13-Year-Old Makes Solar Power Breakthrough by Harnessing the Fibonacci Sequence

http://inhabitat.com/13-year-old-makes-solar-power-breakthrough-by-harnessing-the-fibonacci-sequence/

by jedwhite • 15 years ago

649 142 15 years ago

felipemnoa2• 15 years ago

The comparison is against a flat row of cells that do not track the sun. I suspect that it will not do better compared to an array of cells that do track the sun.

Basically the tree of cells are arranged in different angles so that as the sun moves some of them will always be receiving optimal sunlight when their normal is parallel with that of the incident light.

Very nice insight, especially for a kid his age. I certainly would not have thought of it.

rycs2• 15 years ago

it makes a lot of sense, nature has been doing it for a lot of time :), I hope that other scientists elsewhere can also confirm that the improvements are so dramatic, I mean, having still/motionless cheap arrays that can perform 20%-50% better than the flat ones are great news!

ebzlo2• 15 years ago

Now I don't disagree that an array of cells that track the sun would produce better results, but it would be fair to assume that this would cost energy.

Keeping that in mind, do you think it would still provide better results?

rycs2• 15 years ago

I'm not an expert here, but it's pointless to make tracking sun panels that costs a lot more if the outcome wasn't that great, I bet tracking sunlight is still more efficient even after spending energy to move the panels, it makes no sense otherwise. The real benefit of this is that you get a cheap motionless panel that performs a lot better than the flat version, this is specially important in places like Africa where you need to be as efficient and cost effective as possible.

sankalpk• 15 years ago

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic_system#Tracking_th...):

"tracking systems can increase viable output by up to 100%...For large systems, the energy gained by using tracking systems outweighs the added complexity (trackers can increase efficiency by 30% or more)"

The new tree design can make 20%-50% more electricity. Wouldn't know till they do some legitimate tests but it seems like the sun trackers fare better.

eric-hu• 15 years ago

Tracking panels may prove to be a better design for maximum power output.

However, there are other constraints to engineer for. Cost and durability (through simplicity of parts) come out ahead in a design with no moving parts.

At the end of the day, it's better to have knowledge of both designs to know what's most appropriate for your needs.

lutorm2• 15 years ago

The real benefit of a tracking system is that it makes it possible to use a concentrator to focus more sunlight on a smaller PV area. The panel cost is mostly in the PVs, so increasing collecting area by using mirrors is more cost effective than just using more PVs. However, this setup only works if it's pointing right at the Sun, so it requires a tracker.

yxhuvud• 15 years ago

Moving parts cost a lot though. There is a reason for trees not to have them.

MichaelApproved• 15 years ago

But sunflowers have moving parts and they track the sun beautifully.

baq• 15 years ago

most plants try to aim leaves at the sun. don't know about trees, but certainly whatever i've got growing in pots does that.

sliverstorm• 15 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze8NV7cvW8k

uvdiv3• 15 years ago

"Basically the tree of cells are arranged in different angles so that as the sun moves some of them will always be receiving optimal sunlight when their normal is parallel with that of the incident light."

Except it's trivially impossible to generate more energy like this (as he claims)! If a set of solar panels is independent and non-interacting (e.g., they don't shade or heat each other), then their total power output is simply the sum of their individual power outputs. And so their total energy outputs (integrated power) is the sum of their individual energy outputs. (Necessary distinction because their power peaks may occur at different times).

P_tot = Σ P_i

∫ P_tot dt = ∫ (Σ P_i) dt = Σ (∫ P_i dt)

E_tot = Σ E_i

If there is an unqiue optimal orientation for a single static panel (which under realistic assumptions there is) -- optimal in terms of maximizing energy output, E -- then the optimal orientation of a array of independent solar panels is just the same orientation, iterated. Combine inferior panel orientations, and their total remains inferior.

E_i < E_opt (for i <- 1..N)

Σ E_i < N * E_opt

And all those panel angles in his "tree", facing non-South, up, down, towards a wall... they are individually inferior to the single 45° south-facing panel in his static array. So combined together they are still inferior.

Where did his experiment go wrong? I'd start with the shade issue. The whole setup is in intermittent shade (note the tree shadows); and one experiment is sitting near the ground, the other is mounted on a pole. Looks like different shade environments. His output graphs show that the entire flat array is sometimes in total shade, at a time when the pole-mounted "tree" is not:

http://www.amnh.org/nationalcenter/youngnaturalistawards/201...

