Net Gain of a

Recycled Metal
Solar Heater
Final Report

Alexandra Huelsman, Dan Kelley, Alysa Scherer



April 29, 2014











Introduction
Alternative green energy has gotten a great deal of attention recently. Although used
frequently as a politically motivated buzzword, its technological progress and potential deserves
to be explored. Due to the increasing costs and environmental concerns surrounding the
conventional energy sources, such as fossil fuels or nuclear energy, finding a replacement is
vital.
There are several different types of renewable or clean energy sources: solar, wind,
hydroelectric, biomass, and geothermal [1]. What are the benefits of renewable energy? First and
foremost, they all emanate from unlimited sources that will not run out for future generations.
They do not emit any harmful gases or byproducts. They also save energy and ultimately save
costs [2]. Skeptics of going green often worry it is not as efficient as traditional energy sources
or that costs incurred from harnessing renewable resources will outweigh current costs to use
conventional methods.
The objective of testing is to determine the net gain of a recycled metal solar heater
versus a standard space heater. The goal is to quantify the amount of energy saved with the solar
heater over a known area and time frame. It is hypothesized that the results of this experiment
should prove that, although the space heater heats at a faster rate, the overall energy reduction
and consequent cost savings of the solar heater are higher.

Background Research
These solar heaters take in air, either from inside the room being heated or from outdoors,
at the bottom of the panel. The suns rays go through the exterior glass panel and are absorbed
into the aluminum cans, heating the air inside the cans. Due to hot air rising, the air taken in
flows upwards through the cans as it increases in temperature and finally is channeled out the top
of the heater and into the room being heated. This process creates its own air flow, however,
some designs include an air blower to increase the flow. Taller heaters are able to produce a
higher temperature differential.
There are numerous online sources that walk through the process of building a personal
solar heater and explain the benefits and effectiveness of the finished product. In order to
compare the results of the solar heater used in this experiment with others found online, the
physical characteristics of the heaters need to be compared which can be found in Table 1
below.
Table 1. Heater Comparison
The most common application of these heaters is for heating garages or other small
rooms in the winter. Due to the heaters not having the ability to store the heat or produce heat on
demand, the heaters are not suitable for heating rooms that require large amounts of consistent
heat. This prevents these heaters from replacing current home heating systems, however these
can still be used to supplement traditional systems and cut energy costs.

Methodology
An ONSET H21 HOBO Weather System was used to measure the ambient temperature
and the intensity of the sun during testing. Four thermocouples and a pyrometer made up the
components of the weather system. The pyrometer was arranged so that it was perpendicular to
the sun, while the thermocouples were placed strategically to capture the most accurate ambient
temperature reading. Data collection of the HOBO system was continuous and the numbers were
gathered after the tests were completed.
Two Omega DP116-RTDs were attached to a National Instruments Data Acquisition
system NI USB-6008 in order to take temperature readings from the resistance temperature
detectors located in the control areas, with RTD1 measuring the solar heater and RTD2
measuring the space heater. The 1x1x1 foot control areas were placed over the space heater
output vent as well as the outlet of the solar heater. Both heaters were tested simultaneously for
the same amount of time (1 hour) on days with two different weather conditions as seen in Table
2.

Table 2. Test Matrix
Test 1. Sunny Day (April 12th, 2014)
1pm-2p
Test 2. Cloudy Day (April 24th, 2014) 9am-
10am
Ceramic Heater temp Ceramic Heater temp
Solar Heater temp Solar Heater temp
Ambient temp Ambient temp

Theoretical

For the experiments conducted, the raw data collected included the output temperature of
both the solar heater and the space heater, the ambient temperature, and the average heat flux
being emitted from the sun during the testing time.
From the raw data, the rise in temperature for both the solar heater and the space heater
was determined through Equation 1.
[Eq. 1]
The heat flow out of the solar heater was then calculated using Fouriers Law, through
Equation 2.
[Eq. 2]
In order to determine the heat flow out of the space heater a velocity of the air coming out
of the space heater was first calculated, using Equation 3.
[Eq. 3]
This velocity was then used to calculated the heat flow, through Equation 4.
[Eq.4]
The final heat output was then calculated, in BTU/hr, through Equation 5.
[Eq.5]
From the heat output the total amount of kw/h could be found by converting BTU/hr to kw/h, see
the Nomenclature Appendix for the conversion. Then the heat output was multiplied by the
average cost of a kw/h of 0.16 cents according to Dayton Power and Lights 2014 records.

Uncertainty
Uncertainty was calculated using the resolution of the RTD recorders, as well as the linearity and
sensitivity errors from the calibration shown in equations 6 and 7.

