There are fabricators that will make clear tanks to our specifications if you're unable to build it. You don't need to be left out in the cold while those with handyman abilities get all the comfort and joy.
In the design to follow, a horizontal tank will be incorporated with vertical tanks for acquiring heated waters in the cooler seasons for end-of-day use. It's important that water volumes in the tanks are not so high that they fail to achieve warm waters on the average cool day. By lessening the water volumes, there will be extremely hot water in summer, meaning that tanks need to be built better for that reason. The problem here is that I have no experience, as I write, in what sort of tank volumes one should have for optimal summer or autumn/spring environments through the wide range of latitudes. We're either going to have to guess and hope for the best, or we can inquire of solar-heater dealers / manufacturers who can share some information.
There is this online statement: "To determine what size IPSWH you need, allow 30 gallons of water capacity per person in your household. Davis Alternative Technology Associates suggests about 2.5 gallons of water per square foot of [tank] glazing as the maximum ratio for good heating." IPSWH stands for "Integral Passive Solar Water Heater," meaning that it's not a metal-pipe heater but the full-water volume type that I'm discussing. The ratio amounts to 4" of water depth under the glaze. Why should this be the optimal depth? It may have to do with heat loss to the atmosphere versus heat gain into a storage tank. If the depth is less than about 3", the water often gets hot enough to waste much heat to the atmosphere. If the depth is much more than 4", the water will be too cool to allow good heat transfer into the storage tank.
By the way:
IPSWH systems are much less widely known despite some inherent advantages, including simplicity, low cost, and resistance to freezing. The first solar water heaters widely used in the U.S. were IPSWHs. They gradually fell out of favor because of night cooldown and tank corrosion. New materials and designs minimize these problems and promise to bring the IPSWH back into the forefront of solar activity...The low cost of IPSWHs more than offsets their slightly lower performance and will make them the most cost-effective heater for many climates and uses.
I don't know what they mean by "resistance to freezing" unless they were pumping house heat into the plexiglas casing.
If we've resolved to go with 4" deep in water, it should be said that this is the amount per one metal collector the size of the glazing. But with vertical tanks, a second sheet of metal collector can be used to justify an increase in water depth from 4" to about 6". Plus, if we use two transparent sides for the vertical tank, it should be permissible to make the tank still deeper.
If we fail in our tank dimensions to make it the best possible, water can be heated in others ways, using a wood fire if need be. Yet, maximizing the heater-tank performance is what this chapter is about because wood in the tribulation will be scarce for many.
The purpose of vertical tanks is to capture more afternoon sun veering west until sunset, wherefore they will all have an additional metal collector on their east sides...along with a metal collector on their north sides. It's a big deal to have the extra collector. An additional collector on any side of a horizontal tank is not a big deal. This is why we want vertical tanks.
At that wall, they will begin to receive sunlight only at about noon, at which time the sun will be heavy on their bottom-side collectors (three collectors in all per vertical tank). The problem is, a vertical tank's bottom collector is small. If the tank is 12" wide x 7" deep x 72" long (30 gallons), the bottom plate is just a half square foot. But with two 72" collectors, with a total area of almost 10 square feet, we can readily see the benefits in tank costs alone (it's almost two 12" x 3.5" x 72" tanks in one).
In the summer, when the sun is overhead, the vertical tank's north collector (12" in this case) receives little light all afternoon and evening long. The solution is one horizontal tank, with a bottom collector facing straight up at the summer sun. There's not much more collector area that a horizontal tank can provide than on its bottom side. If it's 36" wide x 4" deep x 96" long (70 gallons), it has a fairly large collector area. In this design, much of the heated water of a horizontal tank is meant to be sacrificed to waters higher up.
The horizontal tank is situated directly beneath the vertical tanks, and connected to them with a pipe. The vertical tanks thus take the majority of the heat from the horizontal tank, meaning that the heat escaping from the latter is not all wasted into thin air...which is the weakness of horizontal tanks.
The tops of the vertical tanks are connected by pipe to an insulated attic tank. The whole is a good heat-transferring system. The chief problem is sealing the lower tanks due to the increased water pressures from the over-all height of the system.
It is very debatable, on a very important level, how large that storage tank should be in comparison to the volume of water in all heater tanks combined. I think I would rather have a large storage tank filled with warm/hot waters while sacrificing all heater-tank warmth. To put it another way, a small storage tank would force some warm/hot waters to remain at the tops of the vertical tanks, which would cool quite fast in comparison to cooling in the storage tank. Clearly, the desirable option in the cooler seasons is to raise as much warmed water into the storage tank as possible.
Therefore, if I think the heater tanks can produce 150 gallons of warm water apart from a storage tank in the system, I might want 100 gallons of storage tank volume...so that it converts the warm 150 to a hot 100. The cooler waters in the heater tanks can then be mixed with the hot 100 in a second storage tank (in the attic) that can be called the water-mixer tank. To split 100 gallons between two storage tanks in an attic is very do-able.
I would suggest building just one vertical tank to begin with to test the system. If it works, add in one or two more. Two or three vertical tanks can best be arranged so that they simultaneously capture light fully on their north sides. In other words, one tank's north side cannot block light to another tank's north side. To put yet in other words, all tanks cannot be in a straight line against one west or south wall if the afternoon sun is to be maximized. All tanks can be in a straight line on one south-west wall.
If all tanks are against a wall, then, whatever the direction of a wall might be, there will come a point in the day when sunlight first lands on the tank closest to the sun, but cannot yet get to the tanks behind it. Here is what three tanks look like (top view) when snuggled up close: . In this case, the southern sun comes from the due right of the page, and the north side of each tank is the [ bracket. Draw a line in your mind to see how far the sun would need to be from due south before it shines past the [ of the first tank, wholly on the [ of the second and third tanks.
But if the three tanks were spaced out this much, ................, one can see that the sun would get to the second two tanks hours earlier. The problem is: what's better, to have the sun get at all three tanks quicker while sacrificing the heat-retention abilities of snuggled tanks, or vice versa? I'd say that, if the goal is to get heat into the storage tanks, the aim is to produce as much heat as possible in the vertical tanks, and not worry as much about the ability of the vertical tanks to hold the heat for long periods. I also tend to think that heat rising into the storage tank is more efficient when it's really needed than heat escaping out the tank sides. Or put it this way, that by the time heat escapes efficiently from the tank sides, it's because the storage tank has been filled with much heat.
As the sun, in the cooler seasons, cannot go much further than due west before it has set, the three tanks, rather than all being against a west or south wall, should look more like this (it's the best drawing I can muster with keyboard symbols):
_________________| South-West Corner of House
.............. ..................... <---- Noon Sun Direction (bathes all north-side collectors)
............... ^ Sunset Sun Direction (bathes all east-side collectors)
Each side ] is transparent. All three tanks now receive sunlight as soon as the sun first "sees" the tanks around the wall of the house. The one horizontal tank (conveniently positioned underneath the three tanks) would best be in a straight line (NW to SE) with the three tanks, the whole of them facing south-west. To maximize heat at all tanks, a back wall facing south-west could be built to which all three tanks are affixed. If you're lucky, one of you house walls is already positioned just right.
Whether to have the three tanks positioned as above off a south-facing wall of the house is positively debatable. It looks good because sun shines all morning long on the east side of the tanks that get no sun all morning long if positioned off the west wall of the house. Although the east side is not transparent, it's better to have sun on it than not. A mirror can be used on each tank to maximize the morning sun:
......................| South Wall of House
......................|.... ..................... <---- Noon Sun Direction
.............................. ^ Sunset Sun Direction
For building the vertical tanks in all-plastic sides, three of them in plexiglas, see "Fastening All-Sheet Tanks" at the end of the last chapter.
Light coming on angle upon a surface doesn't provide as much heat, not because more light is reflected away, but due to less light falling on the surface. You'll notice sun at an angle is not as bright on a wall as compared to sun dead on. To understand this, draw two sunlight lines coming in on a sharp angle upon a surface of any size; the distance between the two lines will be smaller than the width of the surface. The distance between the two lines is the volume of sunlight striking the full width of the surface, but if the sunlight falls on the same surface dead-on, the distance between sunlight lines is equal in width to the surface. Therefore, more volume of light falls on a surface with decreasing angle.
It is debatable, therefore, how the tanks above should be positioned, whether as the diagrams have them, or alternatively with their one side facing south-west. For convenience in fixing them flat to a wall, the latter option would be chosen. A point on behalf of the way the tanks are positioned in the drawings is that the one side facing due south captures dead-on heat when the sun is highest in the sky, which is the most-potent sun because sunlight penetrates the least amount of atmosphere at that time.
With these two principles, the potential of sun versus atmosphere, and the potential of sun versus angle, you have the keys by which to design a better solar heater. But ultimately, it's how the heater is built that determines its over-all efficiency. What does the heater do upon capturing heat? Shouldn't all three vertical tanks be covered in a plexiglas membrane to maximize heat retention? How quickly is the vertical-tank heat transferred through a pipe to the storage tank?
What really is heat and light?
Imagine the heat in the vertical-tank water passing through it's congested molecular spaces, all seeking passage across a bridge that is a bottleneck, really, that we call a pipe. The water does not flow through that pipe as a wholesale flow. Rather, it's the heat that flows, and yet while it flows, it pushes along the water molecules. When heat rises, it must push past water molecules pulled by gravity. As heat rises in a cold water, the heat spreads out into greater volumes, thus lessening the density of heat. Yes, heat has density, defined as temperature.
Imagine a truck driving through blobs of blubber in contact with one another. After a truck smashes into, and screeches past, the joints of two pieces of blubber, the blubber closes the gap again. The next truck a quarter mile down the road arrives, and needs to expend energy to open a path through the blubber again. However, if trucks were arriving as a convoy so close to one another that one truck arrives to the blubber joint while it's still mostly open from the last truck going through, all trucks would expend very little energy driving through. It simply means that the trucks would lose less speed in trying to get through. This is the situation in water with increasing temperature. Heat is able to pass through water faster as the temperature increases.
The danger, therefore, is when vertical tanks are built with too much water volume not permitting them to achieve a temperature where heat traffic moves along quickly. But then, the predicament is, the less volume in the vertical tank, the less area there will be for that second wall of metal collector plate. As the sun begins to set from the noon position, the second collector on the east side receives the light no longer shining dead-on the north-side collector. The second collector makes for a situation in which the tank continues to capture the same amount of sunlight as when the sun shines dead-on upon the north collector (minus the atmosphere factor as the sun goes down).
In a top-view drawing of one tank where the north side collector is one inch wide on your page, draw two sunlight lines one inch wide coming in upon the collector surface on a 45-degree angle (= 4 pm in the cooler seasons). If I recall correctly, some 30 percent of sunlight will, at that angle, miss the north collector...but will strike the east collector. The wider the east collector, the longer into the afternoon/evening this maximized situation can be maintained. But, the wider the east collector, the more water volume in a square/rectangular tank. Wouldn't it be great if we could have the east collector while reducing water volume?
We can, if we can build a triangular tank. To put it another way, we simply eliminate the west side of the tank and increase the width of the south side. The hottest waters will now rise where the north side meets the south side, albeit the latter is now a south-west side now. The top pipe connecting the vertical tank to the storage tank should now be located as closely as possible to where the north and south-west sides meet. Heat is going to be zooming across that bridge. (I apologize, but I don't even have a draw software so that I can draw this for you. It's not difficult to understand, anyway.)
If building a triangular tank is too difficult as per making a waterproof joint at an odd (i.e. not 90-degree) angle, perhaps an L-shaped tank would be easier as it would have all corners at 90 degrees (i.e. allows the use of typical angle-iron pieces for making joints). Both sides of the L could be about 4" deep. Regardless of the shape of the tank, we will always have two collector plates at 90 degrees to one another. The question then becomes: what direction should these collectors face? What about a direction like this, < , which is to say that one collector gets head-on sun a couple of hours before high noon, while the other collector gets dead-on sun a couple of hours after high noon, and both collectors together receive sunlight for maximization beteeen those two times. It would be especially useful for mid-afternnon showers.
But then, what if the tanks were made to spin? We could face them in any direction. With vertical tanks being tall rather than broad, the platforms for the spinning mechanisms (one per tank) would be small = less expensive. The tubes of the tanks would then need to be quite-flexible rubber. Even if the hoses prohibited a spin of more than 20 degrees toward morning and 20 degrees toward evening, it would yet be a large plus.
Contrary to what you have been taught my modern evolutionist-based physics, heat is a material. Scientists knew this before evolutionists replaced their thinking with a material-less heat, called the kinetic nature of heat. It's important to realize that heat flow in water is not essentially the flow of water. Yes, the water molecules are pushed around by the heat material working its way through, but really, all we want going up into the storage tank is the heat material. As we saw above that heat flows faster and more abundantly when water temperature is higher, shouldn't we make the vertical tanks as thin as possible, with as little water volume as possible, to attain and maintain high water temperatures?
Yes, to a degree, but then when the waters get too hot, there is a more-efficient heat loss through the tank walls. I'm assuming that there is an optimal water temperature for heat rise into the top pipe versus heat loss out the tanks. I'm assuming that the water depths recommended by the experts take these things into consideration in arriving to 3" or 4" as the optimal. Yet, tanks at that depth in Florida will get hotter than the same tanks in Labrador.
Again, as the vertical tanks have two collector plates as well as at least two plexiglas sides, they really should have, as a must if I understand this correctly, far more depth than 4". I would suggest 7" of depth.
The larger the top pipe (transferring heat to storage tank), the less congested the heat traffic through it, the higher that the water temperature can be in the heater tanks...meaning that we could reduce the 7" to perhaps 6" if the heat flow through the pipe could be elevated. Probably, it's well worth installing more than two pipes per tank as top-side exit points for the heat.
As heat rising through the top pipes tends to push water blubber upward with it, it's recommended by the experts that another pipe, from the bottom of the storage tank to the heater tank, is installed to allow cooler waters back down. See diagram. The circulation allowed by this second pipe makes it easier for heat to push its way through the blubber. In my design here, I would have just one back-down pipe...to the horizontal tank. The diameter of the back-down pipe does not need to be anywhere near the totality of diameters of all top pipes combined.