Another fatal flaw (I had to look this up to check) is that he is measuring voltage, not power, and they are not linearly related in photovoltaics. Actually, the open-circuit voltage (what you get if you stick a voltmeter over a solar cell, when it's not hooked up to a load) is practically independent of irradiance:

http://i.imgur.com/SWGjV.png

This from the solar module datasheet here:

http://www.bpsolar.us/products/3-series-solar-panels-polycry...

Open-circuit voltage going from 200 W/m^2 to 1,000 W/m^2 only increases from 34 V to 38 V. Power output, with a real load, would go up by about 5 times.

So, he never really measured energy production, or anything that remotely approximates it.

toppy• 15 years ago

This guy is 13 ;)

lloeki• 15 years ago

Agreed with the experiment flaws, plus the article is way too shady to make anything even remotely reliable out of it. It reads awfully like "Child pwns scientists, saves world and his dog"

Still, what if you consider a fixed volume as the constraint in establishing the comparison? For a flat panel assembly, a given volume would constrain the surface quite obviously. If you consider a tree structure one might be able to pack some more panels in the same volume, and Fibonacci might give us some solution about how to maximize panel density in the volume while minimizing shading interference from other panels and supporting infrastructure.

JoeAltmaier2• 15 years ago

Cool analysis.

Doesn't it make sense that an empirical test would not reach a theoretical max? For instance you've discounted shade effects as where he went wrong. Maybe its exactly the shade issue that makes his findings significant. Every urbanite will have to deal with it, and his array may do a better job in intermittent shade.

If mass-distributed, most folks would not be optimizing anything - install-and-forget - so its a real solution to create something that works in most environments.

lutorm2• 15 years ago

This was where I was going too. (However, I'm not sure the power output of a panel is simply the sum of the individual cells. I thought that in a series array, the least illuminated panel essentially limits the panel current. Not that this matters in this case, since he wasn't actually measuring power. The voltage certainly adds.)

The experimental issue I thought about is that the experiment is situated next to a large wall. While the flat panel is facing away from the wall, it looks like some of the panels on the "tree" would also receive diffuse light from the wall. So effectively, the tree seems to have a larger collecting area than the flat panel. This would also make the tree less sensitive to shading.

pixcavator2• 15 years ago

>If there is an unqiue optimal orientation for a single static panel (which under realistic assumptions there is)...

If you have some kind of “continuous function attains its max” argument here, I think you should elaborate. Because it’s interesting but not really “trivial”.

ForrestN2• 15 years ago

Wouldn't it be possible to track the sun with the tree model as well?

auston• 15 years ago

Question: Does his tree have nearly double the number of panels? If so, does that have anything to do with him getting more power?

http://www.amnh.org/nationalcenter/youngnaturalistawards/201...

jdelsman• 15 years ago

Probably not, but I would have to say, THIS is the kind of stuff we should be awarding US patents to...

robryan• 15 years ago

Possibly, or is this to a solar company like the patent that was brought up on here last week that basically described link/skip lists is to a computer scientist.

Shenglong• 15 years ago

Really? Instead of 1-click buttons? Are you serious?

disclaimer: sarcasm

Protagoras• 15 years ago

A couple of points:

1. Like others said this is in comparison to a flat non tracking solar panel, the tree configuration would lose out significantly against a tracking panel.

2. Fairly disingenuous graph on the second page, but then again professionals in business and science do this all the time as well.

3. With the current state of solar technology this patent is useless. But if someone invents solar cells who are so cheap that they cost less than the solar tracking equipment, this could become quite a lucrative patent.

4. I wasn't aware you could patent things which are this directly copied from nature. I was under the impression that you could say patent a mechanism which emulates the motion of a specific fish but not the motion itself, or can you ?

earbitscom• 15 years ago

It's provisional.

waterlesscloud2• 15 years ago

I wonder if some genetic algorithm style testing of angles and placements could yield even more efficiency?

Seems possible that nature hasn't yet hit optimal design in this area.

guelo• 15 years ago

After 500 million years nature has tried a lot of designs.

