% of their charge (i.e. your 110Ah battery can only deliver about 30Ah before you should start charging it). Getting them down to 10% charge regularly will drastically shorten the batteries life. As anyone who has every flattened a car battery will testify.

I'm in the power generation business, and I can say that the *only* reason companies are developing alternative energy schemes is because of the perverse financial incentives provided by governments to deliver on environmental targets. On simple economics it makes no sense. Here endeth the diatribe 

p.s.: don't get me started on the Toyota Prius.


----------



## tnimble (5 Jun 2008)

Effigy":270dth5s said:


> That's what I thought at first, however from my primitive understanding it is
> 
> Load (Watts) ÷ Voltage (Volts) = Current (Amps)


You forget the power factor between load (W) and the power (VA). A factor of 0.6 to 0.8 is common for most equipment a power factor of 1/2 to 1.8 would be more common for tools that have motors. Also the invertor/converter has a loss.



> Current x Time (Hrs) = Capacity needed (Ah)
> Then add 25% on to Ah Capacity for reserve.


I'm used of using 30%.



> So, to power my 2hp lathe for a couple of hours
> 
> 1500w/12v= 125 A
> 
> ...


It could be but also not, is the lathe power useage also rated in VA instead of W?



> What I dont know is how fast a 40w solar panel will recharge the batteries.



A 40Wp panel would produce about 30 Amps average during normal conditions during daylight time. Charging 3x110Ah bateries takes 3*110/30 = 11 hours
If a good charges is used it has a loss around 80% this increses the charge time to 14 hours. The recharge would take at least two days. Something you don't want. Either use more panels or less bateries and much less power useage. Running a corded drill and a light bulb would be around reasonable.


----------



## DaveL (5 Jun 2008)

tnimble":1gmhbznl said:


> A 40Wp panel would produce about 30 Amps average during normal conditions during daylight time. Charging 3x110Ah bateries takes 3*110/30 = 11 hours


er I think you may be out by a factor of ten, a 40 watt panel at 12 volts will produce 3.3 amps at full output. I think your 11 hours should read 110 hours, a total non starter for daily use or even weekly for that level of usage.


----------



## Rich (5 Jun 2008)

Is it worth having a couple of solar panels just for heating the workshop with a couple of rads, would this pay in the long term, does the solar system need sunlight or just daylight, can the heat be stored.
regards,
Rich.


----------



## Tusses (5 Jun 2008)

as a rule of thimb

your solar panel (if its a good one) will produce about half its rated output - on a GOOD day ! in th uk.

To charge a battery will take 1.5 times the amount of power you took out.

so - if you took 1kwh throughout the day, it would take 75 hrs of good sunlight to recharge your batteries.

Solar electric power DOESN'T work ! it will never pay for itself.

solar heating is a bit better tho

Rich


----------



## Digit (5 Jun 2008)

Yes Rich, the heat can be stored. The primary circuit is the panels, pump and controls supplying heat to a conventional storage sylinder via a heat exchanger.
The rads then feed from the tank in the conventional manner.
The downside is that coventional CH systems, as I know you know full well, use hot water at about 80 degrees and the rads are sized on that basis.
With lower water temps the rads need to be much bigger.

Roy.


----------



## Tusses (5 Jun 2008)

Rich":1etk84ab said:


> Is it worth having a couple of solar panels just for heating the workshop with a couple of rads, would this pay in the long term, does the solar system need sunlight or just daylight, can the heat be stored.
> regards,
> Rich.



make yourself a stove out of an old gas bottle.

when you are woodworking you make dust chips and offcuts - these will keep you warm as you work !


----------



## Rich (5 Jun 2008)

Roy, Tusses, I was'nt thinking of a conventional ch system, more of a sealed system, with rads or even run around coils, with a liitle circ pump just to keep a basic, say 15 degs in the workshop during the winter months, am I being over ambitious?.
Rich.


----------



## Digit (5 Jun 2008)

Well in the first instant Rich you have got to have conditions and a set up that will get the water above 15 degrees. 
If the weather won't allow for that mate you're stuffed unless you incorporate a heat pump. But yes it can be done. If you had to buy everything, as opposed to some DIY work, it could be pricey though. 
Nice project. 

Roy.


----------



## Tusses (5 Jun 2008)

it depends if you are in it to save money - or 'pretend' to the green  

yes - there are lots of ways to get free heat and save money - but they are not pretty ! or you can buy pretty stuff - but it aint cheap ! and the manufactured stuff isnt carbon neutral or cost effective.

BTY - burning wood / chips and dust is carbon neutral ! (and free)

well - I paid £50 for a bit of stainless 4" tube I use as a stove pipe (chimbly)
the stove is a calor bottle !

gets too hot if you keep it stocked up


----------



## Big Fat Pig (5 Jun 2008)

I think that we are missing a trick here.All this talk about solar panels which gather energy from the available LIGHT.
I`m thinking that we could do better, especially here in the UK, by developing DARK panels, as we seem to have oodles of the stuff just lying about, going to waste.
:lol: 



Piggy


----------



## Digit (5 Jun 2008)

> BTY - burning wood / chips and dust is carbon neutral !



Hang on whilst I saddle up my hobby horse.
Strictly speaking the burning of wood, coal, gas, heavy oil or petrol is carbon neutral as the CO2 in them originally had an atmospheric source!

Roy.


----------



## TheTiddles (5 Jun 2008)

Batteries capable of being discharged to anything near a useful amount for this application will set you back around £10,000, then there's the power management system, get this wrong and you can toast your batteries in a week, call that another £2,000. Solar panels, maybe £20,000

If you really want to do this, I can put you in touch with all the right people.

Now on the heating side, there's real potential, passive solar heat generation is extremely efficient, very cheap and often used, they are called windows! Stick some in the roof and add a self-opening vent and you're done, burn offcuts in winter for the extra, or bring cattle indoors, they are about 250W, a cat is about 9W, Lord Nibbo probably gets 25W of his huge pooches.

As has been previously said, oil and gas are carbon neutral, however when they were laid down there was almost no life above water due to the composition of the air, so if you want to return to that... In the modern vernacular, wood is carbon neutral, but the ships bringing it from Indonesia and America aren't!

Further, don't start me on the Prius either!

Aidan


----------



## Rich (5 Jun 2008)

Tusses, could you explain your calor gas bottle stove please, I have 2 empty ones out the back and they are a pig to get rid of, they are both 15Kg.
Rich.


----------



## Tusses (5 Jun 2008)

Digit":1xwv26y4 said:


> > BTY - burning wood / chips and dust is carbon neutral !
> 
> 
> 
> ...


thats my argument against the greenies ! LOL

wood tho - can by cabon nutral by generation - in other word, you can re-grow the wood you burn , whereas coal/oil takes a bit longer to make !

in the grand scheme of things tho - the planet will sort it self out long after we have messed it up and deceased !


----------



## Tusses (5 Jun 2008)

Rich":2a5z22bz said:


> Tusses, could you explain your calor gas bottle stove please, I have 2 empty ones out the back and they are a pig to get rid of, they are both 15Kg.
> Rich.



I'll see if I can find a pic - if not I'll take one tomorrow


----------



## Digit (5 Jun 2008)

You should be able to return gas bottles to who ever is the agent for the brand name on the bottle Rich.

Roy.


----------



## Rich (5 Jun 2008)

Yes mate, I discussed this matter about 3 months ago, the agent I bought them from is no longer trading and the nearest drop off is 15 miles away, as I said, it's a pig.


----------



## Tusses (5 Jun 2008)

ok - pic below ...

1st ... make sure its empty ! connect something to it and burn it till it runs out of gas.

then - use a hacksaw blade and cut the brass fitting at the top ( brass - no sparks ! ) then fill with water !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ok

number of options now - angle grinder / drill pilot and jig saw (prefered) ...

cut a hole in the top for the chimney (flue)

then cut the hinge side of the door and weld / bolt the hinges in place
then cut the rest of the door out

cut 3 sides of a 2" square in the base and hammer so it 'opens' up about 1/2 an inch.

