Slashdot Mirror
13-Year-Old Uses Fibonacci Sequence For Solar Power Breakthrough
An anonymous reader tips news of 7th grader Aidan Dwyer, who used phyllotaxis — the way leaves are arranged on plant stems in nature — as inspiration to arrange an array of solar panels in a way that generates 20-50% more energy than a uniform, flat panel array. Aidan wrote,
"I designed and built my own test model, copying the Fibonacci pattern of an oak tree. I studied my results with the compass tool and figured out the branch angles. The pattern was about 137 degrees and the Fibonacci sequence was 2/5. Then I built a model using this pattern from PVC tubing. In place of leaves, I used PV solar panels hooked up in series that produced up to 1/2 volt, so the peak output of the model was 5 volts. The entire design copied the pattern of an oak tree as closely as possible. ... The Fibonacci tree design performed better than the flat-panel model. The tree design made 20% more electricity and collected 2 1/2 more hours of sunlight during the day. But the most interesting results were in December, when the Sun was at its lowest point in the sky. The tree design made 50% more electricity, and the collection time of sunlight was up to 50% longer!"His work earned him a Young Naturalist Award from the American Museum of Natural History and a provisional patent on the design.
After all, it stands to reason that nature would have already worked out the most efficient way to collect solar energy eons ago.
The two aren't mutually exclusive!
so it's available in branches everywhere.
Check out this image: http://inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2011/08/The-Secret-of-the-Fibonacci-Sequence-in-Trees-3.jpg
He's used 18 cells on the tree, but 10 in the flat array. So an increase of 80% in cell numbers results in an increase of 20-50% in yield. I don't see a massive future for this.
I can see them now..."Wtf? He patented how I arrange my fucking solar panels?"
Pointing itself toward the sun?
Also, as noted above, the tree collector uses more panels than the flat collector.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
science ought to look to take ideas from evolution every chance they get. usually there is a reason these sort of elements of nature are arranged as they are. is this kid the first to do that with solar tech?
Well, if you look at the photos, he WAS outside much of the time!
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Looking at TFA, the pictures show the solar "tree" is a foot or two higher than the conventional solar array, which is barely a couple of inches off the ground - so is it really so surprising that it performed much better when the sun was lower?
It's a neat idea though and would love to see the kid continue with it :)
I've got news for Mr. Santayana: we're doomed to repeat the past no matter what. That's what it is to be alive.
You caught part of it , but even positioning of the flat array versus his "tree" skewed the results. There were times he shows where the tree was not in shade but the flat panel was fully in shade. The claims of increased efficiency ignore using panels that have mechanisms to allow them to track the sun. Plus he isn't measuring the right output of photo cells, he should have measured energy production.
As for his idea of trees, btdt http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/2807030740_25f3f2fa53.jpg
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The first image there seems to need a caption. How about: Some trees.
Only dumb birds land downwind.
The two aren't mutually exclusive!
Thank you!
That's right. I wish we'd dump this whole "nerd" and "jock" dichotomy. There are quite a few talented scientists who also happened to be damn good athletes. I actually knew one who was a "jock' in college who went on for his PhD in Chemistry and did some ground breaking research in ceramic lasers and another one who competes regularly in triathlons.
I also know some "geeks" who don't do anything physical because they pigeon holed themselves as geeks and therefore sit on their asses playing video games for recreation.
I also knew some jocks who are so into sports, they went to medical school to become sports docs or nutritionists.
The Greeks knew of the mind/body connection and I wish we continued that tradition more in our society.
And I hate trolls like you who bash innovation especially from young minds!
This is exactly the type of thing the patent system was _not_ intended to protect.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The site is already Slashdotted. Here is the CORAL link:
http://www.amnh.org.nyud.net/nationalcenter/youngnaturalistawards/2011/aidan.html
His idea is based upon something that has existed since ... forever. It took a bright 13 year old to see it.
Willie...
How many of you took time at the tender age of 13 to study leaf patterns on trees to figure out how best to capture sunlight and harness it for electricity? You can crap on his science all you want, but kids like this young man inspire me and give me hope that we aren't raising a bunch of video-game addicted sluggards who take everything for granted. Hooray for science and kids who want to pursue it! We want to encourage this behavior, not nit-pick him for possible flaws in research methodology.
I am more impressed by the documentation and accreditation on the website!
After all, it stands to reason that nature would have already worked out the most efficient way to collect solar energy eons ago.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintelligent_design .
It seems like he did .
Read radical news here
- He set the flat array at an angle of 45 degrees. Is that the optimum angle for solar panels at his latitude?
- as mentioned elsewhere, more panels in the tree array.
- The photos show both arrays being partly shaded by trees in the yard. Since the arrays aren't at exactly the same position, the amount of shade can be different. The tree array is at an advantage: more distance between the panels means that it's less likely that more than one panel is shaded by a tree branch.
Still, it's an interesting result that raises a few questions:
- in current solar panels, the wafers are connected to their beighbors to minimise the amount of wiring. But this means that whole panel drops its output below the threshold if one row of wafers is shaded by a tree branch. Maybe we'd get more energy out of an array if we connected distant wafers in series instead, so a tree branch shadow is less likely to drop the output of a series of wafers below the threshold.
- is it possible to increase the output of an array by putting parts of it at different horizontal or vertical angles?
It appears we crashed the AMNH web site. Perhaps they need more power themselves?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Look, I get that the kid is 13. The very fact that he attempted something like this is awesome and he probably could have a bright future as a scientist.
But his experiment, and his conclusions are complete shit. Rotating the flat panel will enable it to collect many times what the tree can (which rotating does nothing for). He's either got more panels on the tree, or 2 sets of 10 flat panels facing opposite each other (which is just fucking stupid).
Bottom line, the kids science was utter bullshit. I salute the fact that he tried and I think he should get recognition *from his parents* and encouraged to do proper science in the future.
Rewarding shit science breeds shit science; award someone for it and they'll never strive to be better.
wooosh!
I'm going to plant one of these. In addition, I'll put all the wires I've ripped out of the house, during a rewiring session, into the compost bin. Later in the year, I can spread the electrical compost around the base of the solar power tree and it will grow and grow. Soon I'll need a different blade on the chainsaw to control the thing!
earned him ... a provisional patent on the design
Two things. One, there is no such thing as a provisional patent. There are provisional patent applications, but provisional patent applications are not separately examined, and patents do not issue from them. They are merely a procedural tool to get yourself an extra year of time to decide whether a patent is worth pursuing on your invention. The only things you need to get yourself a provisional patent application are a specification, a drawing (if applicable), and the filing fee.
Two, the issuance of a patent is not an endorsement of your invention. It merely indicates that the government believes that your patent application satisfies all of the statutory requirements for issuance of a patent. So, it significantly overstates the matter to say that a person "earned" a patent.
(all the joke is in the subject line, nothing more to add here! Sorry!)
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
put solar panels on trees.
Impressive, but how does this compare to a panel that follows the sun?
One of the four standards by which prospective Rhodes Scholars are judged is, "energy to use one’s talents to the full, as exemplified by fondness for, and success in, sports."
Somehow, I don't think the OP was being entirely serious.
Some oil/legacy energy company will quietly buy the kid's patent with the stated intention of paying for his college education.. and then quietly bury the idea, which if practical/efficient/it does at it claims, will threaten their business model. $500k is a drop in the bucket for these companies.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Look at the photo showing his test location.
The solar tree sits next to a white wall, reflection alone could account for the difference in total power.
The traditional set of cells wouldn't get any of the reflections.
Bright kid! - but why did they choose a photo of him that makes him look like Alfred E. Neuman? ( http://weirdotoys.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/alfred_e_neuman.jpg )
Incompetence Floats
At this rate, solar will soon be as common and cheap as sunlight! I for one cannot wait for our solar powered overlords.
Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
Plenty of web pages address this. Here's an example:
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/conceptual_study_of_a_solar_power_satellite_sps_2000.shtml
âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
...something that has been posted online? Not only is it archived "forever' here in Slashdot, but other mirrors, like "The Internet Archive", Google's cache, etc. It's too late to "bury" it, now.
Willie...
"I needed to compare the tree design pattern's performance. I made a second model that was based on how man-made solar panel arrays are designed. The second model was a flat-panel array that was mounted at 45 degrees. It had the same type and number of PV solar panels as the tree design, and the same peak voltage. My idea was to track how much sunlight each model collected under the same conditions by watching how much voltage each model made."
"His work earned him a Young Naturalist Award from the American Museum of Natural History and a provisional patent on the design."
So, we are patenting natural patterns now, or am I missing something here?
Interesting story, good experiment, smart kid.
But the results are inconclusive at best, and misleading at worst due to a serious flaw in the methods.
Minor quibble: the misuse of 'spiral'. The leaf pattern forms a helix (corkscrew) around the branch. A spiral is a 2D pattern like the groove in a record.
Very serious flaw in methods and conclusion: solar panels generate power, the product of Voltage times Amps. He only measured overall open-circuit solar array Voltage, which is not a measure of power. Solar cell open-circuit Voltage has a very non-linear relationship to cell illumination. Basically you need a 10x increase in illumination to get a 1x increase in Voltage (see figure 1, note log scale for illumination).
ssc.cecs.anu.edu.au/files/Kerr_Cuevas_01a.pdf
The experiment needs to be redone measuring overall produced power, not just panel Voltage. Also the solar cells are in series, where overall panel power is limited by the weakest (least illuminated) cell.
Very interesting concept, but the Fibonacci arrangement may be optimal for leaves, but less than optimal for man-made solar panels.
Something's wrong with the graphs. Here's the 13 yr old's graphs here and here.
Typical, hand-drawn 13 yr old stuff. So who did this and this and this?
And don't tell me he could not make a bar graph on a PC but that is a "Diagram of tree model that Aidan made with his computer."
He also made the computer generated voltage diagrams but a simple Excel pie chart for the number of hours was too difficult?
He even made the common bar graph mistake (more) of not starting the scale from zero, instead starting from 4v, which makes the 4.1-4.4v flat solar panel appear as if it puts out less than half of the 5.25 volt from the solar tree.
Who really did this experiment?
Right; I did have to go outside every once in a while for my astronomy habit.
Graphs are measured in..VOLTS??? Not power.. may have higher volts out but into what load.. While there is a relation ship between the terminal voltage of a panel or array.. it is misleading to assume higher volts is higher power.. IT is the Current that is delivered to the load that gives output power value..
Nice science fair project... but bad science
As stated by the kid about the flat panel: "It had the same type and number of PV solar panels as the tree design, and the same peak voltage"
A photovoltaic cell produces current, and thus power, roughly proportionate to the light received at a roughly constant voltage. It is current that should have been measured: the voltage only drops off by much when the current has dropped off greatly. The ability to produce a little more current in the shade, probably by capturing more open sky, is interesting but not very important for generating more solar power over time.
The tree design can catch the light that's reflected off the wall behind it, at least in the image shown.
He says he moved the test location around - I'd like to see the other locations.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Years of nature is more skilled than humans. We studied birds for flight, why did it take this long to study them for light collection?
Also are the problems of manufacturing costs and space usage. Rather than paying for an elaborate and expensive support structure that mimics a tree and uses up your entire yard, I would guess a tracking system would be cheaper, and provide better output.
Apologies if someone else has noted this, but a provisional patent means nothing. It is a mere filing without review and has no substance other than being a time stamp that can be later referenced in a real filing. I can put a roll of toilet paper in an envelope and pay $85 and have a 'Provisional Patent'
It's good to see an iterated function system being used in a practical manner. They looked pretty on computer screens back in the 90s, but it's much more impressive to see someone make a useful gadget with the idea. I bet with a couple more iterations of the stem/branch/leaf model he could bump up the energy collection even more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iterated_function_system
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
No, no... NO!
Please release this to the open so that we may have a better world. Please! Pretty please with suger on top...
As it doesn't use a Fibonacci series or the branch angles
In addition to the oversights mentioned by other posters (panels in partial shade, putting panels on the north side where they will never see any sun), it seems that he also neglected to attach a load to the outputs of the cells. This greatly skews the results in favor of the tree arrangement of the cells. If a solar cell does not have a resistive load attached, applying a small amount of light to it quickly raises the voltage across it to a maximum value, and increasing the intensity of the light does not increase the voltage any further. This is visible in the graph of the voltage on his standard design: on most days, the voltage quickly jumps from 0 to nearly maximum voltage and stays constant over the day. If the voltage measured actually described the incoming power, it would show a clear maximum at noon and gradually decrease at earlier and later times as the sunlight becomes less direct. What he has effectively measured is the number of cells being exposed to any sunlight at all. For his "standard" design, only half of the cells are ever in the sun, where for the tree design, it would seem that more than half are in the sun on average, since none of the panels seem to face downward as they would if the orientation were random. I think he would find that, if he would actually measure the power produced, the south-facing panels would produce more, since they face the sun more directly, on average, than somewhat randomly oriented panels.
Overall this is very clever work. However, there are some clear problems with it.
1. He connected all cells in series in both designs
2. In series, all the voltages add up, and the current must be the same in each cell
3. The current would be limited in both designs by the least illuminated cell
4. He used only voltage as a figure of merit
5. Power would be the real figure of merit (voltage * current)
So because the open-circuit voltage can be relatively high with even minimal illumination, he finds that the tree design is better.
However, in the tree design, the current would be limited by the least illuminated cell, and it is guaranteed to be low due to the random orientations.
I am pretty sure the flat panel would be putting out more overall power.
If you include the effects of partial shading, the result might be closer, but then plat panel designs would include bypass diodes to solve that.
Either there is a conspiracy going on somewhere trying to hide this technology from making any real advances, so that we stay on oil, or our engineers in solar energy collection, are being upstaged by 13 year olds.....from using human hair as a 0 expense materials cost, to having this fibonacci enduced tray for collecting susn resulting in a more efficient collection.
Sad really...
The young person made an interesting observation in that he used nature as a basis for his design. As has been stated a number of time, nature has already figured out how to capture sunlight with an optimum design. Oak trees are generally large hemispherical domes (at least the ones outside my window are). However, I would be curious to know what the current is on each of the models. Maximum Power Point Tracking algorithms in inverters try to find the knee of an I-V (current voltage) curve. It is at this place where the most power (I*V = P) is generated. The more dips and curves the algorithm has to navigate the worse the power output, and the less energy. There is the case where this could be considered this an application for a DC-DC conditioner or similar. However, as already mentioned this is interesting coming from such a young person. I'm surprised that this wasn't considered by a college/university level person.
I don't really understand this. If you can increase the output simply by angling them differently, you could do that with a traditional design that packs more cells per inch and simply do away with a tree or use something akin to a molten salt reactor in the middle with panels around it in the shape of a circular U on a pivot. Such flower petal design (depending on how wide it is) would take advantage of everything this does except it would have a higher height density. You could even remove the moving part of it and make it a tad wider if you want to avoid moving parts.
While it is cool to design something after nature, you have to think a bit further into why nature made it that way in the first place. Like leaves are redundant as the tree itself cannot move, so some leaves generate more output depending on the time of day and angle. Upon closer look, his flat panel design doesn't pivot at all either, unlike most modern flat panel designs that power companies use (which are usually U shaped as well).
Cool thing to mess around with as a kid, other then that this isn't really ground breaking.
I'd love to see a comparison of cost between his version and fixed/mobile versions.
A quick google/wikipedia shows that movable "tracking" systems generate between 30-40% more power annually than an otherwise identical fixed set of panels. So is that 10% gain - which we have to take his word for since the term "study" is a little generous - worth it?
(King, D.L. and Boyson, W.E. and Kratochvil, J.A. (May 2002). "Analysis of factors influencing the annual energy production of photovoltaic systems".)
Also, how resistant is this to damage compared to more common designs?
There is something not right with his set up and his data. If you can believe the photo of the "tree" and the solar array were his test set up then there are issues with shadowing from something in the backyard. Also, the linear solar array is lower to the ground than the "tree" and the whole set up is positioned right next to the house with the solar array more forward than the tree which would not necessarily afford the set up full sunlight though out the day. The most damning data though is the chart for the week of October 13th to 20th - why does the solar array perform virtually exactly the same as the "tree" on Tuesday but then doesn't perform as well for the rest of the week? As far as a "scientific" experiment goes this fails on many different levels.
I dare people to try to build solar panel "trees" on their roofs. Your HOAs are gonna repossess your homes.
Solar cells are current sources, not voltage sources. The output voltage is fairly constant over a wide range-the current varies dramatically. As near as I can tell, the only thing he measured was the open-circuit voltage. This is not sufficient. He must measure output current (or better yet, output power to a matched load) before he can claim success.
This not intended to criticize the young man. I applaud his efforts.
The kid is brilliant. The amount of thought, research, and perseverance that went into his experiment and the results are very impressive for someone of his age. However, I think the results are flawed. If you look at the image of the two solar arrays, the flat array is lying on the ground and only reaches about 20% of the height of the Fibonacci array. Especially in winter, where there are longer periods of low-angle sunlight, having a greater height is an extraordinary advantage in gathering sunlight. I'm not convinced there's any explanation for his results beyond a simple height difference.
It is still entirely plausible that the Fibonacci arrangement helps trees make the most of their height advantage. This experiment simply would not reveal that.
I love that one of my all-time-favorite childhood books "The Lorax" is included in his list of references.
Yeah seriously - Stephen Hawking a rower in college. How does that fit into your view of the world?
I'm sure mom and dad didn't help at all.....
Being in the solar "tree" business, I'm intrigued. Maybe it makes more energy. But there is another value: giving solar a physical presence that looks good (with refinement). Most solar power is generated on commercial rooftops and in "farms" on the ground where no one can see. If it takes the form of something attractive and visible, people will be more willing to pay for it, and it will influence more people to consider solar. The Prius delivers this same sort of physical statement of values. And, since a tree IS a solar-optimized organism, it seems appropriate to try to make solar power generation devices that recall trees. Technical note: I've seen only a few pictures of the test setup. They show the tree very close to the reflective surface of a wall. Light is coming off the wall and hitting solar cells oriented at that angle.
Live oaks, blue oaks, and some other variations are evergreen.
It looks like he set the flat array at an angle of 45 degrees and that it was never moved. Every major solar farm uses active tracking of the sun to point each solar panel directly at the sun in a way that maximizes surface area. I'm pretty sure every collection technique that doesn't involve the electricity generating medium has already been thought and is either being used or has been ruled out.
One major problem I see with this design is that is very susceptible to wind damage. This is one of the biggest problems in sunny, dry areas. The wind picks up sand and dirt and eats away at the solar panels. Big flat panels tend to deflect the wind to a large degree. A tree-like design would have wind blow right through it and get chewed up quick fast. Cleaning the panels would also be a very hard and probably manual job. Large solar farms has this process fully automated.
Wouldn't wrapping solar cells around a conical design be even better? Or have all faces of a pyramid with solar cells?
"Point" the cone / pyramid where the sun shines and voila.. more power because it picks up more rays than a flat sheet? (considering reflected sun rays, or _even_ using reflectors to focus the sun's power)
Surely a static tree design has its downsides if it doesn't track the sun, or if one solar cell blocks light to a cell directly beneath/behind it.
I am not a scientist, so I'm only putting this down like a brain-fart. Am I right, or am I wrong?
First, kudos to both the kid and whomever supported him enough to encourage this experiment and publicize it. I wish this kind of learning process was more common in today's schools. Exposure to critical thinking, testing and measuring results, and abstract thinking are all sorely needed. To come up with this at 13 is impressive.
However, the results are definitely misleading because the control is flawed. He did use the same number of cells per set-up, for those arguing over that detail (looks like 20 each), but his results are not a "breakthrough". He simply proved that an array based on the Fib. sequence will perform better then a piss poor design. His control array has 10 cells on each side of a 90 degree corner (like putting solar panels on both sides of a houses peaked roof). It doesn't matter how you orientate this array to the sun, you'll be getting poor energy gathering results. Don't confuse the issue with considering solar tracking arrays, that wasn't the experiment. However, even with a stationary array there exists an exact angle which will result in the maximum solar exposure on average over the course of a year. Any cell deviating from this angle reduces overall array efficiency (when likewise averaged over a year).
Also, even if you want to consider array footprint (smaller is better) and ignore the per-cell-efficiency, there are better ways of building more efficient vertical arrays. All of the exposed branches in the Fib. array represent lost energy (and increased shadow footprint, don't just consider the physical footprint), and the optimal angle still applies to each cell.
Despite all this, I can't help but feel that there is something to be learned here to improve array design, we just haven't hit on it exactly.
tldr: kid is to be praised, but results indicate that bad design < Fibonacci design < optimized design.
Wait until he discovers the sunflower pattern!
if buildings were shaped like trees.
That's really cool.
What's the education profile of this kid? Need more of that. It may just be individual talent, but wouldn't it be nice if we could learn something from his young thought process / way of life?
Yeah seriously - Stephen Hawking a rower in college. How does that fit into your view of the world?
He wasn't a rower, he was the coxswain in the Oxford boat.
Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.
WOW....you people are amazing! This is a 7th grader who thought up the design and it was a good one! Can't you just say good job and go about your business? I can't think of one invention that didn't have some design flaws but they still made the world a better place in some form or fashion! I say kudos to this kid and if he is thinking of this stuff now, think of what he will do with more education and maturity!!
I'll set aside some potential issues with Mr. Dwyer's initial experiment. It's the stuff better experiments are made from, not a reason to crap on it.
My first thought was to wonder how well the fixed flat and tree arrays would measure up to a flat array with a solar tracker. Obviously, the tracking array would eat the fixed flat array's lunch. That "leaves" us to compare the tracking array with a further optimized version of the tree, grist for next year's experiment:
-> How would the trade off in complexity and maintenance requirements of the tracking array compare against the (presumably) lower power output of the tree?
-> How about in industrialized v. non-industrialized regions?
-> Would the tree benefit from the addition of a single axis of rotation to provide optimum sun exposure? Is there an optimum exposure?
Luke, help me take this mask off
Hello, we are Oak Incorporated.
We would like you to cease and desist the sale of your solar panel as we believe it infringes our community design and IP.
Thank you for complying,
Oak.
The only thing wrong here is the immbecile title given to this on Slashdot. No-one is claiming this is a breakthrough. The kid did an experiment and wrote it up well. Like any kid, and indeed any researcher, he made mistakes. Maybe he's onto something, but probably not. Regardless, he's welcome to patent it. Certainly he learned a lot about nature and about renewable energy in the process, and caring is the first step to solving any problem.
This is a neat idea. But... he's measured the wrong thing. Voltage on a PV array comes up very rapidly with a small amount of light and hits saturation quickly. The thing it most closely correlates to is temperature. The value he *should* have measured was current, which is approximately proportional to light intensity.
There's also a major problem with the practicalities of any PV system where the cells are aligned in different directions. A real PV system uses a Maximum Point Power Tracker (MPPT) between the array and the load to keep the cells operating at their optimum point for the conditions (temperature, irradiance, etc). However, if you have cells in the series string facing different directions, it is extremely difficult for the MPPT to find the maximum power point, and very easy to get stuck in a local maxima instead. You also get much reduced power output, as the current output of the entire series string is limited by the weakest (most shaded) cell. This is really the key point: face one cell the wrong way, and the ENTIRE STRING current output drops to that given by that one cell. The only way around this is to run multiple MPPTs, one for each cell. This is unfortunately highly inefficient, as the cell voltage is too low (on an individual basis) to have the power electronics work effectively.
There is no such thing as a provisional patent. Normally, you file a nonprovisional patent application. The Patent Office examines the patent and then decides whether to grant a patent or not. It's also possible to file a provisional patent application. For this type, the patent office never examines the application. It gives the applicant a year to decide whether to follow through or not (i.e., commercialize, raise money or whatever). Before the year is up, the applicant has to file a nonprovisional application, which is then examined.
The above description is for "utility patents." Those are the normal type of patents on inventions. There is a second type of patent called a "design patent." However, for these, there is no "provisional application."
I'm guessing this kid has a provisional patent application on file. He probably doesn't have a patent and it is for a utility not design patent. (Design patents are just for an ornamental design.)
Aidan is to be congratulated for his creativity, but the idea's definitely not new. Eden Full of Calgary, Alberta Canada exhibited this idea as her project, "The Nerdy Tree" as a 9th grade student at the 2006 Canada-Wide Science Fair (CWSF), where she won a silver medal and a couple of other awards. Here's her project abstract from the Virtual CWSF:
Picea Glauca (White Spruce) tree morphology was analysed to design a photovoltaic solar panel system. The best-looking phenotypes were examined, and the tree's south and southwest sides were measured. The constructed system was based on the mathematical data collected. The system was compared to an average single-panel system with a rotating motor. Results proved this system generated 268% more power output in a series circuit.
Full, who is now an engineering student at Princeton, was recently named as one of 24 Thiel Fellowship recipients. The recipients - all younger than 20 years old at the end of 2010 - each receive $100,000 and mentoring under the condition that they stay out of school for two years to build their businesses. Eden will use her grant money to move to San Francisco in August and speed up the process of patenting and licensing her solar panel technology, which evolved from "The Nerdy Tree". She continued work on the idea, presenting at the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair (ISEF) as a member of Team Canada-ISEF in 2007 and 2008, and then returning to the CWSF in 2009 to win bronze and silver medals in Engineering and Environmental Innovation.
Today, at 19, Full is the founder of Roseicollis Technologies, a solar energy start-up that deploys her patent-pending inventions in established and emerging markets. Currently electrifying two villages of 1000 citizens in Kenya, her SunSaluter is a solar panel rotating system that tracks the sun to optimize energy collection by up to 40 percent for only $10. Eden is presenting her SunSaluter technology/social innovation tonight at COMMON Pitch in Boulder, Colorado).
I think this is just BS and media sensationalism because this is from a kid. Regarding, first to file, first to invent -- I rule -- prior art -- yes, a big duh. The patent trolls will kill this in a second, but then again, lawyers will love to sign up to protect this one. Why do we need lawyers? I guess Lemelson needed to just continue to submarine his patents until someone landed on his IP property and then he owned them.
Remember, in the world of the PhD -- nothing is new under the sun.The kid must have got this from somewhere and must give attribution - remember, the rule of attribution! 4-H, FFA, Funk & Wagnall? For JHC, this article is so stupid we must dismiss it.
If this is truly new, useful and more per inventions, - then the USPTO would approve a provisional patent application (PS> you media folks don't know S**T about patents --), and that is sort of patent pending but not really, OR JUST GO FOR THE FULL PATENT APPLICATION. the Provisional Patent Application approval is based on what is real and true (even though a closed and sealed application without review), Remember, a real PATENT will be under public review and scrutiny long before it becomes a PATENT if the checkbox for LIST ME to the public.
I love the fact that GE solar engineers are probably saying we know this, and can't say XYZ about it -- because they want to make sure we LIVE ON OIL. To shame GE! Loser! They will not chime in because they are buried in a research dungeon in Area 51 trying to save the world from destruction for themselves..
Kudos to the kid! Can't you just see promenades lined with digital oak trees used as back stops for the wireless-connected intelligentsia playing "Angry Birds!" :D
All "Kidding" aside... Congratulations and great job kid...!
~ "From the brains of babes..." :) ~
- in current solar panels, the wafers are connected to their beighbors to minimise the amount of wiring. But this means that whole panel drops its output below the threshold if one row of wafers is shaded by a tree branch. Maybe we'd get more energy out of an array if we connected distant wafers in series instead, so a tree branch shadow is less likely to drop the output of a series of wafers below the threshold.
- is it possible to increase the output of an array by putting parts of it at different horizontal or vertical angles?
There exists a clever solution for that case (of placement) where you cannot eliminate that your panels gets partly shaded. Just put less cells in series, so a smaller area shares a power converter that dos Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT). Of course that requires many more converteres compared to several meters of soalr panels on a single string. If you cannot keep the cells free of any falling leaves or daily shadows, it might pay off.
More details in this advertising video, that also visualizes the shading effects: http://www.sunsil.dk/video/ So, there already exist at least one thorough "fix" for losses from not shaded cells caused by shaded cells in the same system.
cleaning one of those things is going to be a bitch.
but we've always done it this way before
Impressive thinking and writing for a 13 year old, assuming that it's mostly his work (always a question with school science projects). However, see a detailed analysis of why claiming some kind of breakthrough is wrong: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:JmlMNqVPKlsJ:uvdiv.blogspot.com/2011/08/solar-panel-trees-really-are-inferior.html%20http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/2011/08/solar-panel-trees-really-are-inferior.html
Very brief cliffs: 1) He measured open circuit voltage with no load, which tells you nothing about actual power that it can produce under load 2) Broken theory: sum of the outputs over time is simply the sum of the individual outputs, and will be maximized by having all individual outputs at the optimal angle
I say hooray to anyone who devises anything related to solar panels that either makes it less expensive, or more easily accessible for any other reason.
There are some methodology issues.. The tree has as least twice as many solar cells and outputs 6V. The panel has 12 cells and is wired to output 4V. Voltage is not what you want monitor I don't think you can have a meaningful comparison without monitoring energy per cell integrated over the full year. It's still a cool demo
Here's a flash, black is not the best color for absorbing solar energy. It's just the best for absorbing IR energy. The Air Force researched this in the 50 for survival gear. The best color is *green*. If you don't think so, tell me why plants aren't all black!
Actually, Aiden was completely wrong and his experiment was seriously flawed. But out of everyone involved, he was the only one actually using his brain. So congrats to him. I have written a thorough and easy to understand explanation (you don't have to feel like you need to be an expert) of why he was wrong in the following blog:http://blog.mrzach.com/2011/08/this-is-where-bad-science-starts/ Enjoy.
http://www.vortexmath.com/ScotNelson-Spatiotemporal_Coordinate.pdf - A Fibonacci Spatiotemporal Coordinate System by Scot Nelson
All due respect to trying, and it's a very cool idea, but he made a capital mistake:
He measured the voltage difference without a load, and that says basically nothing. The voltage drop between my toe and the radiator might well be 50V, its meaningless unless there's a current running.
Solar panels which instinctively 'reach towards' light sources and optimize their position autonomously.
-Gaia
Please take this nonsense down. It is so obviously incorrect. http://www.eco-scams.com/archives/746
Nice! I can imagine that many variations of this model could be simulated and tested virtually much faster (3D scene with ray-tracing). Evolutionary algorithms could help find the most efficient constructions which would be then tested in reality.. What a thesis that would be.. :)
[I didn't read all 406 comments so maybe this was addressed earlier...] great research... In my 5 min analysis noticed that looks like there is almost twice as many panels on the tree vs the flat panel. So pay off inefficency may be longer or close to initial cost difference. Construction cost look to also be a significant variable - cost of building a tree vs bolting panels to a roof. Looking forward to manufacturing efficiencies and volume reducing panel cost. Maybe some 5 year old with interest in genetic engineering can figure out how to integrate solar voltaic info with a tree and we can just grow them!
- wade
That the patterns in nature conform to the Fibonacci series has been known for a long, long time. Everything in nature is touched by this, and other mathematical expressions. The idea that someone can just look at a tree, and see the OBVIOUS, and then have that be declared 'brilliant' by society, who then essentially offers to this simpleton kid a 'patent' on anything connected with the Fibonacci series, is ludicrous. There is NOTHING special about this kid, other than he's observant, and someone else who doesn't know anything thought it was a big enough deal to make something out of it publicly. This is nothing special ... nothing not already known was discovered. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to discern that patterns developed in nature are efficient. The whole episode is rather pathetic, and shows how simplistic and ineffective things have become mentally in this world ... it doesn't show brilliance. It shows that society itself has lost a bit of critical thought.