In fact, if the circulation rate of water through both the top and back-down pipes is too fast, too much heated waters will be sent back down to the coldest parts of the heater tanks -- horror -- only to have find their way again through the top pipes. To put this more simply, every drop of water allowed through the back-down pipe amounts to a significant loss of heat because that water comes from the storage tank. We ideally do not want to remove storage tank waters; we just want to pump heat into it. Nor do we want warm waters transferred into the heater tanks because it reduces the efficiency of heat absorption and retention by those tanks.
Therefore, it is arguable that the heat through the top pipe be made to struggle somewhat versus allowing it through more easily in conjunction with the removal of storage-tank waters through a back-down pipe. By "struggle," I mean to choke the down-back pipe by making it rather small. There must be an optimum point for feeding the storage tank somewhere between little struggle (i.e. a large back-down pipe) and the ultimate struggle i.e. no back-down pipe at all.
It can even be surmised (by me your non-expert) that a storage tank with no back-down pipe gets the hottest possible waters on good/sunny days because it only receives heat -- slower but steadily -- but doesn't let any back down again. If the top pipes are simply made large / numerous enough (the shorter the better too), I don't think a back-down pipe is needed. Instead of water rising quickly to the top of the storage tank when there is a back-down pipe, the storage tank without a back-down pipe will heat slowly from bottom to top, and by the end of the day, there will just have to be more heat in that tank as opposed to a tank with a back-down pipe. Plus, there should also be more heat in the vertical tanks.
I would therefore suggest that you install a back-down pipe but with a manual shut-off valve so that you can have either situation, and may even have a happy medium by choking the back-down pipe as you find it best by experience.
To maximize the entry of heat into the storage tank, we can turn the upper half of the vertical tanks into storage tanks. For example, instead of making 12" x 7" x 72" vertical tanks, make them 12" x 7" x 120". Simply wrap/cover the upper halves with insulation. As heat transfer to a storage tank is virtually eliminated in such a design, it could be argued that 60" of collector section is sufficient (instead of 72"), thus allowing a 60" (= 25 gallons per tank) of upper half. Some of the upper parts of the lower halves can be deemed part of the warmed storage tank waters.
Alas, all vertical tanks need to be accessed in some way by a single pump. I can't think of any better way of removing the waters from the vertical tanks than by feeding an attic storage tank with top pipes, as before. Only now, with much storage waters in the upper halves of the vertical tanks, the attic tank can be small, simply a place for a pump to access the waters equally of all vertical tanks. The high-water level in the small storage tank is set by an automatic shut-off valve in an attic container (see "container" last chapter).
 < Container Tank...........Storage Tank > ...... (both tanks same height, not directly connected)
................................................................   < Vertical Tanks
...........................................................[ Hor. Tank ]
In the diagram above, waters rise naturally from vertical tanks into storage tank as container waters enter at the horizontal tank.
The boiling point of a liquid arrives when the trucks (i.e. heat particles) are moving along so closely to one another, and screeching past the blubbers (i.e. water molecules) so fast, that the same number of trucks are leaving the blubber body at its surface as are entering the blubber body at its heat source. Temperature, or truck density within the blubber, can no longer increase at that point for obvious reason. I'm using this illustration to give you a sense of how heat particles work.
I do not believe that heat is the kinetic motion of atoms, as per the standard belief amongst textbook scientists. I believe that heat is a "gas" of free electrons filling the atomic spaces of any substance, and that the ultimate source of these free electrons is in the so-called, solar wind. As currents of solar electrons strike the earth, they force their way into whatever materials they strike, including solar panels, and the resulting expansion of materials thereby is my definition of heat.
The reason that modern scientists trashed this "caloric" theory of heat (albeit they won't tell you this) is for harmonizing of their theory of a big bang with their view of heat. That is, the explosive power of the big bang supposedly created sub-atomic motion still with us to this day, which motion is defined as heat. Heat is not a material, they say, but rather the motion of any and all materials.
If you don't believe in a big bang, neither do you have a natural basis by which to advance the kinetic theory of heat, a theory that views the entire universe in atomic motion, and which defines the end of the universe as a heat death (when all motion=heat ceases). I have several examples of how the kinetic theory of heat fails to explain the experimental conclusions, but this is not the place for them all.
You should not believe the kinetic theory of heat if you do not believe in the big bang. You would be lying to yourself to believe that God has electrons in orbit around protons at impossible velocities. Without these electrons in super-fast orbits, atoms cannot be kept in constant motion. That's why evolutionists, dummies, choose to believe that electrons are in orbit. Have you ever heard of anything more ridiculous? And yet you believed it as a student because they told it was so.
Modern scientists teach that atoms increase in their heat-related velocities when electrons in orbit catch photons from a light source. Have you ever heard of anything more ridiculous than speedy electrons absorbing another particle traveling at 186,000 miles per second, remaining in orbit all the while, without damage, and then releasing the photons systematically to create the entire spectrum of light? It's la-la-land here.
By now in your Christian walk, you must know that evolutionists are quite willing to lie to their students, and that this condition is normal for the end times. Do you see any reason why modern physics should not cater as a priority to the theory of evolution? Isn't it to be expected that all sciences should conform to the dictates of evolutionist "facts."
You can learn how the laws of physics operate from the planetary orbits as well as by the orbits of man-made satellites. Let's take a man-made satellite orbiting the earth once in less than two hours. In order to have the satellite orbit any faster, it needs to be made heavier, otherwise it will spiral away from the earth. For example, if the moon were to be brought closer to the earth, it would either need to orbit much faster to keep from spiralling into the earth, or to be made much lighter if its to keep its same velocity. Therefore, in order for an electron to orbit millions of times per second around a proton, it requires the electron to be massive in weight as compared to the proton core. Imagine how much larger the moon would need to be to maintain an orbit around earth a million times per second. You can't imagine it because it's impossible. You know right away that you are entering cartoon land when thinking of the moon orbiting a million times per second. And that's what evolutionary physicists are, laughable. The orbiting electron is a good example of modern atomic physicists betraying common sense.
In the minds of evolutionists, who control the field of sciences dealing with heat properties, all atoms are moving through space at hundreds of miles per hour, repeatedly bouncing off of one another (this is their definition of heat), and in the meantime the electrons do not go out of orbit with all of the repeated contacts made by atoms at such speeds. Evolutionists are completely whacko with a straight face, and they will defend their bizarre ideas with passionate hearts. They have subscribed to a false view of both the outer universe and the atomic universe on behalf of killing the Creator from their world view, and yours.
The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second because light is a longitudinal wave capable of transferring that fast through a wave medium offering almost zero resistance. The reason that there is little resistance in the wave medium is that it is not attracted by gravity. When gravity holds a wave medium down to a surface, for example the sound-wave medium held to the earth, it slows down the wave. If gravity does not hold down the wave medium at all here on earth, wave transfer through it can be instant where there is no stellar gravity coming against the medium from a direction opposite that of earth's gravity.
