I read the journals on solar panel research five days a week. This has been a habit for years. This is definitely in a class of it's own - a real paradigm breaker. If it works, we will all use it someday.
Diesel Fox
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-solar-product-captures-percent-energy.html
This idea, that of making an array of nano sized dipole radio antennas small enough to work at lightwave frequencies, all printed on a flat surface with a diode rectifier at the junction of each all feeding rectified DC power to a buss system has been around for decades. We won't have them until the difficulties in manufacturing such a thing are overcome. I am sceptical that this company has the right stuff. We'll see I guess. In the meantime I won't be holding my breath.
That efficiency claim is totally bogus and unrealistic. Perhaps the best they might achieve is 90% conversion of prepolarized light that matches the polarization of their detectors. Natural sunlight is randomly polarized. Less than half of it would pass through or excite a linear polarization filter which is exactly what an array of 'rectennas' would be.. Electromagnetic antennas all respond preferring linear polarization. A circularly polarized antenna exists but it is 3 dB less sensitive to linear polarized waves. 3dB down represents a 50% conversion or capture loss. A good system would capture and convert 90% of this 50%.
What rca said is exactly what I would have said - if, in fact, I had any understanding of the technology and the underlying physics of it's ultimate function.
;D ;D ;D
Yeah, Me too, whatever rcavictim wrote!
The good news is that our bill came in at 42 cents a kilowatt this month. Motivation is whats I call it. I went to the kitchen and disabled two of the four florescent bulbs. Yes, I disconnected the starter/transformer. I can't tell the difference. Half the wattage and I can't tell the difference. Did I just double the efficiency of my solar cells? Well 80 watts worth?
Oh yeah, I'm with cognos too.
Casey
I must concur with RCA as well ;D
Alright here is my question. Lets speculate that the powers that be succeed and the product does exactly what they say and converts most optical light and the bulk of the infrared spectrum to electricity. And lets further speculate that the product because of some unknown almost act of god type of manufacturing process discovery and even further an unprecedented cooperation in licensing the technology to every manufacturing plant capable of it's production. Now would not we all of a sudden have a drop in the earths temp if say over a 20 year buildup that these panels turned up on the sun ward side of every building on earth and also piles of acres of unused sun ward facing land??????????????
Yes I know it will never happen but what if it did ??????????
Kind of like the sun not getting to the ground to warm it type of pollution? Nuclear or volcanic winter?
Let me be the first to say we got to fight this new technology and make it totally illegal except for use in the desert only, and then only if you are licensed by the government and he keeps a close eye on it and you.....
Billswan ;D
Probably should just have pressed the delete button instead of the post button. ;D
Quote from: billswan on May 30, 2011, 04:11:49 PM
Alright here is my question. Lets speculate that the powers that be succeed and the product does exactly what they say and converts most optical light and the bulk of the infrared spectrum to electricity. And lets further speculate that the product because of some unknown almost act of god type of manufacturing process discovery and even further an unprecedented cooperation in licensing the technology to every manufacturing plant capable of it's production. Now would not we all of a sudden have a drop in the earths temp if say over a 20 year buildup that these panels turned up on the sun ward side of every building on earth and also piles of acres of unused sun ward facing land??????????????
Yes I know it will never happen but what if it did ??????????
Kind of like the sun not getting to the ground to warm it type of pollution? Nuclear or volcanic winter?
Let me be the first to say we got to fight this new technology and make it totally illegal except for use in the desert only, and then only if you are licensed by the government and he keeps a close eye on it and you.....
Billswan ;D
Probably should just have pressed the delete button instead of the post button. ;D
The earth surface temp would not change Bill. The solar energy is still getting to the ground environment. IF and only IF you could run wires from all these panels and send the electricity they generated out into space where a huge dummy load could burn it off into heat directed away from the planet would you be able to create a slight global cooling effect. Merely changing the form of this energy from light to electricity on the ground won't make any ground environment temperature changes. Ypu have to get energy out of the system to make a temperature change. Merely changing it's form won't work.
Actually RCA, that's not quite true... there would be a localised cooling (or, rather, reduction in warming) where these panels are (assuming that they are as efficient as promised, and become widespread in use). This is simply because some of the energy that would have gone to warming the ground/low-altitude air, is now siphoned off as electricity. The more efficient the panel, the colder the air/ground underneath it... Of course, if we were really clever, we'd use the localised cooling effect to run sterling engines, thus harvesting even more energy...
Overall, however, there'd be little or no heat change; because ultimately all of the electricity generated by the panel will be used to create heat/light/noise; so the energy is still used on Earth; it's just that we've made one bit cooler, and another bit warmer. In order for there to be a net reduction in solar warming, RCA is correct that the energy would have to be transported off-planet & dumped as heat and/or light.
Where this sort of technology would have an overall cooling effect is if you a) believe that man-made CO2 emissions are primarily responsible for global warming, and b) that these panels could effectively reduce the amount of fossil-fuel derived power, reducing the amount of "locked up" CO2 being emitted. If all of the above is true, then the widespread use of highly efficient solar panels would cause a reduction in global temperatures - not in & of themselves, but because of the reduced need for CO2-emiitting coal/oil/gas fired power stations.
I stand caveated. ;)
Come on pocket protector patriots of basic physical science. Let's not let that old argument stand.
What if we used the power to capture carbon? Ohhhh! "Carbon change is a result and not a cause" you say.
At any rate. I removed half the florescent tubes in a 160 watt kitchen fixture. I did un-wire the second starter thingie (credentials). 80 watts later and I can't tell the difference. This lesson in conservation has been sponsored by the kids that used to smoke cigarettes out behind the back stop.
Casey