Choosing solar panels
February 16, 2010There’s a lot of different solar panels out there, and with so many choices, it would be helpful to know what to look for when buying one. I’m going to explain some of that technical jargon. This way you can better understand how or what panels to use with a given system.
Understanding the Spec./Data Sheet
Let’s say you want to check out a specifications sheet for a solar panel, like this one or this one. As you start looking at the tables, you’ll see terms like:- Polycrystalline silicon (or Multi-crystalline silicon)
- Monocrystalline silicon
- Open Circuit Voltage (Voc)
- Maximum Power Voltage (Vpm) (or Optimum Operating Voltage)
- Short Circuit Current (Isc)
- Maximum Power Current (Ipm) (or Optimum Operating Current)
(As we discuss these terms, keep in mind that voltage and current measurements are usually taken under a consistent test light source. The results should be comparable to good sunlight.)
Vpm and Ipm
These are the most important aspects of the solar panel because they determine power. Both Vpm and Ipm are the ideal maximums at which the solar panel functions. Looking at Ohm’s Law, we know that:- Vpm * Ipm = Power (Watts)
This may seem trivial and basic for some of you, but the point is that you need to know what is being advertized. What is a “12 volt” solar panel? Is it 12 Voc with about 9 Vpm? Or is it 12 Vpm with 18 Voc? I admit, it’s usually the latter, but you need to make sure.
MPPT - Maximum Power Point Tracking
Both Vpm and Ipm establish the maximum power point. When you see a charge controller or grid tie inverter, they may advertise a MPPT (maximum power point tracking) feature. All this means is it searches for Vpm and Ipm to get the most power from your solar panel(s).Voc and Isc
Consider Voc and Isc as the opposite extremes of Vpm and Ipm. Generally, you don’t really need to worry about these. You won’t get any power output at these extremes.Open circuit voltage, or Voc is the voltage measured when the panel isn’t connected, hence “open circuit.” Short Circuit Current, or Isc is the current (amps) measured when the panel is completely shorted, positive to negative.
Poly-crystalline vs. Mono-crystalline Silicon
This makes up the composition of the silicon used in the solar cells of a panel. Silicon is the same material that make up computer chips. You don’t really need to worry about the raw materials that make up a solar panel. But for your interest, here are some key differences:| Composition | Cost | Efficiency | Appearance |
| Poly-crystalline | less | less | usually rectangular or square without rounded corners |
| Mono-crystalline | slightly more | slightly more | usually square with rounded corners |
Buying a simple grid-tie solar system
February 12, 2010If you’ve done any amount of home improvement, then setting up a simple solar system isn’t a challenge. However, it would be good to know a few basics and what parts you need.
Please keep in mind you may have to contact your power company to learn specific code requirements. Where I live, our house wasn’t required to be wired to code; therefore I simply discuss what will work from a technical standpoint.
Jump in Head First
If you want to jump right in and buy a simple low cost package that outlines all the details, here they are:- ASG Power Plus 0.2 kW GT Kit
- ASGP+ Enphase Grid Tied Starter Kit - 175 Watts
- Hi iQ Telecom Ltd (eBay store)
How These Systems Work
These systems are very simple. Think of it as battery charger working in reverse, except the battery is the solar panel. A solar panel is connected to the inverter, which is connected to your breaker box. The inverter is “charging” your house using the solar panel “battery.”If you’re familiar with inverters used in cars for laptops, they are very similar. However, there is a serious difference between a grid tie inverter, and a basic inverter. A grid tie inverter synchronizes with the frequency (60Hz) and phase of the voltage from the power company. (Think of it as two people flipping a switch at the same time, in the same direction.)
Buying Parts Separately
The essential parts you need for a simple grid tie system is a solar panel and an inverter. You need to consider both items at once for a complete working system.Inverter
The inverter is what converts the input VDC (voltage, direct current) from the solar panel to the output VAC (voltage, alternating current) to your home. You need to consider voltage, both input and output. This will determine the voltage of your solar panel and how to connect it in your breaker box.Good inverters can work with a range of voltage input, like 10-30 volts DC or 40-60 volts DC. Output voltage is usually ~120VAC, ~240VAC, or ~208VAC. You need not worry about the last one, it’s for commercial three phase power systems. Check out my article Is solar power really affordable? for additional information.
