Some great slides on there to illustrate thermodynamics involved in passive houses and panels! I think this should start with frame mentioning it is unlikely that the thermal system will produce net sum, as opposed to continuous costs. And then I think it should be asked if one was to find that investing in insulation of the building instead of thermal panels would actually get savings. Only after this one might consider solar thermal. Exterior panels where heat is piped through insulated structure would freeze your ash off during northern winters, no no. Opening a window to collect heat from exterior passive solar thermal panel - ok that might be an interesting exercise for a student, but for heating a house up north its a very bad idea. The reasonable approach that comes after experimentation is based on triple glazed windows with specific glazing (as implied in one of the slides). In-building thermal sink behind the window - plus shading and reflectors (aluminum shades). So its an architectural-level problem in this type of scenario, not carpenter-level. I also do wonder if you should explicitly make note of the fact that air convection will never be that effective at transporting heat either. I may be a pessimist but also typical thermal panel will incur most loss of the absorbed energy as plain radiation, including significant loss from the ductwork or whatever. The implication is that for exterior panel, you either have vacuum insulated thermal collector-conduits, or net gain is negative. I believe this is the standard of knowledge today, and it might be mentioned. Further, in questions, while you correctly do discuss the effect of angle of incidence on the intensity (density) of the radiative flux per unit area, you fail to make note that further up you go, the shorter the day becomes during winter. And so, this may mean there simply is no way to use solar thermal panels in winter. So good prez, spawned some ideas.
Some great slides on there to illustrate thermodynamics involved in passive houses and panels! I think this should start with frame mentioning it is unlikely that the thermal system will produce net sum, as opposed to continuous costs. And then I think it should be asked if one was to find that investing in insulation of the building instead of thermal panels would actually get savings. Only after this one might consider solar thermal.
Exterior panels where heat is piped through insulated structure would freeze your ash off during northern winters, no no. Opening a window to collect heat from exterior passive solar thermal panel - ok that might be an interesting exercise for a student, but for heating a house up north its a very bad idea. The reasonable approach that comes after experimentation is based on triple glazed windows with specific glazing (as implied in one of the slides). In-building thermal sink behind the window - plus shading and reflectors (aluminum shades).
So its an architectural-level problem in this type of scenario, not carpenter-level.
I also do wonder if you should explicitly make note of the fact that air convection will never be that effective at transporting heat either. I may be a pessimist but also typical thermal panel will incur most loss of the absorbed energy as plain radiation, including significant loss from the ductwork or whatever. The implication is that for exterior panel, you either have vacuum insulated thermal collector-conduits, or net gain is negative. I believe this is the standard of knowledge today, and it might be mentioned.
Further, in questions, while you correctly do discuss the effect of angle of incidence on the intensity (density) of the radiative flux per unit area, you fail to make note that further up you go, the shorter the day becomes during winter. And so, this may mean there simply is no way to use solar thermal panels in winter.
So good prez, spawned some ideas.
awesome presentation
Very well explained. Thank you.