Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar hot carbon


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete.  MBisanz  talk 02:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Solar hot carbon

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

There's no references that mention solar hot carbon or anything that resembles what's described in the article. I tried searching for "solar hot carbon" on Google and the only results that turned up was references (directly or indirectly) to this article. Also, the article makes a poor job at explaining what this is, at least in a way that makes any technical sense. Of the alternative names listed only "solar methane" returned any somewhat relevant results but that does not appear to be what is described here. —Apis (talk ) 05:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC) —Apis (talk ) 00:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Like Apis, I can find no websites that describe this. If this was even remotely viable, like solar hot water, there would be at least one website about it. The cited source does not include any information on this topic either. It's either non-notable or simply made up. -Atmoz (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It sounds sort of legitimate. But there is NOTHING readily available on the web. Not even for hot carbon. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the introduction says: "It is essentially the same as [Solar hot water] except that the heat carrying medium is carbon dioxide, methane or smog", and it then goes on talking about greenhouse gases and their ir-properties. But the water (or whatever is used as a heat transfer medium) in a normal solar panel is never in direct contact with the sunlight, instead a black surface is used to absorb the sunlight. So the optical properties of the heat transfer medium does not affect the efficiency of the panel. And what would be the point in using smog?! This article really makes no sense, and it's unreferenced so there is no way to verify that something like this even exist.


 * Delete, this is original research. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know if this is feasible for use in the newer tube type technology currently using vacuum to prevent heat loss from the absorbers which convert sunlight to heat. Even if efficiency in available heat from the sunlight conversion is less, perhaps there is a savings on creating heat collection tubes with carbon dioxide in them instead of vacuum, also fewer seal leakage problems such as occur in vacuum tube solar heat systems. Also should have use as a medium between window double and triple glazing in homes to help stop heat loss. Joe Zyzyx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.206.154 (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC) —Apis (talk ) 00:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The vacuum surrounding the black surface is there to prevent convective heat transfer. Using CO2 instead of a vacuum would only cause the panel to loose extra energy by convection, thereby lowering efficiency.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.