Debono was my great uncle. He passed away not that long ago.

@pdsnpsnldlqnop3330

2 жыл бұрын

After this video I am hunting for his bbc work on YT!

@JonathanFrost

2 жыл бұрын

Sorry for your loss. He was an insprational thinker 50 years ahead of his time.

@JustHaveaThink

2 жыл бұрын

He was a great man. RIP

@islandsedition

2 жыл бұрын

@@JustHaveaThink yes an interesting guy. About 20 years ago he was called in by the Foreign Office (UK) to help stimulate ideas and radical thinking. As part of his lectures given in King Charles Street he suggested that marmite might help to quell the Arab-Israeli conflict due to the increase in zinc contributing to lowering aggression in men. Love your stuff by the way. Ideas, no matter how useful or innovative will always need communicators to help stimulate curiosity, their trials and eventual acceptance and take up. Keep it up! Incidentally, do you have a take on the "solid hydrogen" storage system? I've seen both Sandy Munroe and Matt Ferral talk about them and recently seen Thunderfoot commenting that he has a "busted" video coming out on the subject. Could be a game changer if it holds up.

It's important to keep in mind that these are NOT more efficient solar panels. They are the same roughly 20% efficient panels we already put on our roofs. They just have more surface area for a given amount of ground cover due to their shape. I really like the idea of getting more energy per square meter of roof, especially since it does not require special materials. And as a side benefit, if I cover my roof with reflective sheets to focus the insolation back on the spheres, it also keeps my house cooler in the summer. It's a small win, but I still like it.

@arodic

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly! It is also important to note that spherical panel actually uses considerably more PV surface.

@edwardcoulter9361

2 жыл бұрын

@@arodic Yes 4 times more area. The surface of a sphere is 4x that of the 2D projected area of the sphere, ¶d²/4.

“Never impose today upon tomorrow…it never works.” -GM It’s stunning where things will be in each emerging year. So exciting. So reassuring.

@bradyspry1628

2 жыл бұрын

Dvapso

Much like the difference between 2 axis and 1 axis solar tracking, you can probably get most of the benifits by just using a tubular shape arranged into parrelel rows, which will be infinitly easier to manufacture as you only need to bend the PV in one axis as well as the ability hold it all in a frame so that a viable panel is produced.

@ThePaulv12

2 жыл бұрын

Solar tracking for consumers is largely redundant because of cheap panels. I saw a vid with a graph and what tracking gives you. It's more charging in the morning and afternoon. There was another graph showing what a couple more fixed panels gives you and it's the same as a tracker. This is the effect of panels going down in cost. One can buy more panels than one needs to make up the difference between fixed and tracking and dump the excess load into heating water for example. Myself, I always wanted a tracker but it's now a folly - but more seriously it is another thing to go wrong. I live off grid and when something goes wrong it is the absolute pits since no power company is coming to the rescue. Simple is better, it really, really is.

I think there is a little bit of shenanigans going on with the efficiency ratings. The surface area of a flat, circular panel with a 1 meter radius is 3.14 square meters. The surface area of a spherical panel with a 1 meter radius is 12.5664 square meters (slightly less if a partial sphere is made). This means the spherical panel would need to have 400% efficiency over the flat panel to reach equality in relation to surface area. Additionally, the 'orange peel' construction technique of the spherical panel, which is then cut and rolled into a sphere, would generate additional waste as the parts of the panel removed will not be able to be reused (some optimal packing could be possible here based on their cutting technology). To me, it sounds like it still falls quite short of the efficiency of flat panels. There may be some very edge cases where this is good, but I can't see how it would be used for solar farms that are trying to wring out every last drop of capital cost from their project.

@Johannes-mm6dx

2 жыл бұрын

I was thinking the same. As I red the title I thought of a sphere or lense over a flat panel collecting light from all directions on a small surface.

@petehiggins33

2 жыл бұрын

But the advantage of the sphere is that it presents the whole 3.14 square metres to the Sun from sunrise to sunset whereas the flat panel presents zero area until the Sun passes in front of the panel rising to 3.14 square metres at noon and falling to zero again when the Sun goes behind the panel. This is ignoring the gain due to adding reflective surfaces.

@warpmonkey

2 жыл бұрын

@@petehiggins33 True, but at the penalty of building a sphere, you could afford 4 x circular panels and not have the increased construction cost. I'm going to guess the cost penalty will be greater than 4x, but yes, I can imagine there are situations where that is still fine.

@bradyspry1628

2 жыл бұрын

St

@JohnnyMotel99

2 жыл бұрын

What about wrapping the PV cells around small cylinders, then placing the cylinders in a reflective tray.

Major 'like' for: "I generally arrive at the right conclusion after having exhausted all of the bad ones." or words to that effect. Thank you. Genuinely good belly laugh on that one.

I have some experience with alternative building techniques. It hasn't amounted to much since I am such a small volume builder. However, me and a few friends used to comment on how the tree was the ultimate solar collector. Sperical panels, as we find so often, are really just mimicking ideas in nature that have long stare us in the face.

@woodchip2782

2 жыл бұрын

Of course the tree is the perfect solar collector. It’s a wonder that no one has copied it yet.

@seannewell397

2 жыл бұрын

@@woodchip2782 i wonder how hard this would be; natural tree leaves can be sprouted and removed at will by the tree to account for seasonal changes is one example that comes to mind

@human_isomer

2 жыл бұрын

I have to disagree, trees are not the perfect example of a solar collector. The leafs are only in part directed to the sun and only collect in a rather narrow range of the available EM spectrum (hence the colour). They're also used to collect/emit CO2 and oxygen, which a solar cells don't need to. But they also use the heat of the sun, viz. for pumping nutrients by water evaporation. If this could be copied, using the heat to generate additional power and, at the same time, cooling the panels for better efficiency, it may boost efficiency a lot.

@JohnnyWednesday

2 жыл бұрын

Solar trees have existed for years - the reason they haven't caught on is because it's far cheaper to make one big 'leaf' (solar panel) than attach thousands of little ones on a tree just to make it look nice.

@bradyspry1628

2 жыл бұрын

Cosyjv,si😐

I appreciate that this channel is optimistic but not sensationalist

If the spheres can make it into production at reasonable cost they will at the very least offer an aesthetic option to flat panels. Always good to have options.

@grindupBaker

2 жыл бұрын

A long-awaited resurgence of Disco Duck with the Bedouin tribes of Libya ? An aesthetic to die for.

@GK-op4oc

2 жыл бұрын

The spherical cells shown at 3:01 can also be mounted on a flat panel. I would imagine that rooftops would then be built for solar energy generation over trendy aesthetics. Though, without a back reflector and a transparent cover, such an array of spheres would be difficult to clean

@112313

2 жыл бұрын

now companies has a hard time making cheaper flat solar panels....how does making it spherical balls studded flat panels going to reduce the cost anywhere enough to offset the increase in efficiencies?

Although the scattered light from behind is not collected by usual PV panels, the area pointed directly towards the sun is effectively roughly 5x that of a sphere. Even when the panel is not adjusted for the right angle, there is still a much greater surface shined upon, compared to a sphere with same total surface. Direct sunlight is much more powerful than what is reflected from houses or otherwise. Even when reflected from windows, the energy will only be a fraction from direct light. That's probably the reason why the panels are pointed to the sun, and don't have a second set of cells on their backs.

@skierpage

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, obviously incident solar is more powerful than reflected or ambient light. But many solar panels do have a second set of cells on the back to handy some of this lower-quality sunlight, they're called bifacial panels. Manufacturers claim they're up to 20% more efficient.

@human_isomer

2 жыл бұрын

@@skierpage That's interesting, I haven't heard of those yet, not even seen a single one that could be a such. Wouldn't the backside have to be inclined or at least vertical, and not looking towards the ground?

@AnalystPrime

2 жыл бұрын

@@skierpage No, they just don't put an opaque cover on the back of the panel so the light can penetrate them from both sides. This may require the panels to be made little sturdier, as the point of that back panel is basically protecting it from physical damage.

@AnalystPrime

2 жыл бұрын

@@human_isomer You might have seen them but not noticed, when was the last time you went to a solar farm and looked under the panels? Though it is pretty new innovation so they might not be in use much yet, the panels should look normal except the back is not covered by plastic so it would be same on both sides. You won't see them on roofs though, as the whole point is to have enough clearance under and around the frames so at least some light reaches the ground to reflect.

@human_isomer

2 жыл бұрын

@@AnalystPrime I've actually seen quite a lot until a few years ago, as many PV farms were built in my area. A friend of mine was writing for a local newspaper and we were visiting most of the new sites when those were being planned and built. The county is running on 100% renewables meanwhile. However, non of those panels had ~~cells on the backside, so I assume they're not used here yet. But now I'm curious, I will take a closer look on the new ones. Thanks! Edit: Just noticed I was thinking of the other comment when replying. But I will see if I can find panels with transparent backs nonetheless ^^

Looking forward to this :D I've been watching non-stop time team for days - I need to come back to the future

It’s unfortunate that the OU no longer transmit their lectures on TV. They were brilliant.

@trueriver1950

2 жыл бұрын

I worked for the OU for 21 years as a tutor in Physics and Computing. Eventually it got cheaper to mail out the videos (on VHS or DVD) than to broadcast them, especially as we had to produce the masters anyway for a minority of students who couldn't get the broadcasts (including at least one on a submarine!) so the only extra cost was copying the tapes or pressing the DVDs. BBC2 were glad to be able to use the airtime for other programs. Students prefer the convenience of watch-when-ready too. The only ppl who lost out were those who the programmes were never intended for anyway; but I personally thought that we lost a huge publicity advantage when we stopped the broadcasts. Like our presenter on JHAT I used to watch them as a child too. I was too small a cog for anyone to ask my opinion when they were deciding to stop the broadcasts

@graememudie7921

2 жыл бұрын

@@trueriver1950 would be great if they were on KZread

I was lucky to attend a lecture from Edward De Bono at the time of six thinking hats. Those principles have stuck with me since then. The black hat was a particular favourite.

