Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo9ooooooooooo

Mpnr😂😂

you should revisit this with vertical aligned dual-face PV panels and rather than a single point Fresnel lens, use the thin bar orientation so the bar is focused into a line that paths with the sun across the PV cells. This gives you the added benefit of both the Fresnel concentration and the cooling of the upright dual face orientation without any moving parts or tracking needed. As well as a vast reduction in the amount of surface cleaning required. And there's another tier of benefit to this if you can surround the panels with a box of mirror walls that are angled out, and tall enough to prevent line of sight between the PV cells and any radiant surface like trees, or walls, etc. There's an effect with a fancy name that escapes me at the moment, but the result of it is cooling with no energy or moving parts. The reflection of heat off of matter helps equalize the heat energy between everything on the ground, but if you prevent those waves of energy from reaching a surface that is open to the sky, that surface only sends heat out, none returns through sharing radiant heat. Long story short, it's free added cooling. This, as you know, means even more energy throughput for the PV cells. The daily output should exceed 200% as compared to normal horizontally aligned PV cells that lose a large amount of energy to heat. This is before the cost of moving panels to face the sun, cleaning those panels, and maintaining all of those moving parts or supplying that labor is even considered. Vertically aligned PV panels under Fresnel concentrators wrapped with inward facing mirrors allowing radiant heat loss results in a system of energy generation that's vastly cheaper per unit of energy than any commercial option. And it can be done at any scale in all environments where the vast majority of people live and work. Where this doesn't work we have diesel. This is what the individual laymen should be doing. No moving parts, best possible mass produced efficiency, no difficult alignment, simplified cleaning and maintenance. It's as plug and play as a solar harvesting system can be, AND it's 200% more energy for the same solar footprint. But I ain't one to gossip, so you ain't heard that from me.

Would be great if you could revisit this video to adjust the audio levels. Sounds terribly distorted. Probably since it's too loud. Use a compressor rather than pulling up gain/volume?

❤

Concentrated ev has overheating issues that counter benefits, so you need cooling system on top of lens/mirror. Back when ev panels in general were expensive and high efficiency monocrystalline panels had even more premium price (and big efficiency advantage) there may have been reason to pay for the whole mirror/lens+cooling package. And there were projects that did that with mirrors as you can have mirror shape that does sun tracking for you without need for that ridiculous giant lens. But what you said about panel price making this pointless is 100% spot on. Except it is not something that will happen in future, it's something that already has happened. Panel price has already dropped to fractions what it used to be and still dropping, they're so cheap right now that many places don't even bother to do sun tracking. They just put more panels at fixed angle instead cause its cheaper and less maintenance. So more panels is cheaper that bargain motor from china to adjust ev panel angle... I'd say that's just another startup scam like solar roads or atomic batteries. It just tries to resell idea that was already tried and did not survive economic reality.

​@@sznikersindeed almost half the cool looking tech ideas in general are done by grifters running scam startups

Well, the main problem is that you trade immediate money saving for faster solar panel degradation due to heat. And if you do try to solve that, the price will go up again.

Zero % more energy. That's the scam for people who lack the ability to use deductive logic.

I think the point is to rather save money by needing less solar panels (lens should be cheaper than a solar panel). But it will still use a similar amount of space.

@@matthewvanhelsdingen543 No net $ saved as the panels will degrade more quickly under magnified sun + cost of magnifiers, mountings, etc.

@@protonneutron9046 That's why we add a cooling jacket and harvest that heat for domestic hot water. It isn't the light that kills the cells, it's the heat.

@@TimeSurfer206 LMAO!!!!!!!! God, the insanity just keeps pouring out of the brains of the terminally uneducated.

I made one of these 4 years ago, and honestly its incredibly hard to stabilise. Even if you manage, all it takes is a heat wave and it goes nuts.

Yeah like those little boats that are candle powered:)

It hurt my eyes. That’s how you wreck things.

First, they are spelled Fresnel, not "Freshnel". Second, the arguments you present don't sound correct, and if anything, sound more like you're describing polarizers than lenses. Maybe trusting your memory from childhood of 40 years ago isn't a good idea.

That's zone plates, not fresnel lenses

⁠​⁠@@user-zt4nx8ii2ithanks for the correction.

Commonly, the more temperatures in any machine fluctuate, the less life expectancy you can expect. Since those systems would wobble between hundreds of c° by day and ambient temp by night, some trouble is to be expected. Even normal unconcentrated systems need to be fixed to their lattice keeping expansions and contractions in mind. There are gliding mountings in all of those roof-systems because they too have big temp fluctuations and panels shift on any given day.

Right, maybe a better invention would be mirrors mounted on a motorized stall to send back light on the other side of the house while the sun is on the EAST/WEST side. We have panels placed in an EAST/WEST combination and I can see that the energy moves from one string to the other during a normal day. Having a large mirror in the back of my yard that would send light on the EAST side of the roof while the sun is already on the west side would increase production by at least 60-70% percent as the panels on the EAST no longer get enough light. Same could be applied at sunrise for the panels placed on the WEST side but I don't really want a huge mirror in front of my house lol.

​@@alexandruilea915 you can have mirror shape that does sun tracking for you and it has been previously done to focus light on expensive multilayer monocrystal ev cell. All those ideas were abandoned simply because mass manufacturing of simple ev panels dropped the price so low none of that makes sense anymore.

@@sznikers also, focused light means more heat at the same time.

