Cox Engines Forum
You are not logged in! Please login or register! Guests are limited to posting in the "General Questions (Guest Posting Allowed)" section only. Becoming a member is fast, easy and FREE!


0.049 reed motor efficiency - Page 4 Babe_b10
Log in

I forgot my password

Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Cox Engine of The Month
November-2019
jmcalata's

"Pee Wee .020 throttled combinated"



PAST WINNERS
CEF Traveling Engine

Win This Engine!
The Traveling Prop
Gallery


0.049 reed motor efficiency - Page 4 Empty
World of Aviation

0.049 reed motor efficiency

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Go down

0.049 reed motor efficiency - Page 4 Empty Re: 0.049 reed motor efficiency

Post  ian1954 on Wed Oct 02, 2019 7:01 pm

The concept of solar power is quite a good idea but carries some fundemental problems.

The first is that, rather than saving CO2 enissions, theier build creates a debt,

In the best case scenario, one square meter of solar cells carries a burden of 75 kilograms of CO2. In the worst case scenario, that becomes 314 kilograms of CO2. With a solar insolation of 1,700 kWh/m²/yr an average household needs 8 to 10 square meters of solar panels, with a solar insolation of 900 kWh/m²/yr this becomes 16 to 20 square meters. Which means that the total CO2 debt of a solar installation is 600 to 3,140 kilograms of CO2 in sunny places, and 1,200 to 6,280 kilograms of CO2 in less sunny regions.

Insolation is the incident solar radiation onto some object. Specifically, it is a measure of the solar energy that is incident on a specified area over a set period of time.

Now all figures are subject to debate and the later units are thinner and probably use less energy to produce but nearly all units are now made in China and there is little data available,

There is no doubt that over time in our sunnier regions that solar power makes savings over the life of the units but is only really applicable to the sunnier regions and the build, design and location of the property.

As can be seen below - the UK is not ideal for several reasons,

0.049 reed motor efficiency - Page 4 6a00e0099229e888330105371948f2970b-pi

Mainly because we don't get much sunshine.

There was a big move to encourage people to buy solar panels at a subsidised rate and a promise of a payment for supplying surplus to the grid.

We have very few straight streets and roads, Because our houses have pitched roofs to get solar benefit the roof slope facing South is ideal. The North side won't get much sun at all and wouldn't be practical. If your roof solpe face East and West the both slope would need panels. Sun one side in the morning and the other in the afternoon., Double the cost for no extra power.

Then we come to the properties themselves. In this most of he houses are pre 1960s and were built with fireplaces in every room to burn coal with solid uninsulated walls. A very large proportion are pre 1900 and were built without electricity and had gas lighting. SOme houses are even older and date back to the 11th century,

Anyway, with all the promises and, even with a modern well insulated property facing the right way, it was soon realised that eny elevtricuty generated was at a time of low usage. In summer, during the day with no heating or lighting required - no real demand for electricity. So the tariff paid for surplus was reduced and these units will no longer recover their cost even after the subsidy,

Then there is the warranty. Unless you paid top price for a large well established installation company that did not just specialise in solar installations but in previous years and currently supported a wide range of products then you will find the warranty worthless.

Guarantees here offered by double glazing salesmen, building work of any kind, damp treatment, repairs............ are worthless. They expire with the installer and any that get into difficulty with repairs will go into voluntary liquidation and re-emerge under a differnt company. The units themselves are imported from China.

I only know one person who benefited from this technology and that was because he salvaged a UPS unit from a defunct systems centre. This unit when charged could supply 80kw for 20 minutes, 10kw for 2hrs 40 minutes .......... He didn't supply the grid and all the installation was DIY. However, he got this unit for £4,000 including transport. It weighed 4 tons and a new one would be around £35,000.

So it is my view that the best saving is to reduce your own electricty but only with regard to total cost and recovering it.

While there is no doubt that we have global warming, I am not sure that the real issues are being addressed and that there is an imbalance in the carbon cycle.