Power Source
Solar panels come in lots of flavors and output voltages vary widely. (See my article about choosing solar panels for details.) Here’s a list with some common voltages according to open circuit voltage (Voc) and optimum operating voltage (Vmp):- ~18Voc (12Vmp)
- ~36Voc (28Vmp)
- ~58Voc (47Vmp)
- 12V
- 24V
- 48V
Hardware
As for mounting hardware, you could use angle iron or angle aluminum usually available at a local hardware store, Lowe’s, or Home Depot. Wood or angle brackets are other options, but I recommend against duct tape.If you go with a wind generator, tower kits are usually sold separately. You may also have to buy galvanized steel pipe for a guy-wire tower kit. See some examples here.
Putting Everything Together
After you’ve got the parts, all there is left to do is wire it and mount it. With such a simple system, all you have to do is connect the solar panel to the inverter. Afterward, you connect the inverter to your breaker box or just plug it in a standard household outlet. I’ll discuss wiring details in another article.Bible Articles?
January 13, 2010Many people may be confused why Bible lessons exists on my site which primarily functions as a portfolio. I should be showing and demonstrating what I do and not what I believe or feel, right? Well, it certainly isn’t about how I feel (2 Kings 5:9-11, Jeremiah 17:9), and I believe it dominantly because of its credibility. However, it is important to note that it is indeed what I do. It takes priority. This is not to say that I wish to contend with anyone or force the truths which I affirm upon anyone.
I haven’t contributed very many articles because there is so much reliable information already out there that’s openly available if you know where to find it. Apologetics Press is a good place to start.
A Review of Disney’s Bolt
November 30, 2008I went to see Disney’s Bolt yesterday (Nov. 29, 2008), and I must say, it seems to be truly enlightening. I just had to write a review for it (plus it doubled as part of a college assignment). If you haven’t seen Disney’s Bolt, I encourage you to do so. As a warning, this article will be a total movie spoiler if you haven’t already seen it, and it doesn’t function as a complete summary.
There is nothing like the opposites of the optimistic idealist and pessimistic realist coming together. Bolt the dog, the optimistic idealist, had been raised and pampered to think he is a particularly special special dog with extraordinary powers that prevail against anything (see “The Chase”), while he is really a TV star. Mittens the cat, the pessimistic realist, had been raised in perhaps an average domestic setting, declawed, and later abandoned to fend for herself, though at the expense of others.1 Both have preconceived ideas of what is and should be. Bolt believes everything will work out for the best and come to light while Mittens believes nothing can possibly be as good as it seems or sounds and things only seem to become worse.
Mittens initially seems to put more emphasis on what she doesn’t have, her claws, and clearly has a great yearning for what she has lost. This seems to establish her pessimistic view. (I fully suspect her name isn’t coincidence either.) She even goes to the degree of deceiving others as having claws when she doesn’t, just as Bolt with his powers, but she is knowledgeable whereas he is ignorant. Bolt initially seems to put more emphasis on what he thinks he has, his powers, and that no harm can come to him. This seems to establish his optimistic view, though he is under delusion. However, this is not to say that Mittens isn’t under a delusion. Though she can see and observe what really is, she is confined to believe nothing can get better as mentioned earlier.
The synthesis of these characters is what seems to manifest a true ideal. I’m inclined to say there is a great need for optimistic realists that strive toward the ideal. I would think that optimistic idealists striving toward the ideal would get stuck in the mode of thinking there is a definitive for something where there is not, where the optimistic realists would perhaps better seek out and know what is definitive and stay loose on what is not. The only difference I can see between a pessimistic idealist and pessimistic realist is one thinks there’s an ideal while the other doesn’t, but both would think such a thing is unattainable.