1) there is nothing unusual happening with the climate. 2) there is nothing wrong with burning fossil fuels. Its problems in high-density areas are trivial to fix and already have been fixed. CO2 is not a pollutant. 3) Climate alarmism is a big-lie superstition supported by tax-bribed liars. (See Climate Discussion Nexus for 100s of videos on climate quackery, deception, and realism.) 4) decarbonization is 21st century pyramid building and human sacrifice. 5) there is NO excuse for expensive electricity. Electricity generation is boring. Just burn coal and scrub the smoke in densely populated areas. 6) the only challenge is manufacturing market quantities of cheap gasoline. South Africa has already done this for decades (Sasol), using coal.

I agree, Stirling generator would be great , with them running off the temperature differently they could stay running after the sun is down but the cells cooling down a night

@@dennisbarker5986 Maybe the spinning half of the generator is underground, so there could still be a temp difference. Leave the panel on the surface.

As he said, point of the lens is to make better use, of _expensive and hard to produce_ cells. Specifically the cells he spoke of that get _more_ efficient with more concentrated light. So that you get more power out of a given land area than with traditional cells without a lens. The cell he spoke of claimed to be able to reach 45% efficiency when under a lens. Which is far better than the 15-25% efficiency of the typical solar cells currently on the market. So, out of a given area, you will get 2-3x the energy output.

Not really, commercially available ones are around 15 to 20 percent, but in the lab's, they have up to 50 percent efficiency but that is not something you can buy just yet

@@tom79623 Only multi-junction solar panels reach 50% efficiency and they're too expensive for 'normal' use. You'll find them on satellites for example.

The main reasons are service life and efficiency due to them operating much cooler, one could expect up to 4% more power output over a day's production and up to 50% longer service life.

Weight and pump system (power loss to pumps and maintenance of pumps and filters)

actually it was stopped because solar on the surface of the earth is far more expensive as a base load provider than all other techs.

@@protonneutron9046 I think President Reagan's only other tech was oil from Saudi Arabia and the Petro Dollar Economy that comes with it?

@@josephpiskac2781 "I think". No you don't. It has nothing to do with ANY potUS. IT IS PHYSICS. Now rent a 4th grade education and a couple hundred points of IQ so you are at least at an average IQ level.

@@protonneutron9046 It's only more expensive when you ignore the externalities of other energy sources. Coal is super cheap, until you start looking at how it poisons the air, soil, and water. If we could add to the price the billions of dollars it costs to recover from the harms, it wouldn't be as cheap. System costs matter because nothing works in isolation.

@@JoeNunyabidness wrong!!!!!! Don't spew crap when you don't have an education. In fact, LIST them with primary sources with the cost accounting or admit insanity and being a liar.

Which is energy. Heat from the sun.

@@user-hh1yp7yv8b That was the punchline, it was supposed to be a joke. Are you german?

@@user-hh1yp7yv8b the whole universe IS energy. No atom sits around and "does nothing"

​@@NavajoNinjaNo, but life requires sources of low entropy to continue its complex functioning. Sunlight is low entropy compared to high entropy thermal chaos.

I really like this idea. Stirling engines have come a long way. They are a no-maintenance, direct to electricity choice. Done right, solar panels are not even needed.

@@user-hh1yp7yv8b hmmm there is always some cost. Energy is all around us all the time. Its just a matter of collecting and harvesting it in a economic way.. solor panel produce a lot of heat so....

@@johnramirez5032 Yep.

Yeah, that sounds like a story one would need concrete sources for. Possible in theory - but rather improbably as a practical insular engineering solution.

@@user-un8tv1pp8m do you exist simply to deny the possibility of truth? Nils?

@@invisibilianone6288 Ehm...whut? Do you sincerely think _"somebody on the internet told me something happened somewhere sometime"_ is even vaguely equivalent to "the truth"? Because: The first is what you did here. The second is what I tried to archieve by asking you for a public source. "Truth" means you can show what you claim is real. Claiming something and - the upon being asked to give sources getting pissy or going into vague ad-hominem insinuations? Does not raise the probaility of your claim being true. As I said. Technically what you describe is possible. But like airships, fusion plants or monorails - that doesnt mean its a practicable engineering-solution. If such a system did indeed reliably function somewhere? I´d be highly interested to see how. So please : name the island or the technical system or the builder. If your only "proof" is questioning and making assumptions about my person ....when asked for specifics on the supposed tech you claim .... yeah, well.

@@user-un8tv1pp8m I've been looking, for info on this story I was told. The wise old man that told me about the small island was not one to make up stories. This was about 40 years ago, when the story was told to me, so, specific details as to name of island, or any persons residing there are escaping my memory, at this time. Orvin Stanwood, passed on in 2005 If I had paid more attention to his knowledge, when I was young, I would likely be much better off at this point in my life. Gasifier power, was one point of knowledge he and I started discussion on... Who knows how far that may have progressed, if I had kept after the research on it..😶 40years, could have been beneficial, or, it could be still where it's at today. . I'LL KEEP LOOKING for the place Stanwood RIP, was telling me about🎯

1) there is nothing unusual happening with the climate. 2) there is nothing wrong with burning fossil fuels. Its problems in high-density areas are trivial to fix and already have been fixed. CO2 is not a pollutant. 3) Climate alarmism is a big-lie superstition supported by tax-bribed liars. (See Climate Discussion Nexus for 100s of videos on climate quackery, deception, and realism.) 4) decarbonization is 21st century pyramid building and human sacrifice. 5) there is NO excuse for expensive electricity. Electricity generation is boring. Just burn coal and scrub the smoke in densely populated areas. 6) the only challenge is manufacturing market quantities of cheap gasoline. South Africa has already done this for decades (Sasol), using coal.

Gunna need a strong stick to hold up that much mass. 🤣🇦🇺

If there was only a way to safely dispose the radioactive waste after that, someone should get on to that.

Yes and even they aren't ideal for producing electrical energy. The spherical concept is much worse and only looks good at first glance 😄