I made a grate for the bottom out of 6mm steel bar - but that is optional when you get used to it.

I'ts pretty straight forward - fill with wood, light , get warm !

practice makes perfect 

you need to burn with the door closed most of the time - the stove and pipe act like a very hot radiator.

I got the chimney pipe from ebay - 4" stainless tube. (dont buy stove / flue pipe - its too expensive)


----------



## tnimble (5 Jun 2008)

DaveL":2zvfiglh said:


> tnimble":2zvfiglh said:
> 
> 
> > A 40Wp panel would produce about 30 Amps average during normal conditions during daylight time. Charging 3x110Ah bateries takes 3*110/30 = 11 hours
> ...




Erhm yes it seems. probably keyed in 400 instead of 40.


----------



## tnimble (6 Jun 2008)

Tusses":3q6tbe7u said:


> as a rule of thimb
> 
> your solar panel (if its a good one) will produce about half its rated output - on a GOOD day ! in th uk.
> 
> ...


That is simply not true (Caveat lector there is a down side to using solar power for anything). In our northernish climate the photovoltaic cells certainly do not produce the near 100% output but its (of its a good one as you state) certainly does not only produced 50% on a good day. That would be about what the 1st generation of solar panels would do on an 1/4 overcast day.Modern multilayer cells produce about 70 to 90% effecency (compared to the absolute maximum output, and aginast the actual power present in the light) during average and clear sunny weather. The effecyency can be greatly increased near to 100% under all conditions with optics. Add a sun tracking system to extend the number of effective production hours per day. However such panels even without the tracking and stuff would be far beyond most peoples budget.

Also the power loss involved in the batery recharging process is not 1.5 times. Again how efficient it is depends of the battery management system and type of battery. Again how much do you want to pay, will it be very cheap lead plate batteries or for instance ceramic implosion batteries. Which again are way out of any persons budget.

The best and only viable means of using solar power for electricity is a collective system spread over at least a neighbourhood coupled to the mains supply involving no local storage. If the multi layered thin film cels are used in combination with optics to bundle a beam of light onto the very smal cell not each and every roof has to be filled with panels and greatly reduces initial cost. However people/politicians tend to favour towards spending 1000 times 10.000 pound instead of 10 times 100.000 pound.


Now for the caveat lector. The solar energy used for generating electricity or to heat our houses does add up to the global warming. All the power generated (electric or heat) inclusing the losses in the system and the losses in the panel/collector is 0% reflected back into space. Solar power is not an excuse to use all the power you ever wanted. The amount of energy that we can use without environmental effect is limited independed of energy source.


----------



## Jenx (6 Jun 2008)

Tusses":rrfg4okc said:


> in the grand scheme of things tho - the planet will sort it self out long after we have messed it up and deceased !



Most sensible statement in a long while. =D> 

The whole 'global warming / Greenhouse gases' is an utter crock of horse manure.
The globe has continually heated up and cooled down in cycles since Gods Dog was a puppy. And it'll continue to do so.

_"Global Warming will melt the polar ice caps and we'll all be flooded"_
Total and utter bunkum.

Put ice cubes in a glass of water and let them melt.. what happens to the water level ? it goes DOWN !
Ice expands 4x its own volume of water... there's no LAND under it in the arctic ( there is in the Antarctic ).. its a huge floating mass in the sea... melt some of it and the sea level will categorically go DOWN, guaranteed.

All the Eco-Gonks are totally sucked into this whole 'greenie' idea, which is nowt more than a fashion. In certain quarters it almost becomes a competiton.
Not that long back, on GMTV one morning, Mr & Mrs Treehugger were being extolled as fine examples of modern society, because they fitted an entire week's household refuse into ( I kid you not.. ) a Yoghurt Pot.
What a pile of complete BS.

Don't people realise this whole nonsense is pushed down our throats to allow succesive governments to keep sneaking more and more financial burdens onto the populace ? 

Fact : 90% of the worlds so-called Greenhouse Gases are caused by volcanic emissions and rotting vegitation.
Not _one single human hand _making any contribution there.
Of the remaining 10%... many of the countries contributing to this dont, and never will, give a monkeys.
But we ( and a few others ) seem to think that we have to make up the shortfall... and even if we do, it ain't gonna amount to bupkiss.
We're being conned.
Take some time to _'really look into it'_ - there are many, many very well educated men who will completely substantiate this.
Even the 'lines' of the subjects of prominent discussion are totally blurred now ... the other day I was listening to radio 4, - a phone-in about so-called Traffic Congestion, and some buffoon phoned in with a proposed solution of Electric cars... WHAT ??? How does replacing a convenntional car with another - regardless of how its powered, solve congestion ? if anything, a slower electric car will make it worse.
The guy had totally missed the point.. 'blurred the lines'... brainwashed by the rubbish he's reading and being fed by various aspects of the media. In one way, you cant blame him.. if something is continually rammed down your throat, eventually you start to be convinced its the truth.

"Traffic Congestion" is caused by two deliberate actions.
1. The loss of traditional town high-street shops, like greengrocers, butchers etc.. and their replacement with 'outskirts-of-town' supermarkets etc, where 99% of the people using it have to do so, by car, where in years past, people walked to their local high street for the majority of their goods.

1a. - Similarly.. the 'School Run' -- Close down a lot of smaller schools, build bigger but more widely spaced out school locations.. and lo and behold, the 'School Run' problem manifested.
I'd defy anyone to say they dont notice a massive difference in the traffic volume when the schools are on holiday.
Can that 'congestion' be blamed, as we're constantly told, on huge increases in car-ownership ? Course it cant.


2. The deliberate and contrived placing of ridiculous amounts of traffic lights / crossings and their deliberatly slowed 'phasing'.
Totally and absolutely _designed_ to convince you that we have a congestion problem.. and guess whats gonna be right behind that... yes, the gradual introduction of more and more 'congestion charges' or similar forms of road-tolling by local councils.
You and I are being conned. 
Absolutely no doubt about it
"Carbon Footprint" my Aunt Bessie... what a crock.


Rant over.
(till something else starts me off)
I'll have to kick the dog now.
but at least I'm kind to animals... only ever kick him with me slippers on.


----------



## tnimble (6 Jun 2008)

*Tusses* =D>

Add to that the separation between work and living location, overpopulated areas, globalistion and the almost obsessive hunger for food and goods.


----------



## Digit (6 Jun 2008)

It's really great to see that some people do have the ability to think for themselves and not be taken in by pressure groups.
The planet has warmed, appears to have halted at the moment, may warm again, may not.
It has been both hotter and colder in the past with both lower and higher levels of CO2 than current.
Whether the 'Greenies' will eventually turn out to be right or wrong the future will tell, but one thing is certain, all their evidence presented over the years, all the computer models, have been found to be wrong. Sea levels haven't risen at the rate predicted, the 'Hockey Stick' has been shown to be wrong, and the temperature has not risen as predicted.
But give 'em credit.
Being wrong hasn't stopped 'em from shouting.
Perhaps they should take up woodwork as a way of filling their time!

Roy.


----------



## Effigy (6 Jun 2008)

Thanks for the debate guys, *BUT* the title of the thread is "Solar Power for the Workshop"

You wanna debate the pros/cons of Global Warming - go start a thread. :roll: 

My over-riding thoughts behind my question is 'can I make it work'.

Nothing to do with Saving the Planet, Saving Money, Saving time, Making life easy yadda yadda yadda.

