It's now easy to see why Heliocol rushed to get out their <strong>"2012 Solar Pool Heating Comparison Sheet"</strong> last month. In building our response to the comparison sheet, we discovered that the test data Heliocol used was outdated and we reported that fact to SRCC. They responded that while Helicol had been retested, the publishing of their new ratings had been delayed due to "unforeseen circumstances."

Perhaps those "unforeseen circumstances" were that <a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001JO_TFxZipR2OvULBe2Tg-i2-1DgGNd4-AiNknYp2RvWo4LWr6RX-iLVZuWW5_3-3-QsXYmBGEqMBmr1TW2VRKrPXyK2-Ichd1GjWKBPCzI67ISIv_qUN2IbtvClrgFslma_BS4Ge7fl-wLLPvlRMBO-Kqrk9EozfXiEI75rUaBw=" target="_blank">Heliocol's new ratings</a> have dropped significantly! The reason is something we've known all along - the Heliocol collector was initially designed as an in-tank heat exchanger to LOSE heat, and because of their loose-tube design the collector is extremely susceptible to losses from wind.<!--more-->
<p style="text-align: center;">&nbsp;</p>


[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="564" caption="Click the image to view larger"]<a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001JO_TFxZipR2OvULBe2Tg-i2-1DgGNd4-AiNknYp2RvWo4LWr6RX-iLVZuWW5_3-3-QsXYmBGEqMBmr1TW2VRKrPXyK2-Ichd1GjWKBPCzI67ISIv_qUN2IbtvClrgFslma_BS4Ge7fl-wLLPvlRMBO-Kqrk9EozfXiEI75rUaBw="><img class=" " title="Heliocol new SRCC ratings" src="http://www.aquathermindustries.com/portal/news/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Heliocol-SRCC-Screenshot.png" alt="" width="564" height="852" /></a>[/caption]

Previous to the new ISO 9806-3 testing procedures, the industry relied on the ASHRAE 96-80 test standard; an outdoor test which allowed for wind speeds of up to 3 mph. If you were lucky enough to test on a day with no wind, you got a great rating. If you were tested on a slightly windy day, your ratings suffered. Heliocol's prior SRCC and current FSEC certification are based on an indoor test to the ASHRAE standard. In other words, there was no allowance for wind and re-radiation to the atmosphere. Both SRCC and FSEC accepted this test, but FSEC applied a "fudge-factor" to account for re-radiation and wind. The new ISO test procedure addresses wind speed by exposing the collector to three different wind speeds during the course of testing. As noted on their new SRCC Certification, the performance equations are based only on the low wind data. The rating matrix is based on all of the test data.
As we pointed out in our response, Heliocol was using a Category "A" (minus 9 degrees), on a 2,000 BTU day to establish collector performance. The actual ratings of Aquatherm products and Heliocol across category A are nearly identical. The example we used to represent category A is an 85 degree pool, with a 94 degree outside temperature. Heliocol delivers slightly more heat, <strong>when heat is needed the least</strong>. Heliocol's new rating in this category still dropped about 5%.

Category "B" (plus 9 degrees) is where the new test ratings really show a difference. The example we give here is an 85 degree pool with an outside temperature of 76 degrees. Heliocol's rating dropped to .7 compared to Aquatherm products at 1.3. In other words, when your customer's pool needs heat the most, Aquatherm Products are <strong>86% more efficient than Heliocol</strong>! And at Category B, on a 1,000 BTU day, Aquatherm products <strong>outperform Heliocol by 250%</strong>.

Category "C" (plus 36 degrees) represents the very end points of the season; heating a pool to 85 degrees when the outside air temperature is 49 degrees. In this category, Heliocol has absolutely no rating - <strong>zero BTU's</strong>.

<strong>When your customer's pool needs heat the most, Heliocol performs the worst.</strong>

We're currently working on a consumer-friendly version of this, but in the meantime, we felt this information, though perhaps difficult to explain to the average consumer, was just too valuable to hold back on.

Good luck and good selling!

Dave Sizelove

President &amp; CEO

&nbsp;

&nbsp;