But when does this synthesis take place for a realist to seek for the ideal and the idealist to know what is real? Looking the optimistic idealist and the pessimistic realist in particular, it seems both have to reach rock bottom and reach a revelation. Before the “Animal Rescue” scene, Bolt seems to reach his rock bottom when he realizes the cage of an animal control truck was opened for him by Rhino the hamster, as opposed to him bursting it open as he initially supposed. Seeing his black bolt symbol rub off is another shocker to him as he receives his reality check, he really is a TV star who never knew he was a TV star. In the “Animal Rescue” scene, we see Mittens in her rock bottom state in the cage of the shelter, as she seems to be contemplating her gloom and doom without reflecting on any good that has happened to her. She reaches her revelation when Bolt comes to save her. Before this point, Mittens seemed to have a purpose of bringing Bolt’s optimistic views to a crashing halt. Likewise, Bolt tried to maintain his highly unrealistic views of the world.
It seems that a bit more people seem to be pessimistic and focus on the bad things that have happened in their lifetime. Everyone seems to have their own sob stories to tell, but what about smile stories?
Toward the end of the movie, we see the need for the one in the optimistic moment to build up the other in a pessimistic moment.2 Bolt had to be built up by Rhino before he felt able to save Mittens. Mittens likewise had to be built up by Rhino before she would follow with Bolt going back to Penny. Context is also very important. Without proper context, messages can often be distorted and could be spread in such a distorted state. As Bolt comes to Penny, his “person,” Penny is acting on a set and embraces Bolt’s replacement. He is left with the impression that what Mittens has asserted to always be true, that love is temporary, really is true. However, Mittens is there to observe the whole context, to see that after Penny’s synthetic embrace, she expresses her desire for Bolt to return. Mittens relays this observation to Bolt, and an optimistic grasp on reality is established.
I throughly enjoyed this movie. (I observed a user comment found on IMDB titled “Bolt brings back true Disney.” I am inclined to believe so, but not based on the user’s expounding of the CGI quality.) Despite my expounding and dissecting of this movie, I must say, it seemed to have revived me as a child and is filled with social redeeming value. It seems to remind me of my favorite movie as a kid, Cats Don’t Dance, as the characters are truly something to embrace. The only thing I can’t understand is why Mittens is third on the cast list as opposed to second. (Okay, maybe I do know, but that doesn’t seem a good enough reason for me.) Nevertheless, it seems there is some revival in Disney, or Disney·PIXAR anyway, in looking through their recent CGI movies such as Incredibles, Cars, Ratatouille, and WALL·E. Memorable stories and characters seem to be coming back.
Footnotes:
1 - Mittens is first introduced with a concern for lack food. This reminds me of Matthew 6:25-34/Luke 12:22-34, illustrating that the Christian need not worry over such things.
2 - As a member of Christ’s church, is is important to build up one another properly according to 1 Corinthians 3:9-17, 1 Thessalonians 5:11, et al.
About Instruments
November 30, 2008For everything Christ’s church does in worship, it does only as authorized by God in the New Testament. Often the church is accused of not believing the Old Testament, however, “whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope,” Rom. 15:4, and “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. … … … In that He says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away,” Heb. 8:7-13. Certainly we believe the Old Testament, because without it, how would those of the first century be able to identify Jesus as the Christ?
What is commanded?
We make music as commanded in Eph. 5:15-21 and Col. 3:16-17 (cf. Jam. 5:13, Acts 16:25). Notice that is says “one another,” indicating everyone is to participate in the singing. It is for this reason we have no choir with certain select individuals. Of course there may be those physically unable to sing, nevertheless, they can still make melody in their heart. As for instruments, since this deviates from what God has specified, this is not practiced by the church. … Now, to answer why.Can we Justify Instruments?