In the first century A.D. - Britain had been invaded by the Romans and they planted vineyards nad wandered aroung in togas. It was alot warmer then. We hbad a Medieval warm period followed by a little ice age between the 14th and 18th centuries,

There are drwings of people skating on the River Thames in the 18th Century with it frozen so thick that bonfires were lit on ot. I have never known the Thames freeze over.

During the second world war everything was produced by burning coal - electricity, steam trains, steel production. All home and building heating came from coal and coke. We also had a phenominal amount of petrol, fuel and oil consumed during the war - not to mention the raging fires and destruction. Yet there was no peak.

It seems that today we have air conditioning - most of our homes here don't but offices, shops ......... do. It seems self defeating - cooling warm air at great expense, heating up the outside air even more and then cooling it again. A vicious cycle.

In the 60s we would just open a window and get used to it. Is this part of the cause of the imbalance? Obviously our plant life is no longer absorbing enough CO2 and it is going to get warmer.

Maybe we won't get the long Winters here anymore - bring it on.




.
ian1954
ian1954
Diamond Member
Diamond Member

Posts : 2554
Join date : 2011-11-16
Age : 65
Location : England

Back to top Go down

0.049 reed motor efficiency - Page 4 Empty Re: 0.049 reed motor efficiency

Post  Oldenginerod on Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:30 pm

--Oz-- wrote:@coxaddict, more fake news. Very Happy

the table shows total imported power is 32%, not 50%, from coal is 3.3%.
But there is a unspecified section, so I will give you all that power (I am being nice) as coming from "coal", so imported power from coal would be a whooping 13.7%, not sure how you read 50% (politician  Very Happy).

This all started because you can't start a Cox engine
Where you you come up with this?
I can start these little guys pretty easy, looks like you just collect them (your words, not mine)

Ok, so now the discussion has come back to Cox engines.  How about we all take a deep breath and think about where this is going.

Remember a couple of months ago we had old Rex on the attack?  Seems that he knows so much more than anyone else and was willing to fly off the handle and start calling people names, claiming their arguments were "dumb". Huh...  Well, Rex got banned and we went back to normal.  Sadly, if things like the current situation escalate we can lose liked and respected long-term contributing members.  None of us want that.

So Oz, just a word of caution.  You are welcome to be part of this group if your intention is to celebrate owning and using Cox based products, primarily glow engines.  If a member's behaviour triggers arguments and negative discussion, then our administrators/moderators will do their job and shut things down (as they did with Rex).

All of us have points to prove, but why bother if others get hurt?  Life's too short.

Rod.
Oldenginerod
Oldenginerod
Diamond Member
Diamond Member

Posts : 2746
Join date : 2012-06-15
Age : 57
Location : Victoria, Australia

Back to top Go down

0.049 reed motor efficiency - Page 4 Empty Re: 0.049 reed motor efficiency

Post  Admin on Thu Oct 03, 2019 6:44 pm

Well then, I see this escalated into another topic.

Get well Rusty, we need you back here!

_________________
-Jacob


Admin
Admin
Administrator

Posts : 5061
Join date : 2010-07-27
Location : Roseville, Minnesota

http://sites.google.com/site/coxenginecollection/

Back to top Go down

0.049 reed motor efficiency - Page 4 Empty Re: 0.049 reed motor efficiency

Post  RknRusty on Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:27 pm

Admin wrote: Well then, I see this escalated into another topic.

Get well Rusty, we need you back here!
Hi Jacob,
Wow, I sure do have a lot of catching up to do. This thread alone may drive me cross eyed, Lol. Don't worry, I am getting well, slowly, a little every day. I thank you and Ron for holding down the fort while I'm rebooting.
Rusty

_________________
Don't Panic!
...and never Ever think about how good you are at something...
while you're doing it!


My Hot Rock & Blues Playlist
RknRusty
RknRusty
Moderator

2019 Supporter

Posts : 10817
Join date : 2011-08-10
Age : 63
Location : South Carolina, USA

Back to top Go down

0.049 reed motor efficiency - Page 4 Empty Re: 0.049 reed motor efficiency

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum