Posted by Tom P on September 1, 2011, 8:45 pm
On 08/27/2011 07:02 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:
> On 8/26/11 10:29 PM, Michael B wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps you could be more articulate?
>>
http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2011/08/teen-taps-into-power-of-fibonacci-to-harness-the-sun/
>>
> Maybe. The lad discovered that if he used more panels, then he could
> increase the probability that _one_ of them would face (more closely to
> orthogonal to) the sun's rays by arranging them according to a
> well-known formula.
> However, a tracking mechanism can assure that a panel (or an entire
> collection of panels) is maintained at an optimal position throughout
> the collection period so as to harvest the maximum amount of power from
> the (every) panel.
> I like math and I'm pleased that the young man was able to relate what
> he learned in school to solar power (and I'm hoping that he'll stumble
> upon fractals before too long), but his "invention" fails on two primary
> claims:
> [1] The ability of a panel to convert a photon flux to electrical
> potential was _not_ made more efficient - panel efficiency does not
> depend in any way on orientation.
> [2] If the claim was being made for a system of panels, there won't be
> any improvement over a system in which all panels are positioned
> optimally, as they would be with a tracker.
> I give the lad credit for using his head - but one of the adults in his
> life should have gently clued him in so as to avoid the embarrassment of
> having his "breakthrough" publicly debunked.
> His _next_ idea might actually /be/ a breakthrough. :-)
From the wired.com and ubergizmo websites it's impossible to figure out
exactly what his design involves. His own description is here:
http://www.amnh.org/nationalcenter/youngnaturalistawards/2011/aidan.html
Posted by Jim Wilkins on September 1, 2011, 9:46 pm
> ...
>> His _next_ idea might actually /be/ a breakthrough. :-)
> From the wired.com and ubergizmo websites it's impossible to figure out
> exactly what his design involves. His own description is here:
> http://www.amnh.org/nationalcenter/youngnaturalistawards/2011/aidan.html
I'm impressed that he made the observations and measurements and followed
through with a theoretical explanation. Whether or not the Fibonacci
arrangement is better than other geometries, he has learned the process of
discovery.
jsw
Posted by Tom P on September 2, 2011, 11:44 am
On 09/01/2011 11:46 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> ...
>>> His _next_ idea might actually /be/ a breakthrough. :-)
>> From the wired.com and ubergizmo websites it's impossible to figure out
>> exactly what his design involves. His own description is here:
>> http://www.amnh.org/nationalcenter/youngnaturalistawards/2011/aidan.html
> I'm impressed that he made the observations and measurements and followed
> through with a theoretical explanation. Whether or not the Fibonacci
> arrangement is better than other geometries, he has learned the process of
> discovery.
> jsw
It got me thinking how the Fibonacci series might apply to trees and how
far it might be applicable to solar energy generation.
Assuming that the evolution of trees has lead to an optimization of
the leaf structure, why do trees display the structure that they do?
Two considerations occur to me. One is that typically a tree grows in
a forest and competes for space with other trees. Therefore it has to
optimize its use of the available space.
The second is that the energy generated by photosynthesis goes into
building the structure of the tree. Therefore the arrangement of the
branches and leaves is a trade-off between the energy required to build
the structure and the energy gained by deploying the leaves in this
fashion.
Generally we regard the cost solar cell panels and their mounting
structures as simply a fixed cost, but if we considered the net energy
output - i.e. the energy generated minus the energy required to build
the system - as well as the cost of the footprint as an optimization
problem to be solved, we might indeed discover that a tree-like
structure has better overall efficiency.
Posted by m II on September 2, 2011, 12:10 pm
The inner leaves of trees die off in tree maturity due to non-functioning.
PV panels is a 2D technology.
Stop quoting the nonsense article and get a better scam.
---------------------
It got me thinking how the Fibonacci series might apply to trees and how
far it might be applicable to solar energy generation.
Assuming that the evolution of trees has lead to an optimization of
the leaf structure, why do trees display the structure that they do?
Two considerations occur to me. One is that typically a tree grows in
a forest and competes for space with other trees. Therefore it has to
optimize its use of the available space.
The second is that the energy generated by photosynthesis goes into
building the structure of the tree. Therefore the arrangement of the
branches and leaves is a trade-off between the energy required to build
the structure and the energy gained by deploying the leaves in this
fashion.
Generally we regard the cost solar cell panels and their mounting
structures as simply a fixed cost, but if we considered the net energy
output - i.e. the energy generated minus the energy required to build
the system - as well as the cost of the footprint as an optimization
problem to be solved, we might indeed discover that a tree-like
structure has better overall efficiency.
Posted by vaughn on September 2, 2011, 1:04 pm
I don't understand the mental process that got you from here:
> It got me thinking how the Fibonacci series might apply to trees and how far
> it might be applicable to solar energy generation.
> Assuming that the evolution of trees has lead to an optimization of the leaf
> structure, why do trees display the structure that they do?
> Two considerations occur to me. One is that typically a tree grows in a
> forest and competes for space with other trees. Therefore it has to optimize
> its use of the available space.
To your conclusion:
> ...if we considered the net energy output - i.e. the energy generated minus
> the energy required to build the system - as well as the cost of the footprint
> as an optimization problem to be solved, we might indeed discover that a
> tree-like structure has better overall efficiency.
There are arrangements of solar panels that might optimize energy gathered per
UNIT OF ROOF AREA, but none of those are liable to optimize energy gathered as a
function of ENERGY (or money) INVESTED. To do that, you must point your
precious, scarce, expensive panels directly at the sun, and nowhere else.
Further, there are myriad practical reasons why we don't plant trees on our
rooftops. Perhaps you would like a tall wind force-gathering object mounted on
the top of your house, but here in hurricane country that would never work.
Vaughn
>>
>> Perhaps you could be more articulate?
>>