There are fabricators that will make clear tanks to our specifications if you're unable to build it. You don't need to be left out in the cold while those with handyman abilities get all the comfort and joy.

In the design to follow, a horizontal tank will be incorporated with vertical tanks for acquiring heated waters in the cooler seasons for end-of-day use. It's important that water volumes in the tanks are not so high that they fail to achieve warm waters on the average cool day. By lessening the water volumes, there will be extremely hot water in summer, meaning that tanks need to be built better for that reason. The problem here is that I have no experience, as I write, in what sort of tank volumes one should have for optimal summer or autumn/spring environments through the wide range of latitudes. We're either going to have to guess and hope for the best, or we can inquire of solar-heater dealers / manufacturers who can share some information.

There is this online statement: "To determine what size IPSWH you need, allow 30 gallons of water capacity per person in your household. Davis Alternative Technology Associates suggests about 2.5 gallons of water per square foot of [tank] glazing as the maximum ratio for good heating." IPSWH stands for "Integral Passive Solar Water Heater," meaning that it's not a metal-pipe heater but the full-water volume type that I'm discussing. The ratio amounts to 4" of water depth under the glaze. Why should this be the optimal depth? It may have to do with heat loss to the atmosphere versus heat gain into a storage tank. If the depth is less than about 3", the water often gets hot enough to waste much heat to the atmosphere. If the depth is much more than 4", the water will be too cool to allow good heat transfer into the storage tank.
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Do-It-Yourself/1984-01-01/Solar-Water-Heater.aspx?page=6

By the way:

IPSWH systems are much less widely known despite some inherent advantages, including simplicity, low cost, and resistance to freezing. The first solar water heaters widely used in the U.S. were IPSWHs. They gradually fell out of favor because of night cooldown and tank corrosion. New materials and designs minimize these problems and promise to bring the IPSWH back into the forefront of solar activity...The low cost of IPSWHs more than offsets their slightly lower performance and will make them the most cost-effective heater for many climates and uses.

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6322606

The purpose of vertical tanks is to capture more afternoon sun veering west until sunset, wherefore they will all have an additional metal heat collector in mid-tank. This collector is as tall as the tank, and faces east and west. It captures morning and afternoon sun, but not at midday. It's a big deal to have the extra collector to keep the water warm longer for those who wash up later in the evening. You may or may not want warmer water in one half of the tank in contact with some water in the other half. This tank is not under household water pressure.

Sunlight with a high sun hits bottom-side collector (three collectors in all per vertical tank). If the tank is 12" wide x 7" deep x 72" high (about 30 gallons), the bottom plate is not much more than a half square foot. It's a waste of noon sun, the hottest sun.

In the summer, when the sun is overhead at midday, the vertical tank's north collector receives little light. The solution is a horizontal tank, with a bottom collector facing straight up at the summer sun. Why not put it right with the vertical tank? In this design, much of the heated water of a horizontal tank is meant to be sacrificed to waters higher up in the vertical tank so that they are warmed already by the time of the late afternoon sun. That's when the horizontal tank starts to cool while the vertical tank remains warmer. I've never tried it, but it seems logical enough. One can improvise to inhibit problems such as cloud and wind.

The horizontal tank is situated at the bottom of the vertical tank(s), and the water between both need to be connected in some significant way. A large pipe with shut-off valve (in case clouds are expected in the afternoon) seems like the ticket. The top of the vertical tank can be connected by insulated pipe to an insulated attic tank. The chief problem is sealing the tanks due to the increased water pressures from the over-all height of the system. You have the option of not placing the storage tank high, and you might even want it outside in the sun, right beside the tanks. There will be days when this works, and days when it won't.

The storage tank can be metal, a great way to heat it up if it's getting sun. But it will lose heat fast without sun. So, give the storage tank a plexiglass case to keep heat from escaping as fast. It's keep wind off as well.

You will need to replace the water in the insulated tank once it's gone. You will get to know how much water to allow in the storage tank depending on weather conditions. The more water, the less warm by the end of the day. For a decent shower or hair wash, you don't need scalding hot. Anything better than cold ground water will be appreciated. This is not rocket science. The top half of the vertical tank can be your storage tank. Just make it longer, and insulate it.

I would suggest building just one vertical tank to begin with to test the system. If it works, add in one or two more. You'll figure out how best to arrange them, and which direction to face them depending on your needs. If they are movable, you can change their direction season to season. To make them moveable, build them light/smaller, and use bendable hose rather than rigid pipe to connect between tanks. You can even arrange for the vertical tank to tilt back, to face it more skyward should that be needed at times.

Light coming on angle upon a surface doesn't provide as much heat, not because more light is reflected away, but due to less light falling on the surface. You'll notice sun at an angle is not as bright on a wall as compared to sun dead on. To understand this, draw two sunlight lines coming in on an angle upon both either side of a surface (of any size); the distance between the two lines will be less than the width of the surface. When the sun is straight down on the surface, the two lines will be as wide as the surface. This is maximum solar volume. The sharper the angle of the two lines, the closer the two lines will be to one another, and the lower the sun volume upon the surface.