Its a challenge.....and I'm up for it


----------



## Tusses (6 Jun 2008)

Effigy":1cxqvesz said:


> My over-riding thoughts behind my question is 'can I make it work'.
> 
> Nothing to do with Saving the Planet, Saving Money, Saving time, Making life easy yadda yadda yadda.
> 
> Its a challenge.....and I'm up for it



in that case - yes you can

wont be cheap tho

I would guess you would need around 10 leisure batteries and enough collectors to charge them if you want to use your tools all day every day!

if you are only in the workshop for a couple of hours every week , then you can get away with a lot fewer.

and if you have any 'electronic' equipment - i.e. speed controls and the like - you will need a pure sign inverter.

I have a 3k pure sign inverter/charger in an unopened box if you are interested - it was going to go on my boat. I have sold the boat, so it is surplus to requirements.

I think they are around £1500 new now, but you can have mine for £1000


----------



## Tusses (6 Jun 2008)

ok - just re-read your 1st post.

your inverter will need to be at least 1 1/2 times your biggest tool power - and even then you might have trouble starting the maching without it tripping out. The start up power is a lot more than the running power and inverters dont like that !

I stand by my statement about only getting about half the rated output of a panel in this country - its got nothing to do with the amount of sun - its the angle the sun hits us through the atmosphere.

Also - batteries take around 1.5 times the amount of AH's they have given out. to charge using a good 3 or 4 stage charger. Its nothing to do with the efficiency of the charger - its the way batteries absorb the charge.

oh - and also , you should aim to not let your batteries get below half charge - even on deep cycle batteries !


----------



## tnimble (6 Jun 2008)

Tusses":nr9130jz said:


> I stand by my statement about only getting about half the rated output of a panel in this country - its got nothing to do with the amount of sun - its the angle the sun hits us through the atmosphere.


Only when talking about traditional PV cells wjere an array of the PV cells are mounted in a panel cover with glass. Not when using the much better multi layer thin film cells like the III-V which has proven high efficency is is widely used in astronomy and space applications. Each cell has a fresnell lens with a coating to reflect the light back onto the cell. The light comes at any angle (within limits) onto the cell module and hits the active cell euther perpendicular or at an angle. the light that hits at an any is mostly reflected and not converted into electricity. The reflective light hits the coated back of the fresnel lens en reflect back at the active cell to again be converted into energy.

Indeed as you mention at our location on earth the light has to travel trough more atmosphere where more of the light is absorbed than for instance at the equater. However this is a relative low loss most of the energy within the light is lost in the cell and on the protective glass of a tradiational panels.



> Also - batteries take around 1.5 times the amount of AH's they have given out. to charge using a good 3 or 4 stage charger. Its nothing to do with the efficiency of the charger - its the way batteries absorb the charge.


 Not trough. An lead plate or calcium chamical batery would near such losses with a good charger. (with a simple charger it would require even more Ahs to charge the batery). With better bateries like for instance the implotion bateries (which have no metal plates in a liquid or slod acid or slat) The losses (due to the chemical process of converting the metal of the plates with a traditional batery) are minimal and the charge time (if enough power is avaible to begin with) is only about a half hour to fully charge a 500Ah batery using about 20% more energy which comes to about 1.2 time as more AH is needed. These bateries have been around now for about 15 years. There are also the nwer ceramic bateries which have even less losees and shaorter charge times. How ever these are completly new not yet available for wide spread usage and have to prove their usabilty.


----------



## Tusses (6 Jun 2008)

'new' technology might be different .... I was talking about 'off the shelf' stuff that you can readily purchase !

Do you have any prices for these super solar panels and bateries ? they sound interesting if they are affordable and available ! 

I mean - I dont know where my nearest space shuttle spares supplier is


----------



## tnimble (6 Jun 2008)

Tusses":34onagsj said:


> 'new' technology might be different .... I was talking about 'off the shelf' stuff that you can readily purchase !
> 
> Do you have any prices for these super solar panels and bateries ? they sound interesting if they are affordable and available !
> 
> I mean - I dont know where my nearest space shuttle spares supplier is



The multi layered solar panels are avaiable on the market for a long time already and cost about 3 times as much. Most solar system supliers and electo store don't have them due to no demand by the ppl that install the systems on houses. They can be ordered by the distributor / importor. There are also a couple of new manufacturers oin the market that are very interesting like amonix and solar systems.

However these companies are targetted more towards the CSP market and not towards the single panel market. CSP (Concentrating Solar Power) is much more cost efficient and less space consuming. A CSP is best viewed as a solar powered energy plant using a large satellite dish type solar collectpr generating many mega watts.


Using batteries is to my opinion not suitable for any kind of energy providing system. They are only suited for providing backup power for critical systems. The traditional bataries are chamical waste generators with a short life span, the more modern non chamical ones are to expensive to get enough capacity (an implotion type batery of about 500Ah (which is still little for regular power supply buffer) is be around $ 8,000- 10,000. The ceramic bateries are about to hit the market and will be much cheaper.

To my opinion the CSPs incombination with main coneected privatly owned smaller scale systems are the way to go. Not to prevent global heating (which is doesn't for many technological, ecological and astronomical effects), not to save money on the energy bill but to be less depended on a single source of energy which is currently fossil fuel and for scientific, technological and ethical progress.


----------



## Tusses (6 Jun 2008)

very informative - thanks.

and the prices/availablity is what I thought


----------



## TheTiddles (6 Jun 2008)

-If you want to use solar power to save money, forget it
-If you want to reduce polution, you'd be better off growing your own vegetables
-If you want to get away from using electricity for woodwork, try hand tools and discover why they were invented!

As for the ranting how rising sea levels is immagination, very ammusing, how I wish you were right. There seems to be plenty of people with a brainiac level of fundamental physics on both sides of the argument, if you want a similar level of experiment to convince you, take a glass of water and freeze it, remove the block of ice from the glass and invert this on top of another glass of frozen water (like a block of ice floating in water) seal into a plastic bag (like a closed system, ie a planet) and see what happens.

With regards to the entire 'green debate', the totally honest and only answer is that nobody really knowns, but things are definitely changing and it may not be good.

To generate significant quantities of energy without releasing large quantities of carbon into the atmosphere can only be acheived with one existing technology, nuclear, anybody who thinks different is wrong.

That should spark an argument...

Aidan


----------



## Digit (6 Jun 2008)

Not with me it won't, I agree.

Roy.


----------



## tnimble (6 Jun 2008)

TheTiddles":14d9zcfh said:


> As for the ranting how rising sea levels is immagination, very ammusing, how I wish you were right. There seems to be plenty of people with a brainiac level of fundamental physics on both sides of the argument, if you want a similar level of experiment to convince you, take a glass of water and freeze it, remove the block of ice from the glass and invert this on top of another glass of frozen water (like a block of ice floating in water) seal into a plastic bag (like a closed system, ie a planet) and see what happens.


Not the same as within a complex ecological system like a planet. At least for the experiment to be of any value at all, the amount of ice put in the bag should match (to some extent) in proportion with the non frozen water put in the bag with the proportion between liquid water and frozen water. on the planet. Also you wouldneed to put land mass into the bag again also landmass with frozen water ontop of land. Then see what happens, not at room temperature but at a temperature that would equal the mean global temperature compensated for peak temperatures. Then you sligtly raise the temperature a few tenths of a degree at a time and see what happens. These results can not be applied to what will happen on earth because the bag does not has rain fall, draughts and moisture in free air in proportian to the total mass put in the bag, you lack the effects of sea currents and tides etc.



> With regards to the entire 'green debate', the totally honest and only answer is that nobody really knowns, but things are definitely changing and it may not be good.


Things are constantly changing, the planet is not in a perfect orbit around the sun, the other 'stuff' in our solar system changes planetary conditions in cycles, our solar system is not a constant in the universe etc. We know there are cycles in temperature variations, we know these temperature 'swings' are not constant. We only see things are changing more fast than we have 'concluded' from what we 'think' was happening in previous cycles by the interpretation of 'evidence' we think we can see in ice deposists etc.