Instrument Error:
[Eq. 6]
[Eq. 7]
The design uncertainty was calculated using equation 8 below.
[Eq. 8]
The results of the uncertainty calculations are shown below in table 3 for this experimental
concept.
Table 3. Uncertainty Results










Calibration
In order to determine the sensitivity of the RTDs a calibration was necessary. The RTDs
used were calibrated by submerging them into a water bath and by slowly heating the bath by
using a hot plate (Thermolyne Cimarec). A Omega K-type thermocouple was used to determine
a temperature standard. A thermocouple was chosen because of the lack of resources available to
us. Even though there are more accurate devices of measuring temperature that we could have
used, a thermocouple provided the easiest data collection for our time frame.
The water bath was first heated, at a constant rate, to a steady state boiling temperature.
Once boiling, the bath was removed from the heat and cooled by adding ice. While heating up,
the temperature of the RTD was recorded at 30 second time intervals for heating up and cooling
down. Measuring at specified time intervals helped reduce error by not have to make
measurements at constant temperatures. A temperature panel meter (Omega DP116) was used to
display the RTD temperature readings.
Using Equation 6, the % calibration error FSO was calculated. Where T
M
is the
temperature measured by the thermocouple and T is the temperature obtained from the RTD, and
T
M,max
and T
M,min
are the maximum and minimum values measured by the thermocouple
respectively.
[Eq.6]

The percent hysteresis was calculated using Equation 7. Where e
h,max
represents the maximum
hysteresis error.


Table 4 and Table 5 shows the statistical calibration analysis of both RTD 1 and RTD 2
respectively. The average percent Full Scale Output (FSO) was found to be 4.79% and 4.31%
for RTD 1 and RTD 2 respectively. The linearity error for RTD 1 and RTD 2 was 1.16% and
1.76% respectively, indicating temperature differences of 2.9C and 3.1 C. The percent
hysteresis error was 13.6% and 14.8%, which indicate a 5.6 C and 5.9 C temperature
difference upon heating and cooling. This hysteresis is the result of some extreme outliers toward
the higher temperature ranges, likely due to the difficulty in measuring at the exact temperature
for both heating and cooling the water bath. The

Table 4. Statistical Calibration Analysis of RTD 1

Table 5. Statistical Calibration Analysis of RTD 2



Results
Tables 6 through Table 9 show a comparison of the results from the sunny day test and
the cloudy day test. The total amount of energy used by the solar heater on the sunny day test
was 2.99 kw/hr and for the space heater was 6.39 kw/hr. These energy uses translated into a total
cost of energy use per total time of experiment of $0.50 and $1.02 for the solar heater and space
heater respectively. For the cloudy day of testing the total amount of energy used by the solar
heater on the sunny day was 3.10 kw/hr and for the space heater was 6.53 kw/hr. These energy
uses translated into a total cost of energy use per total time of experiment of $0.74 and $1.05.
The total heat output from the solar heater for the sunny day was 19.72 BTU/hr and the
total heat output of the space heater was 123.16 BTU/hr. For the cloudy day the total heat output
for the solar heater was 10.80 BTU/hr and was 127.31 BTU/hr for the space heater.
The end temperature differential for the solar heater for the sunny day was 12.5 C and
for the space heater it was 15.7 C. During the cloudy day testing the end temperature differential
was 6.84 C for the solar heater and was 16.24 C.
The time it took the solar heater to reach 40C, on the sunny day, was 12.5 minutes and
was 3.22 minutes for the space heater. For the cloudy day test the time it took the space heater
was 2.58 minutes, while the solar heater was only able to reach 15C over a time span of 39.05
minutes.
Table 6. Overall Energy Use and Energy Cost


Table 7.Total Heat Out


Table 8. Final Temperature Rise


Table 9. Time To Reach 40C


Figure 1 shows the temperature profiles of both the solar heater and the space heater of
both days of testing. These profiles display the temperature recorded within each control volume
during the duration of each respective test. Figure 2 shows the cost analysis comparison between
both days of testing. It shows the accumulation of cost associated with energy use for the
duration of each test. Figure 3 displays the heat output of both the solar heater and the space
heater over the course of both testing days. It shows a the trend in the heat output for the solar
heater and the space for the two days of testing.