Peaker• 15 years ago

There may be hidden variables or different fitness considerations that apply to nature/trees but not to solar panels.

mleonhard• 15 years ago

I would guess that trees are optimal for their environments, which include lots of things that are not relevant to solar panel arrays. For example, trees grow and compete with other trees and plants for sunlight. Trees also have different structural constraints and structure cost/benefit ratios than solar panel arrays. Deciduous trees drop their leaves and hibernate through the winter, replacing them in spring. So I think you're right that nature's design isn't quite optimal for solar panel arrays, but it's a great source of inspiration. :)

rorrr• 15 years ago

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/lang/eng//id/450

wazoox• 15 years ago

Interesting, did they make any progress since then?

pigbucket2• 15 years ago

Inhabitat credits treehugger.com as its source. Treehugger's article is not breathless about biomimicry, not spread over two pages, and not interrupted by adsense and images. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/08/13-year-old-makes-so...

Edit: The source of treehugger's article is Aidan's own article, which is better still, and addresses briefly some of the issues raised in comments here (e.g., about fixed vs. tracking pv arrays). http://www.amnh.org/nationalcenter/youngnaturalistawards/201...

waterlesscloud2• 15 years ago

Last paragraph sums up the possible advantages-

Aidan wrote: "The tree design takes up less room than flat-panel arrays and works in spots that don't have a full southern view. It collects more sunlight in winter. Shade and bad weather like snow don't hurt it because the panels are not flat. It even looks nicer because it looks like a tree. A design like this may work better in urban areas where space and direct sunlight can be hard to find."

felipemnoa2• 15 years ago

>>The tree design takes up less room than flat-panel arrays

Very true. That is a huge advantage if space is a concern.

anamax• 15 years ago

> The tree design takes up less room than flat-panel arrays

The tree takes up less "floor area", but it takes up considerably more volume because it is significantly taller. That's why, in most places, you probably don't want to replace large panels with a single tree, but with a forest of mini-trees.

Trees also have a "concentration of weight" problem, which can be an issue for roof-top installations. The entire weight of the tree is on its trunk, which has a lot smaller cross-section than a comparable panel. Roofs that can handle weight that is spread out often have problems with concentrated weight. Again, the solution is a forest of mini-trees.

Note that the optimal spacing for solar-panel mini-trees is different from tree spacing in nature because nature's trees aren't just trying to optimize energy collection, they're also trying to crowd out their neighbors.

ColinWright5• 15 years ago

In part, this is why it says in the guidelines:

    In Submissions
    ...
    Please submit the original source. If a blog post
    reports on something they found on another site,
    submit the latter.

http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Your last link has now been submitted by someone as a separate item and is just so much better.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2902496

llambda5• 15 years ago

Colin,

It seems a great deal of your comments have begun to fall into either the "this has already been posted" or "you're not following the rules" category.

Do you see the problem with "contributing" material on top of material you see as less than satisfactory? You're only adding more cruft to the cruft.

We get it. You don't like reposts. We get it. You don't like it when people don't follow the rules to a "T". Guess what? This is what happens. It's the real world where people don't always make the best choice all the time.

If you would get over that fact and focus on making insightful comments I think you'd be doing everyone a favor.

Lastly, to cite the oft quoted Guidelines:

"Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did."

Edit: here is a list of links to Colin's comments from the first and second page of his comment history where he is either complaining about resubmissions or the rules not being followed:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2902905

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2902882

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2902745

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2901255

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2900909

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2900877

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2899857

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2899687

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2897109

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2896827

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2896677

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2896311

hencq• 15 years ago

The kid's own article is great. He explains all the steps he went through and the things he learned along the way. He learned about history, biology, the scientific method while doing something that interested him. Props to his parents and/or teachers who stimulated him to go through with this.

I don't think his 'invention' is that revolutionary. If you don't want your solar panels to overlap, it makes sense to choose step sizes that are coprime (which consecutive fibonacci numbers are). I don't think the invention matters that much here though. Aidan is obviously a bright kid and I'm sure he'll go on to do interesting things.

techiferous• 15 years ago

Most (nearly all?) inventions aren't revolutionary in their novelty but are just an increment above what already existed. So I'm agreeing with you but want to make sure the inventiveness of this kid is not understated--especially since I think the intelligence demonstrated in his article is above that of a typical US college graduate.

cperciva• 15 years ago

He "discovered" the Fibonacci sequence in how trees branch? Seriously?

Maybe I'm just being a grumpy old guy here, but when I was in school this was in our math textbooks as an example of how the Fibonacci sequence appears in nature.

bragh• 15 years ago

Depends from the school and the textbook. My math textbooks didn't even mention the Fibonacci sequence and it wasn't until Project Euler that I found out about it.