> To generate significant quantities of energy without releasing large quantities of carbon into the atmosphere can only be acheived with one existing technology, nuclear, anybody who thinks different is wrong.



Well I think different. It is certainly the most fast way to cut carbon emission. I even think nuclear power is a good, safe and little polluting power source. However each and every form of power we consume in huge amounts has disastrous effects on our environment. With burning fossil fuels we bring earth back to a "class D" planetoid. Using huge amounts of solar energy heats up the earth, using huge amounts of power from wind energy causes dramatic weather changes, generating huge amounts of power from water movement and the tides causes dramatic changes to oceanographic conditions etc.


IN other words 

We're doomed (as is any form of life is on any planet, rock, gas cloud or other realm)


----------



## Digit (6 Jun 2008)

A year last May? amidst a great fanfare a plan was announced to get millions of PC owners involved in the greatest planet modelling programmes ever attempted. 
Wonder what happened to it? 

Roy.


----------



## TheTiddles (6 Jun 2008)

tnimble":hx9wegi0 said:


> We're doomed (as is any form of life is on any planet, rock, gas cloud or other realm)



Ok, you're right, let's all commit suicide, you start, we'll follow... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Tusses (6 Jun 2008)

Digit":1h0s7q7f said:


> Not with me it won't, I agree.
> 
> Roy.



nope , nor me - I agree too !


----------



## TheTiddles (6 Jun 2008)

look chaps, it's very nice that you agree with me, but I feel it's my role here to stir up people with non-conventional opinions so they can be rude and offensive to me, I'm just not used to this! :lol: 

Aidan


----------



## Tusses (6 Jun 2008)

TheTiddles":q4bv5j9p said:


> look chaps, it's very nice that you agree with me, but I feel it's my role here to stir up people with non-conventional opinions so they can be rude and offensive to me, I'm just not used to this! :lol:
> 
> Aidan



oh - yes ! indeed Sir 

quite right Sir 

carry on and stir , and I'll think of something rude to say


----------



## Digit (6 Jun 2008)

Don't worry mate, we'll make it up to you later!

Roy.


----------



## tnimble (7 Jun 2008)

TheTiddles":30mci9aj said:


> Ok, you're right, let's all commit suicide, you start, we'll follow... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


I'm rather eager to see mankind's extension or what kind of animal we evolve in next. Probably will be long gone before that happens though.


----------



## Digit (7 Jun 2008)

Why should we evolve into anything? We are uniquely amongst all of the species able to control our our own futures.

Roy.


----------



## tnimble (7 Jun 2008)

Control is just an illusion. Everything that exists evolves therefore it exists.


----------



## Digit (7 Jun 2008)

But for Darwinism to work it is necessary to isolate a section of the population under different ecological differences so that natural selection can work on the gene pool. 
Unlikely with Homo Sapien unless we move a section of our population to another planet, or live in space. 

Roy.


----------



## NeilO (7 Jun 2008)

Digit wrote


> But for Darwinism to work it is necessary to isolate a section of the population under different ecological differences so that natural selection can work on the gene pool.
> Unlikely with Homo Sapien unless we move a section of our population to another planet, or live in space.











Or you live in Wales..... :lol: :lol: 








sorry Roy, too good to miss....


----------



## Digit (7 Jun 2008)

I'll forgive you. This time!

Roy.


----------



## Rich (7 Jun 2008)

Roy, we HAVE moved a section of our society to another planet, it's called the house of parliament. :lol:

Rich.


----------



## Digit (7 Jun 2008)

So that accounts for the LUNAcy I imagine.

Roy.


----------



## tnimble (8 Jun 2008)

Digit":3r4stojq said:


> But for Darwinism to work it is necessary to isolate a section of the population under different ecological differences so that natural selection can work on the gene pool.
> Unlikely with Homo Sapien unless we move a section of our population to another planet, or live in space.
> 
> Roy.


Darwinism is a theory. A verified hypothesis or proven model of the
way of interaction of a set of natural phenomena. Darwinism looks only at the differences of two related neighbouring species and tries to find ecological circumstances affecting the adult population that can be bound to these differences.

Darwin is way overrated. His theory only covers a narrow part of evolution. It covers the existance of evolution and the ecological effects on adult members of species (natural selection). It does not cover the evolutionary effects on embryonic and pre-adult (grubs, child) members of a species. Also both Darwin theory on evolution and his ornithology work s mostly based on the work of Wallace whith which he has a long exchange of letters. The work of Wolff, Lamarck and Harvey are probably more important there work is less narrow and also tries to handle macromutation and the mechanics of evolution instead of only the existance of.


----------



## Digit (8 Jun 2008)

Lamarck? The transmission of acquired characteristics? The blacksmith who develops big muscles will pass them onto his offspring?
Darwin got the results correct, what he lacked was the mechanism, genetics, as did Wallace. In fact the only person of the age who got that correct was Mendel, and his work was limited to plants, but the mechanism works for all.
Darwin has yet to be proved wrong, his theory has never been supplanted by another.

Roy.


----------



## NeilO (8 Jun 2008)

the use of solar power in the `shop, to the Darwinism theory all in one thread.....
thats why I love UKW forums :lol: :lol:
And in General Woodworking too......


----------



## Raggy (8 Jun 2008)

NeilO":1lowjbja said:


> the use of solar power in the `shop, to the Darwinism theory all in one thread.....
> thats why I love UKW forums :lol: :lol:
> And in General Woodworking too......



I was thinking the same thing as I finished reading the last page and was going to post something similar but you beat me to it


----------



## Digit (8 Jun 2008)

Yep! Whatever else it's never dull here is it? :lol: 

Roy.


----------



## tnimble (8 Jun 2008)

Digit":2jlx0ip4 said:


> Lamarck? The transmission of acquired characteristics? The blacksmith who develops big muscles will pass them onto his offspring?


Indeed. One of Lamarck many examples to validate his theory was the blacksmith. But its: "The blacksmiths son has bigger muscles than the son of the weaver". The darwinists (There is little to conclude Darwin has the same attitude as his 'followers' towards other works) immediately detest transmission of acquired characteristics. There is only one thing, natural selection of the strongest variation out of a random set of micromutations. Shortly after Darwins publication Miescher published his work on DNA. So evolutions is only survival of the stronger most viable DNA strand for the perticular ecosystem. However there is more at play sociologically epigenetically, etc. Lamarck does not say that the acquired characteristics are transmitted through DNA (the grasp on DNA came about 40 years after Lamarcks death). That is wath darwinists make of it. Lamarck acquired characteristics are transmitted sociologically, economcally and psychologically.



> Darwin got the results correct, what he lacked was the mechanism, genetics, as did Wallace.


Darwin's work is correct as his (or better) Wallace his ornithology and historical research is correct. The question is about relevance in the whole of.



> In fact the only person of the age who got that correct was Mendel, and his work was limited to plants, but the mechanism works for all.


Peas to be precise. His work does not explain the mechanism only the transmitter. Which is the basis for the later reach in genetics.



> Darwin has yet to be proved wrong, his theory has never been supplanted by another.
> Roy.


Because Darwin's theory is not wrong. His works describes precisely what van be seen through out history. he only thing that make Darwin special that his predecessors where not able to publish their theories because of the scepticism at that time. Or in other cases like with Wallace they did not dare to publish and actively promote their publication.

Darrwin work is certainly not the last. There are many publications that broadens and compliments the work. The most important recent one is the research on Epigenetics which again goed back to Wolff and others.


----------



## Digit (8 Jun 2008)

As regard, acquired characteristics how would you interpret this reported in today's press? 
The average IQ of successful Oxbridge candidates is 130, a figure reached in 16% of affluent families and only 2% of poorer peoples? 

Roy.


----------



## Rich (8 Jun 2008)

This may sound obtuse, but I have always been of the opinion that people think at the same speed as they move, take a look around you and you will see what I mean, disabled folk excluded of course, people in the African continent move slowly, even when they are in a cooler climate such as the uk.

