/Archive

Archives

/archive 1

We're basically discussing these changes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solar_power&diff=81995864&oldid=81972643

I usually don't comment on edits too much, but since I'm asked to deliberate, here is what I think my motives must have been at the time. I basically felt the additions were too verbose, and lessen the quality of wikipedia. The first change was removing the sentence: "However, this is not the same as the amount of solar radiation (insolation) reaching the earth's surface." To me this statement seems self evident from the paragraph"

Solar radiation reaches the Earth's upper atmosphere at a rate of 1,366 watts per square meter (W/m²).^[1] While traveling through the atmosphere, 6% of the incoming solar radiation (insolation) is reflected and 16% is absorbed resulting in a peak irradiance at the equator of 1,020 W/m² .

However it is a matter of taste what's self evident enough, and where Wikipedia's level of explanation should be, what's explained to death, and what's not enough explanation.

2nd, the dates, you already commented on - that was what got me started in the first place to undo edits, years highlighted like that felt bad faith to me, and influenced my overall decision.

3rd, as far as the Sunpower spam goes about 21% efficient solar panels, I'd like to call your attention to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Nrel_best_research_pv_cell_efficiencies.png

Note that the highly efficient single crystal silicon panels are more expensive to produce than 8% efficient amorphous silicon cells, and in the end the $ cell cost per watt delivered what counts. Suppose a 7% eff. panel is 10x less expensive than a 21x eff panel, then the dollar per watt delivered for the 7% panel is 10x/(21/7)=3.3x cheaper than the somewhat more efficient but much more expensive 21% eff panel. The currently achievable solar-to-electric conversion maximum is 36% based on multijunction exotic materials (gallium arsenide, indium telluride, etc.) that are nowhere near the price ballpark of silicon, so their only reasonable use is for satellite and outer space applications, while most handheld calculators happily use 8% efficient amorphous silicon. Of course real estate value counts too, so the higher efficiency cells gain a little extra financial benefit, but not enough to tilt the dollar per delivered watt figure in most cases, especially for largescale cases such as deserts, where real estate is cheap. So these efficiency numbers should really be covering the range of 8-21%, and 15% feels like a happy medium, without putting all this noisy deliberation into the article itself at that 15% remark. Conciseness in the main article is a virtue, every single word must count. On talk pages, "if I had more time I would have written a shorter version" is acceptable to me.

Your edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solar_power&diff=next&oldid=81971083 on this topic seemed unnecessarily verbose compared to the prior more concise sentences, and while surfing through your individual edits, especially highlighting years that add no value to the content, I got an overall impression that made me see what a full revert would do, and I didn't mind the result.

I apologize if this offended you, but these pages are dear to me. I agree a lot of these decisions are a matter of taste, but somewhere along the line one has to assert taste of style to keep wikipedia from deterioration, even when that taste hasn't been fully formalized, which is impossible to formalize for all cases anyway.

I would agree with a concise edit of the sort "resulting in a peak irradiance at sea level at the equator of 1,020 W/m²", which, now that I look at it, is meaningful content that my edits lost, because the paragraph isn't specific whether it's on top of Kilimanjaro or at sea level, and you're welcome to do the edit. In now way am I trying to bite your head off and keep you from modifying this article, you shouldn't take all this I wrote here to heart too much, I'm happy when people contribute, but that sometimes goes with other people just simply trumping out what you do, as it often happens to me too, and I just move on. No big deal. If you had reverted back my reverts, I would have waited for a 3rd person to pitch in and arbitrate, but as far as my first reverts are concerned, I do them boldly.

That does not follow Wiki policy

Hi Judith,

Can you please mention the page number for the reference you added to the Islam article. Thanks --Aminz 02:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Judith,

Just wanted to say hello. :P --Aminz 06:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, have a very nice and sunny day!!! Cheers, --Aminz 06:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]