On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:36:29 +0100 someone who may be Tim S
 wrote this:-

>> Making holes in roofs, particularly flat roofs, to mount or pass
>> things through is not something I  recommend.
>
>That rather put me off - as the only sensible location (from a solar POV)
>for me is atop two dormer flat roofs. The pipes could be looped under and
>up the soffits, but the main frame mounts would be hard. Roofs have been
>refelted recently and have bugger all slope (ie felt integrity is
>paramount, even more than usual) so I don't really want to go messing them
>up.

It sounds like there are two possibilities, both relatively
difficult. One is to build a U shaped set of supports connected to
the walls either side of the roof, which would support the panel
over the roof. The second is to peel back the covering, put in a
support connected to the roof timbers and then put the felt back to
the upstand and finish it off with new felt or some other covering.
Some other covering might be ideal as it will be penetrated by the
panel fixings.

Of course solar panels don't have to go on the roof. They can also
go on walls or the ground. The sunlight has made it all the way from
the sun, a few extra metres makes no measurable difference. Although
mounting them at an angle is ideal, they can be mounted vertically
on walls.

>My overall assessment is I'm not convinced it's worth the effort, yet...
>Probably better to upgrade as much insulation round the house as possible
>first, but I'm not the first to say that.

It is always best to reduce energy consumption, rather than install
some gadget to "make" it. However, there comes a point where a
gadget is worthwhile, but where that point is depends on one's
ideas.


-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:
> 
> It is always best to reduce energy consumption, rather than install
> some gadget to "make" it. However, there comes a point where a
> gadget is worthwhile, but where that point is depends on one's
> ideas.

I see. basic overall energy in versus enregy out, and other objective 
factors like cost are simply not an issue when it comes to installing 
energy efficient devices?


And you claim to be a scientist? phew.


> 
>

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:38:19 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote this:-

>And you claim to be a scientist? phew.

Feel free to search the archives for any post where I make such a
claim.

You are not a party politician by any chance? Inventing what others
have said is a mark of one of them.



-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:38:19 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
> Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote this:-
> 
>> And you claim to be a scientist? phew.
> 
> Feel free to search the archives for any post where I make such a
> claim.
> 
> You are not a party politician by any chance? Inventing what others
> have said is a mark of one of them.
> 
> 
> 
Well I thought you said you had a degree in something scientific from 
Edinburgh university.

Obviously someone else.


So, do you have any qualifications as a scientist or engineer then?

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:52:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c>
wrote:

>David Hansen wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:38:19 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
>> Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote this:-
>> 
>>> And you claim to be a scientist? phew.
>> 
>> Feel free to search the archives for any post where I make such a
>> claim.
>> 
>> You are not a party politician by any chance? Inventing what others
>> have said is a mark of one of them.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>Well I thought you said you had a degree in something scientific from 
>Edinburgh university.
>
>Obviously someone else.
>
>
>So, do you have any qualifications as a scientist or engineer then?

Are you implying qualifications=credibility?  If you are, that is an
interesting connection worthy of investigation :-).

Edward W. Thompson wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:52:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c>
> wrote:
> 
>> David Hansen wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:38:19 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
>>> Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote this:-
>>>
>>>> And you claim to be a scientist? phew.
>>> Feel free to search the archives for any post where I make such a
>>> claim.
>>>
>>> You are not a party politician by any chance? Inventing what others
>>> have said is a mark of one of them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Well I thought you said you had a degree in something scientific from 
>> Edinburgh university.
>>
>> Obviously someone else.
>>
>>
>> So, do you have any qualifications as a scientist or engineer then?
> 
> Are you implying qualifications=credibility?  If you are, that is an
> interesting connection worthy of investigation :-).


Not implying anything: just aaking a question.

Which you failed to answer.

Others will draw whatever conclusions they will, from that.