Rich.


----------



## Digit (8 Jun 2008)

I can't help wondering if this guy was thinking at all!

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,, ... 06,00.html

Roy.


----------



## Jenx (9 Jun 2008)

Professor Richard Dawkins is pretty convinced "Old Charlie" got it right... My sister, a cellular macrobiologist explained to my why Evolution is the only 'truth' (As the 'first born', my share of the bequeathed brain-genes were rationed and I'm not nearly wise enough to question either Dickie Dawkins or my Sister ).
But both seemed to centre around multi-species evolution and the basic 'survival of the fittest' of these evolved diversifications, thus leading to the status quo as we know it today.

I am however just about bright enough to know for certain that ice expands 4 times its own 'starter volume' of water.. just as I know for certain that steam does so by a factor of 16000. Ice cap melts.. sea level diminishes. Guaranteed. :wink: 

Agree also about the cleanliness of Neuclear Fission as an energy source.. however, I also know that some neuclear power stations were constructed by numptys such as I... and thats a scary thought !    
( Pipefitter at Torness Station Construction.. mid 80's ! )

Great debate though !

So..... you going to go for some solar power for the workshop ? :wink:


----------



## Slim (9 Jun 2008)

Jenx":2jzu8kdf said:


> I am however just about bright enough to know for certain that ice expands 4 times its own 'starter volume' of water.. just as I know for certain that steam does so by a factor of 16000. Ice cap melts.. sea level diminishes. Guaranteed. :wink:



:?: Are you sure about that?

Ice is 10% greater in volume than the same mass of water and steam 1600%.

Ice caps melt, sea levels go up. Guaranteed. You are also assuming that only the sea ice is going to melt. What about the ice on land?


----------



## tnimble (9 Jun 2008)

Jenx":1xoqqcbm said:


> Professor Richard Dawkins is pretty convinced "Old Charlie" got it right...


 Nobody says he is wrong, the matter that is debatable is the attitute of darwinists.


> My sister, a cellular macrobiologist explained to my why Evolution is the only 'truth'


Only if you put up the question is human kind created by a god in his image or is his existance a result of evolution. Darwin has described and verified that ecological factors are depended on how a species adapt to it. This is based on the field research done bu him self and mostly Wallace. Analize two clode related population of insert. Find out how they life, what they eatand what characteristics they have. Define the differences and try to find a relation between. This defines 1 parameter at work not all there is. Darwinists tend to this: "When it rains I get wet, so when I'm wet it rains. Anybody who say you also can get wet by swimming in a river, standing under the shower etc are wrong. There has never been anything other than rain and never will be anything other than rain."



> But both seemed to centre around multi-species evolution and the basic 'survival of the fittest' of these evolved diversifications, thus leading to the status quo as we know it today.


Darwin's and Wallace their work is not about survival of the strongest or smartest. Its about the effects of changes in food supply, vegetation and predictors on the extintion of species and characteristics of species.

The more complex a species is the more factors come into play. Darwin and Wallace have not handled more factors nor have they provides any explenation how these changes and adaptations lead to micromutations. Neither have they explaned how it possible for micro and macro mutation to occure. Nor have they provided any views on how life can start to exist. Darwin is only a small piece of the puzzle.




> I am however just about bright enough to know for certain that ice expands 4 times its own 'starter volume' of water.. just as I know for certain that steam does so by a factor of 16000. Ice cap melts.. sea level diminishes. Guaranteed. :wink:


Around 4 degrees celsius ice changes into a liquid. The warmer water is the more volume it takes up. The colder the solid ice is the more volume it takes. However the natural ice on earth is not that cold that is has a volume of 4 times the volvume of ice/water at 4 degrees.




Slim":1xoqqcbm said:


> Ice caps melt, sea levels go up. Guaranteed. You are also assuming that only the sea ice is going to melt. What about the ice on land?


97% of the water is salt water at sa, about 2.5% is glaciers, polar caps and snow about 0.5% is in lakes and rivers. Some of this 2.5% is on land which when melted causes the sea level to rise, the rest is on water (most of the ice on water is below the water level) and causes the sea level to drop when melted.

The rising or dropping of sea water level is both bad if you would like nothing to vchange in out environment as it is.


----------



## Jake (9 Jun 2008)

Rich":1kmp43p0 said:


> This may sound obtuse, but I have always been of the opinion that people think at the same speed as they move, take a look around you and you will see what I mean, disabled folk excluded of course, people in the African continent move slowly, even when they are in a cooler climate such as the uk.
> 
> Rich.



It doesn't sound obtuse. It does sound racist.


----------



## Jake (9 Jun 2008)

Not to mention absurdly stupid.

Here is the brainiest man in the world (for short term problems):

http://www.iaaf.org/mm/photo/competitio ... 0xh600.jpg

And if you have a longer problem, this man is proven the world's most brainiac:

http://www.uksport.gov.uk/assets/Image/ ... ydmain.jpg


----------



## Digit (9 Jun 2008)

> Darwin and Wallace have not handled more factors nor have they provides any explenation how these changes and adaptations lead to micromutations.


 
Neither was Newton able to explain the mechanism by which gravity caused something to fall to Earth, but in general his Laws worked. 
You also haven't taken into account how sexual preferences effect Natural Selection. 
Darwin did and that has been scientifically tested. 
And Jake, I've had the pleasure of meeting Rich and his family, and he may not have expressed himself well but I certainly wouldn't call him racist. 
Taken in general how would you describe the peoples who won't agree to marry out of their Clan, religion or social group, as, commonly, amongst people in Asia, India, Japan, China and the Middle east. Yet no body ever calls them racist. Why is that?

Roy.


----------



## Jenx (9 Jun 2008)

Slim":3tdhw9bo said:


> Jenx":3tdhw9bo said:
> 
> 
> > I am however just about bright enough to know for certain that ice expands 4 times its own 'starter volume' of water.. just as I know for certain that steam does so by a factor of 16000. Ice cap melts.. sea level diminishes. Guaranteed. :wink:
> ...



Yup, 100% Sure.
Ice 4x its own volume
Steam 16,000 times its own volume

But even if my 'factors' are incorrect.... you're still confirming that ICE expands to occupy a greater volume than it did in its liquid state.. and the relative densities are almost the same, as proven in the "9/10ths of an iceberg is below the water's surface".. so its as close as doesn't matter... so therefore, by anyones logic... melt the ice... less volume occupied.. level goes down.

There's NO LAND under the arctic ice cap... thats why its not classified as a (sub) Continent, as is the case with the ANTARCTIC... where there is Land underneath the penguins Playground.

ARCTIC = NO land
ANTARCTIC = Land.

( And Arctic Ice, in general, is _just a tad _colder than 4 degrees C !  )

Therefore, as can be replicated in a glass or a bucket or anywhere else you would choose.... put ice into the container and top it up with water.
As good old Archemedes showed us in how displacement works, the ice displaces a given volume of water. then allow the ice to melt. Categorically, 100% no doubt about it, the level within the container goes DOWN. Try it with your Gin & Tonic or Whisky & Soda or any other fluid.. it goes down.
Spank me like a ginger stepchild, if it ain't so - I guarantee you, the level will fall not rise. 8) :wink:



tnimble":3tdhw9bo said:


> . Darwinists tend to this: "When it rains I get wet, so when I'm wet it rains. Anybody who say you also can get wet by swimming in a river, standing under the shower etc are wrong. There has never been anything other than rain and never will be anything other than rain."