It is debatable, therefore, how the tanks above should be positioned, whether as the diagrams have them, or alternatively with their one side facing south-west. For convenience in fixing them flat to a wall, the latter option would be chosen. A point on behalf of the way the tanks are positioned in the drawings is that the one side facing due south captures dead-on heat when the sun is highest in the sky, which is the most-potent sun because sunlight penetrates the least amount of atmosphere at that time.
What really is heat and light?

Imagine the heat in the vertical-tank water passing through its congested molecular spaces, seeking passage across a bridge that is a bottleneck, really. Or, imagine a truck driving between two blobs of blubber in contact with one another. After a truck smashes through the blobs where they make contact, the blubber closes the gap. The next truck arrives, and needs to expend energy to open a path through the blubber again. However, if trucks were arriving as a convoy so close to one another that one truck arrives to the blubber while the path through it is still partially open from the last truck going through, all trucks would expend less energy driving through. This is the situation in water with increasing temperature. Heat is able to pass through water faster as the temperature increases because heat is a substance of particles.

Atmospheric pressure, water pressure, and molecular bonds all work together to give heat a tough time passing between molecular spaces. The boiling point of water arrives when the heat is passing so quickly and abundantly that there is zero restriction left. The blubber can't close the paths, at all, through the molecular spaces, at boiling point. If you increase the heat to boiling water, no matter how strongly or quickly, the water temperature cannot increase because there's no ability left in the water to retain more heat. Heat escapes freely and immediately due to the water's having reached the point of offering zero restriction. Therefore, the warmer the water in the tanks, the quicker the heat rises to the top tank.

If only we could enclose the top/storage tank in a vacuum, eliminating air pressure upon the water. It would allow heat to pass through faster from lower tanks to the upper. To create a vacuum, add a sealed lid to the tank, not rocket science. The less air in the container that holds the storage tank, the less electricity needed to create the vacuum (with a vacuum pump). If the storage tank is vertical, the lid can be small (better able to withstand air pressures). But wait. The easier heat passes, the faster the heat loss out of the water. It's the restriction of heat passage that keeps water warmer longer. In a vacuum, water boils at low temperatures. We don't want that, or heat would not remain in the water of the storage tank. It'll pass too easily to the space above the water, and then out the lid.

What about a partial vacuum, during the heat-up stage to mid-afternoon, for example, then remove the vacuum for the rest of the day. Someone should do a test. Water boils at room temperature when the air pressure is about .4 psi, and at 100 F when the air pressure is about 1 psi. You don't want the vacuum near 1 psi, therefore. Here's a table for anyone wanting to test this:
https://www.quora.com/What-happens-to-boiling-point-of-water-in-vacuum

Contrary to what you have been taught my modern evolutionist-based physics, heat is a material. Scientists knew this before evolutionists replaced our thinking with a material-less heat, called the kinetic nature of heat. I've discovered what heat is. Free electrons. It's repelled by gravity, which is why heat rises more than it spreads in other directions. It's a stunning stupidity for modern science to claim that heat rises in water because warmer water is lighter than colder water. All water molecules weigh the same. There is no such thing as lighter water just because it warmer. There is nothing in the kinetic model to predict that water molecules further apart (less dense) should rise as compared to water molecules closer together. Gravity attraction does not act less upon water molecules just because they are spread less densely (water is less dense when warmer). Gravity does not know how far apart water molecules are. Gravity pulls on each atom with identical force regardless of how far apart molecules are.

Heat spreads in all directions because electrons repel one another, but gravity, which consists of a vast pool of free electrons in the earth's hot interior, simultaneously sends heat upward, even in vertical metal rod. We can't say that heat rises in metal more than in any other direction due to hotter metal being lighter than colder metal, as that would be another utter stupidity. Trust me, I am correct, and the evolutionists are wrong. Fools they are.

I'm assuming that there is an optimal water temperature for heat rise versus heat loss out the tanks while sun shines in them. If heat rise is restricted, the heat gathered in the lower tanks will be forced out the tanks. The trick is to promote heat rise when the water is cold in the morning, thus warming the water faster, and creating less restriction to more heat rise. At some point, it will penetrate water too fast. There is no way to have the lower parts under less air pressure than the upper, if all water is in contact as one body.

The taller the system from top to bottom, the more the restriction of heat flow at the bottom, due to greater water pressure there. Gravity pulls water molecules down, tending to squeeze them against one another. The heat particles must fight to get through this situation. In a partial-vacuum situation, higher water pressure might actually be better when heat rise gets too fast. So, the obvious thing to do is to start the system with less water in the morning. Later in the day, as the water gets to a certain temperature, add more water to slow heat rise.

How deep, from front-to-back, should the vertical tank be? It acts as the funnel for heat rise into the upper tank. If the vertical tank get too clogged with heat, the heat will pass out the walls into the air, wasted. If the vertical tank is too deep and wide (too large all around), it means that water temperature takes too long to increase to an optimal temperature. A solution is to use two thin vertical tanks, with the second one having a shut-off valve (between it and the horizontal tank), and not used thereby on cloudier days.

The vertical tank is not a funnel only, or there would be no chance of getting even nearly-warm water if left to the horizontal tank alone to collect heat. The vertical tank needs to collect heat too. The vertical collector (in the vertical tank) gets the sun early in the morning, facilitating an increase in water temperature exactly where it's wanted (in the funnel), and when it's wanted most. The less deep the vertical tank, the smaller the vertical collector. The width of the collector can only be as deep as the tank (by "deep" I don't mean from top to bottom, but from front to back). The deeper the tank and wider the collector, the more initial heat it will get in the morning (and evening), but it will then lose more heat on both sides of high noon as the sun no longer strikes the vertical collector much. That's when the horizontal tanks will get much sun.

There is a question on whether to have a pipe from storage tank to horizontal tank, thus creating a full loop. As heat rises now, water blubber will be pushed up, forcing some water in the tank to go back down to the horizontal tank for re-heating. Is this necessary or of benefit? Does it speed heat transfer to the upper/storage tank? I don't know. But it does cause water in the storage tank to cool off by going down the pipe slowly. Is that what we want, to cool water in the storage tank? Something to think about. Best thing: put in that pipe (insulated) from top to bottom; create the loop, but put a shut-off valve in the line in case it's not beneficial. The smaller the pipe diameter, the faster water will go from top to bottom, but the more thorough heat loss through the pipe walls will be.

When a pipe diameter is doubled, the water and heat volume is quadrupled while the wall area is only doubled. That means half the heat loss per unit volume of water, or twice the heat loss with half the diameter. But then water passes four times faster with the half the diameter. It suggests that a small pipe is better. Yet, water velocity is so slow, wouldn't a pipe on the order of 1/8 of an inch make it reasonably faster? Too much friction? I can't see much friction for slow velocities. It seems to me that all water going down will have lost 90 percent of its heat regardless of how large or small the pipe is. So why waste that heat through the down pipe?

See this diagram. It must be true that if the cold pipe (top to bottom) were not installed, heat rise into the tank would be less efficient. Yes, of course, but that's because the pipe going up is so small. It seems that much heat is being wasted at the collector due to using such a small, upward funnel. If the upward passage were as wide and the collector, wouldn't that allow all collected heat to rise most-efficiently, with less getting away? Yes, and if the upward passage were itself a heat collector, bonus.

The horizontal tank doesn't need to be horizontal. That's the best position in mid-summer, but not for a few months earlier and later. One could arrange the tank to be on a tillable platform.

The boiling point of a liquid arrives when the trucks (i.e. heat particles) are moving along so closely to one another, and screeching past the blubbers (i.e. water molecules) so fast, that the same number of trucks are leaving the blubber body at its surface as are entering the blubber body at its heat source. Temperature, or truck density within the blubber, can no longer increase at that point for obvious reason.

I believe that heat is a "gas" of free electrons filling the atomic spaces of any substance, and that the ultimate source of these free electrons is in the so-called solar wind. As currents of solar electrons strike the earth, they force their way into whatever materials they strike, including solar panels, and the resulting expansion of materials thereby is my definition of heat.

The reason that modern scientists trashed this "caloric" theory of heat (albeit they won't tell you this) is for harmonizing their big-bang theory with their view of heat. That is, the explosive power of the big bang supposedly created sub-atomic motion still with us to this day, which motion is defined as heat. Heat is not a material, they say, but rather the motion of any and all materials.

If you don't believe in a big bang, neither do you have a natural basis by which to advance the kinetic theory of heat, a theory that views the entire universe in atomic motion, and which defines the end of the universe as a heat death (when all motion ceases). I have several examples of how the kinetic theory of heat fails to explain the experimental conclusions, but this is not the place for them all.

You should not believe the kinetic theory of heat if you do not believe in the big bang. You would be lying to yourself to believe that God has electrons in orbit around protons at impossible velocities. Have you ever heard of anything more ridiculous? And yet you believed it as a student because they told it was so.

Modern scientists teach that ever-moving atoms increase in their velocities (whether in a straight line in a gas, or when vibrating in a fluid) when electrons in orbit catch photons from a light source. Have you ever heard of anything more ridiculous than speedy electrons absorbing another particle traveling at 186,000 miles per second, remaining in orbit all the while, without damage, and then releasing the photons systematically to create the entire spectrum of light? It's la-la-land here.

By now in your Christian walk, you must know that evolutionists are quite willing to lie to their students, and that this condition is normal for the end times. Do you see any reason why modern physics should not cater as a priority to the theory of evolution? Isn't it to be expected that all physics-based sciences should conform to the dictates of evolutionist "facts."

You can learn how the laws of physics operate from the planetary orbits as well as by the orbits of man-made satellites. Let's take a man-made satellite orbiting the earth once in less than two hours. In order to have the satellite orbit any faster, it needs to be made heavier, otherwise it will spiral away from the earth. For example, if the moon were to be brought closer to the earth, it would either need to orbit much faster to keep from spiralling into the earth, or to be made much lighter if its to keep its same velocity. Therefore, in order for an electron to orbit millions of times per second around a proton, it requires the electron to be massive in weight as compared to the proton core. Imagine how much larger the moon would need to be to maintain an orbit around earth a million times per second. You can't imagine it because it's impossible. You know right away that you are entering cartoon land when thinking of the moon orbiting a million times per second. And that's what evolutionary physicists are, laughable. The orbiting electron is a good example of modern atomic physicists betraying common sense.

In the minds of evolutionists, all atoms are moving through space at hundreds of miles per hour, repeatedly bouncing off of one another (this is their definition of heat), and in the meantime the electrons do not go out of orbit with all of the repeated contacts made by atoms at such speeds. Evolutionists are completely whacko with a straight face, and they will defend their bizarre ideas with passion. They have subscribed to a false view of both the outer universe and the atomic universe on behalf of killing the Creator from their world view, and yours, if possible.

The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second because light is a longitudinal wave capable of transferring that fast through a wave medium offering almost zero resistance. The reason that there is little resistance in the wave medium is that it is not attracted by gravity. When gravity holds a wave medium down to a surface, for example the sound-wave medium, it slows down the wave. If earth's gravity does not hold down the wave medium, wave transfer through it can be instant.

If you understand this right, a light wave is like taking a 200-mile stick and poking your evolutionist cousin in the butt when he's in a city 200 miles away. The poking at the other end of the stick occurs as instantly as you move your end of the stick because the atoms in the stick remain at the same distance from one another while you're poking. When electrons come out of a heat source, they push electrons to their front side without any of the electrons ahead of them coming much closer to one another. One electron pushed forward (at any velocity) in your city simultaneously pushes the electron beside your cousin's butt 200 miles away. That is a logical and comprehensible definition of light traveling instantly. But if you think a photon can actually travel 186,000 mps as a bullet flies, you haven't got sense enough to realize that it should burn holes right through your bones.

Einstein had to tell the lie, when he invented the photon, that it had zero mass; otherwise he knew it would burn holes right through his body. How convenient is it for a "genius" to invent zero-mass particles when he needs them for propping up an erroneous idea? It was Einstein who did away with the light-wave medium, until scientists discovered that it really does exist.

Wave transfer across a medium is not the same as particle transfer through space; an electron emitted into space at a mere 1000 miles per hour may cause a wave transfer at 186,000 miles per second. No problem, logical. The resulting force of a light wave, when it strikes our hand, for example, can be understood in terms of the velocity of the emitted electron multiplied by its mass. In other words, the faster and larger the mass, the more it's going to be felt when it hits our hand. But at only a few hundred mph, the electron isn't going to be felt, even when zillions are hitting our bodies simultaneously. Light waves have a very small but measurable physical force. A single layer of electrons (one electron thick) covering your body can't weigh much. It's like a ghost in weight.

What matters for heat production in sunlight is jolt of the light waves. They stick a metal collector with electrons that then seep into the water. An electron is also a heat particle, but only when the electron is free from an atom (all electrons from the sun have been freed from solar atoms). If electrons are part of atoms, then they are captured by atoms and do not therefore register as temperature/heat in the atomic spaces of another material. Any object you merely touch with your finger is a touching of countless heat particles surrounding the atoms, but unless those electrons enter the skin of your finger, you cannot feel them as heat. Go ahead, feel them enter your skin; rub any object, and you will rub off a few electrons that will enter your skin as heat.

The wave medium consists of weightless free electrons issued from all stars and filling the universe. There is no difference between the wave medium through which light passes, and heat. Both are the same free electrons in space. This picture predicts that light will travel slower in cold outer space than in the science laboratory here on earth. It means that the distances to the sun and stars have been incorrectly calculated by evolutionary science.

Evolutionists gladly adopted the faulty Newtonian definition of gravity, which teaches that gravity attracts all things, and that all atoms possess gravity, or that gravity source is to be found in atoms. Wrong. Gravity is the free electron, lots of them. The Newtonian definition allows evolutionists a means by which to explain the creation of galaxies and stars from the big bang, which is why the Newtonian theory was gladly adopted by them. The Newtonian view of gravity misleads scientists into believing that electrons have weight. However, any particle repelled by gravity has zero weight, and thus far, no one has proven that the electron has weight, or is attracted by gravity.

Heat rises in the vertical heater tanks because gravity repels electrons, and every part of a gas/liquid having a greater density of free electrons is thereby made to rise with more force. When their density increases (closer to one another), their repulsion forces upon one another increases (by inverse square law) so that they all seek to move away from one another with greater force. With increasing density, the electrons become like trucks breaking their way through blubber blobs, the molecules. Heat can never be contained in any material because electrons repel one another to the outside. They push one another into a material when their density on the outside is greater than on the inside, and they push one another out of the inside when the density on the outside goes back down (i.e. when temperature on the outside goes back down). Electron density defines temperature.

If water in the tank has a greater density of electrons than the air outside the tanks, the electrons in the water will naturally push out to join electrons in the air rather than vice versa. The repulsion of electrons is both the heat-transfer mechanism and the gravity source.

If gravity is a negative charge, as I think it is, it is expected to repel electrons (for negative repels negative). Gravity is then defined rightly as the huge pool of heat (i.e. free electrons) in the earth's interior. Water evaporates (i.e. rises) when free electrons passing through it cause water molecules at the water surface to detach from the water body; the same rising electrons then force the water molecule upward in the air until the number of electrons underneath it, giving it lift, matches the pull of gravity on the water molecule. That point defines the level in the atmosphere where clouds tend to accumulate or form. The electrons also give lift to liquid molecules, which of course causes liquids to expand with increasing heat, for the electrons bump the molecules upward as they pass by, creating more distance between molecules. As the electrons thus create larger molecular spaces in which to pass through, it gets easier to pass through with increasing temperature. Water boils at a lower temperature than metal because there is more difficulty of passage between metallic atoms. The stronger the bond of the atoms, the higher the boiling point.

The density of electrons decreases with increased height because the nature of space above a sphere is to increase in volume, allowing more room for particles, both gas and electrons. This explains why it's colder as one goes up from the ground. Aside from incoming solar electrons on the sun-side half, all electrons are seeping out of the ground and rising into space at all times.

So, when heat is forced by the sun into the lower tank, the electrons have the choice of penetrating the walls of the tank, or of following a water path up the vertical tank to the storage tank. There are three things restricting their passage through the water: 1) the molecular bond strength of water molecules; 2) gravity's downward pull on the molecules; 3) the overall weight of air atoms at the top of the water surface. We can't change the first two, but we can remove air pressure. From the table offered above, it seems that removing air pressure is a big deal in allowing heat to pass through more freely. When removing all air pressure, it seems that electrons run through a pot of water with virtually no resistance. If the water is 20 feet deep, there will be much more resistance, however. At that depth, the water pressure is 8.65 psi (.43 psi per foot), more than half the 14 psi of air.

So, to confound this problem, one needs to divide the 20 feet into smaller sections, with a vacuum between each section. For example, the heat in the lower tank is permitted to rise through a couple of feet of water before it enters a small space (1/2 inch will do) of vacuum, and then hits a metal barrier holding up the next section of two feet of water, which itself has a vacuum and a barrier above it holding the next two-foot section. We can say that the vertical tank has been divided into a number of small tanks, each with a metal floor and ceiling. The ceiling of one is the floor of another. Contrary to the bald-faced lie of the evolutionist, heat will penetrate a full vacuum, and he knows it, just as easily as it passes through air.

Having now divided a 20-foot column of water into ten sections two feet tall, the weight of water has been reduced by 10 times from 8.65 psi to .87 psi. At the page above, we can see that water in a laboratory jar will boil at about 95 F when the air pressure is at .87 psi. This means that at noon on a summer's day, heat will pass through two feet of water almost unrestricted if there is a full vacuum above the two feet. Very impressive. The question is whether heat transfer through the metal barriers will be met with too great a resistance that it offsets the benefits of using small sections of water. If not, it may be possible to make the sections longer, say six feet, to reduce the number of separate tanks.

If the reduction of restriction is great enough, the vertical tanks do not need to be very wide, allowing for thinner barriers. The less water per section, the thinner the barriers need to be to hold the weight of water. It's an enclosed tank system that has no air pressure aside from the storage tank at the very top. It seems to me that full vacuums at all barriers is the best way to go. Water never needs to be replaced in the sections because they are sealed. It seems to me that the storage tank should have full air pressure so that, when its water is heated, it retains it's heat better.

Water absorbs heat from metal almost instantly. Virtually the only resistance to heat passage through the metal barriers will be the barriers. I don't see why they cannot be a copper sheet of less than 1/32 inch if the cross section of each tank section is 12 inched deep by 3 or even 5 inches wide. Running down the center of the 3 inches, for as long as each section, there is a metal heat collector that supports (reinforces) the copper barrier at its middle, perfect. I see less than 1/32 with that design.

Heat will go best into the path of least resistance, and so the vertical tank sections will be like an express subway train for heat, obstructed only by the thin barriers. The plexiglass tank sections will need to handle air pressure of 14 psi. The deeper the sections, the thicker the plexiglass needs to be to resist critical bending. I imagine 1/4 inch plexiglass will do the trick.

As this theory goes, heat will accumulate in the small vacuum above the water in each tank section. It seems that insulation material all around the outer side, for an inch or so below and above the vacuum, is called for. The greater the length of insulation above and below the vacuum, the less light that gets to the collector. Find or predict the happy medium.

Tank sections made of acrylic tubing is excellent, but it's not cheap. There are also acrylic cylinders and cubes i.e. tanks. Add a copper lid, and cut out the bottom of these containers so that the heat through the copper below it doesn't need to pass through the acrylic too.

