Having searched all over the internet and I find it strange that almost no one talks about the SolaRoof greenhouse that was invented in 1980's with 6 patents.

Anyway, having tried the conventional one-layer hoop greenhouse first hand, and spent money and time to learn about the "citrus in snow" type of greenhouse utilizing solar and geo thermal energies, I have made my conclusion that SolaRoof greenhouse invented by Richard Nelson is the BEST greenhouse a person can build. I cannot find anything that is even close to it.

Here is a picture explaining how it works in winter night time:



The principle is pretty simple if you can perceive it. It takes the advantage of water's high capacity to absorb and storge thermal energy. It's double layer structure and soap liquid foam generation allows a greenhouse built this way to capture as much solar thermal energy as possible to cool it during day and keept it warm during night by filling the cavity with soap bubbles as thick and light weight insulating blanket to keep the heat inside and prevent the cold from radiating inside.

As a result, it captures enough solar thermal energy for it to be used during the night.

Becuase of my thourough understanding and firm belieft that it will work, I have teamed up with the inventor to design a full line of new greenhouse structures we call PyraPODs. The following 3D Sketchup image shows 8 of these structures in one sweep:



Even larger versions are possible for community living:



Hope you like them just as I do :-)

Aubrey at
PyraPOD Global Inc

P.S. We encourage DIY projects. By reading info and watching videos on our site, most handy men and women can replicate easily.

Hi Aubrey @pyrapod and welcome to the forum

This is the first I have ever heard of the SolaRoof/PyraPOD greenhouse model. I am surprised with all the reading/research I have done on greenhouses, I have never seen this. I briefly looked at your website, and I did recognize and remotely remember reading at some point about Richard and seeing that picture of the plant still thriving since 1960 in a completely sealed glass vessel. I did not see, except for that photo (screen shot), any other photos/videos other than simulated renditions. Perhaps I missed them. I will have to spend more time on your website. Do you have any other pictures/videos of a real-life example(s)?

Jim

Soap, hmm. sounds messy to me!

I'd be curious to see a real world version of any scale as well.

MoonShadows said:Hi Aubrey @pyrapod and welcome to the forum

This is the first I have ever heard of the SolaRoof/PyraPOD greenhouse model. I am surprised with all the reading/research I have done on greenhouses, I have never seen this. I briefly looked at your website, and I did recognize and remotely remember reading at some point about Richard and seeing that picture of the plant still thriving since 1960 in a completely sealed glass vessel. I did not see, except for that photo (screen shot), any other photos/videos other than simulated renditions. Perhaps I missed them. I will have to spend more time on your website. Do you have any other pictures/videos of a real-life example(s)?

Jim

Jim, I am glad you were the first one responded :-)

For your information, I give your this link: OOOps - as a new member I am not allowed to post a link. Please go to the site and then click Posts you will see it. This is a new post I finished last night. It spills all the beans out.

binfordw said:Soap, hmm. sounds messy to me!

I'd be curious to see a real world version of any scale as well.

Hehe, soap may be messy but not soap diluted in water and contained in a tank and sealed cavity. Watch one video from our website showing how the soap liquid solution flows down the inner side of the inner layer, creating a thin film which allows light to pass through and at the same time absorb the solar thermal energy.

Remember, building a greenhouse without using soap bubble foam is a waste of money and effort. Once you use the wet foam, then the magic happens. Period.

pyrapod said:Remember, building a greenhouse without using soap bubble foam is a waste of money and effort. Once you use the wet foam, then the magic happens. Period.

And you can do your dishes at the same time!

I would think magic would sell itself better! Looks like the soap bubble insulation idea has been around for quite awhile from articles I've found on the web, must be a reason it hasn't gained any ground yet?

Hi Aubrey,

Thanks for the reply, and I looked at your post. It looks like your numbers/charts reflect what you are saying, but what I was looking for is a video demonstration of a real world soap-bubble greenhouse and how it functions. The soap/water reservoir, the mechanics...a soap bubble greenhouse in action.

I am not denying or refuting anything you say. In fact, it sounds like a good concept, but I have to echo what @binfordw wrote:

I would think magic would sell itself better! Looks like the soap bubble insulation idea has been around for quite awhile from articles I've found on the web, must be a reason it hasn't gained any ground yet?

How is it that this concept has been "hidden" for so long? What would be the cost for a homeowner for one of these systems...within the common sizes for a backyard greenhouse? Or, would the cost only make sense for a commercial scale greenhouse? I know you said it would be expensive initially, but cheaper in the long run because of the temperature effects and energy savings, but how much money are we talking? There are many splendid ideas and solutions for many of the problems in the world that never come to fruition because of the costs involved. Would this greenhouse be marketable or prohibitively expensive for the common backyard greenhouse grower?