 I'm not 100% Cast iron Certain... but I'd bet the farm on that not being a quote you'd find anywhere in the writings of Charles Darwin,
the key word being second word in.. " *TEND*". Can We take it that this is _your opinion_ of how you _perceive_ the behaviour of Darwinists to be displayed, or are you suggesting that Charles Darwin thought the only way people can get wet, is to be out in the rain. ?
You see, your method of writing there is like tabloid journalism.. and seeks to discredit Darwin and consequently his theories, by portraying him in a poor light, but by doing so with a statement of _your opinion_ of Darwinist thinking, rather than some historically accurate quotation of Darwin himself. -- and that, really is perhaps a little unfair, don't you agree ? :wink: 



Jake":3tdhw9bo said:


> Rich":3tdhw9bo said:
> 
> 
> > This may sound obtuse, but I have always been of the opinion that people think at the same speed as they move, take a look around you and you will see what I mean, disabled folk excluded of course, people in the African continent move slowly, even when they are in a cooler climate such as the uk.
> ...



I'd have to agree with Digit there buddy... there's nothing racist about that, its an observation.
Just like saying " The Innuit People seem more tolerant of the cold than most"
or " The indiginous population of Scotland have more of a liking for Porridge and Haggis than most"
Observations only, 8) 
We've reached a point in the UK Now where even the mere mention of another race or creed will have someone shouting 'racism'. 
Thats half the problem. 
There's nothing wrong with diverse cultures from around the world... 'celebrate them' rather than jumping to their 'defence' when they don't need defending.


----------



## Digit (9 Jun 2008)

If water didn't expand on freezing it would sink to the bottom of the sea as it is denser than the surrounding waters. A logical progression from there would no liquid seas.

Roy.


----------



## Jake (9 Jun 2008)

Jenx":ushov6nt said:


> Rich":ushov6nt said:
> 
> 
> > This may sound obtuse, but I have always been of the opinion that people think at the same speed as they move, take a look around you and you will see what I mean, disabled folk excluded of course, people in the African continent move slowly, even when they are in a cooler climate such as the uk.
> ...



The speed of walking bit was an observation of sorts - I doubt it is particularly related to ethnicity, probably has a lot to do with heat. But unobjectionable.

The thought process which gets one from 'Africans walk slowly' to 'Africans are stupid' is a racist thought process in my view - it isn't logic, it's working back from an assumption/conclusion.


----------



## Slim (9 Jun 2008)

Jenx":2ny1lb0v said:


> Yup, 100% Sure.
> Ice 4x its own volume
> Steam 16,000 times its own volume



I think you should have a read of this, and steam is definately 1600 not 16000.




Jenx":2ny1lb0v said:


> ARCTIC = NO land



There is actualy rather a lot of land within the arctic circle, as can be seen here. However, my point was, that why are you concentrating on the Arctic? The Antartic is a rather large continent. What makes you think that it isn't going to warm up there?

I conceed after doing a calculation (based on 90% ice below water) that the water level won't change, but the sea level won't go down. Simply because, there is a vast amount of ice on land.

Don't get me wrong, I don't really believe in carbon based global warming, but I do believe the Earth is heating up.


----------



## Jenx (9 Jun 2008)

Slim":2g5e6gyu said:


> Jenx":2g5e6gyu said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, 100% Sure.
> ...



Hi again Slim...  Take a look at the map you referenced there... yes there is _land_ within the arctic circle.. Greenland, parts of Scandinavia etc etc.. ( I crossed the circle at Fauske in Norway, and I _HOPE_ that was land, cause I was riding a motorcycle at the time :wink: ).. I may have not been clear in what I'm saying.. the POLAR ICE Cap or what we generally accept at the Arctic Ice.. has no land under it, as can be seen from your map. There No land, just the sea. 
:wink: In the Southern hemisphere.. under the ANTARCTIC Ice cap, there is a land mass ... the Antarctic Continent. therefore the ice there, is land-borne, and not displacing seawater. Do you see the difference I'm talking about ? 

Its my view, and that of a good many others, that Global Warming is not happening, nothing is changing, other than the cyclical clight warming and cooling down which has happened to the globe since time began, and the current 'greenie fashion' is there to allow the government to sneak some more taxes into your paypacket in a multitude of ways. :wink: 







Jake":2g5e6gyu said:


> Jenx":2g5e6gyu said:
> 
> 
> > Rich":2g5e6gyu said:
> ...




Did Rich mention Ethnicity ? I agree its everything to do with the_ heat _, which I'm guessing would apply equally to all and sundry

I'm not sure how one arrives at "Moving Slowly, as a result of the regions ambient temperature" = " Stupidity" 

Wouldn't that indicate one's own perceptions and views, when arriving at that conclusion ?

I'm not getting how anybody with a balanced view of the world and everything in it, could take Rich's observation as anything other than that.. an observation.

Myself,.. I am a humble 'ned' with no great level of education or qualification, other than the usual 'life experiences and education' gained from spending what time I have on this earth.. but I'm sure that Rich's post should in no way be considered racist or deliberately provocative.
Surely you don't honestly believe anything to the contrary ?


----------



## tnimble (9 Jun 2008)

Digit":cl7kps5v said:


> Neither was Newton able to explain the mechanism by which gravity caused something to fall to Earth, but in general his Laws worked.


 As I said Darwin is not wrong in the evolution. Its not the be all end all people make of it, its less relevant than consepted.



> You also haven't taken into account how sexual preferences effect Natural Selection.
> Darwin did and that has been scientifically tested.


The theory of sexual preferences based on ornamentations is his later work. It has been opposed from the start including by Wallace. That work has never been proven correct. The opposite seems more valid. The ornamentations play a role in evolution, being camouflage and weaponry against predators. But that was already covered by Darwins first work.




Jenx":cl7kps5v said:


> tnimble":cl7kps5v said:
> 
> 
> > . Darwinists tend to this: "When it rains I get wet, so when I'm wet it rains. Anybody who say you also can get wet by swimming in a river, standing under the shower etc are wrong. There has never been anything other than rain and never will be anything other than rain."
> ...


No its not. Darwin work is what it is. His theory on the evolution by natural selection is not wrong. Darwin is not a darwinist only people who know or think they know his work and believe in his theory are. That is where *my* the analogy comes in. Darwinist seem to be more interested in the religious debate evolution theory versus holy intervention.

Not to fall in repetition: Darwin's theory is correct, its a very small piece of the puzzle, not the be all end all. Most of the theory is not by Darwin. His credits go towards being brave enough and to persist against the sceptisim of that time.


----------



## Digit (9 Jun 2008)

And you are equating slowness of thinking with stupidity Jake.
I like to take my time and I have an IQ of 155!

Roy.


----------



## Jake (9 Jun 2008)

Jenx":1b7131gb said:


> I'm not sure how one arrives at "Moving Slowly, as a result of the regions ambient temperature" = " Stupidity"
> 
> Wouldn't that indicate one's own perceptions and views, when arriving at that conclusion



What confuses me, is that I agree with the above. Yet you say:



> I'm not getting how anybody with a balanced view of the world and everything in it, could take Rich's observation as anything other than that.. an observation.



in response to this:



Rich":1b7131gb said:


> This may sound obtuse, but I have always been of the opinion that people think at the same speed as they move, take a look around you and you will see what I mean, disabled folk excluded of course, people in the African continent move slowly, even when they are in a cooler climate such as the uk.


----------



## tnimble (9 Jun 2008)

Jenx":2wr8qghk said:


> Did Rich mention Ethnicity ? I agree its everything to do with the_ heat _, which I'm guessing would apply equally to all and sundry


Under conditions of heat we tend to be affected by it. After multiple generations micromutation will have occurred causing people that are more adapted to the heat. It does not matter if these people are natives or immigrants. If moved to a cooler location the micromutations are still there, so they will still be moving slower. However the heat does not make people slower. Its depended on more factors. Being descended of a race of fierce hunters being used to the condition of chasing animals would make them faster. As we can see in the diversity of our fellow african bound species member.s


----------



## Jenx (9 Jun 2008)

Jake.. man, I'm not _having a go _at you... apologies if it seemed so... I'm sure you're a top fella... I'm not a bad sort meself, honestly !