If you understand this right, a light wave is like taking a 200-mile stick and poking your cousin in the butt in a city 200 miles away. The poking at the other end of the stick occurs as instantly as you move your end of the stick because the atoms in the stick remain at the same distance from one another while you're poking. When electrons come out of a heat source, they push electrons to their front side without any of the electrons ahead of them coming closer to one another. One electron pushed forward (at any velocity) in your city simultaneously pushes the electron beside your cousin's butt 200 miles away. That is a logical and comprehensible definition of light traveling instantly. But if you think a photon can actually travel 186,000 mps as a bullet flies, you haven't got sense enough to realize that it should burn holes right through your bones let alone your organs.
Einstein had to tell the lie, when he invented the photon, that it had zero mass; otherwise he knew it would burn holes right through his body. How convenient is it for a "genius" to invent zero-mass particles when he needs them for propping up an erroneous idea? It was Einstein who did away with the light-wave medium, until scientists discovered that it really does exist.
Wave transfer across a medium is not the same as particle transfer through space; an electron emitted into space at a mere 1000 miles per hour may cause a wave transfer at 186,000 miles per second. No problem, logical. The resulting force of a light wave, when it strikes our hand, for example, can be understood in terms of the velocity of the emitted electron multiplied by its mass. In other words, the faster and larger the mass, the more it's going to be felt when it hits our hand. Light waves have a very small but measurable physical force, but this kinetic energy is not what we want when seeking solar energy for heating water. The physical force of light adds nothing to the heat production in a solar collector.
What matters is the number of light waves, each one sticking the metal collector with one electron that eventually comes out into the water. It then becomes a truck through the blubber. Yes, an electron is also a heat particle, but only when the electron is free from an atom (all electrons from the sun have been freed from solar atoms). If electrons are part of atoms, then they are captured by atoms and do not therefore register as temperature/heat in the atomic spaces of another material. Any object you merely touch with your finger is a touching of countless heat particles surrounding the atoms, but unless those captured electrons enter the skin of your finger, you cannot feel them as heat. Go ahead, feel them enter your skin; rub any object, and you will rub off a few electrons that will enter your skin as heat.
The wave medium consists of weightless free electrons issued from all stars and filling the universe. There is no difference between the wave medium through which light passes, and heat. Both are free electrons in space. This picture predicts that light will travel slower in cold outer space than in the science laboratory here on earth. It means that the distances to the sun and stars have been incorrectly calculated by evolutionary science. It's not surprising.
Evolutionists gladly adopted the faulty Newtonian definition of gravity, which teaches that gravity attracts all things, and that all atoms possess gravity, or that gravity source is to be found in atoms. Wrong. Gravity is, once again, the free electron. The Newtonian definition allows evolutionists a means by which to explain the creation of galaxies and stars from the big bang, which is why the Newtonian theory was gladly adopted by them. The Newtonian view of gravity misleads scientists into believing that electrons have weight. However, any particle repelled by gravity has zero weight, and thus far, no one has proven that the electron has weight, or is attracted by gravity.
Heat rises in the vertical heater tanks because gravity repels electrons, and every part of a gas/liquid having a greater density of free electrons is thereby made to rise with more force. As their density increases, which is defined as being closer to one another, their inter-repulsion forces increases (inverse square law) so that they all seek to move away from one another with greater force. With increasing density, the electrons become like trucks smashing their way through blubber blobs in all directions, but mainly upward as per gravity repulsion. Heat can never be contained in any material because electrons repel one another to the outside.
If water in the tank has a greater density of electrons than the air outside the tanks, the electrons in the water will naturally push out to join electrons in the air rather than vice versa. The repulsion of electrons is both the heat-transfer mechanism and the gravity source (electrical flow is not the same because it involves the forced/pushed flow, atom to atom, of electrons captured by atoms). When we feel pain due to high heat, it's the invasion of many free electrons. motivated by their inter-repulsion, into your skin (when we get an electrical shock, it's the pushed transfer of the captured electrons through the water molecules of your body).
If gravity is a negative charge, as I think it is, it is expected to repel electrons (for negative repels negative). Gravity is then defined rightly as the huge pool of heat (i.e. free electrons) in the earth's interior. Water evaporates (i.e. rises) when free electrons passing through it cause water molecules at the water surface to detach from the water body; the same rising electrons then force the water molecule upward in the air until the number of electrons underneath it, giving it lift, matches the pull of gravity on the water molecule. That point defines the level in the atmosphere where clouds tend to accumulate or form. The volume of electrons giving lift to an atom decreases with increased height because the volume of space increases with increased height over the surface of a sphere (explaining why it's colder as one goes up from the earth).
Here is a way to contend with evolutionists who refuse to look at the facts. There is one billiard ball moving toward another billiard ball for a perfect head-on collision, where both balls are moving with the same kinetic energy (i.e. assumes the balls are equal in weight and velocity). One ball will transfer it's energy into the other to stop it dead in its track, by eliminating the energy that got the ball moving in the first place. The other ball will do the same to stop the first ball dead in its tracks. Neither ball will move any longer (ignoring the effects of internal vibrations) upon contact.
To prove this to yourself even though the evolutionist is predicted to argue the point until he's dead and in hell, the collision above is identical in essence to one pool cue striking one ball with x force directly opposite another pool cue striking the same ball with x force at exactly the same time. The ball will move in neither direction, but will remain still, because the energy from the one pool cue exactly counters the energy from the other pool cue. It will be an identical result as with two balls moving at the same energy toward one another in a head-on collision. It's the same thing.
You can't say that this is untrue because it destroys energy. No, don't be deceived by the evolutionist who would rather die and go to hell than confess the truth, because he's a snake, and he forces the entire world of science fields to think like snakes. The energy was not destroyed, but energy from one cue countered energy from the other cue with the effect that the ball does not move. Just because the ball does not move does not mean the energy was destroyed, but a sly snake could make you think so due to your senses equating a still object with zero energy.
The snake insists that the balls should bounce away from one another with the same velocity exactly at which they collided, because this, he says, involves no destruction of energy. In his mind, balls coming to rest after a perfect head-on collision is a destruction of energy. He needs to have that belief in order to justify lying to the world concerning the behavior of atoms...when, in his mind, they are imagined to collide constantly, many times per second, until the universe is no more.
The evolutionist shouldn't have a legal right to have a law operating in his atomic world that contradicts what billiard balls do before his eyes. Otherwise our students are being taught by quacks. Energy does not vanish as if it never existed just because the effect of energy transfer is the slowing down of motion. Energy is not destroyed when its used up. If energy is used, it was not destroyed, but rather it was transferred. Sometimes the transfer increases the velocity of one ball but slows another; sometimes both balls slow down. It's just a fact that must be applied to the atomic world, otherwise it has no place in the classroom.
Here's another example. One billiard balls strikes another at rest, and while the first one stops dead in its track, the second one continues forward at the velocity of the first ball. The evolutionist doesn't say that energy was destroyed because the one ball stopped in its track, and of course he points to the second ball to show that energy was not destroyed, but was rather transferred to the other ball. Fine and true. But if the first ball in motion strikes a second ball coming toward it, and both stop dead in their tracks, it's true once again that there was no destruction of energy. This time, the energy transfer caused both balls to be at rest. The balls at rest are evidence that energy was transferred, and so long as the balls are at rest, the energy abides within them. The energy is not destroyed, but rather the ball at rest has real energy...to slow down another ball that strikes it.