The reason that vertical tanks are needed is to get warm water into an attic tank so that there is a gravity-fed situation to taps. Otherwise, the tank can be outdoors as the horizontal tank itself. Put a spout into this tank, and pour water into a bucket as needed, great for washing hands and hair, for example. The tank is easy to fill with a hose. Sure, you can have an unsealed tank (not under household water pressure) on the roof, if you install a automatic shut-off valve to automatically stop the water supply when the tank is full, but this causes cold water to enter the warm water everytime you use some of the warm water, which may or may not be great.

Or, put a thermostat inside the water that turns a small water pump on at a certain temperature, which sends the warm water to the attic tank. You might get more than one load of water from the heater tank daily. However, as soon as water is sent to the attic tank, that water will start to drop in temperature, especially when it hits the cold water left in the tank overnight, or, if there was no water in the tank, a lot of heat will be absorbed by the tank material itself. That's why a batch heater is designed to circulate the water all day long through the storage tank, to keep the tank water as consistently warm as possible.

But if you want water above the taps without operating, or depending on, a water pump, and if you want heat rise more efficient than through a pipe via the batch-circulation system, the vertical tanks described above might just be the way to do it.

Here is a way to contend with evolutionists who refuse to look at the facts. There is one billiard ball moving toward another billiard ball for a perfect head-on collision, where both balls are moving with the same kinetic energy (i.e. assumes the balls are equal in weight and velocity). One ball will transfer its energy into the other to stop it dead in its track, by eliminating the energy that got the ball moving in the first place. The other ball will do the same to stop the first ball dead in its tracks. Neither ball will move any longer (ignoring the effects of internal vibrations) upon contact.

To prove this to yourself even though the evolutionist is predicted to argue the point until he's dead and in hell, the collision above is identical in essence to one pool cue striking one ball with x force directly opposite another pool cue striking the same ball with x force at exactly the same time. The ball will move in neither direction, but will remain still, because the energy from the one pool cue exactly counters the energy from the other pool cue. It will be an identical result as with two balls moving at the same energy toward one another in a head-on collision. It's the same thing, stupid.

He can't say that this is untrue because it destroys energy. Don't be deceived by the evolutionist who would rather die and go to hell than confess the truth, because he's a snake, and he forces the entire world of science fields to think like snakes. The energy was not destroyed, but energy from one cue countered energy from the other cue with the effect that the ball does not move. Just because the ball does not move does not mean the energy was destroyed, but a sly snake could make you think so.

The snake insists that the balls should bounce away from one another with the same velocity exactly at which they collided, because this, he says, involves no destruction of energy. In his mind, balls coming to rest after a perfect head-on collision is a destruction of energy. He needs to have that belief in order to justify lying to the world concerning the behavior of atoms.. In his mind, they are imagined to collide constantly, many times per second, until the universe is no more.

The evolutionist shouldn't have a legal right to have a law operating in his atomic world that contradicts what billiard balls do before his eyes. Otherwise our students are being taught by quacks. Energy does not vanish as if it never existed just because the effect of energy transfer is the slowing down of motion. Energy is not destroyed when its used up. If energy is used, it was not destroyed, but rather it was transferred. Sometimes the transfer increases the velocity of one ball but slows another; sometimes both balls slow down. But in all cases, any contact between two objects results in a net loss of velocity between the two.

Here's another example. One billiard balls strikes another at rest, and while the first one stops dead in its track, the second one continues forward at the velocity of the first ball. The evolutionist doesn't say that energy was destroyed because the one ball stopped in its track, and of course he points to the second ball to show that energy was not destroyed, but was rather transferred to the other ball. Fine and true. But if the first ball in motion strikes a second ball coming toward it, and both stop dead in their tracks, it's true once again that there was no destruction of energy. Both balls transferred energy, cancelling all motion.

The quacks look at a wave of the sea, noting that one wave colliding head on with an equal wave causes both waves to simply disappear, and yet their atomic world does not behave in the way they see the laws behaving with their own eyes. That's because evolutionists are deluded liars, lying even to one another.

First, God created the sun; then the sun ejected electrons to form an electron sea moving away from the sun. The action of ejecting electrons causes energy (known to our eyes as light) to pass as a wave through the electron sea; then the energy arrives to the water tank and forces the electrons, already existing in the water, into the tank's metal backing. Then the electrons come out of the metal and into the water. They then go into your skin at the shower spray, and from they come out of your skin and go through the walls of your house, rising into space from whence they came, and they wave good bye and sail away with the current of electrons, further and further from the sun. They eventually strike the solar currents of other stars, which is what forces stars to move further apart from one another.

If heat were not constantly escaping from the earth, equal in amount to what's coming in, the earth would fry. Evolutionists have had no viable mechanism to explain the escape of heat in amounts comparable with incoming heat. In their view, heat can only escape one system (material) when atoms collide with another atomic system. But outer space has no atoms for air atoms to collide with. It's therefore unreasonable to argue that the kinetic theory of heat is a transfer mechanism of earth's heat into space. The liars will need to devise a faulty explanation for how heat does escape.