Just didn't think that Rich's post was in any way racially offensive.... ( I don't know Rich either.. and I'm sure he's equally a Grand chap. ) :wink: 


So is Christian going to go for any of this solar power malarkey then ?
or have you decided it's more trouble than the gain that would be achieved ?


----------



## Digit (9 Jun 2008)

Cost wise small scale solar electricity generation is an interesting project, but financially ruinous. 

Roy.


----------



## tnimble (9 Jun 2008)

Yes as soon as the rennovations of my home get sorted out. I'm looking into the range of putting up 1000 to 1400Wp on the roof for electricity and a solor collector for heating with a thousand litre heat storage tank.


----------



## Slim (9 Jun 2008)

Jenx":2q1kes9b said:


> I crossed the circle at Fauske in Norway, and I _HOPE_ that was land, cause I was riding a motorcycle at the time :wink:



First of all, that sounds fantastic. Do tell more.



Jenx":2q1kes9b said:


> I may have not been clear in what I'm saying.. the POLAR ICE Cap or what we generally accept at the Arctic Ice.. has no land under it, as can be seen from your map. There No land, just the sea.



You have been clear and I do understand that the polar sea ice is floating. However, Greenland has a huge ice sheet. The only sheet other than the Antartic. You are still assuming that only the sea ice is melting.



Jenx":2q1kes9b said:


> In the Southern hemisphere.. under the ANTARCTIC Ice cap, there is a land mass ... the Antarctic Continent. therefore the ice there, is land-borne, and not displacing seawater.



Exactly. So if this melts, do you still think the sea levels will fall?



Jenx":2q1kes9b said:


> Its my view, and that of a good many others, that Global Warming is not happening, nothing is changing, other than the cyclical clight warming and cooling down which has happened to the globe since time began



Global warming is happening. I think that is undeniable. However, I don't believe it is man made global warming. I think it is a typical human trait to think that we are controlling such a huge system. I agree that it is a natural occurance. Possibly due to solar activity - IMO a much more credible theory.


----------



## Digit (9 Jun 2008)

> Global warming is happening. I think that is undeniable.


 
According a report publish 'tother day the global temp has dropped by 0.77C 
in the past 17 months, completely wiping out the entire 20 century gain of 0.6C. 
None of the computer models used by the 'we're doomed!' prophets even suggested such an event. 
During the southern winter the Antarctic ice increased to near record levels. 
So I wonder what is actually happening? 

Roy.


----------



## Slim (9 Jun 2008)

Digit":1sapnj2i said:


> > Global warming is happening. I think that is undeniable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Very interesting Roy. I hadn't heard that. Can you point me in the direction of that report?


----------



## Digit (9 Jun 2008)

http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/200 ... emperature 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main ... do0907.xml 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm 

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/di ... bal/nh+sh/ 

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Mo ... e10866.htm 

Can't find the exact one again but these are all scientifically based and all a down turn. 
The graphs are especially interesting, for example they show the first significant peak in the twentieth century as occurring in the late 1940s, one of the coldest periods in the northern hemisphere in living memory. 
ALL global warming models that haven't been 'corrected' fail to show polar warming, the only model that does is based on solar and extra solar radiation. 

Roy. 

Found it! This chap is the one who destroyed the 'hockey stick' and other foundation stones for the gloom and doom merchants. 

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/20 ... es-in-may/


----------



## Slim (9 Jun 2008)

Thanks Roy.


----------



## Jenx (9 Jun 2008)

Slim":1jush0ca said:


> Jenx":1jush0ca said:
> 
> 
> > I crossed the circle at Fauske in Norway, and I _HOPE_ that was land, cause I was riding a motorcycle at the time :wink:
> ...



It was in June 2003... rode from Aberdeenshire to Nordkapp, stayed under canvas for the entire trip, there was 5 of us did it, one of whom was on a 1951 Panther 600 Sloper, and he'd done it 15 years previously on the same machine -- that was the original reason for going, to make his, as far as we know, the only Panther motorcycle ever to go to the cape twice. 
As a 'side-event' we raised some money for the heart unit at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, not a vast amount, about 4 grand from memory.. but two of the guys had 'first hand experience' of being in the unit with a heart attack ( panther Owner ) and a triple bypass ( BMW Owner ), so it was nice to be able to do at least something for the place.
You could say we were a diverse bunch, : . ( ages at the time ) : -
ALAN MORRIS - 58 Panther 600. Wellhead Intervention Engineer
ROY DEAR - 66 BMW R1150 . Retired Hydro Power Engineer
MARK HUTCHEON - 34 Yamaha XJ600. Joiner / Clerk of Works
DANNY TAYLOR - 33 Kawasaki VN800. North Sea Fisherman
ME - 38 . Yamaha XJR1300. Valve & Actuation Sales Engineer.

Over-riding memories that seem to live on : --

24 Hour Daylight, above the Circle - messes with your body clock !
Picture Postcard Views around every corner.. amazing scenery.
A 26Km Tunnel, 500 yards of daylight, and back into an 18Km Tunnel !
Passing a black harley, who 'Uturned' and followed us for 70 miles ( for him.. back the way he'd come ), and who did so, because he recognised the Panther and its rider as someone who he'd met at a Rally in Switzerland 20 years before.. he was 'Oliver from Geneva'.. that amazed me totally.
The price of 20 Fags !
The Jotunheim.. land of the frost giants & trolls !
Crossing the circle itself.. its very 'barren' and almost lunar on the E6 where you cross.
The towns of Mo-I-Rana, Fauske, Narvik, Alta and Honingsvag... just very 'different' from home.
Dolphins leaping in front of a short ferry crossing from Bognes to somewhere I cant remember.
Looking out towards the Lofoten Islands... looked like somewhere i want to go back to !
A sense of achievement, knowing you'd gone about as far north in Europe as its possible to go, and got back again. !
Two weeks there and I learnt 1 Word _ Jordbaer_, and it means 'Strawberries' !

If you ever get the chance... don't even stop to consider... just go !
I'd go back in the blink of an eye !
:wink: 8)  8)


----------



## Digit (9 Jun 2008)

Bloody marvelous! Any pics?

Roy.


----------



## Jenx (9 Jun 2008)

Somewhere, I believe I do !

Will look some out and scan them !
8)


----------



## Slim (9 Jun 2008)

That's brilliant Jenx. You are to be commended. I'm pretty sure my sister worked in the heart unit at ARI when she was a student nurse. That would have been somewhere between 1999-2002. Maybe she nursed your buddies?


----------



## Rich (9 Jun 2008)

Good evening Jake, and all, I'm sorry if a simple observation has caused any offence, it was certainly not intended, perhaps it would have been better explained if I had gone on to say that observing the chinese and japanese in this country and how quick they move and get things done is probably why they are years ahead of other nations in production and inventions, I will state categorically here and now, I AM NOT RACIST, some of my best friends at work and socially have different coloured skins to me, so what, they are nice to me and I am nice to them, they are welcome in my house AND my workshop :lol: If I make any further "obtuse" remarks in the future, please be minded they are not racist remarks but merely observations of life in general as I see them.

Regards,
Rich.


----------



## Jake (9 Jun 2008)

Saying that a continent of peoples (does it include Afrikaans, by the way, or do they walk quicker?) are slow of thought and that is connected with the speed at which they walk is such a stupid 'observation' that it couldn't really offend. 

I am surprised that so few people objected to you labelling all Africans slow of thought. Are they are lazy as well,by the way? 

Maybe we should rename these forums the UKWorKKKshop?  Plenty of wood around for the crosses! :lol:


----------



## Rich (9 Jun 2008)

Just like me Jake, you are entitled to your opinion, and I'm not offended by that, but please dont call me stupid, I can assure you I am far from it

Rich.