The quacks look at a wave of the sea, noting that one wave colliding head on with an equal wave causes both waves to simply disappear, and yet their atomic world does not behave in the way they see the laws behaving with their own eyes. That's because evolutionists are deluded liars, lying even to themselves.
First, God created the sun; then the sun ejected electrons to form an electron sea moving away from the sun. The action of ejecting electrons causes energy (known to our eyes as light) to pass as a wave through the electron sea; then the energy arrives to the water tank and forces the electrons, already existing in the water, into the tank's metal backing. Then the electrons come out of the metal and into the water. They then go into your skin at the shower spray, and from they come out of your skin and go through the walls of your house, rising into space from whence they came, and they wave good bye and sail away with the current of electrons, further and further from the sun.
If heat were not constantly escaping from the earth, equal in amount to what's coming in, the earth would fry. Evolutionists have had no viable mechanism to explain the escape of heat in amounts comparable with incoming heat. In their view, heat can only escape one system when atoms collide with, and pick up heat from, it. But outer space has no atoms to collide with, and pick up heat from, the air atoms in the upper atmosphere. It's therefore unreasonable to argue that the kinetic theory of heat is a transfer mechanism of earth's heat into space.
They say that the sun speeds the atoms of the air when incoming solar photons strike the air atoms. In the upper atmosphere, as with the lower atmosphere, all air atoms are colliding, they think, some deflecting upward and some deflecting downward; just imagine random chaos, and that's their view of every atom in the universe. The extreme-highest air atoms can only go up so far before curving back toward earth's gravity, and they will inevitably cause more collisions with the atoms below, but if the only thing taking place in the upper atmosphere is particles colliding with one another but never losing their energy to the void of space, it's clear we need another heat-loss mechanism.
It has no merit for evolutionists to invent a dark invisible matter of some sort in outer space into which they can imagine heat transfer from upper air atoms. The idea, where it has vague evidence, is suspect from the start as merely a fantastic prop to save the failure of their kinetic theory of heat. There is indeed "dark" matter out there, but it's the solar-wind free electrons streaming from the sun. It's also to be expected that pieces of destroyed protons are sailing along with the electron solar wind because the sun probably releases electrons due to proton destruction...i.e. where protons (of atomic cores) can no longer retain their captured electrons. The most-likely place for proton destruction is under the full weight of the sun's mass, at the solar core.
It's an ingenious system, but which came first, the weight, or the release of electrons? The release of electrons had to come first, or there would not have been gravity by which the weight could form. The evolutionist would argue that it's not good science to have God start a process in order that the process could maintain itself thereafter, but for me, the Creator is permitted into the realm of scientific explanation. If the evolutionist feels to the contrary, it easily explains why he's teaching falsehoods in the name of science. Don't feel sorry for him, for the future will look back and laugh at his ignorant obstinance, and weep for the great spiritual and academic damage that lays at his feet as a plague to this generation. I wouldn't call them snakes if they were not so passionate to keep the Creator out of the schools at any cost in hopes that all children, yours and mine, would become quacks as they are.
The truth is, every collision of any material of any shape causes a slowing of motion so that the kinetic picture of heat could not last but a few seconds or minutes. If two balls striking head on with equal energy cease in their motion, then balls colliding at less than dead-on angles will slow down in proportion to how close the collisions are to dead-on. The greater the impact, the greater the energy absorption, the slower the velocity. After several collisions, all balls will come to rest. End of story: heat cannot be kinetic energy, and is therefore a material all its own.
Back to the Tanks
I have been hoping and praying for years to use my views on heat, light and energy in some ways to produce a better tribulation method for securing energy. But I fail at every attempt. Science has conducted so many experiments that, whether they understand the atomic world or not, they know what discoveries and results can be had under countless situations. To improve on their discoveries is not easy unless one has a wide range of scientific knowledge with which to try things a little differently based on a different and better view of the atomic universe.
But here, in the case of a vertical tank, an invention could be had if we could have a way to make heat move through the water blubber with more ease. There are ways to do this, but they need to be applied in practical ways to the solar-heater tanks. Putting the water into a vacuum in a solar heater will make it easier for heat the move through the water, but it's not practical to include a vacuum, and yet you will see a slight vacuum situation created as I explain this invention. Water boils very easily (i.e. at much lower temperatures) in a vacuum because heat gets through it more easily.
Heat is restricted in water because 1) water molecules are bonded lightly via inter-atomic attraction (just think of sticky blubber blobs glued to one another slightly, but don't view the blobs flying around as evolutionists view it); 2) gravity presses water molecules downward upon one another; 3) the atmosphere (14 psi) squeezes water molecules downward too. A vacuum removes the air pressure but not the gravity.
Water molecules bond when they merge with one another. As soon as they are merged, they find natural attraction; its what creates water from vapor. Un-merging the molecules takes energy of heat passing through the molecular joints (or atomic "spaces"). The more heat that passes through the joints, the less the molecules are merged with one another; evidence for this is in water expansion with increasing heat. Water expansion means the molecules are merged less deeply. We realize that atoms have non-solid perimeters that allow mergers. (If you must know, every atom's perimeter is an electron cloud/atmosphere where the inter-repelling electrons (not orbiting) are not in contact with one another, and yet are trapped by protonic attraction (same as the earth holds the air while air atoms are not in contact). Destroy the proton completely, and the atomic atmosphere can no longer exist, wherefore the atom no longer exists. Destroy the uranium proton, and nuclear power results. Man has not learned to destroy any other proton, thankfully, but the uranium. Albert Einstein, who gave evolutionists some building blocks of cosmic evolutionary folly, partook in the creation of the atomic bomb.)
Therefore, if we can't use a vacuum, and we can't block gravity, to speed heat flow, the only remaining way I can see is by increasing water temperature. So what about this: place a sheet of plexiglas 1/2" distant from the metal collectors so that the water right up against the metal approaches closer to boiling point...the point at which heat zooms, as bubbles, through water. Physicists would have you believe that the speedy bubbles are filled with water vapor, but they are wrong. The bubbles are filled more with electrons repelled by gravity.
Each bubble plows a path through the water on behalf of a bubble below it. It's a convoy of bubbles moving at top speed. A bubble is to be defined as a relatively huge package of heat pushing aside the water blubber so as to form a vast spherical volume. Each bubble explodes on the scene when the pressure from the most-dense area of heat particles unglues water molecules around a central point. The maximum size of a bubble is a battle of the forces; the force of water pressure around the bubble versus the equal force of electron inter-repulsion within the bubble.
Okay, let's assume we have, per vertical tank, a plexiglas divider 1/2" distant from the collectors, extending from the bottom to top of the tanks. Let's assume that the water in the 1/2" corridor becomes much hotter than water on the other side of the plexiglas; there's going to be increased heat transfer through the plexiglas, but it's of no concern at all because it offers heat to water in the tank anyway. To solve increased heat penetration in the other direction, through the metal collector and out the tank wall, simply fix a foam insulation panel either in the tank and behind the metal collector, or to the outside of the tank.
There needs to be a small gap at the bottom of the plexiglas to allow cooler water into the corridor as hot water rises in the corridor. That's going to work, without doubt, the only question being: how good will it work, or what will be the benefits beyond not having the plexiglas divider? Will the increased speed of heat rise make a difference? Yes, because, instead of allowing heat to float around for longer periods in the uninsulated vertical tank, it packs the heat more quickly into the storage tank that's laced with insulation. I don't see why anyone would want to spare the insulation on that tank.
I tried once or twice to invent a product that did not allow free electrons to pass through. Wouldn't it be nice to have a paint on the house walls that did not permit the passage of electrons? I tried only once or twice, for about two minutes each time, because I knew that scientists have already tested all materials for heat-transfer velocities, and they found none that blocked heat completely. It doesn't necessarily matter that I have the correct view of heat while they don't; what matters is the experiments. They only way to stop your precious heat from going through your house wall is to put more heat on the outer side of the wall...or to repel the electrons away from the inside wall using some other method.
A couple of inches below the very top of each vertical tank, there of course needs to be a large pipe taking the heat naturally from the 1/2" corridor and directing it into the storage tank. Moreover, at the very top of the plexiglas, there needs to be a hole, say 1" in diameter (or multiple small holes equal to one at 1"). When the storage tank becomes quite filled with heat from the corridor so that adding more is a struggle, the tendency of the heat flow will be a detour through this 1" hole so as to build up in the upper area of each vertical tank. It's perfectly fine if the upper halves of the vertical tanks have been converted into storage tanks.
One cannot get more heat from the metal collector by causing heat flow faster through the corridor. The amount of heat production at the collector is dependent on sunshine alone. But once the heat is produced and fallen into the water, get it as quickly as possible into the storage tank. The quickest way is to get water in the corridor so hot as to form small bubbles. Bubbles rise very fast as compared to the rise of heat by thermosiphon. Let's call this the Bubble Ahoy solar heater.
In water, heat bubbles form long before it reaches the boiling point. The question now is: should heat bubbles be permitted to carry heat to the storage tank? Of course, but. If the heat is in the bubbles, then it's not in the water. You may not think that to be important, but it is. The metal collector can only make so much heat, but if much of that heat rises in the bubbles before it heats the water, is it really a good idea? It depends on what we do with the heat in the bubbles after the bubbles unload at the water surface.
Speedy bubbles carry their heat expressly to the surface of the storage-tank water, releasing heat into the air above the water rather than into the water. Is that good? Could be? Or it could be bad, depending on how little insulation is at the top of your storage tank.
The question then becomes? Should be widen the corridor to allow no bubbles to form, yet making the water so hot as to form a good rapid flow of heat through the water? Or, should we encourage the bubbles to be the-bigger-the-better with the plan of allowing their heat in the air of the storage tank to just penetrate the water below it? After all, in this design, a pump will take the water at the top of the storage tank when there is a demand at any household tap.
Where heat comes to a point of seething at the top of the storage tank, due to too many bubbles ejecting there (it won't happen on all days), heat loss will increase through the insulation. If we choose to restrict bubble formation, all we are accomplishing is a more-even distribution of heat in the water; is that the best plan? Won't it allow heat to escape in greater amounts through the walls of the vertical tank? I suppose there needs to be an optimal point of balance, but to discover this point is the job of statistical scientists who can test and contemplate heat loss at all different points of the tanks, at all different temperature scenarios. But I'm thinking off the cuff that it would be best to locate as much heat as possible in the air of the storage tank, the sooner the better.
Clearly, in this design, where I once had an air hole at the top of the storage tank, a change needs to take place. We don't want that air hole anymore because it's a passage toward outer space. We want the electrons in our skin before they kiss us goodbye to outer space. Look at all we go to in getting a few electrons into our skin.
Here is what I think. The first time that the solar tanks (including the container) are filled to the brim, the air hole in the storage tank must be left open for obvious reason of allowing air to escape. But after all tanks are filled, the air hole can be closed, and the storage-tank lid must be sealed fully. When the pump thereafter takes water from the storage tank, the space at the top of the tank increases in size, and therefore decreases in air pressure. Isn't that toward the makings of a vacuum? Yes, and it will have the effect momentarily of sucking both heat and water more efficiently from the vertical tanks. That can't be bad.
Whenever the pump starts for some seconds, new (cold) water simultaneously pours into the container, and from there it finds its way (through the vertical tanks) to replenishing the storage tank. The 1" hole in the plexiglas, mentioned above, will be the natural path for the replenishment water.
The water pump is at all times taking water from the place where it can be predicted to be the hottest by far. It looks like a great situation with no downsides.
As each vertical tank has two long collectors, we may even provide a corridor at each collector, each corridor having its own pipe to the storage tank.
Ultimately, however, it needs to be realized that, the more heat in the space at the top of the storage tank, the greater the air pressure (to a point). Therefore, the greater will be the water pressure (to a point), and the greater the difficulty for bubbles to plow through the water. At some points in pressure, some bubbles (depending on size) will cease to form, thus providing a natural limit for bubble formation when the top of the storage tank is hot and under pressure.,P> Reminder: the tanks are not fully sealed because the container has an air hole, meaning that the pressure in the storage tank will not become high or dangerous. With a sealed storage tank unable to take on more water volume as water expands with temperature increase, one needs to allow room for it at the top of the container instead, as well as allowing yet more room (in the container) for the expansion of the air space under discussion.
There is now the question of whether the storage tank should be vertical or horizontal. One might argue that the horizontal tank allows more space, but then more space can be provided at the top of a vertical tank...if more space is deemed to be of value. Would it better to have a one-foot deep space rather than just a few inches? Shall we go with two feet deep? What would be the differences? If bubbles are the target, more space seems to be called for.
Danger: if your particular pump removes water much faster than your particular valve in the container can replenish it, the water in the storage tank may run dry for long enough to harm your pump. To minimize this possibility, use a small or low-output pump and/or have a small pressure tank (five gallons?) that quickly lowers the pump output rate. Or use a valve for the container that reliably (even years later) allows nearly as much water through as your pump takes at its maximum ability. The small DC hot-water pumps on this page below seem ideal for use in this regard. Some or all of the AC hot-water pumps (same page) may have settings to control the water flow rate of your choice.
By the way, when gas atoms are surrounded by more heat, the atoms are forced to adopt more electrons within their sphere (i.e. each atom becomes a spot of higher negative charge), thus causing all gas atoms to inter-repel with more force...which is part of my definition of increased gas pressure with increasing temperature. Some free electrons that are forced (by electron inter-repulsion) upon the atoms become quasi-captured for the time being (but are released from capture when temperature goes down).
You can ignore this paragraph if you wish. According to experiments conducted by science, I concluded that a doubling of free electrons (= heat particles) in any gas is not enough for a doubling of its temperature. I also concluded that cutting the distance between heat particles in half (= eight times the density) gives all gases a doubling of pressure, but still not enough to double the gas temperature. It was easy to figure that cutting the distance of gas atoms in half produced four times the gas pressure (as per the inverse-square law of magnetic or gravitation forces). In order to cut the distance of both gas atoms and heat particles in half, one must reduce a gas volume by eight times. It's known that eight times less gas volume amounts to eight times more gas pressure; four of those eight times are by the increased inter-repulsion of the gas atoms, and the remaining four times is by the increased density of heat particles doubling the gas pressure. This paragraph, for any astute scientist willing to lay aside the kinetic theory, is a big deal because it gives the keys for proving that heat is a particle that in the first place causes gas pressure, meaning also that gas pressure is not, as the evolutionist teaches, due to gas atoms constantly colliding with objects, for example with the walls of an enclosed container.