Soap bubble insulation has been proven, but when done side to side with reflective insulating curtains, it was not substantially better. Which tells me that the end wall and earth losses are a bigger portion of the total thermal loss than i would have expected. So it's a lot like building a super-insulated home; you must address ALL the losses.

https://smallfarms.cornell.edu...

So I do think soap bubble insulation could be a good way to eliminate the mechanical and electro-mechanical issues of moveable insulating panels. Soap bubble systems do introduce their own maintenance and reliability issues.

In my own testing, I found that I was able to easily produce an 8 foot column of fine bubbles rising from a 5 gallon bucket by feeding compressed air to a coil of recycled rubber weep hose in the bottom of the bucket, with the bucket half filled with bubble solution (water, detergent). This eliminates the requirement for overhead active plumbing and blowers, and since it's simpler and better contained, even toxic glycol antifreeze could be used in the bubble mix. An insulated trough lined with pond liner would hold the solution.

For my test, I was using about 35 psi from my shop air compressor but I'm sure lower pressure could be used (such as a shop vac or leaf blower motor) with the right perforated air emitter.

One of the annoying things about soap bubble insulation is that a great deal of thickness is required, and the degradation of plastic/film over time from the solution and UV breakdown of the solution residue. The R value is estimated by different sources between 0.5 to 1 per inch. The original Canadian greenhouse application used 30 inch spacing.

I'd love to see a commercially available, well designed home/hobby greenhouse with a soap bubble insulation system!

MoonShadows said:Hi Aubrey,

Thanks for the reply, and I looked at your post. It looks like your numbers/charts reflect what you are saying, but what I was looking for is a video demonstration of a real world soap-bubble greenhouse and how it functions. The soap/water reservoir, the mechanics...a soap bubble greenhouse in action.

How is it that this concept has been "hidden" for so long? What would be the cost for a homeowner for one of these systems...within the common sizes for a backyard greenhouse? Or, would the cost only make sense for a commercial scale greenhouse? I know you said it would be expensive initially, but cheaper in the long run because of the temperature effects and energy savings, but how much money are we talking? There are many splendid ideas and solutions for many of the problems in the world that never come to fruition because of the costs involved. Would this greenhouse be marketable or prohibitively expensive for the common backyard greenhouse grower?

So many questions, good! Since I am not allowed to post a link as new member, Please go to this page: pyrapod.com/faq - I have tried to answer as many questions I have heard so far. Thanks!

BruceM2 said:Soap bubble insulation has been proven, but when done side to side with reflective insulating curtains, it was not substantially better. Which tells me that the end wall and earth losses are a bigger portion of the total thermal loss than i would have expected. So it's a lot like building a super-insulated home; you must address ALL the losses.

[url=file:///C:/Users/Bruce/AppData/Local/Temp/69-1644-15-03_Final_Report_Use_of_Soap_Bubble_Insulation_in_Greenhouses.pdf]file:///C:/Users/Bruce/AppData...[/url]

So I do think soap bubble insulation could be a good way to eliminate the mechanical and electro-mechanical issues of moveable insulating panels. Soap bubble systems do introduce their own maintenance and reliability issues.

In my own testing, I found that I was able to easily produce an 8 foot column of fine bubbles rising from a 5 gallon bucket by feeding compressed air to a coil of recycled rubber weep hose in the bottom of the bucket, with the bucket half filled with bubble solution (water, detergent). This eliminates the requirement for overhead active plumbing and blowers, and since it's simpler and better contained, even toxic glycol antifreeze could be used in the bubble mix. An insulated trough lined with pond liner would hold the solution.

For my test, I was using about 35 psi from my shop air compressor but I'm sure lower pressure could be used (such as a shop vac or leaf blower motor) with the right perforated air emitter.

One of the annoying things about soap bubble insulation is that a great deal of thickness is required, and the degradation of plastic/film over time from the solution and UV breakdown of the solution residue. The R value is estimated by different sources between 0.5 to 1 per inch. The original Canadian greenhouse application used 30 inch spacing.

I'd love to see a commercially available, well designed home/hobby greenhouse with a soap bubble insulation system!

Bruce, thank you for sharing your experience.

Looks like you are using the same method those aircrete guys are using to produce bubble foam. By the way, that is the slow way and OK for aircrete mixing, but not fast enough to fill large cavity for greenhouses.

To produce bubbles the faster way is to use a fan, a nozzle and a large screen covering. Go to our website and check the video section. You will see several videos showing how massive amount of bubbles can be produced easily.

We have finished designed a full line of commericial products and now in the process of testing for the next step: mass product.

Fortunately the inventor is still relatively young and can help us personally. He has been doing this for 40 years and he knows all about it including little secrets that no one will get it right even if they can replicate some aspects of the technology.

pyrapod

In your first post you said: "We encourage DIY projects. By reading info and watching videos on our site, most handy men and women can replicate easily."

