13-Year-Old Boy Improves Solar Panel Efficiency 50%

[spectrewind]

Here goes THG again....
Publishing falsely documented news without verifying accuracy again. This is why the science bodies have peer-review to verify, people.

Poor and unacceptable journalism.


But hey, if it's on the Internet.. it must be true! Right THG?

 

[jcb82]

excellent!. Proof that smart people are breeding out there somewhere.

 

[srgess]

Just get a generator on your a spinner so people wont be fat and save electricity and save the planet polution....

 

[scuba dave]

Whether or not it was true, or proven false, isn't the real topic here guys! The kid was given a provisional patent, and as he took the idea from trees, we all know that there is "prior art" here, as was so boldly pioneered by Samsungs defense attorneys!

However, on a serious note, at least the kid is trying to create something.. Most kids are just fine sitting in front of the TV or computers playing games all day.. So to the bright kid... Well done, little man. Keep at it. Don't let the negative nancies(alot of the above comments. ) get you down! Your already doing more with your life than they are/will.

 

[Guest]

let's hope he will not develop to a patent troll like Apple or Microsoft - and will not claim patent fees from tress for using the patern, that trees haven't managed to register prior to him, no matter it existed millions of years ...

 

[Burodsx]

I believe someone patented the tree a long time ago... I smell a lawsuit!

 

[Guest]

First of all, where did the Fibonacci sequence fit into a tree's growth? What kind of tree? The placement of the leaves? The number of leaves per branch? Trees grow to get the most exposure to the sun possible, true, but not by some mathematical sequence?!!? If this were true, trees of the same age and type would look the same?!

Tying solar panels to trees with the Fibonacci sequence itself is TOTAL BS. Let alone the rest of this story.

Fibonacci sequence thing is not bs for most trees. It's not the leaves that shows the sequence, its the branch growth. While I do agree that the kid's testing set up is flawed and reporters being reporters. Mimicking some things about the tree isn't a bad idea but has already been put into practice (Like how the leaves moves with the sun to get as much exposure as possible).


Nothing to see here folks. Just another new report gone wrong because it involved a 13 year old and some big words.

 

[M_with_one_M]

For being the work of a 13 year old this is amazing. If it had been from an educated adult it would be embarrassing.

 

[Guest]

Naahh! that's tomscrap for sure. Photosynthesis, the composition of sugars from air's CO2 and sunlight is not a procedure that has anything in common with photovoltaic current generation.
The tree leaves utilize less than 3% of the solar energy radiation in an enzymatic process that only involves 420nm(cyan) and 680nm (short infrared) wavelengths.The rest wavelengths are not utilized.
Photovoltaic cells can only provide their maximum efficiency (14%-15.5% for commercial models) only if they have optimal static or motion controlled orientation.
Tom must be having a hangover.

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]burnley14[/nom]Kids these days have no idea how to properly use their summer breaks anymore.[/citation]

He used one summer break to set himself up for life and will no doubt take a life long summer break after high school with the money he will make.

 

[anony2004]

Perhaps the most promising news of late. Awesome work.

 

[nforce4max]

Cool kid, instead of doing something useful in that way I am spending my time busting religious cults before they become widespread.

 

[Guest]

Very interesting theory. It's worth mentioning that the data period that is discussed only refers to a portion of the year that favours panels with a steep angle...truthfully no conclusion on the effectiveness of the configuration can be drawn until an entire years worth of data is collected....this is similar to saying that a panel inclined at 60 degrees outperforms a panel inclined at 15 degrees when only looking at the winter months when in fact the opposite is true in the summer months. In my experience an array with multiple inclination angles and azimuth angles will have the same annual production figures as an array with uniform inclination and azimuth angles equivalent to the average of the array with various angles. Shading effects can be minimized by using microinverters.

 

[Guest]

This requires more space, so not good idea. I seriously doubt how this could improve efficiency by 50%.

 

[neoverdugo]

Um, Tom..
I think you're a little late for publishing the article about the boy who discover the natural method of improving the solar panel efficiency. More like 3 days later!
For those who understand Spanish, here the link: http://www.neoteo.com/joven-estudiante-revoluciona-la-generacion-de-ener
The website its called Neoteo, you should check it out.

 

[neoverdugo]

sorry, http/www.neoteo.com/joven-estudiante-revoluciona-la-generacion-de-ener
Didn't show up

 

[pjmelect]

This solar panel arrangement would work if the goal was to create the most efficient collection of solar power for a given area of ground. It is however not the most efficient arrangement to collect solar power given the area of solar panels.

 

[Guest]

I was expecting to read that a 13 year old kid realized that if you piss on a solar panel it will increase efficiency... Instead I read something even more retarded.

 

[QEFX]

I must be missing something.

Wouldn't the solar panel be just as efficient, it's just the installation layout that is more efficient.

If a panel converts 14% of the possible light energy into electricity, this won't boost it to 21%.

If the bad layout only allows 20% of the possible light to get to the panel, then this would boost it to 30%.

Yes, the net effect would increase average electrical output but this is not a breakthrough, it's a tweak.

 

[andyp363]

[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]i dont support current nuclear technology , nuclear fission is dnagerous , expensive , and generally a bad ideal in many ares (don't have to look further than japan for an example). not to forget nuclear fission reactors do create radioactive waste products , spent fuel rods , and irradiated cooling lquid (usualy water). now if we ever got Cold Fussion working that i'd support that. since it produces no waste , and ther is no danger of an atomic blast if it destabilizes. but currently cold fussion is out of our technological grasp , even hot fussion reactors can only be kept stable for about 4 seconds right now so hot fussion is not even an option at this time either.[/citation]

Your rather misinformed... Dangerous? It's remarkably safe
Chernobyl ok not great but not the end of the world.
Three mile island was over hyped actual contamination was essentially 0.
Fukushima still waiting on a lot of information (mis matched data) again certainly not good but world has kept spinning and radiation poisoning epidemic in Japan. But even then c'mon a 9.0 earthquake.. shit happens during that kind of event.
Cant think of any more and there are over 430 active nuclear power stations (there are more if you want to count ships and submarines etc) all over the world.

Compare that damage to this like Exxon Valdez and have a look at places like Azerbaijan after the oil rush, not to mention global warming.
Expensive maybe after de decommissioning etc but not as expensive as solar (and I mean proper solar panels. Not the 10p calculator cells that the news reports about)

Radioactive waste (i.e. the spent fuel rods) is not that hard to store and there is actually very little of for a family of 4 the nuclear wast would equate to 150~ grams for their lifetime.

Spent fuel rods are easy enough to berry in places like yucca mountain. low level wast is pretty much safe after a couple hundred years.

Irradiated cooling liquid??? There is internal water that powers the turbine, it does not need changed and cycles constantly, (turns to steam from the heat of the reaction rotates the turbine flows through a radiator in the cooling tower getting condensed back to water to do it all over again.
And then of course you have water in the cooling tower that is completely inert (except for natural background)