Many people will turn to Psalms to justify the use of instruments, but this was a command to the Jews under the OT. People will also say the Bible “doesn’t say not to,” but O, the gray hair one could grow by reading a list of “Though shalt not,” and O the things one could justify. People often go to the OT to justify things such as tithing and instruments in the worship, but why not other OT commands such as sacrifice, burning incense, the feasts, and stoning those found working on the Sabbath? This is nothing new, however, as those who had been under the OT law of Moses, when the NT arrived, tried to apply circumcision to those in the NT (Acts 15), which would be an example of someone trying to add to God’s word. Later, Paul made a declaration to those trying to obey things in Moses’ law in Gal. 5:1-6.Look at Old Testament Examples
Looking at Cain and Abel before Moses as an example for our learning, we read in Heb. 11:4 (cf. Gen. 4:1-5) that “… Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice ….” Both made offerings, but only Abel’s was accepted. Why? Because Abel offered it by faith, and “… faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,” Rom. 10:14-17. From this we can infer there was a command by God to sacrifice. Well, one could sacrifice just about anything, including children which God had not commanded (Jer. 32:35, et al). Since Abel did so according to the faith which came through the hearing of God’s word, and his sacrifice was accepted, we can conclude that God specified “the firstborn of his flock and of their fat” as opposed to “the fruit of the ground.” So God likely didn’t say to not offer the fruit of the ground, but specified the firstborn of one’s flock and of their fat. Certainly Cain was wanting to serve God just as sincerely as Paul (Acts 26:9-11), but he deviated from God’s word. In king Saul’s situation, “…to obey is better than sacrifice…,” 1 Sam. 15:22.Another OT example of deviating from God’s word is from Nadab and Abihu in Lev. 10:1-3. What made the fire profane, or unauthorized? The fire needed to be holy and come from the altar according to Ex. 30:22-30 and Lev. 16:12-13, though God did not say it couldn’t come elsewhere, yet we see the result.
Look at the Greek
There is no small dissension among the use of instruments being used in the worship. Nevertheless, despite the examples written for our learning in the OT, people continue to try justifying instruments by saying the Greek word for psalm, psallo, means to sing with instruments, but it also can mean simply to sing. (Greek interlinear: Eph. 5, Col. 5, Jam. 5, Acts 16) However, what most people tend to overlook is how words change over time. Initially in the ancient Greek during the first century, when the NT was written, the word was used almost exclusively for vocal singing. (In the same way, the Greek word for wine can be either alcoholic or non-alcoholic, but of course people try to justify their drinking by the latter.) An example from today–two incompatible phrases through a short time span of 50- years:1950s: “I’m gay.”
2000s: “I’m gay.”
Besides this, the actual command found in Eph. 5:15-21 and Col. 3:16-17 is adontes, which is simply “to sing.” But from Eph. 5:15-21, without even looking at the Greek, it says “speaking” in songs. There is also no example of instruments in the early church. According to history, instruments were first introduced by men centuries later after the establishment of the church in Acts 2. If God had asked just for music, any music would likely be acceptable, but He specified singing. If God had asked the Patriarchs just for sacrifice, any sacrifice would likely be acceptable, but He obviously must’ve specified the firstborn of one’s flock.
…
How is it condemned?
Concerning instruments in the worship, the Bible does not directly condemn it nor does it make mention of then in the New Testament. However, there are many things the Bible does not condemn in word, but in principle. In like manner, the Bible does not directly condemn the concept of a select few people partaking of the cup of grape juice mixed with apple juice, meeting in a bar for fellowship, or even arson. What is the real problem though? Many people are not satisfied with what God has specified (concerning many things) and instead want to do what God has not commanded (Leviticus 10:1, Deuteronomy 18:15-22). Rather than deny themselves (Matthew 16:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23) and follow the OT principles written for our learning, man would rather amend or remove (to something that is already perfect and cannot be improved) what they feel appropriate. If I think something is okay, how does this justify my thinking unless I compare it to Scripture, as it has been said “‘For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,’ says the LORD” (Isaiah 55:8-9).Who are we trying to please?
The question is, are we seeking to please God or ourselves, or are we singing to God or ourselves? If we were indeed seeking to please God, we would simply do as he has commanded without trying to manipulate around what has been specified. Truly actions speak louder than words, and if one seeks to amend what is already specified and perfect concerning any issue, are they not showing a dissatisfaction to that which is perfect? Indeed, throughout the Bible, man is often rejecting that which is perfect, even rejecting Christ, the chief cornerstone (Psalm 118:22, 1 Peter 2:4-8, et al.). … Along with this, there is a sharp contrast between the old and new testaments concerning instruments. Had the idea of instruments in the worship been of any virtue, surely those from the OT covenant (who were commanded in many numerous ways to use instruments in the OT in Psalms) could take over their instruments into the NT covenant. Are not instruments merely part of that which has passed away?Faith consists of many things as elaborated in the NT (and OT examples), but some people say it’s “faith only” wanting to throw out the fidelity aspect and also despite being directly told it’s not faith only (James 2:24, cf. Galatians 5:6). Yet when the Bible only specifies singing, never mentioning or implying an instrument of any kind in the worship and no example, instruments are okay and it’s not “singing only.” Clearly men are looking for their own way seeking the things that work in their favor which indeed result in the confusion of many. The Bible does not say “faith only” in the same way it doesn’t say “singing only,” so why is it not faith only, but it is singing only? Faith is elaborated to include many things (dissatisfying men who don’t want all those extra things) and singing is simply left at singing (dissatisfying men who do want all those extra things).
What if it was spelled out?
Now suppose if God did specify “singing only”. Would this stop men from trying to use an instrument? Certainly not. Man throughout history choose to directly disobey God. In 1 Samuel 15:1-5 Saul was commanded to “go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them.” Certainly this is easy enough to understand, “destroy all that they have,” nevertheless God elaborated further by saying “But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” But what happened in verse 8 and 9? “But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were unwilling to utterly destroy them.” Despite an elaborated direct command from God, Saul, set up as king by God for Israel, still disobeyed God, and man likewise does it all around today. … I submit to you that if God had directly forbidden instruments in worship, man would still use them, though certainly not as many.How far would you go?
Now suppose if we take the side that most do and say instruments are okay. Would there be any problem with using a Solid State Tesla Coil (SSTC)? Why of course not, yet why do I have a funny feeling that there would be objections from the farthest parts of the globe-“That’s going too far!,” “That’s crazy!” But if instruments are permitted since they are not forbidden, who is man to say this one shouldn’t be used to glorify God? Does not lightning remind someone of the power of God, so how much more this particular instrument? No, the problem is people go too far starting with any instrument, simply going beyond what is written (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:6). … I submit to you that if God had elaborated a specific list of instruments to be used in NT worship to Him, man would want to take some out and put others in, possibly including an SSTC.In fact, as far as the imagination of man can go, it would not surprise me to actually see an SSTC used in the worship by some denomination somewhere within my lifetime. This would not surprise me because according to some information I found, “In a message delivered in St. Louis on April 22nd, [1969,] Methodist Bishop James Thomas of Des Moines, Iowa advocated the use of hamburgers and a soft drink for the Lord’s supper,” (Searching the Scriptures, Vol. X, July, 1969, No. 7, page 4).
The concept of an earthly headquarters could also be one of those things devised by men since it is not mentioned in the Bible, but why is it to be excluded? Because Christ has already been specified as the divine head. God did not elaborate on any headquarters run by men, but it isn’t directly condemned by the Bible and it is not mentioned at all. I have heard of the concept of someone people juggling in praise to God. Why not burn incense to God? What is the result of such manipulative reasoning and compromises? I would have to say one result is the “United Church of Christ,” who go as far as advocating homosexuality.
Consider the “law of exclusion”
If someone orders “a salad” from a restaurant menu, certainly any kind would be acceptable. Salads take very many forms. If someone orders a fish salad, then should they expect to see it along with chicken? Salad with chicken is very popular, nevertheless, why would someone have to specify fish only? The law of exclusion necessitates fish only. But what of this so-called “law of exclusion?” Someone makes the argument “the Bible does not tell me to put on clothes when I go to church. God must therefore want us to worship in the nude,” (despite Matthew 6:25-34/Luke 12:22-34). It also doesn’t mention microphones or PA systems. In the same way, the Bible doesn’t say to worship with air, but then no form of music could exist. So when does this “law of exclusion” take effect? It takes effect when something in a category has already been mentioned. Thus specifying “music” for praise would exclude juggling, dancing, etc., etc. … An interior designer specifying “lights” could include neon, florescent, incandescent, and LEDs. Specifying “lights of florescences and diodes” would exclude neon and incandescent. Specifying “lights of incandescents” would exclude other lighting types. Several methods exist for powering all these lighting types, some with more special needs than others, but if they do not change the lighting type, it doesn’t matter because a method for powering has not been mentioned.Let’s say a conductor has told certain individuals to sing and other individuals to play specified instruments. If one of his singers, who was not told singing only, got out a cymbal and clashed at high notes, would the conductor not be confused? Are they justified in this? Likewise if someone on a bass guitar started singing, would this not confuse the conductor?