|
|
re: deployable doubt dispellers
24 feb 2006
ricodjour wrote:
>>>if it's supposed to be a house, people have to be able to walk inside of it.
>>>looking at a thermometer through a window won't convince someone as much as
>>>personally experiencing that temperature.
>>
>> it needn't be a house, but a door sounds good for ultimate disbelievers.
>
>you need to expand your thinking. stop thinking outside the box.
>inside is where it's at.
we have 1) engineers and physicists who consider this an obvious and trivial
accomplishment and require no physical proof, 2) doubters, eg architects,
who are scientifically literate but have been confused by conventional wisdom
and sbic guidelines claiming that houses can only be 60% solar-heated outside
of the southwest, and 3) ignorant arrogant actors like m ransley, who may
always imagine hoaxes and secret energy sources that keep the cubes warm.
the first and third groups can't be helped, but we might help the second :-)
"... 84 ft^2 of tank surface with 5x84 = 420 btu/h-f of slow-moving
airfilm conductance could supply 840 btu/h at 70 + 840/420 = 72 f.
keeping the cube 70 f for 8 hours and 50 f for 16 hours on a cloudy day
takes (8h(70-30)+16(50-30))21 = 13440 btu, so the tank might store heat
for 2x6x6x62.33(115-72)/13440 = 14 30 f cloudy days in a row.
were m ransley less ignorant, he might have corrected the calc above:
"... 84 ft^2 of tank surface with 2x84 = 168 btu/h-f of slow-moving
airfilm conductance could supply 840 btu/h at 70 + 840/168 = 75 f.
keeping the cube 70 f for 8 hours and 50 f for 16 hours on a cloudy day
takes (8h(70-30)+16(50-30))21 = 13440 btu, so the tank might store heat
for 2x6x6x62.33(115-75)/13440 = 13 30 f cloudy days in a row.
nick
|
|