I remember those days. BBC 2, OU often in black and white and especially Sunday evening with The World About Us, Jaques Cousteau and a weekly news round up with subtitles that my mum used to challenge us to read before the sentence went off screen. Needless to say my siblings and I are superb readers.

I am so happy to listen to you.

BBC1, BBC2 and ITV. Those were the days. We only wasted 1 minute of our life "zapping", before we turned the bloody thing off.

It seems that the maximum output is only 2x a flat panel while requiring 4x the surface area of cells (surface area of a sphere is 4x the surface area of a circle with the same radius). This means that at best, you are getting half the energy per cell than a flat panel. This invention seems like a good idea if the constraint is ground area. If the main constraint is cost then a flat panel is still better.

@mikeharrington5593

2 жыл бұрын

The idea scores in overcoming the in-shade periods which reduce the effectiveness of fixed one-direction panels, & perhaps also in needing less ground area.

@prabhakarkhodadalu7945

2 жыл бұрын

Actually he has some thing in that little spherical cells which actually gets incident rays at 60 degree(which is the maximum efficiency rays) on all the time of the day or at least 9to 5

@fanfare100

2 жыл бұрын

@@prabhakarkhodadalu7945 Plus, although more photovoltaic material is used, more power density is generated in a smaller area, and plus, PV material have become exponentially less expensive so one can afford to use more of it as there gets to be a time where space/real-estate is at more of a premium than the PV material itself.

@humanistwriting5477

2 жыл бұрын

Well. I'd think the issue in cost would not be the panels themselves, but rather the mounting hardware, and the 20 years of paying someone to clean the panels in a farm situation, those together add several million dollars in projected costs, and because wage should go up with inflation and many countries are intentionally applying inflationary stresses to thier dollar (for lots of reasons that are great if your a large buisness owner) The wages saved in maintance would probably cover the cost of the cells in a solar farm compleatly

Fascinating as always. It seems reasonable to assume that the disco ball analogy will be taken a step further and the spherical solar cells will be kept slowly rotating in 'dirty' areas where sand, snow, pollution etc will be automatically wiped off on the side furthest from the sun to keep the cells tip-top clean. The problem with disco balls is that they scatter light in all directions, so the siting of them would have to be carefully considered - don't distract motorists, for example

@steveDC51

2 жыл бұрын

The balls would not be reflective- that would defeat the object. Sorry if I have misunderstood your final point.

@gravelydon7072

2 жыл бұрын

@@steveDC51 All solar panels are reflective to some degree. It depends a lot on what the top surface is and the angle that the light hits it. Disco ball solar collectors would also run cooler if allowed to rotate as the back side would cool them down before they were exposed to the direct sunlight again. The bad part would be that you would need a wiper system for the current collection and a motor to drive them. Both of which increase the maintenance cost over fixed flat panels.

@ticthak

2 жыл бұрын

@@gravelydon7072 Also, a substantial increase in BOM and production cost.

@steveDC51

2 жыл бұрын

@@gravelydon7072 Thanks for your response. Isn’t it nice that some of us can have a polite and friendly discussion.

@atroxie

2 жыл бұрын

@@gravelydon7072 could they not be rotated with a turbine using wind to spin them instead of a motor?

If we read technology history or from old school, we can appreciate the idea is branching off the old days photo meters use by photographers. It has half sphere array lens in front and have no battery inside. Moving on from here the simplest way to come close to that idea is to integrate spherical beads array on conventional flat solar panel.

I'm a big fan of DeBono's approach.

I remember seeing Edward de Bono years ago in a bookshop In Sydney with his minders. They were struggling to find their way to a particular location in the store. They looked like lost sheep. So much for lateral thinking I thought.

Surface area of a sphere is four times the area of its largest cross section. Ignoring the efficiencies due to better cooling and producing energy from scattered light, the sphere’s energy production would be equivalent to a circular flat solar cell with the same radius directly facing the sun. Unit cost is likely to be a prohibitively high for spherical cells.

@kennethferland5579

2 жыл бұрын

I agree the production cost is likely the barrier, but it will be more from the the complexity of dealing with the shape on the assembly line, and the complexity of mounting it all into some kind of frame to hold a bunch of these little balls.

Thanks Dave, these will be perfect for the robotic fly I'm building! 🐝🌞

I love it!! Capturing ALL of the sunlight no matter where it's coming from - great idea!

Love these videos. I watch them all so far as i know. A few I have watched more than once. of course. Thank you for what you are doing here.

@JustHaveaThink

2 жыл бұрын

Cheers Dann. I appreciate your support.

Another fascinating video, thanks Dave. Congratulations on getting your profile on the ‘Our Voices’ channel - not before time. Good luck with it and the channel. My only criticism is that there is not more of what you!!

The lab results are a little ambiguous: "spherical panels increase energy capture vs flat panels for the same ground area". If I'm interpreting that correctly, it means with spherical panels you need more solar cells for the same ground area - since the surface area of a sphere is quite a bit larger than the surface area of a circle. If so, it means they are significantly more expensive. Excellent if ground area is the limiting factor though, such as on small roofs or on cars/aircraft.

@squizwiz8241

2 жыл бұрын

dont forget that the incident light on a sphere is also a a fraction of the incident light of a flat panel. t/he angle of incoming light is significant for absorption

@incognitotorpedo42

2 жыл бұрын

You can't put globes on the surface of cars or aircraft, because aerodynamics are important.

@Rhen5656

2 жыл бұрын

@@squizwiz8241 it would effectively be the same area as a circle of equivalent radius. the reduced light coming in at an angle is cancelled out by the added area of that surface. the benefits would likely be seen in reduced heating (making the panels more efficient) and light from other sources, but personally I doubt it's anywhere near 100% increase, and the added cost isn't worthwhile even then.

@markmuir7338

2 жыл бұрын

@@incognitotorpedo42 You could if they're very small beads. In any case, I don't think these are worthwhile, because it's still too little power to make much difference to range.

@dermotbalaam5358

2 жыл бұрын

Hmmm. I think you’d need less ground area to get the same generation capacity.

This is the best talk about spherical objects that I've heard in a long time. Thank-you.

Thanx for bringing this to our attention.

I really enjoyed Edward’s TV series as well, thanks for reminding me.

As always a great post. Making it flexible and the option to cut out and bend any desired shape offers many possibilities. The efficiency of the cell would thus become less important, but the applications would be much larger.

@autohmae

2 жыл бұрын

That was what I was thinking to: make a panel of lots of little triangle and you can use for many shapes.

@bradyspry1628

2 жыл бұрын

Fp2

I was very excited to hear you talking of energy spheres. When I was nineteen back in the late 1960's I had a dream that my home had a tennis sized glass like ball filled with some kind of high tech components .the ball which was connected to a stable adjustable stem was projecting from the roof. The ball was somehow producing energy enough to power my electrical needs to supply my home. When I would tell people about my dream, most would just discount it as being silly.

@robinhood4640

2 жыл бұрын

I wouldn't be surprised if, in the not too far future, we learn how to create electricity from the oxidising processes going on in the air.

@robertinho52

2 жыл бұрын

@@robinhood4640 we've discovered that a few hundred thousand years ago

@robertinho52

2 жыл бұрын

Actually, my bad, I thought you meant energy, the electric part was probably 100 something years ago

@anonymousxish

2 жыл бұрын

@@robinhood4640 No your right, my 72 mach one mustang, my 1966 chevelle convertible.Hang on my shoe phone is calling .Dog shit again! Naw it was just ncc1701. Your who from where?.LOL.

I find myself imagining discreet baseball sized spheres atop every lamp-post providing the electrical needs for all our towns and cities.

ANY research and development is good, provided it is well-intentioned, creates no harm and is ethical.

Love your work! Thank you again!

Incremental but important development that could be a huge hit in the market. That's a great video Dave.

Interesting idea, hope they get the manufacturing issues sorted. Nice to have a globe in the back yard

Love your work. Always interesting.

I am continually amazed at how 'out of the box' thinking provides solutions to problems and makes our world better. This is a good case in point. Who would've thunk it? Thanks JHAT for your educational and informative videos.

@incognitotorpedo42

2 жыл бұрын

I'm afraid this idea is a little too far out of the box. It's wildly expensive compared to simpler flat panels.

@kensmith5694

2 жыл бұрын

@@incognitotorpedo42 I disagree. I see this idea as being too far into the box to be a great new thing. They make the solar cell flat and then bend it to shape. It seems to me that they are starting with a technology that costs the same as the flat panels and then adding more steps and etching away some of the area. Making a curved surface that works as a PV would be a really out of the box idea.

Thank you for sharing. Always trying to improve is exciting

Thank you for just another very interesting well presented run down.

Thank you...nothing like evolution of a concept! Great Job!

If all you need is more PV cells while keeping ground area constant, you can just corrugate the panels. You don't even need to make curved corrugations: just arrange long, narrow flat panels in a zig-zag "W" pattern. Then you can effectively treat that as an "extra-thick flat panel" and aim it towards the sun like you'd do with a normal panel.

@injest1928

2 жыл бұрын

This makes a lot of sense. I feel like we must be missing some reason they use spheres that isn't explained in the video

@injest1928

2 жыл бұрын

Another way I've thought of is interlocking hexagonal tubes. They'd be insanely efficient if you make them long enough in relation to width. (The solar cells are on the inside of the hexagonal tubes)

@ubong-abasiokon71

2 жыл бұрын

I don't understand, please can you explain to my understanding?

Love your show and this idea is just another idea propelling solar forward. Thank you sir for your efforts to keep us informed.

Never underestimate asthetics! Glitter ball type solar collectors could become garden features, trail sculptures, building ornaments, etc

Innovation and experimentation is intrinsically and extrinsically good. Love your videos.

@JustHaveaThink

2 жыл бұрын

Cheers Harry

Weekend OU on BBC2 kept our kids occupied for many mornings and encouraged them into science and engineering. Bring them back. Jonathan

This is a good solution for a problem that doesn't exist. The problem of generating electricity from sunlight is - usually - not the lack of area but the cost of PV cells, and if the available PV-cells are the limiting factor, you want to point all of them perpendicular to the sun. Pointing PV cells to any other direction results in a loss of efficiency.

Fascinating and informative. Great

I love this. A simple trick of geometry doubles power output.

The most efficient pressure vessel is a sphere by a pretty healthy margin. A good number of industrial scale storage units are spherical-ish in shape. I’ll bet a niche use of this will be augmenting power in industrial parks.

Semi spherical fish eye type lenses over individual pv cells would do the trick nicely and allow it to be draped over existing architecture… the micro beads in the intro are well worth a further look.

Not mentioned is the advantages of a design that is will allow winds to flow around rather than resisting, leading to collapse or lift.

The title of the video led me to think of small spheres (like marbles) arranged in a grid within protected solar panel-like flat structures. Looking at the Japanese product, and the rest of your video, arranging the spherical solar panels (marble size) within a solar panel, with reflecting surfaces underneath - so that any direct sunlight that hits the bottom reflector, will reflect into a nearby PV marble, may increase efficiency even more. Not sure if you will see this, but I would like to hear your thoughts, thanks.

My battery patent 1979 was for spherical cells. I used the jewellery industry of making hollow silver beads. It’s amazing how people forget the lateral thought of how to make spherical cells. My cells can be the size of a pins head or up to 1 cm dia Such is life.

This is what the world needs, innovation into solar panels. The military will not care about the price they will just want the efficiency.

I keep wondering why we have not added a closed loop heat pump with PV panels as the heat source and perhaps a pool or aquifer as a heatsink to cool the panels improving lifespan, efficiency and cognerating some power while collecting heat. Throw them on a barge that are permanently moored in the ocean and connect the barges with hydraulics you have a floating wave to energy converter holding heat pump cooled PV panels offshore. Perfect the barges and it someday could be a base for airports and shipping ports, roadways and factories away from populations. Think big, really big our scale is very limited right now.

Brilliant presentation as always. Regards

@JustHaveaThink

2 жыл бұрын

Cheers Ron!

You were a teenager in the 80's? This means that... dammit. I'm too old to get to experience just a fraction of the future. Same thing as a kid, I couldn't wait. The amount of aspiration stays constant through life.

@gravelydon7072

2 жыл бұрын

Know how you feel. I was a teenager in the 60s to mid 70s.

Great step in the right direction. Next development needed will be for the beads to be enabled to establish necessary connections electro-chemically so that a prefabricated sphere with a sticky surface and pre-printed circuits could simply be rolled around on loose beads, then subjected to an electrical current or heat to produce a spherical solar collecter ready to be wired in.

If the efficiency numbers are based on planar surface area, then of course the spherical cells should be better. They have more cells per unit of land area. A more sensible comparison would be Wh/Dollar. I highly doubt the spherical scheme wins there.

@dosadoodle

2 жыл бұрын

I'm not as doubtful. If the panel costs 2x as much yet only produces 30% more power, it might still come out ahead. Most of the cost of getting solar is mounting, installation, inverters, space (land or roof), etc, not the panel. Doubling the cost of the panel might only boost the overall cost by 25%.

@JamesSeedorf

2 жыл бұрын

@@dosadoodle a sphere needs 4x the material plus the complex shape to manufacture. Even in the best case it will cost 4x more

Yay, glad to hear your a BBC 2 lover at an early age Dave. The Open University was a staple of my Saturday mornings too.

@truhunk1

2 жыл бұрын

I used to say, " Darn it, only BBC, where's the cartoons".

@williamholmes7529

2 жыл бұрын

@@truhunk1 I started watching BBC 2 way back in 1972. I was off school after an appendix op and we had just got a colour television.

Add these to all the ocean based wind turbine masts and you get direct sun, and directly reflected sun from the water. May be interesting.

Looking forward to seeing more data.

Thanks for the report,,,, your leading edge.

3 channels? Christ you look good for your age.

