Is a Solar Bear heater worth the money?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Tracking the sun can, under ideal conditions, slightly more than double the output of a solar system. Usually the gain is less than that, but still significant. However you still need as much area as you can manage. In almost all cases the extra expense of the tracking hardware more than cancels out the increase in efficiency. Also, most people think that covering a roof with flat panels looks a lot better than having several huge parabolic dishes tracking the sun.
 
I ended up buying 2 of the Solar Bear panels, 4x20 each size for AGP. This is currently only %26 surface area, so we may add more later, but this is where we are starting. I am in the process of ordering a Goldline controller package. Our weather changes so quickly in spring and fall- the seasons that we are trying to heat. I observed how often I would have to manually open and close the flow to the panels and decided it was just not worth it. Plus, the nocturnal cooling setting will be very useful with our blazing hot summers. We are trying to make our system as efficient as possible for a minimum square footage of panels. I use our solar cover consistently during the spring and fall- only comes off to swim.
We will mount them panels at 30 degrees- which is not exactly per the equation for our latitude of 33 degrees, but is an easy setting for my husband's saws and tools ( which means he will actually get around to building the supports). We are planning to make the supports modular in 10 foot sections that can be collapsed for winter storage in the shop (in the summer they will be set up in the middle of a seasonal drainage field, so not a good place to keep them in the winter when it rains and the field is full of water). We need to plumb the panels in parallel because of the way our pool and land sits. I think I read on one post that, with the panels at an angle, the water should go in at the lower end and exit at the higher end? Is that correct?
 
I should probably know the answer to this already, but why?
If the water entered from the top, gravity would pull it down through the panels, causing it to run faster and reduce the solar exposure in the panels.- is that it?
Also,
The panels would drain back down each time the flow stopped if we did not have a bypass valve in the system, but we will, so that means that when the valve is actuated, the water that is in the panels is going to be stopped in place and held in the panels. Since we are not putting these on a roof, I was thinking that we did not need to mess with a relief valve to drain each time the system turns off. We will remove the panels in winter, so freeze protection will not be an issue.

Am I missing something?
 
You want to have a vacuum breaker valve at the top of the plumbing so that the panels will drain each time they are turned off. You don't want the weight of the water stressing the panels or your roof any more then necessary.

The main reason panels fill from the bottom is so that air can escape out the top easily. Trying to push air down from the top can result in air bubbles getting trapped and blocking some of the water channels. Also, warm water rises, filling from the bottom allows the natural tendency of the warmer water to rise to the top to aid the circulation.
 
We are not roof mounting. We will put the panels on a 30 degree slanted support sitting on the ground, which means that they will also be below the water level of the above ground pool. Do we need the vacuum breaker valve (would they even do any good since they are below the water line)? Also, what does a vacuum breaker valve look like- it does not seem to be included in the panel kits, or in the controller kit.
 
Any air will flush out through the returns when the panels are first turned on in the spring. It is still best if the panels fill from the bottom and all of the piping on the return run goes up from there. Air can get stuck at a local high point and reduce the flow rate, though this is much less likely in larger pipes than it is in the small tubes in the panels.
 
I don't know anything about the calculations or any of that. But, having used both the 2x20 Sungrabbers and the 4x20 Solar Bears - go with the Solar Bears. First off, 2x20s were a complete hassle when you can have 1 panel with more surface area and secondly, we went through a few sets of the Sungrabbers because they easily became brittle and damaged - they did not last over the years - we didn't have access to the Fafco panels when we first started with our solar panel heating so replaced Sungrabbers with Sungrabbers - more than once. The Fafco Solar Bears lasted much longer, were more flexible and easier to use because we only have 2 panels to deal with instead of 4. Even with a poolside by pass, the header by pass came in handy to occassionally tweak flow. I don't know all the technical info you are all including so can't add to that, but experience is what I have with owning both brands over a period of 15 years. The Fafco panels are better quality, easier to use and last longer.
 

Enjoying this content?

Support TFP with a donation.

Give Support
Thanks NWMNMom- that is reassuring. The Solar Bears are sitting in the garage right now- money is already spent, and rack building starts this week. From all the research I did, I had gotten the general feeling that the Solar Bears were worth the extra, but it is nice to hear experience. Ours may be a little different in hot, hot, hot Texas, but durability is an important issue in any weather conditions.
 
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