In your last post: "He has been doing this for 40 years and he knows all about it including little secrets that no one will get it right even if they can replicate some aspects of the technology."

I want to see up and running greenhouses, not drawings, graphs and theories. I suspect if this was a viable option, after 40 years there would be "bubble" greenhouses all over the planet. The one thing I don't think anyone has mentioned is light permeability.

BruceM2, thank you for your most comprehensive unbiased report on this concept.

DaisyI said:pyrapod

In your first post you said: "We encourage DIY projects. By reading info and watching videos on our site, most handy men and women can replicate easily."

In your last post: "He has been doing this for 40 years and he knows all about it including little secrets that no one will get it right even if they can replicate some aspects of the technology."

I want to see up and running greenhouses, not drawings, graphs and theories. I suspect if this was a viable option, after 40 years there would be "bubble" greenhouses all over the planet. The one thing I don't think anyone has mentioned is light permeability.

BruceM2, thank you for your most comprehensive unbiased report on this concept.

DaisyI, there are two kinds of replications: (1) you watch videos and presentations and then you say, ah, I have got it and you start replicating. (2) you do one more step further by asking questions and fully understand how it works. That is the difference between surface understanding and deep understanding. Just like everyone knows cooking and its theory, but not everyone is a good cook.

As long as you spay water in the double layer cavity, you will get better result than the single layer or double layer greenhouse filled with air only, especially in the summer time when overheating is a major problem for any greenhouses - that is why ventilation is a must. But since spraying water only works in summer time, we need to fill the cavity with bubbles. Why? To insulate so that we do not loose the heat collected during the day. As simple as that. It is crystal clear. But still, you know what I mean.

Concerning your last paragraph, I have tried to answer it on the website in the FAQ section. I bet you do not care as you are like many doubting Thomas out there, doubting about it in the first place. If everyone doubts without taking any actions, then no one will make it happen.

Like many other good things other there, the power elites tend to suppress them because they do not want us to use them. That explains why it takes so long for such a wonderful and simple invention to be presented here. It will take even longer time to have it realized if I do not take the action.

Again, whoever takes the action will benefit right away and the most.

I corrected the link:
https://smallfarms.cornell.edu...

The full report in detail is also web published but I can't find it immediately.

It's hard to get enthused about a product (pyrapod) when there is no product, no meaningful data, and nothing but marketing hype. (I'm a retired engineer and have always had an "allergy" to marketing. I believe only in good data.) The two days of temperature data from Solaroof, plotted for a very small enclosure are disappointing. What about a few day stretch of cloudy and cold with wind? What about a few day stretch of very hot days? The cooling ability of running a soap solution down the north side is interesting but what is presented by solaroof is pure conjecture- no details or data.

As for raising a column of bubbles from a trough, in my simple experiment it took only a few minutes to raise a column 8 foot tall, and no, it's not like making aircrete. Solar designers Bill Sturm and Nick Pine also prefer this method over the suspended blower/wet screen method.
https://www.builditsolar.com/E...

I'd love to see details on the your smaller scale soap bubble machine and it's reliability in the greenhouse environment. This is missing, and the sale of a well engineered, affordable and reliable bubble producing unit would go a long way to supporting the growth of soap bubble insulation. (As would details on a trough-blower system of a scale appropriate for a home/hobby hoop house.)
The bubble blower is in a pretty rough environment up above and between the two roof films (humidity, temperature range, corrosion) so it's an important element where reliability and durability are needed.

Getting some prototypes built and out there, and collecting good data on performance in a wide range of conditions would seem to be an important first step that is completely missing so far.

pyrapod said:

DaisyI, there are two kinds of replications: (1) you watch videos and presentations and then you say, ah, I have got it and you start replicating. (2) you do one more step further by asking questions and fully understand how it works. That is the difference between surface understanding and deep understanding. Just like everyone knows cooking and its theory, but not everyone is a good cook.

As long as you spay water in the double layer cavity, you will get better result than the single layer or double layer greenhouse filled with air only, especially in the summer time when overheating is a major problem for any greenhouses - that is why ventilation is a must. But since spraying water only works in summer time, we need to fill the cavity with bubbles. Why? To insulate so that we do not loose the heat collected during the day. As simple as that. It is crystal clear. But still, you know what I mean.

Concerning your last paragraph, I have tried to answer it on the website in the FAQ section. I bet you do not care as you are like many doubting Thomas out there, doubting about it in the first place. If everyone doubts without taking any actions, then no one will make it happen.

Like many other good things other there, the power elites tend to suppress them because they do not want us to use them. That explains why it takes so long for such a wonderful and simple invention to be presented here. It will take even longer time to have it realized if I do not take the action.

Again, whoever takes the action will benefit right away and the most.