@JustHaveaThink

2 жыл бұрын

Bless you :-)

I also enjoyed watching the Open University on Saturday mornings as a teenager 😁

This is pointing out interesting research, but I have to agree with many of the other comments that this is really a geometry experiment, not a breakthrough in cell efficiency. Much akin to the currently available bifacial modules which already offer as much as 30% higher output than a mono-facial module IF optimum ambient albedo conditions exist. Take the analogy of the disco ball... if you were to paste traditional modules onto a giant sphere and place it on a pole in the middle of the Utah Salt Flats, I highly doubt if it would out-produce a planar array of those same constituent modules. Simply because only one small portion of the sphere would be in peak production at any time. A much larger percentage of the planar array would be in near-full production by comparison (even without tracking). Although, the sphere would use far less ground area, the $cost per square foot (spherical surface area) would be the same for both arrays, and certainly the $cost per unit of Power and Energy would still be far better in the planar array. And this is the practical economics that rules. I've run comparisons of array output between a 180-degree due South array vs splitting it in half at 150 & 210 degrees for each half array. The due-South yields more in a single day. BUT the split array had a levelling effect, which aids some applications. Other questions I have are: Physical size/scale. Are we talking beads, marbles, ping-pong balls, basketballs, or larger? Because spheres have a nasty habit of shading the areas around them, making inter-module as well as inter-row spacing necessary. And, imagine the challenge of mounting a sphere, or strings of spheres on a roof. Flat desert landscape might require only a simple pole. On a roof or building, you will be introducing a whole new set of mechanical requirements. Leaves on trees are flat, and plants have adapted pan-tilt mechanisms. Not surprisingly, we follow that design. Insect eyes detect movement and objects, they are not energy harvesters. Thanks for a good think!

@robertthomas2673

2 жыл бұрын

Well done graham

I can see them being a great advantage in large cities with skyscrapers reflecting sunlight off all of their windows, if you hang the spheres so they can collect the sunlight from all angles at the same time it’s a great idea just need them into production.

@bradyspry1628

2 жыл бұрын

Sos😑

You cover some very "out of the box" tech. Thank you.

Excellent.

A friend had a great idea. What if your entire house turned to face the sun during the day and you use excess power to also lift the house. Then during the evening when you use most power, the house descends, generating power and finally comes to rest facing east by sunrise.

@Ken00001010

2 жыл бұрын

I like this, and thought of something similar for wind turbines that get taller when the wind is blowing and then continue to generate power getting shorter when the wind stops.

@NoName-vq6cg

2 жыл бұрын

This is just storage of excess power. It can be done in batteries, or sent back through the power lines, so you earn some portion of money back on your electric bill

@peters972

2 жыл бұрын

@@NoName-vq6cg then you don’t need batteries or a power bill. But yeah, batteries are cheaper and these days can become part of a virtual power station with software and the internet. So this would prob never get off the ground, haha.

I remember the program about lateral thinking I am a big lateral thinker who has had to train himself to think in straight lines (sometimes) to please others. At 63 I got my ADHD diagnosis which explained a lot. I am in Portugal 🇵🇹 now ready to start work on my renewal powered and heated house. Personally I think we should be using small solar cells they are strong resist wind better and cool better. They also have the advantage of being able to buy just the amount you need and building up slowly.

Thank You!

With Sphere Smaller solar Balls you could HANG them in Parking Lots from 1 light Pole to the Next and create Rows of them and this can Power the Free Super Chargers in the parking lot. Panels only make sense if they are on the floor of the parking lot and have multuple A.I. Robots continuously sweep up all leaves and trash on panels. BOTH these together could create lots of free energy after cost of equipment

@williammeek4078

2 жыл бұрын

I would rather have cheap solar carports to charge my car AND shade it so I don’t have to waste so much energy cooling it down before driving

@therealjetlag

2 жыл бұрын

@@williammeek4078 definitely. The space above an EV charging space is wasted real estate that could be generating electricity.

@ps.2

2 жыл бұрын

"power the free super chargers". Ummm. Let's say a "super charger" delivers 50 kW. That's at the low end these days, the high end being 350 kW or so. The sun irradiates us with something like 1 kW/m² at high noon on a cloudless day. If your panel is 20% efficient, you'll need 250 m² of solar panels to power one super charger at noon on a cloudless day. Divide by τ/2 and take the square root and that's a 9m radius (18m diameter) circle of sunlight that your panels need to capture. That's a 59 ft diameter for the Americans. Quite a thing to hang from a light pole! You can divide that number in half if you think your solar sphere can somehow capture full intensity high noon sunlight _in all directions at once._

why spherical, not semi-hemispherical? there's a minimum collection angle so folding a full sphere seems kind of pointless. am i missing something?

@incognitotorpedo42

2 жыл бұрын

No, you aren't missing a thing. The idea is just not very smart.

@trueriver1950

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, you're missing the bit about picking up reflected sunlight -- from a white surface under the balls, or even from sand (eg in a desert)

@abdullahaljuhani170

2 жыл бұрын

capturing reflected sunlight and better heat dissipation for better performance are the advantages of having a spherical shape.

@bootstraphan6204

2 жыл бұрын

@@trueriver1950 never, NEVER forget to check under the balls for extra energy!😎👍

Looks good (on paper/in the lab)!

Excellent idea! I hope it can be cully developed.

What I love about this topic is that regular solar is pretty darn good already, so if this doesn't pan out, then it's no big deal. However, if it really is an improvement and they can figure out how to manufacture them at scale, then it will expand the use of solar to applications that were not practical before. I wonder how it would improve the solar collection on the Sion, the Lightyear One, or the Aptera. :-)

@WirelessGriff

2 жыл бұрын

Agreed Chris, I was just thinking the same when Dave showed us some images of cars! Maybe we could see a 2000 mile range Aptera in the future :-).

@bradyspry1628

2 жыл бұрын

Etulgo

@skierpage

2 жыл бұрын

@@WirelessGriff obviously not. Changes to geometry aren't going to deliver four times the energy collection.

@Landwy1

2 жыл бұрын

Dirt and sand would collect in the trough and change the reflection. The sphere would also have to rotate so it could cool off. I had an off grid house for many years and the best peak solar energy I ever got was on clear January days.

@moonyongkim8330

2 жыл бұрын

Solar cost ($/W) is significantly low that a new design may not be economically competitive but as we may face material shortage to reach over TW scale of solar, maybe the spherical design is the way to improve the performance with a given amount of materials.

The sun does not move 360 degrees around an object located at a fixed position. Because of it arcing path objects have a sunny side and a shady side. So how about a demisphere? or a 3/4 sphere?

@swedmiroswedmiro1352

2 жыл бұрын

...look at a map and read up on what happens above the Arctic circle.

@Sonia-jk7lf

2 жыл бұрын

My thought

@skierpage

2 жыл бұрын

How abort pointing a flat panel so it's always perpendicular to the sun's rays, with additional solar cells on the back of it to harvest some reflected and ambient light? That design (solar tracking with bifacial panels) is in widespread use in solar farms generating gigawatts of power today. These spherical cells aren't going to catch up.

@andrewsaint6581

2 жыл бұрын

@@swedmiroswedmiro1352 true. It's not research by an Inuit University that's being discussed though.

What a great post & great idea,,, I thoroughly enjoy your channel & find that any innovation can have implications or applications in many & varying fields of engineering,,,

The Open University… I remember sneaking down the stairs after bedtime to secretly watch the Open University transmissions.

Best Channel! 👍🏿

Bifacial panels is all the rage in solar, the cost of single axis tracking is minor and has really come a long way with cheaper construction and more flexible roll out. The operations of a site is around 2% of capex and dropping, its not really the driver for tariff. Its yield, capex and returns that drive the market. The spherical kind would be useful for embedded generation of smaller tech all around us.

Bifacial solar panels which harvest extra energy from reflected and scattered light are already available and growing in popularity. They are relatively simple to manufacture, the reflective rear surface is replaced with clear glass.

You'd likely get most of the benefit with simple manufacturing by using a more basic shape. A tetrahedron or cube stood on the vertex would likely work dandy. Go nuts and stack a bunch of triangles in a dodecahedron. That "sphere" shown in the paper was pretty rough.

As good as always thank you.

Thank you

These numbers are surprisingly large. Increasing the efficiency of solar panels in such magnitudes could decisively alter a lot of calculations. In the past, the happenstance of being located over large oil deposits magnified the significance of certain regions. Perhaps different regions, like for example the Sahara, arid, and thus barren, will now have their turn to win the lottery.

@skierpage

2 жыл бұрын

Places with good insolation are already popular for solar installations. We need affordable high voltage DC lines to connect them to where the power demand is. These complicated hard to build spheres with dubious claims of more efficiency aren't relevant to the problem.

@grinpick

2 жыл бұрын

@@skierpage It's the willingness of investors to back transmission lines (and other infrastructure) that make them affordable. It's the projected profitability of the ventures that induce investors to invest. Double-digit increases in the efficiency of PV cells would likely enhance profitability even if the collectors were more costly. I did not predict that this particular innovation would bring that about. There are, however, several factors that incline foreign investors to view the Sahara region as a risky place to invest. For this reason it very well might require some development such as the one discussed in this video to make the region viable as a major supplier of energy. These facts are relevant to the problem.

@adrianthoroughgood1191

2 жыл бұрын

These more complex designs are only relevant where space is the limiting factor, eg on a roof. In a grid scale solar farm, especially one sited in a desert, space is not limited. Cost of the panels is the main issue, so cheap flat panels are best.

@grinpick

2 жыл бұрын

@@adrianthoroughgood1191 Good point. Didn't think of that.

Take this idea to the next level. A comparison standard should be set by testing hexagonal photovoltaic solar cells as well. The logic being that they are simpler to assemble as they offer straight lines for assembly. It is a best of both worlds design improvement, which can still fit all the mentioned applications without any major cost increase. Then take the idea further by creating cylinder solar panels or even hexagonal depending on the above results. Stack these by several units in height and place them inside a mirrored cylinder which will trap the light inside for maximum absorption. The top will be an open face semi circular design that captures the direct light and funnels it into the housing. The purpose is to keep the majority of the heat off the solar cells directly, while letting the light be fully absorbed into the housing. The top will look like a mirrored funnel. This design can also hitch a ride on the more recent wind power developments, where they use a cylindrical type design that wobbles to transform wind energy. This has the advantage of both capturing more energy but also when it is windy they are less prone to damage and will still capture sunlight relatively well. This type of design could easily be placed in any number of areas and in arid desert areas like Saudi Arabia, could provide some much needed shading as well. Lastly the housing also helps to ensure the solar panels remain free of debris, reducing or eliminating any cleaning as well.

@markpukey8

2 жыл бұрын

I like your idea of hexagonal pieces. It should be relatively easy to design spheres of almost any size, comprised of multiple flat pieces. Even if the efficiency gains are not as great, the ease and relatively low cost of manufacturing them this way might be worth the investment.

Texas Instruments developed this technology in the 1990s and couldn't make a go of it. Ontario Hydro then bought the technology and spent alot of lot of money on it after which ATS bought it, improved it and built a large production factory, but they were unable to achieve success with it and closed it down. It's an interesting technology and kudos to that company that can make it efficient and cost effective but it has its challenges.

Why not just use a compound parabolic trough collector? That's a shape of mirror that redirects any light coming from within a decent angle onto a standard panel, without needing to track the sun daily.

@alvarofernandez5118

2 жыл бұрын

I've seen parabolic throughs mentioned elsewhere as solar collectors for solar thermal applications. They focus on a line, rather than point, and so the tracking motors require only one degree of freedom, have simpler mechanics, etc.

@j.f.fisher5318

2 жыл бұрын

because any kind of parabolic reflector has to be tracked or it moves the point of focus away from surface being focuseed on if the sun isn't at the optimum angle. Since the sun doesn't just move E-W across the sky but also N-S to a lesser extent you'll still lose efficiency. I can see an argument that since reflective material is relatively cheap you can waste surface area by making the reflector large enough that the solar panel is always within the area receiving the focus during practical times of day for collection.

@spaceminions

2 жыл бұрын

No, compound parabolic is a type of nonimaging optic with just sn acceptance angle.

@skierpage

2 жыл бұрын

Because solar panels aren't that much more expensive than a good mirror. EVERY technology that focuses more light on the solar cell (mirrors, prisms, fresnel lenses, putting strips of solar cells in channels or under lenses, etc.) has failed compared to putting up a big flat panel.

@kensmith5694

2 жыл бұрын

@@skierpage yes and panels hate being hot. More focused heat it a problem.

this can be a game changer for places where it snows. might even be able to generate a small amount pf power at night.

Outstanding concept, most impressive when compared to insect eye anatomy. Thanks

Nice to hear the Edward de Bono reference, a big influence for me in the 80’s as well and has helped my thinking ever since, was sad to hear of him passing away earlier this year. Coincidentally after a replacing some ageing book shelves, my well thumbed ancient copy of de Bono’s thinking course has ended up right next to my unread copy of Capital - your copy of which I always notice in the top corner of your videos - apparently one of the most unread books that people own - I will probably pick up de Bono again 😂.

Like so much of these new ideas It sounds good. But there are always details to work out before we can find out if it's as good in the real world as it is in the lab.

Channel's Independence

@SolaceEasy

2 жыл бұрын

I didn't expect your crew to be apostrophe challenged.

Very interesting!

It's interesting to see an increase in output in normal (unscattered) lighting conditions in the lab, without the reflective backing, since output of solar cells is directly influenced by the angle at which light hits the surface, and directed light hits a sphere at 90 degrees only in one spot, and never on the "dark side" of the sphere. Maybe since there's always some reflection from the surrounding area, even without an intentional reflector, the sphere performs better than the flat panel. In real life situations there's always light reflected from the atmosphere during the day, and even without artificial backing, the ground and surrounding objects reflect the light onto the sphere from many directions, so I'd expect the sphere to perform even better in the real world.

They shouldn't just test this in warm climates, or between the tropics. I live in the far Canadian North and I can see this being MASSIVELY useful here. Even in the winter, so long as you're still below the Arctic Circle, you still get SOME sunlight and this seems to be an ideal form factor, particularly since it can pick up precious reflected light from the snow on the ground. I suspect we're going to find this to be a very useful development.