Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Path: brunix!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!gold!roger034
From: roger034@gold.tc.umn.edu (Brynn Rogers)
Subject: Re: Solar Insolation Levels
Message-ID: <CuG73t.1EM@news.cis.umn.edu>
Sender: news@news.cis.umn.edu (Usenet News Administration)
Nntp-Posting-Host: gold2.tc.umn.edu
Organization: University of Minnesota
References: <ykgcqc4w165w@sfrsa.com> <Cu1v1p.JqB@armory.com> <Cu2Es6.I48@news.cis.umn.edu> <jonkCuFu25.GBM@netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 1994 00:40:32 GMT
Lines: 34

In article <jonkCuFu25.GBM@netcom.com>,
Jonathan Dale Kirwan <jonk@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>I wonder...  Is the apparent disagreement here simply a matter of 
>confusion, instead?  rstevew argues that 150 watts/m^2 is in the ball 
>park of reality.  roger argues that it is nearer 1000.  But notice that 
>roger says they were using (8) meter^2 panels.  With that much area and 
>with rstevew's figures they'd both be pretty close to an agreement.
>
>So, does the 1000 watt figure come from a single meter^2, roger?  Or did 
>their 8 meter^2 panels develop 1000 watts per meter^2, yielding about 
>8000 watts for the whole panel?  Is there a disagreement or not?
>
>Jon
>
>
  Sigh.   It is Brynn Rogers, not roger.  I had no say in what my
account name would be.

The numbers are correct, and another solar racer backed up my numbers.
1000 W/m^2 is correct for 100% efficient cells.  (Science fiction)
1000 W  for 8m^2 is correct for 15% efficient cells.  Close enough,
anyway.

rstevew also conceded that he was wrong here,  raising my opinion of him
a great deal. :)

Brynn


--
Brynn Rogers                                   roger034@gold.tc.umn.edu
-------------   Space,  the final frontier.   -------------------------
Autonomous robots get my interest.     Embedded systems pay my mortgage.