----------



## Digit (9 Jun 2008)

Jake! I am Jewish. I have been called a variety of offensive names in my time because of it, but I am utterly opposed to ANY restrictions on free speech.
If you think that Rich, or anybody else is racist, I very much doubt that being rude to them is likely to change their views.

Roy.


----------



## Jake (9 Jun 2008)

Rich":2elpo2z8 said:


> please dont call me stupid



I didn't. It was the idea that the African race is slow of thought, which is ostensibly connected to the speed of their perambulations, that I called stupid.

Some very clever people believe in very stupid ideas. Some Africans do as well - maybe stupid ideas come from walking too slowly?


----------



## Digit (9 Jun 2008)

> Some very clever people believe in very stupid ideas.



True! But usually they can't see it.

Roy.


----------



## Rich (9 Jun 2008)

Jake it does'nt matter to me if it's African or martians, I was merely drawing a comparison, and as for your use of the KKK, now that's what I would call inflamatory and more likely to stoke racism than anything else,
THAT is stupid, we are all Adults on this forum, and should act accordingly,
I don't now you from Adam, but I bear no malice towards you, and I'd like to think your old enough and wise enough to reciprocate.
regards,
Rich.


----------



## Jake (9 Jun 2008)

Digit":ehneuf4d said:


> > Some very clever people believe in very stupid ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree wholeheartedly, Roy.


----------



## Jake (9 Jun 2008)

Do martians walk slowly then Rich? I can well believe those bloody greenies are stupid. :lol: :lol:


----------



## Rich (9 Jun 2008)

Goodnight Jake. :lol: :lol: 

Rich.


----------



## tnimble (10 Jun 2008)

Sond like a very intereesting and fun to do trip *Jenx*.

It seems that the greeny pack is ignoring such figures of dropping global warmth. Or would they come up with "see what a good impact phasing out incandescent bulbs had"


----------



## Jenx (10 Jun 2008)

They'll come up with something, nothing surer !


----------



## Digit (10 Jun 2008)

The Greenies are only one branch of those wishing to lead us all to the 'New Jerusalem'.
They are a self perpetuating breed who merrily dance their way from one 'good cause' to another.
Good cause as seen through their eyes of course.
'It's all for your own good brother', the trouble is they fail to undestand that people prefer what they enjoy to what is supposed to be good for them.
If you won't give up smoking, we'll stop you, for your own good.
If you won't stop polluting the air, we'll stop you, for your own good.
Eat your five a day, it's good for you.
Immigration is good for you, ignoring the fact that this country can only support 17.5 million without imports and every extra housing estate reduces that number further.
When they wake up it will be to a nightmare.
Need I go on?


----------



## Jake (10 Jun 2008)

Funny how the CC sceptics are so unsceptical about data which appears to support their 'scepticism'.

It could just be a blip in the trend - the trend is a long-term thing, that report is of a short-term event - so far.

We'll have to wait and see - far too premature to start pointing and laughing.


----------



## Digit (10 Jun 2008)

It could indeed be a blip Jake. As for not being skeptical I would point out that Watts is the guy who made Al Bore look silly and has to date never been wrong, whereas the list of dooms predicted by the doom mongers have with out exception been wrong! As I agreed Jake, it could be a blip, but in terms of the drop compared with the earlier rise is it is a considerable drop.
A drop that not one climatologist nor climate model predicted.
If you were a gamnbling man Jake would you use a computer programme to pick the winners if the programme was shown to have failed as often as the climate models have?
I will believe the models when they start getting things right.
Till then I'll stick to the seaweed!

Roy.


----------



## Jake (10 Jun 2008)

I'll stick with the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed science, until the concensus changes. I'm not boffin enough to argue with them, nor arrogant enough to think I could, and the nature of science being what it is, the flaws will be exposed pretty quickly, if such they are.


----------



## Digit (10 Jun 2008)

What consencus Jake?
You mention peer review, a means of ensuring crackpot ideas aren't published or a method of censorship?
It would seem that you are unaware that those who review for the major organs are all CC supporters and and that Nature, for example, has been accused of refusing to publish anything that argues against CC being man made.
For the UN to make the 1000 scientists supposedly supporting them the list of names was found to include the organiser of the food suppliers and an Italian 'enviromental attorney' what ever that might be?
So consensus, show me someone who disputes the temperature drop and explain why no one predicted it with all the computing power and the billions spent on the subject.
There was consensus on the so called 'hockey stick' simply because the greenies wanted to believe it and no one checked the maths.
Are you aware that the planet began warming during the 19C?
Are you aware that the planet is still cooler than it was during late Roman times?
Have you heard of the of the Middle Age Warm period when grapes were grown further north than to today?
Did you know that the Vikings knew that Greenland was an island, whereas currently from the surface you cannot tell that as the landmass blends into the polar ice cap?
Why does modelling based on CO2 rise not show significant polar warming?
I'll stick to the sea weed.

Roy.


----------



## tnimble (10 Jun 2008)

Modern history (the history that includes mankind with the ability to document) indicates that what is 'hot' is often fallacious. CC is hot and therefore a good candidate for being incorrect.

A lot around CC, especially what we should do and do not is financial beneficial to legislators, the lobbies, scientific institutes and large corporations. Again making CC lean towards being a hoax or being exaggerated.

The scientific reports contradict each other, do not apply to the whole, predictions are not met etc. Again making CC lean towards being a hoax or being exaggerated.

So that makes me sceptical about if we are responsible for what is going on with the climate. Also I do not find it very alarming if things change because of the climate. Things have always changed and will always change.

I also believe that what we're currently doing on the planet is wrong. We're exploitive, suppressive, abusive, etc towards people, animal and resources for financial benefit and pleasure. A lot if not most people are sexist, religionous and racial barbaric and emotional, socially and intellectual poor.


----------



## Digit (10 Jun 2008)

> I also believe that what we're currently doing on the planet is wrong.


 
Total agreement here, and without any need to mention GW. 
Anybody of my age knows full well that the weather today is warmer than when we were kids. It is also an established fact, that any gardener will support, that Spring is earlier than it used to be. 
None of this has the slightest thing to do with CO2! 
As Spring arrives earlier, without Winter occurring earlier, then the warm periods get longer, this heats the planet. 
The early coming of Spring is entirely due to the precession of the equinoxes. 
When the poles tilt toward the sun the poles warm, the ice shrinks and a greater surface area of the planet is exposed to the Sun's rays, and the planet warms. 
The maximum tilt last occurred, surprise surprise, about the end of the last Ice Age. 
As the Earth continues to become more vertical so the reverse will occur and the warm season will shorten. One day mid winter will be in June! 

Roy.


----------



## Digit (11 Jun 2008)

Local shop has a new style barometer on show.
A piece of string and a set of instructions.
_I fthe string is hanging limp the weather is calm
If the string is moving, it's windy!
If the string is horizontal, it's very windy.
If the string is damp, it's raining.
If the string is dry, it's not raining.
If the strings cast a shadow, the Sun's shining.
If there is no shadow, the Sun isn't shining.
If you can't see the string, it's dark!_

Roy.


----------



## ivan (11 Jun 2008)

Just in case the original poster is still reading this thread :shock: , it might be worth considering what sort of 12V battery could deliver over 100A for 2 hours without buckling its plates and dying on the spot. It might work if you run universal motors on 115V or 240V dc instead of AC.

Serious enquirers will find some info at the Centre for Alternative Technology (they have a website) My son rigged up some solar heating based on their ideas for his home in Portugal, where it works a treat 90% of the time. I have grave doubts you'd see any return for your trouble in the UK without a huge investment in high tec collectors. If we're really going to need it, wait a bit longer till universal demand brings down the mfg cost!


----------



## tnimble (11 Jun 2008)

Within the cheap range that will be Lithium-ion polymer bateries and about next year the ceramic batery type.


----------



## tnimble (11 Jun 2008)

Digit":20tmcxgp said:


> Local shop has a new style barometer on show.



Brilliant!


----------