Figure 1. Temperature Profiles

Figure 2. Cost Analysis Based on Energy Use


Figure 3. Heat Output Over Time
Discussion
As seen in Table 6, on both days of testing the total energy used by the solar heater was
lower than that of the space heater. However, it was noted that on the cloudy test day, both
heaters used more energy. Comparing test days, there was an increase in energy use of 2.99
kw/hrs to 3.10 kw/hr for the solar heater and of 6.39 kw/hr to 6.53 kw/hr for the space heater.
This difference in energy usage between testing days is attributed to the fact that during the
cloudy test day, both the solar heater and the space heater were running for a longer amount of
time in order to obtain the temperature differential desired. However, the delta in energy usage
between the heaters was the same over both days of testing, amounting to a 3.4 kw/hr difference.
This shows consistency and repeatability within the data. It is important to note that our
estimates of energy usage are conservative because the fan used in the solar heater is meant to
run on a 12V battery, instead of the 9V used. This can yield to a .31 kw/hr lower estimate in the
energy used by the solar heater.
The difference in energy usage between the solar heater and the space heater translated
into a higher energy cost to run the space heater than the solar heater. When obtaining the same
temperature differential, the solar heater was 51 percent cheaper to run than the space heater,
with a total savings of .52 cents. This is also seen with the cloudy day data set, with a total
savings of .31 cents. The savings for the cloudy day testing is lower than the sunny day testing
because the solar heater was ran for a longer amount of time. The solar heater will also function
without the air blower pulling the air through the system. This means that the heater will work
with zero input energy and still supply heat.
Figure 3 shows the heat output versus the time tested. The total heat outputted by the
solar heater was higher on the sunny day of testing compared to the cloudy day of testing, with a
difference of 8.93 BTU/hr. The decrease in heat output on the cloudy day of testing is because of
the lack of temperature differential obtained. There was only a 6.84 degrees C temperature
difference obtained during the cloudy day of testing, whereas the sunny day of testing had a
temperature difference of 12.50 degrees C. The total heat outputted by the space heater was
consistent when comparing the two days of testing, displaying only a 4 % difference between
energy outputted. This 4 % difference is considered to be reasonable because, from the
temperature profile seen in Figure 1, it can be observed that the space heater shut off during the
test due to a safety mechanism. Because of this fluctuation, the difference in heat output over the
two days of testing is reasonable.
Should the solar heater be rebuilt, it should be made taller to increase the temperature
output. Also, insulation needs to be included. The solar heater incorporating insulation into its
design dramatically outperformed the other models. In addition, including a way to store the
heat to be released throughout the night would be ideal.

Conclusion
The energy required to run the solar heater was significantly less at 3.045 kw/hr than the
6.46 kw/hr of the ceramic space heater. With an energy savings of 53.2%, the cost of the solar
heater is also considerably lower which supports the hypothesis. However, the ceramic heater
was able to heat the control volume more reliably and much more quickly.
References












Appendix



Nomenclature

(C)

(C)

(C)
(W)

(W/m
2
)

(m
2
)
(m/s)

(m
2
)
(m)
(rpm)
(BTU/hr)

(lb/ft
3
)

(BTU/lb-ft)
Unit Conversions
1 BTU = .00029307 kw/hr
1 W = .021 ft
3
/min
1 meter = 3.28 ft
1 kg/m
3
= 0.0624 lb/ft
3
1 J/kgK = 0.000239 BTU/lb-ft


Linearity Error and Hysteresis Error

Figure 4. Hysteresis Error for RTD 1

Figure 5. Hysteresis Error for RTD 2

Figure 6. Linearity Error for RTD 1

Figure 7. Linearity Error for the RTD 2

References
[1] Renewable Energy Resources." , Forms of Renewable Energy. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Apr.
2014.

[2] "13 Great Reasons to Use Solar Power and Solar Engergy." 13 Great Reasons to Use Solar
Power and Solar Lighting. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.
[3] Strohl, Daniel. "Soda Can Solar Heater, V2, Completed." Hemmings Daily News for the
Collector Car Enthusiast RSS. Hemmings Daily, 22 June 2010. Web. 09 Apr. 2014.

[4] Strohl, Daniel. "Almost Free Garage Heat Just Drink a Lot of Soda." Hemmings Daily
News for the Collector Car Enthusiast RSS. Hemmings Daily, 26 Apr. 2007. Web. 09 Apr. 2014.

[5] Grover, Sami. "How to Build a DIY Solar Air Heater from Old Soda Cans." TreeHugger.
N.p., 10 June 2012. Web. 09 Apr. 2014.

[6] Smith, Brian. "Brian's Pop Can Solar Heater." Brian's Pop Can Solar Heater. N.p., 15 Nov.
2010. Web. 10 Apr. 2014.<https://sites.google.com/site/brianshomebrewsolar/>