Jach• 15 years ago

I learned more about Fibonacci and the golden ratio in nature and art through my high school Art History course than I ever did in a math course. Though I had played with fractals a little bit before that course so the fractal geometry of nature and Fibonacci-fractal relationships weren't a complete mystery to me. http://fractalfoundation.org/OFC/OFC-11-1.html

mattdeboard• 15 years ago

Yes, you're being a grumpy old guy.

CrLf2• 15 years ago

No, he asked _why_ the Fibonacci sequence and not another arrangement altogether.

RobertHubert2• 15 years ago

Cant get much better than millions of years of try and die I guess. Mother nature is pretty crazy! We should copy her work more often :)

Anti-Ratfish2• 15 years ago

Ponder that when you have impacted wisdom teeth. Teeth are a good argument against intelligent design as well!

RobertHubert2• 15 years ago

Well I didnt say she's perfect lol. Trees are just a great example of how evolution has done a pretty good gob on a specific trait. Now compared to how long humans have been around and our constant changing environments and diet, medicine and other advancements keeping us alive, trees have had quite a head start for getting stuff "right"! But yes intelligent design is garbage. But what happens if we design an intelligent race and set it loose on another planet and they start doing stuff they weren't designed to do? lol. Bad designer or stupid creatures? I'm just having fun here...

toyg2• 15 years ago

Actually the "technology" behind wisdom teeth is quite smart. How many organisms feature resources timed to "spring" 20 or 30 years from birth, to replace lost "components"?

You experience them as painful because your teeth don't rot as they used to; until the XX century, it was common for people to lose many of their teeth by the age of 30, so they were grateful for an extra set. They'd probably be dead before 45 anyway, so just a few would suffice to chew your way through the last years of your life.

martinkallstrom• 15 years ago

Wait... so there is a reason trees look like that? This was awesome, all the more for being a discovery by a 13-year old kid.

pigbucket2• 15 years ago

Exactly. In fact, the guy didn't discover that trees branch according to the Fibonacci sequence (which was long known) but rather began his investigation by asking, Why the Fibonacci sequence? Then he hypothesized that it optimized the gathering of sunlight for photosynthesis. Then he tested the hypothesis with a new pv array.

taliesinb• 15 years ago

http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/page-410#previous has something to say about how the golden ratio can pop out without being encoded directly in plant phylotaxis.

tiddchristopher2• 15 years ago

The description, "The study earned Aidan a provisional U.S patent," is misleading. A provisional patent is merely a completely automated recognition of your claim to an invention. You submit your provisional filing, and then have one year to file an actual patent, which is reviewed by patent examiners. You don't "earn" a provisional patent--you just pay a couple hundred dollars and submit a few forms.

icode• 15 years ago

I guess someone paid the fee for him.

tiddchristopher2• 15 years ago

That would be the cynical way to look at it. For a sole inventor, working independently of any company, I think the filing fee is about $150. It's possible he had enough saved to pay for it himself. :) Heck, judging from his report, the kid might have even figured out the whole application by himself. That alone would be just as impressive as any invention.

robinhouston• 15 years ago

Towards the end of his life, Alan Turing spent some time trying to explain Fibonacci phyllotaxis. http://user29459.vs.easily.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/...

I wonder if Aidan Dwyer is pleased by the thought that his scientific career is beginning where Turing’s left off. I would be, in his shoes.

benmlang• 15 years ago

Need more 13 year olds like that.

toyg2• 15 years ago

I wouldn't be so sure. A lot of child-genius types end up regretting their youth and feeling like failures for the rest of their (long) lives; the risks of peaking too soon are well documented.

I hope he stays humble and does what he really wants to do, which might be in a completely unrelated field, with the same intensity he's shown in this endeavour.

redthrowaway• 15 years ago

So perhaps this is a question that others have answered, but what springs to mind for me is: why? I get that trees that follow the Fibonacci sequence are more productive, but without an answer to why that is, it remains a bit of a kludge. I would love to see some explanation of why this configuration is optimal.

extension• 15 years ago

Yeah, that's a bit fishy. Without an explanation, I'm skeptical that the Fibonacci sequence is actually important. Perhaps any branching arrangement of solar panels performs better than a flat one.

ColinWright5• 15 years ago

Broadly speaking ...

If leaves are space a rational number divisor a/b of 360 degrees around a trunk, then after b turns, leaves will directly shadow each other. To avoid this you need the amount of turn between leaves to be as difficult as possible to approximate by a rational number.