If the space above the water can be made into a perpetual vacuum (ignoring the water vapor that would form), the increase in pressure due to added heat will not be much. However, there can be no vacuum in that space unless the container is itself sealed with its own vacuum. New water will yet flow from container to storage tank where there are vacuums at the top of both. Vacuum pumps are available for creating these vacuums. Having water in near-zero pressure allows heat to flow very easily through water, but there is one problem for practicality's sake: atmospheric pressure on the plexiglas would be 14.3 pounds per square inch where there is a perfect vacuum in the tanks. The plexiglas can't handle that pressure. However, we could try to reduce the pressure less drastically in the spaces above the storage and container tanks, to check whether it amounts to a significant gain in heated waters.
DANGER: where your particular pump removes water at a rate much faster than your particular valve in the container can replenish it, the storage-tank space may decrease in pressure sufficient to damage the plexiglas. Therefore, if you're going to test lower-pressure situations, be careful and understand your psi numbers.
The corridor idea can be utilized in roof tanks on a roof slope, but is minimized in performance where those tanks are nearly horizontal. It might be advantageous to use the corridor idea while installing roof tanks on significant slope angles, perhaps sacrificing some optimum sun angle in the process.
Every vertical tank should be attached to a wall loosely (a strap or rope will do), or with brackets having holes much larger than bolt threads, and tightening bolts on the loose side. The wall as well the tanks can be upon a deck ideally.
For removing water from the ground heater tanks and raising them to an attic, low-wattage DC pumps attached directly to a solar battery pack, because there is no rush to get the water up, is a good way to go. Always give the details for your pump needs to a qualified pump expert if you don't what you're doing. You may not find that person at Home depot. See DC pumps:
At the website below, there is a cost calculator showing $448 for a 4' x 8' sheet at 1/2 inch thick, but you may decide to try 3/8" ($327) to save money if you think it will work for you. There are some companies selling it in 10' lengths.
The webpage below is for cast plexiglas as opposes to the slightly cheaper extruded plexiglas. But look at the benefits, the first one perhaps the most important in that cast is usable up to 180 degrees F, whereas the extruded type is a squeaker barely for our purposes at 160 F:
Continuous Service Temp: 180 F (Cast) vs. 160 F (Extruded)
...Cast acrylic has a higher molecular weight, therefore it will cut, drill and rout cleaner...
Cast acrylic also offers better glue-joint effectiveness and performs better in laser cutting.
Hopefully, it's as transparent, or nearly so, as compared to the extruded type.
You can also click their acrylic link (website at bottom of this paragraph) to find a slightly higher price, though I can't readily see in the description why we would want to go with acrylic versus plexiglas. On the Physical Properties page, it says that Acrylite (brand name) is better in the sun and outdoors than other transparent plastics; we also read that it's acceptable for aquariums. It's weight is half that of glass, or "43% the weight of aluminum".
We read, "For this reason, and because of thermal expansion and contraction, large sheets should never be fastened with bolts, but should always be installed in frames." Unfortunately, we need to use bolts to get a seal, but that's why the bolt holes should be significantly larger than the bolt threads, allowing the plexiglas room for expansion. We take out chances building tanks with plexiglas, but I'm willing to take the risk. A good time/place to build the tank is when/where the temperature is exactly midway between 140 F and the lowest temperature that your winter season would see. Don't tighten bolts more than need be to keep the seal; they can be tightened as the tanks are filling with water to get that situation. The seals will tighten as the water heats, and loosen as the water cools. If tanks are on the ground, you might opt to loosen some of the bolts for winter if contraction is an issue. It's not dangerous if your tank leaks unless you're suicidal. But calm down.
The page claims that the acrylic has light-transmittance capability of 92% with no more than a 3% loss over 30 years, suggesting it doesn't cloud. In their Light Transmission properties data sheet, we read that "Transmission characteristics of colorless ACRYLITE GP and ACRYLITE FF sheet are equal or superior to those of ordinary window glass."
Good news: "ACRYLITEŽ sheet can be sawed with circular saws or band saws. It can be drilled, routed, filed and machined much like wood or brass with a slight modification of tools."
Some extra acrylic left over can be used over a hole in your roof that you may cut out to shine sun on your storage tank. I'd say a 4' x 4' hole sounds about right. Just support the acrylic from underneath in winter time if there is deep / heavy snow in your area. If you enclose the storage tank with an insulated wall, that little sun-filled room will be cooking at midday. You might want to inquire regarding heavy hail on plexiglas if you're in a hail zone.
The sunny California area can greatly benefit from solar heated water. Here's a San Diego company that will even cut circles in your plexiglas, offering different sizes too than the company above, but they charge significantly more. There are many materials in opaque plastic sheets to choose from. http://www.eplastics.com/plexiglas_Acrylic_Sheet_Clear?range=49%2C96%2C136
Here's a page from where one can shop for non-transparent plastic sheeting, showing a 4' x 8' x 1/2" sheet of PVC at $235 (January 2013). It seems like robbery, doesn't it? I thought plastic was supposed to be cheap due to the amounts the world uses. Just because plastic sheets are very useful doesn't mean our governments need to allow thieves to take advantage. Maybe the government could put itself to work to really doing something for the people, in outlawing high price fixing.
Before ordering PVC, make sure it can handle constant-water and temperatures expected from a solar water heater. Some small breakdown in the rigidity department at say 150 F could be fine. Metal parts holding the tank together could get quite hot; perhaps non-metal brackets and such would do better. There are plastic shut-off valves and taps, recommended.
Here's a provider of opaque acrylic sheeting:
Check out some of the many websites on solar heaters. And because our solar-heated water may not be very hot for long periods, I should share the following: "Tank temperature should be no less than 130 degrees to prevent bacterial growth, such as Legionnaires disease." Or, just don't drink your shower water, and feed your tank system some bleach periodically.
If you're interested in building your own batch solar heater, the following website gives you about all the information you'll need to know:
What's the best way to capture heat by sunlight: 1) water or other liquid, circulating by slow pump action, through rows of black metal pipes inside a glass housing exposed to the sun, or, 2) water sitting motionless in a glass housing (minus the pipes) equipped with a black backing? The ones with the pipes, circulating pump, and special storage tanks are the expensive ones.
I'm not an expert in this field, but it seems to me that the second option can be the best method in the sunniest periods, and besides, the pipe methods, which are rigged for winter use too, don't offer much energy savings in winter. Virtually all heat captured by the metal backing in option 2) will have no place to go but into the water, whereas much heat dropping as light on metal pipes will escape into the air before it even gets into the liquid. That's why they cover the pipes with a transparent cover. Yes, the air is trapped in to make it hot, but for any heat escaping the pipes that never made it into the water, it's just a thin sheet of glaze away from outer space.
