Aquaquick

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Solar heat requires large surface areas. There isn't any way to get around that. Even if the Aquaquik is 100% efficient, it can't provide very much heat because it isn't very large. Even at 1/2 that price it is a huge waste of money.
 
A standard panel produces about 1000BTU/sq-ft, so if this thing cranks 25K BTU per day, it would be pretty amazing. It appears to be a covered panel with a plastic bubble over it, which could improve efficiency, but I'm dubious that it produces the heat claimed. The Florida Solar Energy Center hasn't reviewed it yet as far as I can see.
Amazon sells them a lot cheaper http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001QOGN82...d=ATVPDKIKX0DER&tag=dealt3672-20&linkCode=asn
so you wouldn't be out much if it doesn't work.
 
This thing is under 4 square feet and costs more than $100, compared to a standard panel that has 80 sqft for around $200. That means that the Aquaquik is 10 times as expensive per square foot. Normal panels are around 80% efficient, so there isn't any way this thing can come even remotely close to a normal panel in heat per dollar.

{Edited to reflect hour/day correction and listing ideal conditions.}
Also note that under ideal conditions in the summer a perfectly efficient solar collector could gather perhaps 2,000 BTU/day/sqft. Compare that to this thing claiming 25,000 BTU/day/device, which is around 6000 BTU/day/sqft, which is implausible.
 
JasonLion said:
Also note that you are comparing normal panels at 1,000 BTU/hour/sqft to this thing at 25,000 BTU/day/device, which is around 700 BTU/hour/sqft (or less).
Click to expand...

No, a standard panel (unglazed) provides about 1000BTU/sqft/day in the Florida Solar Energy Center panel ratings. Obviously a day has to be defined somewhere in their test procedure with regards to wind, sunlight intensity and duration, but they don't post any information.

That translates roughly into Aquaquik claiming that the unit provides about as much heat as a 4'X6' panel in roughly 1/6th the area, even taking spherical shape into account. Glazing accounts for some improvement in performance, but that improvement would be most evident on marginal days with lower temperature and higher wind, so even though there MIGHT be a day where the Aquaquik would perform the same or better than a conventional panel, that day wouldn't produce the Aquaquik's maximum claimed output of 25,000BTU/day.

I'd be thrilled to see a small space solution to solar heating, but I'll believe it when I see it working.
 
Sorry, I had my units wrong. Lets try this again.

Under ideal conditions in the summer a perfectly efficient solar collector could gather perhaps 2,000 BTU/day/sqft. Compare that to this thing claiming 25,000 BTU/day/device. Since it is less than 2 feet on a side, and assuming the entire square is used for solar collection, that is around 6000 BTU/day/sqft, which is implausible. And that is assuming it is 100% efficient, which is also implausible.
 
The FAFCO solar panels (here) are around 80% efficient so their 1063 BTU/ft2/day translates to around 1330 BTU/ft2/day at 100% efficiency. Peak solar energy at noon with the sun directly overhead (or nearly overhead with the panel pointed at the sun) on a perfectly clear day is around 1000 Watts/m2 which is around 317 BTU/hr/ft2 so is roughly 4 hours of this sort of peak sun relative to the solar panel data. In Florida in May, solar radiation on a horizontal surface is 6.40 kWh/m2/d or around 2030 BTU/ft2/day or 6.4 hours of equivalent peak sun which sounds much more reasonable. So I don't know why FSEC gets such lower numbers except that their solar simulation or real-world adjustments must assume less-than-ideal conditions.

In any event, it is clear that the 25,000 BTU/day number for this product is completely bogus.

Richard
 
Think Game should stick to the rubber duckies :-D
The product has been launched to try and appeal to the "greener side" of humanity, however, the product has a fundamental flaw. The area of collector (black tube) is completely inadequate to give the power output require to heat an Above-Ground pool. There is no escaping the science behind unglazed solar collectors. The traditional black unglazed collectors on the market do occupy more space but on the other hand they work.

Manufacture quality is weak ( I'm assuming this is made in China) and the plexiglass dome will reduce heat loss due to wind.
Bottom line for the product is that it offers no new solar technology. It is very little solar collector for the money and better product exist that actually will heat your pool. Game have tried to bring a product to the marketplace that can be retail friendly however the functionality and design of the unit are flawed and as such do more harm to the solar industry than good.
For many people the aquaquick qill be their first introduction to solar pool heating and what a shame it will be when they are disappointed by this units lack of performance.

Bottom Line- Its a black tube pretending to be a solar collector.
 
To be honest, Aquaquick products are cheap toys. There are constant problems with them and if you buy them from a dealer, you can't return it to them. You have to call the manufacture and go through them. I should know, I just recently stopped selling their line because of these reasons.
 

Enjoying this content?

Support TFP with a donation.

Give Support
The pool store sold us three of these when we bought our 15x30 AG pool. I was looking at the regular flat 4'x20' mats and the sales guy talked me into these. I was skeptical, and did some research on them. I found only one post that said they worked, but many that said they didn't work or work well, and several that stated that the hose end fittings failed, causing some owners to pump part of their pool water out all over their yard. Maybe if it had a special focused "lens" but not a plain plastic dome with under 4 square feet of surface area to heat with.

Needless to say, what I found out here at TFP and online, I returned them to the pool store today and am going with the flat mats. Also, thanks to TFP, I also returned the Frog system and $150 worth of Bac-Pacs. I am going with the BBB method.

:goodjob: TFP Rules! :goodjob:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread Status
Hello , This thread has been inactive for over 60 days. New postings here are unlikely to be seen or responded to by other members. For better visibility, consider Starting A New Thread.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply