# Firebird Sydney Solar tubes vs Kingspan Thermomax



## OkeyDokey (10 Sep 2011)

Does anybody have any experience of Firebird Sydney solar tube systems?

Apparently they are made in Ireland. My plumber has recommended them over the Kingspan Thermomax. He said they perform better and are cheaper.

They are made in Ireland and SEAI registered 

[broken link removed]


----------



## wav (10 Sep 2011)

done the coarse with kingspan they give a 20 year gaurantee with tubes  also made in factory in ireland


----------



## PaddyBloggit (11 Sep 2011)

Re. Firebird, details here:

http://www.firebird.ie/


----------



## Shane007 (11 Sep 2011)

OkeyDokey said:


> Does anybody have any experience of Firebird Sydney solar tube systems?
> 
> Apparently they are made in Ireland. My plumber has recommended them over the Kingspan Thermomax. He said they perform better and are cheaper.
> 
> ...


 
I am sorry but that is a complete lie, apart from possibly the cheaper part!

Firstly, Firebird's tubes are manufactured in China. There are purchased from an independent Chinese factory. Firebird imports the tubes and then the other system components from other manufacturers and then assembles "the kit" here in Ireland. It's the old cliche, Argentinian chicken with Irish cling film on it can be called Irish chicken! Once they assemble their kit, they give it to Solar Keymark for certification as their kit. You and I can do exactly the same and never make a single component. We could even call it AAM Solar!

Secondly, all Sydney tubes of equal diameter will perform the same. Only increasing the diameter of the tube will increase the performance as the surface area of the tube is increased. You will find that most companies who sell their systems use the same tube manufacturers in China.

There is only one manufacturer of solar tubes in all of Europe and that is Kingspan and they are manufactured in Portadown. All others are as above. Even some popluar branded systems that claim to be manufacturered in Italy, Austria and Germany use the same Chinese tubes. They just manufacturer their other components in Europe and assemble the kit in Europe. 

With regard to efficiency, Firebird's efficiency is 60.5% http://www.dincertco.de/logos/011-7S663 F.pdf, whilst Kingspan's HP200 is 72.6% [broken link removed], whilst the HP250 is 76.1% [broken link removed]. 

The main difference between Kingspan's tubes and all others is Kingspan's Patented anti-stagnation device built into the condenser of the tube. Other differences are there also to increase efficiency, such as the strength of the vacuum and the heat pipe being surrounded by a complete vacuum rather than the Sydney tube heat pipe being open to normal atmospheric pressure.

The may well be cheaper than Kingspan's, however, you will require a heat dump with Firebird's system and therefore when the heat dump is maxed out, it will stagnate the glycol. This leads to more frequenty service costs, i.e. at least servicing every two years. With Kingspan's HP systems, this will not happen and servicing should be carried out every 5 to 10 years, but more likely to be at the higher end. This is checked with a refractometer.

You can check any system efficiency on Solar Key Mark's website on http://www.estif.org/solarkeymark/regcol.php. Once you input the name of the company you are looking for, click the Data Sheet Link Button and you are looking for the No efficiency on the data sheet.

The final point is as Wav asks, what is the manufacturer's warranty? Kingspan offer 5 years warranty or 20 years warranty when the system is installed with a Kingspan registered installer. You can look at their website to view a list of installers in your area [broken link removed]


----------



## OkeyDokey (11 Sep 2011)

Many thanks for the info and links Shane007.

The other solar tubes I was considering were the Italian Kloben tubes. I've been told that they are far superior to the Thermomax "due to actual aperture area and also to effectiveness of the tube".

Can you share your thoughts on the chart in the following link? It's not consistent with the info in the solar keymark database. http://www.ecoevolution.ie/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/SolarEnergyComparison.pdf

I presume the Kloben tubes are also made in China and then assembled in Italy?

I have heard people talking about inferior Chinese products. I have an IPhone for almost two years and it's still working after a lot of abuse. It's state of the art and top quality in my opinion. It was made in China.


----------



## Shane007 (11 Sep 2011)

OkeyDokey said:


> I presume the Kloben tubes are also made in China and then assembled in Italy?


 
Yes.



OkeyDokey said:


> The other solar tubes I was considering were the Italian Kloben tubes. I've been told that they are far superior to the Thermomax "due to actual aperture area and also to effectiveness of the tube".
> 
> Can you share your thoughts on the chart in the following link? It's not consistent with the info in the solar keymark database. http://www.ecoevolution.ie/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/SolarEnergyComparison.pdf


 
Kloben is a very good make, and probably one of the best that is coming out of China. The are a CPC system, in that they have a parabolic mirror behind the tube to reflect more light to the back of the tube in addition to the front. They are not superior to Kingspan, but up there.

There are two real issues with CPC systems.

1. They reduce the diameter of the tube to allow light to pass to the CPC behind them, giving a less efficient tube.
2. CPC only really works efficiently with direct sunlight, so great in countries such as Spain, etc. however, in Ireland or other Northern European countries, we only receive approx 40% direct sunlight. The other 60% is diffused sunlight, in that it is reflected sunlight from clouds, hills, etc.

Test results for CPC are very good, but they are tested under laboratory conditions with a 1,000w lamp giving direct sunlight.

Kloben's No efficiency is 71.8%. They are also direct flow heat pipe through a Sydney tube therefore they *DEFINITELY* require a heat dump.



OkeyDokey said:


> I have heard people talking about inferior Chinese products. I have an IPhone for almost two years and it's still working after a lot of abuse. It's state of the art and top quality in my opinion. It was made in China.


 
There is nothing wrong with Chinese made products as long as the product has strict quality control. I am sure Apple either owns the factory in China or it has a team of quality control engineers overlooking the process.

China does not recognise World Patents or CE standards and they will manufacture any to any standard you like as long as it is in quantity. This is where it will fail. If you want a bottom end product, cheaply made and you want enough of them, you can have it. Equally, if you want a high end product and you also want enough of them, you can also have that too. It is all about quantity and quality control.


----------



## Shane007 (11 Sep 2011)

OkeyDokey said:


> Can you share your thoughts on the chart in the following link? It's not consistent with the info in the solar keymark database. http://www.ecoevolution.ie/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/SolarEnergyComparison.pdf


 
Apologies, only looked at the link now after I posted my previous reply.

This one is new to me. The figures are completely off the mark. Solar Key Mark is an independent body set up to test all solar systems that can be sold in Europe. Each system is independently tested and the test results are published. Therefore, I would and could only go by Solar Key Marks test results and not that link that any sales guy could have put together. All manufacturers are required to give you this information and if not they can be obtained from Solar Key Mark. It looks like they have taken the details of the old Thermomax Mazdon system that is used in the USA. This was an arm of Thermomax that Kingspan did not purchase. It is older technology but I am only guessing here.

There is also an optional test called the Hail Impact Test. If manufacturers know they will score poorly with this test they will not have it done. It is not compulsory. The test replicated hail stones of varying diameter falling on the tubes from a given height. It tests under laboratory conditions the strength of the tubes under given conditions.

Kingspan's tubes test results are 100% survive hail stones with a diamter of 35mm and 80% survive 50mm diameter. Unfortunately Germany does not test for sliothars in Kilkenny!

However, you should always ask for Hail Impact Test Report.


----------



## OkeyDokey (12 Sep 2011)

Thanks for the excellent posts Shane!


----------



## quentingargan (13 Sep 2011)

Just a few things I would add to this.

1) The relative efficiencies of Sydney tubes cannot be compared directly because they don't take into account Incidence Angle Modifier or IAM - Zero loss efficiency is used when the sun is directly in front of the tubes (noon sunshine), whereas Sydney tubes work better either side of noon. There is an article on this . 

2) All vacuum tubes or flasks will need to be replaced after 15 to 20 years. The Chinese ones are much cheaper to replace (about €5 each)

3) A heat dump is about €300 to install. The relay for it is already included in most controllers. It will never "max out", so it preserves the life of glycol. Using a heat dump allows you to put in more tubes than you normally would, and this give you better heat cover in spring and autumn. Any system that doesn't have a heat dump will not provide warranties if you exceed their recommended ratio of tubes to water storage. 

4) Another issue with CPC systems is that they rely on light being reflected from the mirrors onto the back of the flask. That works well in the test bed on a new system, but after a few years, the back of the tube is usually filthy and so this no longer work. All you have done is substantially increase the wind load of the system.


----------



## Shane007 (13 Sep 2011)

quentingargan said:


> 2) All vacuum tubes or flasks will need to be replaced after 15 to 20 years. The Chinese ones are much cheaper to replace (about €5 each)


 
If that is true why would Kingspan offer a 20 year warranty on their tubes and if it is true, then happy days, they will be replaced free of charge under warranty!



quentingargan said:


> 3) A heat dump is about €300 to install. The relay for it is already included in most controllers. It will never "max out", so it preserves the life of glycol. Using a heat dump allows you to put in more tubes than you normally would, and this give you better heat cover in spring and autumn. Any system that doesn't have a heat dump will not provide warranties if you exceed their recommended ratio of tubes to water storage.


 
It is an extra €300 that also has to added to the cost. I would also bet that many heat dumps are radiators on the glycol circuit and not plumbed into the heating circuit as this requires an additional circulating pump. Many are very undersized for the job in hand because a single small radiator is cheaper than a 1m double and often the route taken by the installer if taken at all. When the heat dump is needed, it is usally in the summer when the cylinder is maxed out and cannot take any more heat. If the cylinder is maxed out, then it is usally from a very hot sunny day and the attic space in most houses are like hot boxes on those days. Therefore, the air temperature surrounding the radiator is high and not very efficient at cooling the hot radiator, limiting the heat being dissipated from the glycol circuit. This ultimately leads to stagnation.



quentingargan said:


> 4) Another issue with CPC systems is that they rely on light being reflected from the mirrors onto the back of the flask. That works well in the test bed on a new system, but after a few years, the back of the tube is usually filthy and so this no longer work. All you have done is substantially increase the wind load of the system.


 
+1


----------



## quentingargan (13 Sep 2011)

Shane007 said:


> If that is true why would Kingspan offer a 20 year warranty on their tubes and if it is true, then happy days, they will be replaced free of charge under warranty!
> 
> 
> 
> I would also bet that many heat dumps are radiators on the glycol circuit and not plumbed into the heating circuit as this requires an additional circulating pump. Many are very undersized for the job in hand because a single small radiator is cheaper than a 1m double and often the route taken by the installer if taken at all.



The €300 suggested for a heat dump includes properly sized radiators. I quite agree, if someone sticks a small radiator in as part of the heat dump, then you will end up with the system in stagnation anyhow. In the early days, a lot of towel rails were used as heat dumps which was pretty useless. 

But I personally like the flexibility in sizing the system that a heat dump gives. In a well insulated house, if the heating is off for 8 months of the year, the solar can give you cover for that time. The system I have at home is quite over-sized, but at this time of the year while our heating is still off, I am glad of it. There's a bath running as I type this, even though there were only a couple of hours of decent weather today, and dreadful weather yesterday. 

I imagine that the tubes will last the period of their warranty, but the replacement at that point will be a lot more expensive. I know that is a long way down the line, but it is an element to be considered in the overall cost. (It is also a reason why some folks prefer flatplate). 

I suppose there's no one-size-fits-all. There are a range of products on the market and they all have their plusses and minuses.


----------



## bstop (14 Sep 2011)

The major advantage of Sydney tubes is that the vacuum is contained in an entirely glass container and this will hold the vacuum longer than a tube which has glass to metal joints. They are similar in  construction to a thermos flask  vacuum and these can last beyond 20 years.   I have used the central heating coil in the cylinder as a heat dump and this would cost very little as it only requires wiring and a few relays to operate the central heating pump and a zone valve to dump heat when required. This system also minimizes the amount of joints in the solar pipe circuit.


----------



## gas_limerick (14 Sep 2011)

I agree with bstop, we always use the central heating coil to dump; this is the best way to do it. I have set mine to dump at approx. 55 (In my own house, it’s all the temperature we need in the water and it keeps the whole system at low temperatures, just a personal choice)
  Also nice to flick on the heat on some nights knowing the solar has brought the entire heating system up to warm before the boiler/stove kicks in.


Sean Moore.


----------



## quentingargan (15 Sep 2011)

Yes - using the central heating coil is a good option, provided you can be sure that someone isn't going to introduce or modify the zone controls later without realising that this is part of the system. Also, it does mean that you have two pumps running instead of one, so there is a slight increase in electricity consumption with this system. 

Just one caution is that the standard advice is to get to 60 degrees rather than 55 to keep the water sterile from legionella. I know some people suggest 54 as an anti-scald level for children, and technically should be hot enough to knock back the bacterial population, but I believe 60 degrees once a week is what is required to kill 'em off for sure.


----------



## OkeyDokey (15 Sep 2011)

quentingargan said:


> Just a few things I would add to this.
> 
> 1) The relative efficiencies of Sydney tubes cannot be compared directly because they don't take into account Incidence Angle Modifier or IAM - Zero loss efficiency is used when the sun is directly in front of the tubes (noon sunshine), whereas Sydney tubes work better either side of noon. There is an article on this .
> 
> ...



If the Sydney tubes are cleaned every two to three years how do they compare in performance and longevity to Kingspan and Kloben given bstops "entirely glass container" point and yours regarding comparisons and lack of consideration for IAM? 

I am presuming that cleaning involves some soapy hot water and an old rag


----------



## quentingargan (15 Sep 2011)

OkeyDokey said:


> If the Sydney tubes are cleaned every two to three years how do they compare in performance and longevity to Kingspan and Kloben given bstops "entirely glass container" point and yours regarding comparisons and lack of consideration for IAM?
> 
> I am presuming that cleaning involves some soapy hot water and an old rag


The only way to compare both systems is to run a computer simulation. Taking IAM into account boosts output of some Sydney tubes by over 40% at times of the day, but the average boost can be about 15% to 18%. It varies widely. 

Yes - if your panels are accessible, you can wash them, otherwise, it involves soapy water, rag, scaffolding, roof ladder, hard hats for the kids playing in the yard, and a nappy for anyone with vertigo :~p


----------



## villa 1 (15 Sep 2011)

Cleaning the tubes/panels. An integral part of the servicing schedule on solar hot water installations.!!
There's a couple of jobs generated already


----------



## Shane007 (15 Sep 2011)

bstop said:


> The major advantage of Sydney tubes is that the vacuum is contained in an entirely glass container and this will hold the vacuum longer than a tube which has glass to metal joints.


 
The Sydney tube has a very small vacuum as the vacuum is only witin the two outer skins of glass. The heat pipe itself is not within a vacuum and open to normal atmospheric pressure. Consideration for heat losses at a1 and a2 should therefore be taken into account.

With regard to the glass to metal joints, I completely agree with most evacuated tubes, however, Kingspan use a chemical that coats the copper flange and mimics the thermal properties of glass, to eliminate the differing properties and avoiding both materials moving at different thermal conditions.

With regard to the heat dump, I completely agree, dumping into the central heating circuit is best and the need for consideration of zone valves must be taken into account.


----------



## Shane007 (15 Sep 2011)

For anybody who is interested, here is a useful tool to compare the various solar systems on the market. The tool is designed and issued by Solar Keymark in Germany.

http://www.estif.org/solarkeymark/theory/eff-en.xls

The Red Line is what you should hopefully mimic for Evacuated Tubes.
The Black Line is what should hopefully mimic for Flat Plate.
The Blue Line is for Unglazed Flat Plate. (Very Uncommon)
The Green Line is the actual performance of the sytem that you are querying.

The 5 figures you need to input are as follows:

From the test report of the collector that you wish to see it's performance (obtained from my previous post):

No = Combined efficiency of the transparent cover and the absorber 
a1 = Heat loss cofficient at collector fluid temperature equal to ambient temperature
a2 = Temperature dependent term of heat loss coefficient [W/K²]
The heat loss coefficient of a collector depends on the temperature. High values of [SIZE=-1]a[/SIZE]2 indicates large temperature influence
The higher the value of [SIZE=-1]a[/SIZE]2 the more "hooked nosed" the power/efficiency curve) 

Input the temperature difference between collector fluid & ambient temperature as 30K as this will give an average test temp.
Input Solar Irradiance as 1,000.

Sounds complicated but in practice is easy and it will give you a very good visual of varying performance of the ever so many systems on the market. It also eliminates sales people's "bull".

By also lowering the 1,000 watts, you can see how it affects performance, for example on cloudy days or varying times of the day when 1,000 watts/sqm cannot be achieved.

Any problems with understanding it, let me know.


----------



## quentingargan (16 Sep 2011)

Yes Shane, but the original post was about Sydney tubes, and this graph does not take into account IAM, so you have to add an unknown variable between 15% and 30% to the zero loss efficiency to the efficiency of Sydney tubes to use this chart. 

I have seen charts like this being used to flog flatplates and tubes with internal flatplates in a very misleading manner against Sydney tube systems. The comparison just doesn't work for Sydney tubes.


----------



## Shane007 (16 Sep 2011)

IAM is not just relevant to Sydney tubes but all tubes, therefore when comparing the various tubes on the market, this comparison graph will give a realistic performance chart.

If you wish to compare flat plate with tubes, allowing for IAM, then you could alter the radiance factor by varying percentages, such as 2pm having tubes at 900w/sqm and flat plate at say 830w/sqm.


----------



## quentingargan (16 Sep 2011)

Hi Shane, That would involve multiplying zero loss efficiency by IAM for each system across a range of angles to get an average. The chart on page 2 of the document shows the IAM for a normal flatplate (or a tube with a flatplate inside it) and the IAM for a typical 58mm Sydney tube;

The maths is still more complicated than that because the effect is less significant when the sun is lower in the sky (both panels have lower yields). So the ONLY way to do this is with a proper computer simulation software such as T-Sol which takes IAM into account.


----------