In the pipeless method, the captured heat must at least pass through all the waters first. This passage occurs far quicker in a horizontal tank, but a vertical tank has the heat tending to rise upward though much more water, and besides, the 1/2" corridor helps to keep the heat from working it's way to most of the tank walls. Therefore, the vertical thermosiphon tank with 1/2" corridor seems a great improvement, especially for non-summer seasons, over the typical thermosiphon tank on a sloped roof.
Plus, the warmer the liquid in heater pipes, the harder it is for heat in the pipe material to transfer into the water. This is an non-issue with a metal plate collector...because it must absorb heat no matter what the water temperature. Sunlight will penetrate hot water just the same; it keeps on trucking right on through, dumping more and more heat onto the metal. So why use pipes?
Because, anti-freeze can run through pipes, whereas water just sitting in a tank needs to be drained in regions receiving harsh winters. The pipes are run through an insulated water tank so as to transfer the anti-freeze's heat to the water for household use. You won't need to worry about the sealed tank of the last chapter if you decide to build a pipe heater, but you will need a tank that takes both the pipes and the household water-pressure level. You probably won't make that tank legal if you make it yourself. You would do well to maximize the heat exchange in the tank by a method better than just running the pipes in.
The problem is, heat works both ways. During cloudy periods, heat transfers out from hot liquid in the pipes. Metal pipes are great at taking it in, and just as great for tossing heat out.
One wouldn't want to circulate the cooled water at the roof during cloudy periods into the warmer waters in the storage tank, as that's donkey backwards. So, the pipe systems have factory-built mechanisms to automatically shut down liquid circulation during cloudy and dark periods. Beautiful (almost). It's no problem to run the circulating pump with a small solar-electricity system because the pump only runs when the sun shines. How opportunistic. Just when the pump is needed, the solar panels are producing electricity for free.
Pump operation by sunlight signal at first glance sounds perfect, but it's not always a positive factor because, during long cloudy periods, water in the pipes cools faster than water in the insulated tank, meaning that a pump activated by sunlight after a longish-cloudy period can circulate colder liquid into the insulated tank. Not good. Clouds could at that point be the individual fluffy kind that fill half the sky, turning the pump on and off for the rest of the day at intervals of a few minutes each, therefore circulating water for the rest of the day that's cooler than what was in the tank earlier in the day. Tanks fed by thermosiphon don't have this problem.
The valuable part of this pipe method is the tank that you and I can't build, wherefore they are not going to sell it to you cheap so you can build your own pipes and save a ton without them getting a big slice right off the bat. But if you're wanting a solar heater for trib purposes and don't need typical tap pressures, you can indeed send piping through your home-made tank, even a wood crate with a lining that can take the heat. But, again, it's dangerous to have a home-made hot water tank in the attic if it suddenly bursts with nothing but wallboard / drywall between it and a person below. Know what you're doing, or build some protective measure to keep leaked hot water from bursting through the ceiling. Here is a rather inexpensive DC circulating pump that may do the trick for your home-made pipe circulator:
The page below has some AC circulating pumps rated for hot water that can double as the pump taking water from a storage tank
If ever you feel bad about spending money on plexiglas at $110 per 4' x 8' sheet per 1/8" thickness, see these flat plate collectors, with pipes, that you can buy all done and ready to go, starting at $800 for a 3' x 7' model. It's built with an aluminum back and aluminum frame.
After finishing this chapter on January 24, I added the following to the Iraq Update for that week:
Another Sign? It was the middle of the night on the morning of January 24. A fly so loud that I thought it could be a bee at one point, hovered above my face while in bed. It woke me up. In my unfinished house in the cold of this December and January, I have had a constant stream of house flies and mosquitoes that in the autumn must have ended up in the floor and/or ceiling insulation. They find their way in to my living space. But never in all my life do I recall a house fly flying in the dark. That's exactly the thought passing through my mind as I heard this one hovering like a helicopter in night-time distress two or three feet above my head. I got up to make sure it wasn't a bee, and sure enough, on the wall, a black typical house fly. I normally leave them alone and let them live in the house, but this one I squashed.
As I awoke, I was asking whether this was going to be a Sign of some sort, because peculiar things happen to me routinely that end up connecting that same day (or nearly so) with some topic that I'm writing on. For example, the mouse that ran in front of a podium where Obama was speaking on television a couple of years ago. In my Iraq updates, I had been emphasizing mice Signs in my house at the time, to the point that readers were thinking I could be crazy, and then as if to save me from such thoughts, apparently, God had that mouse appear right in front of Obama for my sake. It, along with other things, tended to suggest that God was pointing out Obama as part of the anti-Christ empire.
As I awoke this time on January 24, the only fly I could think of in heraldry or any recent topic was the "muscas" motto term used by Drakes, which is Italian for "fly." I decided not to mention this fly incident to readers based on the muscas alone; something more needed to happen to assure me that it was a Sign. I could not believe my eyes at the Drudge Report, when I visited it on the evening of January 24: it was a house fly on the center forehead of Obama right between the eyes!! I kid thee not, see
Obama and his fly. Here is the source article in the UK dated January 24.
What does this apparent Sign mean? Why was it given? Why is the fly on Obama's forehead? The photo is only of his head, but with the right hand being the only other body part in the photo? Doesn't the Drake wyvern have what looks like three 6s in its tail?
The photo's at the Drudge page where this photo was first discovered had loaded only partly (I am on slow Internet service here in the country so that photos load slower)). The photos had loaded only partly two times in a row in exactly the same amount so that only the top of Obama's head was showing exactly as far down as the fly. But even the fly was only partially appearing so that I could not make out what it was. It looked like a bullet hole in his head, as though someone had doctored a photo in mocking him for his attempt to enforce new gun laws at this time. I ask you, why did it look like a bullet hole in his head? I'll leave it at that, in case Obama is shot in the head.
Can we expect the 666 commercial system to come out under Obama's next term. If I'm not mistaken, this photo with fly was from his inauguration address. Why did I just spend three or four weeks on four solar-heater chapters, a wholly unplanned and unexpected workload?
God has arranged short events over the years (while I've been writing), using props as messages, any thing/object that becomes a part of the Sign where the prop or even its name has special meaning. I think He enjoys speaking that way. I don't think He likes plain English. Whenever an event strikes me as a prop-message, I naturally ask myself what any detail might mean, or whether any detail was part of the message at all. I was asking myself why I killed the fly. Did it mean that Obama will be killed, and if so, why? I didn't take the question seriously, however. There was no evidence that what I did to the fly had any part of the message.
The fly was hovering, which was strange. Houseflies don't hover, do they? But then I don't know what houseflies do in the dark. I thought it was a bee because it was hovering, like it didn't know what to land on. The room's light-painted walls were lit up somewhat by moonlight off the snow, but it was quite dark anyway at the top of the bed.
On the morning of the 25th, as I write here, and just moments ago, it came to mind that I squashed the fly with a fly SWATter, reminding me of warnings given by some Christian (and non-Christian) militia groups that the United States is about to implode under a cleverly-planned martial-law scheme, wherein rebellious American citizens will be attacked by black UN helicopters with the blessing of an American president. In these warnings, SWAT teams are usually part of the helicopter attacks, coming down, while people sleep, from ropes onto building tops. The black fly seemed to me like a hovering helicopter. Swatincidence? Is the United States about to implode from a long-awaited Illuminati plot, under Obama?