20x Your solar power?

[svetz]

This is interesting, suggests that between relaxation time and cooling on a photodiode boosts efficiency.

From 2016, so probably doesn't work as well as expected or we'd all have these on our roof.

Anyone know how to calculate how much time a photodiode needs after absorbing a photon to "reset" to efficiently capture the next one? If so, we could calculate the spin rate (probably a lot higher than in the video).

 

[Getyourbone]

This is interesting, suggests that between relaxation time and cooling on a photodiode boosts efficiency.

From 2016, so probably doesn't work as well as expected or we'd all have these on our roof.​

So merge this with wind power...

 

[Rider]

At the end of the video, THIS video was suggested....

 

[svetz]

That "busted" video was disappointing... some good but mostly lazy science. The 20x and the lens is obviously dumb and I thought the same thing. They could have done a much better job busting it though. At least the video made me think about it critically

They also said the panel couldn't generate power in the shade, but that's just wrong. Technically spinning panels could.

Before you go ballistic, hear me out. Consider Time. Photons hitting the receptors don't cause electrons to "stream" continuously across the gap. Instead they energize potential energy on one side of the gap and the increased energy causes electrons to jump to the other side. It takes a small amount of time, but once energized it doesn't need additional photons, so spinning the receptors out of the way to energize other receptors could work to increase the efficiency. The receptor also can't send more electrons through the gap until electrons return to the edge.

In theory it works, practice is something else. It would probably have to be spinning really really fast; probably 1 revolution in the time it takes the electrons to complete the circuit (e.g., time for the receptor's voltages to reset so the cycle could repeat) and that's probably not possible mechanically with current technology. Certainly if it's spinning that fast not much cooling is going to take place from shade. Also, AFAIK, there's no downside to exposing more photons to the receptor while waiting for the electrons to return so no real reason to shade them.

So no real benefit to the shade, so no need to spin them (which would take energy).

The "cone" shape is sort of interesting and could provide a benefit if the panels were spinning. Solar tracking panels do provide an ~20% power. But this is pretty easily busted too. Most people think there's a lot more power with tracking than fixed panels. But it's not because when the sun is low a lot of the energy is absorbed by the Earth's atmosphere as shown to the right. This is one of the reasons the insolation maps are so useful and why different locations have different values. At solar noon at sea level the surface of the Earth, on average, get's 1000W/m2. So, when the sun is at 20 degrees (7ish) fixed panels aren't producing anything. Tracking panels are absorbing as much as they can at 20 degrees, but the available solar power is only 350W instead of 1000W. So an 18% efficient 300W panel can only collect a maximum of 63W. So, both fixed and tracking panels have bell shaped power curves over a day, it's just that the tracking system's curve is ~20% broader. So, the busted part comes in that the panel's in a cone are not at right angles to the sun at noon, so they're inefficient at the time of maximum irradiance.