Thank you! Perfect answer. Only people trying to hide something need to insult and attack rather than explain. I am excited to know I am part of the "power elite" but disappointed you think I'm a bad cook. You are the one who needs to take action by actually building a greenhouse using your FAQ, figures and graphs. I don't need to prove your theories for you. Really, the only question I asked was about light permeability.

Once again, thank you Bruce.

BruceM2 said:Getting some prototypes built and out there, and collecting good data on performance in a wide range of conditions would seem to be an important first step that is completely missing so far.

Bruce, you missed the 30-day data I showed on the website. Again as a new member, I cannot even show that page link, neither an image :-(

Prototypes for new designs? Yes, that is exactly I am doing.

I share what I am doing because the principles are sound and solid, and I want others to know - believe or not. I work with the original inventor who has helped many to build this type of greenhouses. BTW, I just undate the home page and the rest of the website so that whoever want to explore more can proceed from there.

DaisyI said:

Thank you! Perfect answer. Only people trying to hide something need to insult and attack rather than explain. I am excited to know I am part of the "power elite" but disappointed you think I'm a bad cook. You are the one who needs to take action by actually building a greenhouse using your FAQ, figures and graphs. I don't need to prove your theories for you. Really, the only question I asked was about light permeability.

Once again, thank you Bruce.

Daisy, do not get it too personal. I am not mad at you at all. I am mad at those who know it is working and still try to hide things so that we the people cannot benefit from this.

You are right. I need to take the action to build and prove it works.

Conerning your question of light permeability, I thought I have explained it. Well, I am sure you will get it once you play with bubbles and transparent covering. My guess is that transparent glazing and transparent bubbles will allow about 95% light passing through. Stains are not a problem as the cacity is a sealed space and wet most of the time. As you mentioned, that soap liquid can be used to clean dishes :-)

Have a wonder day! I live in Kelowna and it is sunny and warm

pyrapod said:

I am mad at those who know it is working and still try to hide things so that we the people cannot benefit from this.

This thread gets funnier and funnier! I'm sure there is a giant conspiracy (led by me) to keep people from all over the world from building whatever they want, especially if it concerns bubbles

I really doubt your 95% transmission number. My greenhouse has 5 wall polycarbonate, its light transmission is 65%. Double glazed window glass is about 70%. Light transmissivity of bubbles as seen in your many diagrams would be extraordinary low as the bubble size is small. You can see through one bubble but pile them up and you see less. The thicker the bubble stack, the less light going through.

I also have major concerns about your claim that your greenhouse would never need ventilation. Just by logic, damp soil and green respirating plants make damp air. Its called humidity. The more dampness the higher the humidity. Then add still air - still damp air equals mold and fungus.

That's before you get to the carbon dioxide problem. If you have a really well sealed greenhouse, you will have to add a source of carbon dioxide or your plants will stall out. I could go inside and breathe deeply everyday - my own oxygen bar.

As they say in 'Shark Tank'... I'm out.

DaisyI said:

This thread gets funnier and funnier! I'm sure there is a giant conspiracy (led by me) to keep people from all over the world from building whatever they want, especially if it concerns bubbles

I really doubt your 95% transmission number. My greenhouse has 5 wall polycarbonate, its light transmission is 65%. Double glazed window glass is about 70%. Light transmissivity of bubbles as seen in your many diagrams would be extraordinary low as the bubble size is small. You can see through one bubble but pile them up and you see less. The thicker the bubble stack, the less light going through.

I also have major concerns about your claim that your greenhouse would never need ventilation. Just by logic, damp soil and green respirating plants make damp air. Its called humidity. The more dampness the higher the humidity. Then add still air - still damp air equals mold and fungus.

That's before you get to the carbon dioxide problem. If you have a really well sealed greenhouse, you will have to add a source of carbon dioxide or your plants will stall out. I could go inside and breathe deeply everyday - my own oxygen bar.

As they say in 'Shark Tank'... I'm out.

I am out too. I find this forum is strange. It won't allow me to post a guy who planted seeds in a floating medium, added some water and then he sealed it completely. He has kept that big glass jar inside his house and allow some sunlight coming in. Anyway, so far that plant has been thriving since 1960, more than 60 years, amazing! That is a perfect proof that plants grown in balanced CO2/O2 environment.

Well, for some reason, now I see the option for me to upload an image. Yes!


David Latimer's plant in sealed bottle

This is my last post here as I have been granted the right to establish this Discourse group forum: pyrapod.discourse.group

I have to tell you Aubrey @pyrapod I find it strange that you are "out" of here if you want to educate about and promote your project to knowledgeable greenhouse growers. It doesn't make much sense to me. A little questioning from others who have experience and knowledge in their own right, and you are fleeing? Perhaps this is why the soap bubble greenhouse never caught on if the promoters of it can't take critical feedback and questioning. Best of luck to you at Discourse and in your project.