They say that the sun speeds the atoms of the air when incoming solar photons strike the air atoms. They have no choice but to pass this view off so long as they view solar heat from photons (fantasy particles much smaller than electrons). In the upper atmosphere, as with the lower atmosphere, all air atoms are colliding, they think, some deflecting upward and some deflecting downward; just imagine random chaos, and that's their view of every atom in the universe. The extreme-highest air atoms can only go up so far before curving back toward earth's gravity, and they will inevitably cause more collisions with the atoms below, but if the only thing taking place in the upper atmosphere is particles colliding with one another but never losing their energy to the void of space, it's clear we need another heat-loss mechanism.

It has no merit for evolutionists to invent a dark invisible matter of some sort in outer space into which they can imagine heat transfer from upper air atoms. The idea is suspect from the start as merely a fantastic prop to save the failure of their kinetic theory of heat. There is indeed "dark" matter out there, but it's the solar-wind free electrons streaming from the sun. It's also to be expected that pieces of destroyed protons are sailing along with the electron solar wind because the sun probably releases electrons due to proton destruction...i.e. where protons (of atomic cores) can no longer retain their captured electrons. The most-likely place for proton destruction is under the full weight of the sun's mass, at the solar core. It keeps the sun bubbling with heat. There must be a hydrogen atmosphere surrounding the sun to a distance where the solar-wind electrons can no longer give lift to the atoms against the sun's gravitational pull on the atoms.

The sun is an ingenious system, but which came first, the weight, or the release of electrons? The release of electrons had to come first, or there would not have been gravity by which the weight could form. The evolutionist would argue that it's not good science to have God start a process in order that the process could maintain itself thereafter, but for me, the Creator is permitted into the realm of scientific explanation. If the evolutionist feels to the contrary, it easily explains why he's teaching falsehoods in the name of science. Don't feel sorry for him, for the future will look back and laugh at his ignorant obstinacy, and weep for the great spiritual and academic damage that lays at his feet as a plague to this generation. I wouldn't call them snakes if they were not so passionate to keep the Creator out of the schools at any cost in hopes that all children, yours and mine, would become quacks as they are.

The truth is, every collision of any material of any shape causes a slowing of motion so that the kinetic picture of heat could not last but a few seconds or minutes. If two balls striking head on with equal energy cease in their motion, then balls colliding at less than dead-on angles will slow down in proportion to how close the collisions are to dead-on. The greater the impact, the greater the energy absorption, the slower the velocity. After several collisions, all balls will come to rest. End of story: heat cannot be kinetic energy, and is therefore a material all its own.

Back to the Tanks

I have been hoping and praying for years to use my views on heat, light and energy in some ways to produce a better tribulation method for securing energy. But I fail at every attempt. The vertical tanks explained above have become the first possible breakthrough.

Science has conducted so many experiments that, whether they understand the atomic world or not, they know what discoveries and results can be had under countless situations. To improve on their discoveries is not easy unless one has a wide range of scientific knowledge with which to try things a little differently based on a different and better view of the atomic universe.

Water molecules bond when they merge with one another. As soon as they are merged, they find natural attraction; its what creates water from vapor. Unmerging the molecules takes energy of heat passing through the molecular joints/spaces. The more heat that passes through the joints, the less the molecules are merged with one another, making it easier for evaporation to occur. Water expansion from heat means that molecules are merged less deeply. We realize that atoms have non-solid perimeters that allow mergers.

Every atom's perimeter is an electron cloud/atmosphere where the inter-repelling electrons (not orbiting) are not in contact with one another, and yet are trapped by protonic attraction (same as the earth holds the air while air atoms are not in contact). Destroy the proton completely, and the atomic atmosphere can no longer exist, wherefore the atom no longer exists. Destroy the uranium proton, and nuclear power results. Man has not learned to destroy any other proton, thankfully, but the uranium. Albert Einstein, who gave evolutionists some building blocks of cosmic evolutionary folly, partook in the creation of the atomic bomb.

Physicists would have you believe that the speedy bubbles in boiling water are filled with water vapor, but they are wrong. The bubbles are filled more with electrons, repelled by gravity. They move with speed through the water at boiling because there is no restriction to passage, but if the heat source is turned off, the boiling ceases IMMEDIATELY. That doesn't look like evidence of fast-moving molecules as the explanation of water heat, but of the truck-through-blubber scenario. As soon as one truck fails to pass through the blubber fast enough, the pathway gets significantly shut to further passage.

Each bubble plows a path through the water on behalf of a bubble below it. It's a convoy of bubbles moving at top speed. A bubble is to be defined as a relatively huge package of heat pushing aside the water blubber. The maximum size of a bubble is a battle of the forces; the force of water pressure around the bubble versus the equal force of electron inter-repulsion within the bubble. The pressure in the bubbles has got to be equal to the pressure of electrons (heat particles) between molecular spaces.