Using continued fractions we can see that the most difficult rational to approximate is

1 + 1/(1 + 1/(1 + 1/(...)))

which is (1+sqrt(5))/2 which is the Golden Ratio.

You can also get better packings by using the Fibonacci Spiral, which again gives the Golden Ratio:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_sequence#In_nature

You can look these things up if you're interested.

scorchin• 15 years ago

On Aidan's own article[1], you can see that he's referenced work that's guided him in making this breakthrough. Hidden in the bibliography is a Dr Suess children's book!

Geisel, Theodor Seuss (Dr. Seuss). The Lorax. New York: Random House Publishers, 1971.

[1] http://www.amnh.org/nationalcenter/youngnaturalistawards/201...

zacharyvoase• 15 years ago

Everyone always talks about the Fibonacci sequence w/r/t the golden ratio, but in nature it's usually a variant on a Lindenmayer system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-system

tintin• 15 years ago

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/2807030740_25f3f2fa53.jp... This 'tree' to charge your phone was designed in 2008. I wonder if it charges better than a flat design.

Search for "Solar Powered Bonsai Tree".

tomp2• 15 years ago

Now that is something that really deserves a patent!

TeMPOraL3• 15 years ago

No, it doesn't, I have prior art growing in my pot. ;).

sarabob• 15 years ago

The panels on the tree are higher than those on the flat plane - you'd expect to get more light for longer from that alone.

doyoulikeworms• 15 years ago

This is much harder to keep clean than a simple, flat array of panels.

CrLf2• 15 years ago

Maybe not. Trees have to keep their leaves clean, and perhaps the Fibonacci placement doesn't only improve sunlight collection, but also rain collection for cleaning.

prtk• 15 years ago

NASA designed antenna using genetic algorithms. This guy can use GA to optimize his solar-fibonacci-tree further.

Way to go kid! The force is strong with you! Best of luck! :)

pge• 15 years ago

While this is interesting, the most important metric for solar power is not Watts per square meter but Watts per dollar of production cost. Complex configurations like this may be more efficient from a W/m2 but unlikely to be more efficient from a W/$ perspective.

bobds• 15 years ago

I wonder if this concept could somehow be applied at a microscopic level.

scdc• 15 years ago

They should combine this with the cell-tower that looks like a tree. Could reduce the cell tower's electricity draw.

Not sure these exist everywhere. Here is a Google Image search: http://www.google.com/search?q=cell+towers+look+like+tree...

ck2• 15 years ago

If he wanted better mainstream press he should have thrown the word "fractals" in there. I bet most reporters know the word fractals than Fibonacci sequence.

eru• 15 years ago

Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code had some Fibonacci hocus pocus in them according to Wikipedia.

colanderman6• 15 years ago

I don't get what his results have to do with the Fibonacci sequence. Between his "control" and the design he was testing, he changed:

1. panel heights 2. panel angles 3. whether panels were stacked or not

I would guess that any of those three things matter way more than the position of the "leaves" following the Fibonacci sequence. He needed to compare his design to a similar tree-shape whose "leaves" were, say, uniformly or randomly spaced; not to what amounted to a patch of moss.

(Which brings to mind: solar panels which were shaped more like moss (i.e. rough) would probably perform even better. I'm pretty sure I remember MIT or some place building a prototype like that.)

Finally, he measured voltage but made claims about power, which is a huge no-no for solar PV. Solar PV panels have highly nonlinear voltage/current characteristics, which means that increased voltage does not correspond to increased power, especially in setups such as the tree where the solar panels are not uniformly illuminated.

JoeAltmaier2• 15 years ago

Its not a science experiment unless you quote some famous math principle :)

Anyway, go ahead, do the experiment yourself! Its not rocket science. No need to guess, when the answer is only a little effort away.

jobu• 15 years ago

Pretty sure you're missing the point. This kid is 13, and he went and did his own research and experimentation, and followed through with a patent and a very well-written letter to the American Museum of Natural History.

My kids are younger, but I would be happy if I could give them the sort of environment/encouragement to follow their curiosity even half as well as this kid.

colanderman6• 15 years ago

Oh I get the point. I hope he reads my message because that's the kind of feedback he needs, not the deluge of "oh you're so smart for a kid!" comments he's probably getting.

(Disclaimer: I get paid to teach engineering to precocious youngsters part of the year. I'm quite familiar with the demographic.)

teamonkey• 15 years ago

pigbucket summed it up elsewhere:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2902523

wanderful• 15 years ago

Wouldn't "rough" equate to more leaves at more angles, which in a way confirms his hypothesis?

colanderman6• 15 years ago

His hypothesis had nothing to do with the angle of the leaves but rather with the Fibonacci sequence. For some reason he also decided to angle the leaves in his test, which I suspect were the true cause of the efficiency gain.

jshort• 15 years ago

Trees have been attempting to capture the suns energy for a long time and I'd like to see a comparison to other plants efficiency at capturing energy. Nature is powerful.

ForrestN2• 15 years ago

It seems like trees are trying to maximize the density of leaves they can accommodate, balancing that against the decreasing usefulness of each leaf. I suspect using the tree placement you could produce much more energy per square meter of land, because you could fit so many more panels.

Imagine if a tree's leaves were arranged in a grid. The footer would be enormous. If you are making a solar farm. In the desert with sun-tracking panels, I don't know how much this improves things, because there isn't much limit on land. But in a city, on rooftops, in backyards, etc, you might be able to get a lot more total energy out of a given plot this way.

marknutter• 15 years ago

Is it just me, or do most articles about young kids doing intellectually notable stuff start out with something along the lines of "while most 13-year-olds spend their free time playing video games or cruising Facebook...."

postfuturist• 15 years ago

Yes, it's a journalistic cliche. I would hazard to say that the average adult is also more likely to be playing video games or cruising Facebook than pursuing scientific research.

TeMPOraL3• 15 years ago

A lot of comments mention tracking the sun. I'd like to remind everyone about SolarFlower.org - the open source solar collector with a clever, non-electronic sun tracking system. See http://www.solarflower.org/faq.htm.

tripzilch• 15 years ago

Explanation why this actually doesn't have a lot to do with Fibonacci from the other thread:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2903073

Additionally explains/shows that the Fibonacci sequence, or the golden ratio, both do NOT generally occur in nautilus shells, spiral galaxies, ancient design principles, body ratios nor are they perceived as significantly more aesthetically pleasing than other ratios of small numbers.

colanderman6• 15 years ago

Apparently in the "flat" design, half of the solar panels are on the back roof of the model house, facing his actual house, and thus likely not getting any significant light at all.

thestranger• 15 years ago

Well he did say in the source article that he moved the test location around a few times, but another flaw is that the height of the solar "tree" means that it would put the "flat" design in its shade at times. I wonder if he controlled for that, although the images would suggest he did not.

winsbe01• 15 years ago

i think this is great. not that he was 13 (though it is impressive), but that he thought enough to challange the typical panel array that we've gotten solar power from in the past. it seems that he got some interesting results, too. sure, maybe he didn't take some things into account, or maybe it's not super practical, but breaking out of the mold of large, 2d rectangular panels may be something the solar energy world needs to innovate on ways to harness more energy from the sun efficiently.

pedalpete• 15 years ago

I find it amazing that with all the interest in bio-mimicry, this hasn't been tried before. Did nobody ever ask why all plants share a very similar architecture?

They've even made solar cells that look like leaves before http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20080527/152443..., but nobody bothered to test if a tree-like structure gathered more energy.

suivix• 15 years ago

I'd bet that it's because tree-like structures are actually less efficient for general practice despite what this article claims.

jagtesh• 15 years ago

First genuinely interesting article I've read ever since M.G.Siegler hit Techcrunch

joshaidan2• 15 years ago

He needs to do the same experiment during the wintertime when the angle of the sun changes. You won't get accurate results until the experiment is performed year round. Different angles of inclination perform better at various times of year, and there are some thoughts that multi-inclined arrays average the same output as uniform arrays.

Remember, a tree only has leaves in the summertime, not the winter. :)

marshray• 15 years ago

The second page said something about "The most interesting results were in December..."

joshaidan2• 15 years ago

I may have my logic backwards, it should be tested in the summer time when the sun is higher in the sky. Either way, the test needs to be done year round to see how the results vary.

jsg• 15 years ago

I wonder what Eden Full (http://www.odec.ca/projects/2006/full6e2/index.htm) thinks about Aiden's project...

tete• 15 years ago

It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. -- not Albert Einstein (according to Wikiqoutes)

13-Year-Old Makes Solar Power Breakthrough by Harnessing the Fibonacci Sequence

Related Stories