In water, heat bubbles form long before it reaches the boiling point. The question now is: will the vacuum in the vertical tanks allow bubbles to form, to make speedy trains out of upward heat flow? I don't see why not. The only question is, how large or small will those bubbles be? The larger they are, the faster they rise, for a doubling of bubble diameters doubles the restriction (drag) to bubble flow but quadruples the volume of heat particles that offers lift. The deeper the bubbles, the slower they rise due to greater water pressure closing the passageways. Therefore, the shorter the vertical-tank sections, the better for heat flow.

But what are we going to do with all that heat at the bottom of storage tank? If it can't get quickly into that tank's water, some will be wasted through the walls of the last vertical tank. Ahh, put the top of last vertical tank right into the water of the storage tank, with a hole through the bottom of the storage tank. That way, all heat loss from the vacuum in that last vertical tank can escape only into the water. Perfect.

In this picture, the greatest restriction to upward heat flow, from ground to attic, will be the heat at the top of the system, the heat in the last vacuum. That heat pushes back, downward, against rising heat. The heat will rise only when the heat pressure (electron density) in the top vacuum is less than the electron density in the water column. That sounds like a waste of heat to me. What to do? Make the final vacuum larger. Allow it to seep heat into a greater volume of water.

Uh-oh. What happens when the water is as warm as the upper-most vacuum? End of heat flow into the water? What to do? Celebrate. The water has reached maximum temperature. Success. Or, add cold water to the tank, with the risk that clouds roll in and spoil that decision. If your first vertical system doesn't heat enough water for your liking, build a second. It's a free world, but maybe not for much longer.

We of course want a lid on the storage tank. If it's not sealed to 99 percent, it will lose a lot of steam in the attic, and with it some precious heat. What to do? Use a small hole and pipe the steam through it to the outside. You need air to come into this hole, anyway, when water is drained from the tank.

It's a good idea to split the storage tank in half with a divider. The divider (cement board sounds right) must allow a little water flow (the size of a 1/2" hole is enough) from one side to the other, and this can be provided naturally where you're not likely to cut the divider bang-on perfect to fit in the tank. A little silicone to keep the divider in place is all that's needed. Now, when someone uses water at the tap, and cold water automatically replenishes (with an automatic shut-off valve such as the one in your toilet tank) and cools only that half while leaving the other half much warmer. You can add yet another divider to make heat loss from the warmest side slower.

Now your water supply will probably come from the ground. But why not run water into the storage tank that has been in a hose rolled up on your roof, or rolled up against a hot wall? Bonus. Or, put a tank in the sun, and take water from there for to refill the storage tank. That way you can have a second source of hot water, on the ground if you like, when needed.

There is now the question of whether the storage tank should be vertical or horizontal. There is less heat loss to a vertical tank (due to less water surface), but less area for heat transfer at the bottom too.

When gas atoms are surrounded by more heat, the atoms are forced to adopt more electrons within their sphere, each atom becoming a spot of higher negative charge, thus causing all gas atoms to inter-repel with more force...which is part of my definition of increased gas pressure with increasing temperature. Some free electrons (heat particles) forcing themselves upon atomic peripheries become quasi-captured by the protonic core for the time being, but leak off when temperature goes down. If they leak off slowly, that substance stays warmer longer. Water stays warmer longer than most substances.

Contrary to what evolutionists have accepted as truth, a water molecule is eight oxygen atoms surrounding, and merged into, one hydrogen atom (O8H). Contrary to what they perceive, the hydrogen atom is the largest of all atoms. Contrary to what they teach, one volume of oxygen has 16 times as many atoms as an equal volume of hydrogen. One needs to have a correct view of heat in order to arrive to these conclusions. My correct view has allowed me to conclude correctly that all atoms weigh the same. It's very interesting to realize how all the different atoms can weight the same, for gravity assures this situation.

I concluded that a doubling of free electrons in any gas is not enough for a doubling of its temperature, where temperature is defined traditionally as the rate of expansion in the fluid of a thermometer. Or, cutting the distance between heat particles in a gas in half -- eight times the electron and atom density -- gives all gases an eight-fold increase in pressure or volume (one or the other but not both), but is still not enough to double the gas temperature, as experiments show. How to explain this? Well, there is twice the heat when electron density is doubled, and there is eight times the heat when electrons are brought twice as close, but this doesn't expand the liquid of a thermometer two or eight times as much. In other words, a doubling of temperature, as we define it in terms of expanding fluids, is a multiplication of many times the heat substance.

I've had two theories for why it is that cutting the distance of gas atoms in half creates eight times the pressure. The inverse square law says that cutting the distance between gravity and an object in space increases the gravity pull by four times. Why not eight? The law also says that a magnet pulls a nail with four times the force when brought twice as close. Why not eight? Because, possibly, an object in space, and a nail, is not itself filled with attractive or repulsion force. With two electrons, and two gas atoms, BOTH repel the other so that we could expect the four times expected by the inverse-square law, but multiplied by two due to BOTH inter-reacting on one another, for a total of eight times the force when they are brought twice as close.