Recent Comment
Share
The most expensive, carefully designed, and complicated solar panels in the world operate at about 40% efficiency. That means that, for every bit of sunlight that hits the panel, only 40% of it is turned into electricity.
Scientists think that this is just about as good as silicon panels can do and are now looking at ways to make it cheaper, instead of making them more efficient. But suddenly, from nowhere, comes Steven Novack of the Idaho National Laboratories with an inexpensive, foldable solar panel that may turn out to be up to 80% efficient.
The trick is nanotechnology. The surface of the material is printed with miniscule nano-antennae that capture infra-red radiation, the kind that the sun puts out in abundance, and is even available at night. Television antennas absorbe large wavelength energy, so in order to absorb ultra-small wavelength energy (photons) they had to create ultra-small antennas.
The material is fairly simple to create, and scientists are confidient that it would scale easily out of the laboratory. But there is a bit of a hitch: There's currently no way to capture the energy being created.
So while there are electrons pouring out of the nano-antennas when exposed to the sun, there is no way to capture those electrons. But don't worry, those geniuses in Idaho are working on that already. By putting a tiny capacitor, or AC/DC converter in the center of every tiny tiny antenna, they think they could make this new kind of solar panel export all that energy it's created without raising the price, or lowering the efficiency too much.
Source: Idaho National Labs via Groovy Green
Hits: 122663
Comments (100)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Reinhold Ziegler, January 31, 2008
The work of Dr. Alvin Marks and his brother, inventors of microwave technology and polarized plastic in World War II have shown that is possible to make ultra small dipole antennas that can convert ultra short waves into electric current. This is what is described by this invention. Nanotechnology dipole antennas with a very small wavelength can be printed on a substrate so that they will collect this radiation and convert it into electrons.
Good Work!
Good Work!
-
- +0
-
-
written by Ken Roberts, January 31, 2008
Can't capture the energy? FAIL.
Efficiency of a device includes the efficiency at which the energy is captured and transformed into electrical current. Without this part of the process, you cannot compare such panels to traditional silicon panels. If capturing the energy turns out to be a lossy endeavor, you may end up with a system that is even less efficient than the 40% from traditional silicon.
Cool concept though.
Efficiency of a device includes the efficiency at which the energy is captured and transformed into electrical current. Without this part of the process, you cannot compare such panels to traditional silicon panels. If capturing the energy turns out to be a lossy endeavor, you may end up with a system that is even less efficient than the 40% from traditional silicon.
Cool concept though.
-
- +0
-
-
written by William, January 31, 2008
This is really exciting news indeed. Cost and efficiency were the great barriers to solar energy. This new method will soon change the terms of the debate.
-
- +0
-
-
written by SamW, January 31, 2008
Two questions, how long before they get this working and how much will it cost?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Angelie, January 31, 2008
Well... I have never heard so far of eco-friendly nanotechnology. In fact, I have rather read quite a few studies about the risks of so far totally uncontrolled use of nanotech. Not that I am not thrilled to hear about a potentially 80% efficient solar panel - I am, but how about recycling? What about the effects when entire roofs are covered of nano-antennas? For the time being, I'd rather have an extra inch thick panel without having to overuse nanotech. And I'm pretty sure it is only a matter of a short time until "traditional" panels tremendously improve their efficiency (which has already doubled in less than 10 years).
-
- +0
-
-
written by Frannyy, January 31, 2008
There is a lot of hype, bad press misconception and certainly misinformation about nano-technology.
Scientists have been doing nanotechnology for decades, even centuries; it's called chemistry.
You'll be surprised to know that shampoos and even deodorants, the face-packs in cosmetics, paint etc all work on "nanotechnology".
On the point of their use in pursuit of environmental protection I can point to the example where colloids are used to reduce the rate of evaporation from water reservoirs. Even the standard solar panels are made using nanotechnology. The list is actually impossibly long.
Scientists have been doing nanotechnology for decades, even centuries; it's called chemistry.
You'll be surprised to know that shampoos and even deodorants, the face-packs in cosmetics, paint etc all work on "nanotechnology".
On the point of their use in pursuit of environmental protection I can point to the example where colloids are used to reduce the rate of evaporation from water reservoirs. Even the standard solar panels are made using nanotechnology. The list is actually impossibly long.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Troy, January 31, 2008
I don't really care what it's called, solar ot IR collection, if this technology comes to market, it could do wonders for people all over the world, many of them the poorest of the poor. As long as safeguards are in place to handle the transmission of the resulting energy, I can't really see an inherent danger. The only potential problem I can see is if by collecting this IR energy we are causing an imbalance of some kind in nature. I always thought of IR energy like wind energy - if not used it goes to waste....and until proven otherwise, I am sticking with that philosophy.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Shayne, January 31, 2008
While it's commendable what these scientists are trying to achieve, I believe that the approach is wrong. So is the definition of efficiency - if this technology captures only IR radiation, then they're missing a large portion of of the EM spectrum. Claiming they can collect a large portion of EM photon energy potential is false and weirdly misleading - in the IR spectrum, a large portion of energy potential rests in heat. Unless they plan on converting that heat energy back to pure photovaltaic energy, they're going to miss that heat energy. And even than, what a waste of potential in the conversion process.
This is a bad approach - using technology at this high level to find ways of mitigating our energy and climate problems is missing the point - using nanotechnology for solar is complicated, expensive and unrealistic in our economy. We need to scale solar implementation up and it's cost down, and technology like this simply aids the coal and oil companies. Using holistic approaches to our scientific exploration of solar like new cogeneration systems and resource effective technology like thermal capturing systems is the wave of the future, if we want a future.
This is a bad approach - using technology at this high level to find ways of mitigating our energy and climate problems is missing the point - using nanotechnology for solar is complicated, expensive and unrealistic in our economy. We need to scale solar implementation up and it's cost down, and technology like this simply aids the coal and oil companies. Using holistic approaches to our scientific exploration of solar like new cogeneration systems and resource effective technology like thermal capturing systems is the wave of the future, if we want a future.
-
- -1
-
-
written by Djarada, January 31, 2008
What sort of temperature extremes can they put up with?
-
- +0
-
-
written by colecoman1982, January 31, 2008
I believe that what they are referring to is called an optical rectenna ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectenna ). They've been used in the past to transmit microwave energy from point A to point B with high efficiency and provide the basis of most proposed plans for transmitting power to earth from orbiting solar energy collectors.
My understanding was that it wasn't the antenna that researchers were having a problems developing, but a diode that could respond fast enough for, high frequency, visible light waves. As far as I know, this is a non-story.
My understanding was that it wasn't the antenna that researchers were having a problems developing, but a diode that could respond fast enough for, high frequency, visible light waves. As far as I know, this is a non-story.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Tony, January 31, 2008
Different frequencies of light have different energies (varying by about of factor of two I would guess) Unless they are multi layer devices letting through different frequencies to different layer I think they will be hard pushed to reach 40%
Good luck to them though it's an interesting development.
Good luck to them though it's an interesting development.
-
- +0
-
-
written by gliem, January 31, 2008
There is a cool company called Reware making some very cool stuff with flexible solar panels on the side. Read about it here.
http://sattlerclothing.com/blog/2007/10/30/green-ipod-charger/
http://sattlerclothing.com/blog/2007/10/30/green-ipod-charger/
-
- +0
-
-
written by anti-bot, February 01, 2008
I don't know about everyone else, but Nano-technology should be taken a lot more seriously. I mean, what if the nanobots become self-aware, and start reproducing? Nobody ever considers the tragedies these inventions could cause... Don't come crying to me when you get infected, ass holes.
-
- -2
-
-
written by Steve, February 01, 2008
So, IR begins around 750nm wavelength, but if you look at the spectrum of light that hits the earth from the sun (called Air Mass 1.5, or AM1.5 -- google it for a plot of wavelength vs. intensity) you see it peaking around 550nm (green, the color we can see with the most contrast -- thanks evolution!). It's all about the area under the curve for efficiency, so if you can convert everything beyond 750nm (which I doubt this does) it's better than just getting only 550nm photons.
Despite this, energy is inversely proportional to wavelength so the larger the wavelength, the lower the energy of the photon. IR photons are much lower energy than visible light.
To be 80% efficient solar cells, it MUST capture, convert, and be able to produce power form more than just the IR spectrum of AM1.5. I have a feeling this device can report a 80% internal efficiency (it converts 80% of the light it is theoretically able to convert), but if it can't produce power, it has 0% efficiency.
As far as the concerns over nanotechnology, it is everywhere, and is really just a catch-all phrase for advancing technology these days. It's a phrase that is on par with "government systems" or "manufacturing". You can't really say "government systems" are inherently good or bad, you have to look at the specific one you're talking about.
Despite this, energy is inversely proportional to wavelength so the larger the wavelength, the lower the energy of the photon. IR photons are much lower energy than visible light.
To be 80% efficient solar cells, it MUST capture, convert, and be able to produce power form more than just the IR spectrum of AM1.5. I have a feeling this device can report a 80% internal efficiency (it converts 80% of the light it is theoretically able to convert), but if it can't produce power, it has 0% efficiency.
As far as the concerns over nanotechnology, it is everywhere, and is really just a catch-all phrase for advancing technology these days. It's a phrase that is on par with "government systems" or "manufacturing". You can't really say "government systems" are inherently good or bad, you have to look at the specific one you're talking about.
-
- +1
-
-
written by dandermouse, February 01, 2008
Sorry, a UK Joke/Pun.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Brad, February 01, 2008
If this is capturing IR shouldn't it be pretty easy to create a black body that would be heated by the sun and emit IR. Basically a energy converter from visible to IR? Some of the recent super black surfaces based on nano tubes seem like they would be ideal here.
-
- +0
-
-
written by doctorscn, February 01, 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared
infrared radiation is popularly known as "heat" or sometimes "heat radiation", since many people attribute all radiant heating to infrared light and/or to all infrared radiation to being a result of heating. This is a widespread misconception, since light and electromagnetic waves of any frequency will heat surfaces that absorb them. Infrared light from the Sun only accounts for 49%[8] of the heating of the Earth, the rest being caused by visible light that is absorbed then re-radiated at longer wavelengths. Visible light or ultraviolet-emitting lasers can char paper and incandescently hot objects emit visible radiation. It is true that objects at room temperature will emit radiation mostly concentrated in the 8 to 12 micrometer band, but this is not distinct from the emission of visible light by incandescent objects and ultraviolet by even hotter objects (see black body and Wien's displacement law).[9]
Heat is energy in transient form that flows due to temperature difference. Unlike heat transmitted by thermal conduction or thermal convection, radiation can propagate through a vacuum.
The concept of emissivity is important in understanding the infrared emissions of objects. This is a property of a surface which describes how its thermal emissions deviate from the ideal of a black body. To further explain, two objects at the same physical temperature will not 'appear' the same temperature in an infrared image if they have differing emissivities.
infrared radiation is popularly known as "heat" or sometimes "heat radiation", since many people attribute all radiant heating to infrared light and/or to all infrared radiation to being a result of heating. This is a widespread misconception, since light and electromagnetic waves of any frequency will heat surfaces that absorb them. Infrared light from the Sun only accounts for 49%[8] of the heating of the Earth, the rest being caused by visible light that is absorbed then re-radiated at longer wavelengths. Visible light or ultraviolet-emitting lasers can char paper and incandescently hot objects emit visible radiation. It is true that objects at room temperature will emit radiation mostly concentrated in the 8 to 12 micrometer band, but this is not distinct from the emission of visible light by incandescent objects and ultraviolet by even hotter objects (see black body and Wien's displacement law).[9]
Heat is energy in transient form that flows due to temperature difference. Unlike heat transmitted by thermal conduction or thermal convection, radiation can propagate through a vacuum.
The concept of emissivity is important in understanding the infrared emissions of objects. This is a property of a surface which describes how its thermal emissions deviate from the ideal of a black body. To further explain, two objects at the same physical temperature will not 'appear' the same temperature in an infrared image if they have differing emissivities.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Morgan Sam, February 01, 2008
I normally get excited when I read this kind of news but I have never seen anything reaching the market/common man . Do we know when it will be available?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Cale, February 01, 2008
Honestly I didn't know so many people who work in Nano technology and energy research had so much time to surf the internet and write about technologies they fully understand. I'll give these guys the benefit of the doubt about their technology I mean it's not like they are claiming to have a made a car that runs on water. Plus the benefits of this tech would be tremendous compared to traditional solar panels which are rigid and not very practical. Good for them and hope it works out.
-
- +0
-
-
written by citizenkay, February 01, 2008
I'm a neophyte at this, but I would like to know how the rays this nanotech solar coating would capture at night are currently used in our ecosystem. Here are examples "out of left field" --not necessarily with any scientific basis -- just to give you an idea what I am asking: Does the circulation of such rays in the atmosphere at night contribute to plant growth or photosynthesis? To the oxidation or certain minerals? To evaporation of moisture? To the release of melatonin fostering sleep in humans? In other words, what organic or nonorganic systems have developed their own "receptors" or methods of absorbing such rays, and to what effect will they be diverted?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dustin, February 01, 2008
Since this article in no way references nano-bots, all of you complaining about nano-bots taking over the world are full of crap. Until we start making nanomachines instead of nano materials, there is no worry whatsoever. They are just different ways of organizing atoms, which we have been doing for centuries (nylon, neoprene, kevlar, etc). These are just the next step in that.
-
- +1
-
-
written by CC, February 01, 2008
This is great news, even if it's not 0 market ready yet. This will definitely be figured out, so to all you people below being pessimistic about it, why don't you have a little faith and be excited about the fact that people out there are trying to make our world a better place. Quit hating!
-
- +0
-
-
written by Nick, February 01, 2008
That 80% efficiency comes in handy when you can harness 0% of the energy produced
-
- +0
-
-
:- 
written by Chris, February 01, 2008
There were so many people out there that were so ignorant about the definition of nano-technology. Stop playing MGS2 and start reading some books.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Brian, February 01, 2008
I created a material that is 90% efficient. Its a piece of metal painted black. Gets super hot in the sun. Obsorbs most light of course I just need a way to convert it to electricity.
-
- +1
-
-
written by salsa, February 01, 2008
The key here is understanding black body radiation which has not been explained simply.
Just like a glowing hot body will heat you-- the sun during the day, for instance-- the blackness of space is so so so cold, IR energy from the earth radiates out to space, cooling the earth.
This temperature differential between a cooled object and the ambient temperature can be used to generate electricity.
Just like a glowing hot body will heat you-- the sun during the day, for instance-- the blackness of space is so so so cold, IR energy from the earth radiates out to space, cooling the earth.
This temperature differential between a cooled object and the ambient temperature can be used to generate electricity.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bob, February 01, 2008
Read the original article: http://www.inl.gov/featurestories/2007-12-17.shtml
There is no claim of converting 80% of solar radiation to electrical energy. The claim is that they can absorb 80%. I can absorb 80% with a black wool coat, but I can't convert it to electrical power. Competing solar cells convert electricity in the range of 5% to 20% (commercial), and 40% in very controlled lab experiments. Every increment of efficiency (depending on cost, every fraction of a percent is worth a lot) is highly dependent on the technology of conversion. There is no cause to celebrate 80% until a way to convert the energy is developed. OK, they are further along than my fur coat, but without a strategy to make it happen.
There is no claim of converting 80% of solar radiation to electrical energy. The claim is that they can absorb 80%. I can absorb 80% with a black wool coat, but I can't convert it to electrical power. Competing solar cells convert electricity in the range of 5% to 20% (commercial), and 40% in very controlled lab experiments. Every increment of efficiency (depending on cost, every fraction of a percent is worth a lot) is highly dependent on the technology of conversion. There is no cause to celebrate 80% until a way to convert the energy is developed. OK, they are further along than my fur coat, but without a strategy to make it happen.
-
- +0
-
-
written by epic, February 01, 2008
do most of the commenters have any reading comprehension skills whatsoever...the evils of nanotech...assumptions of facts not stated in the article...get a clue and learn to read...jeez
-
- +0
-
-
written by Travis Miller, February 01, 2008
IR has a wavelength from about 750 nm (nano-meters) all the way out to 1 mm or so. So to have cause an antennae to resonate you need to it be about at least 2 times the wavelength of the radiation you intend to capture so nano antennae would fit for IR. While the article is terribly written (IR is not shorter in wavelength than visible), it is still pretty short.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Travis, February 01, 2008
I just think they should find better ways than solar power on Earth, if they put the solar panels outside earth im all in favor but here? No. Why? because the more energy from the sun we capture to turn into electric energy, the less energy will heat Earth, and thus it will become colder, though for now would be a good thing but not in the long term, and some other undesirable effects.
-
- +0
-
-
written by indatube, February 02, 2008
more energetic photons (shorter wavelength) does not mean less electrical energy.
In PhotoVoltaic or Charge integrating light detectors, the amount of electrical energy is related to the amount of photons converted to charges = Quantum Efficiency.
In PhotoVoltaic or Charge integrating light detectors, the amount of electrical energy is related to the amount of photons converted to charges = Quantum Efficiency.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Brilliant, February 02, 2008
OMG what is it with you retarded, undereducated, armchair physicists?
-
- +0
-
-
written by NJ WebGuy, February 02, 2008
what happens with this story in a couple years.
-
- +0
-
-
written by pubed, February 02, 2008
That's a big improvement. Hope it'll be on sale soon. Magnetic motor FTW for now.
-
- +0
-
-
written by ghh, February 02, 2008
the nose blocks the sunlight and the panel keeps working, its wonderful
-
- +0
-
-
written by Jay, February 02, 2008
How many of these would I need to play halo3 all day and all night?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Moe, February 02, 2008
it would be necessary to transform non ir radiation into ir radiation. the easyest way is putting something very black in between two layers of this material. furthermore the material must be kept cool, while the black layer is quite hot (thermodynamics...). This process might offer a way to have a traditional heat-based powerplant with less moveable parts.
80% efficiency are realistic, if the problems with different frequencies and collecting the power could be solved
80% efficiency are realistic, if the problems with different frequencies and collecting the power could be solved
-
- +0
-
-
written by Thom Bouis, CSP, February 02, 2008
Great concept, reapply it to human generated communications that are literally saturating our atmosphere and "recycle" some of the excess energy being pumped into producing our radio, TV and cell-phone signals.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Gabe O'Leary, February 02, 2008
@Temporalmaniac
The atmosphere reflects more ultraviolet light than infrared, and infrared's wavelength is shorter than micro and radio waves. In addition, at night time there is lots of infrared light being reflected off the moon from the sun. Ever heard of night vision? That is the principle that night vision relies upon, not thermal radiation from the earth. In fact heat is a small portion of the infrared spectrum, and I'm sure it's not what these panels are capturing.
The atmosphere reflects more ultraviolet light than infrared, and infrared's wavelength is shorter than micro and radio waves. In addition, at night time there is lots of infrared light being reflected off the moon from the sun. Ever heard of night vision? That is the principle that night vision relies upon, not thermal radiation from the earth. In fact heat is a small portion of the infrared spectrum, and I'm sure it's not what these panels are capturing.
-
- +0
-
-
written by bennythewop, February 02, 2008
Night vision works on the principle that objects with a temperature over 0 Kelvin emit blackbody radiation over a certain spectral range. For the glowing coils on your electric range it happens to be in the optical range, and for room temperature objects it's in the infrared.
Material that absorbs at ANY wavelength could theoretically be used to generate electricity, so long as a material could be found that responds accordingly. What's innovative here is that the material absorbs light in the infrared and thus can access blackbody radiation at night.
Chill out, I'm sure they're working mighty hard to generate large scale currents. One step at a time.
Material that absorbs at ANY wavelength could theoretically be used to generate electricity, so long as a material could be found that responds accordingly. What's innovative here is that the material absorbs light in the infrared and thus can access blackbody radiation at night.
Chill out, I'm sure they're working mighty hard to generate large scale currents. One step at a time.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Temporalmaniac, February 02, 2008
First off, I'm fairly certain that most of the Sun's rays hitting the earth come in visible light, as our atmosphere is rather adept at reflecting IR.
Not true, just because u cant see it, does not means it lesser then when u can see. In fact, Earth is heated by the IR ray that the Sun emits. If the atmosphere is good at reflecting IR light, Earth will be a cold place. Our atmosphere trap Heat energy well, not reflect them well. -.-
Second, IR is a long-wavelength form of radiation, not an ultra-short one as the article purports. It's longer than radio and microwave, sure, but it's longer than visible light.
OMG? IR is right after RED dude... When did IR turn longer then radio and microwave? This are stuff even Asian kids knew when there are 9? Plz go read the EM chart.
Third, how can it be a solar panel if it works at night? If it truly collects IR, then it's probably collecting it from the earth's thermal radiation or the atmospheric reflexions thereof.
There are still some SUNLIGHT reflected to earth at night. The Moon is a great example. But ok, i believe if it still work, it would most likely NOT to be solar energy. But, why cant it work at night? The only thing skeptical about this project is, how can it be 80% when u cant convert it to any other energy? To me, its the same as saying, my new invention convert solar energy at 100%. My secert? A Black paper! It converts visible light energy at 100%. Just that i have a problem now, it cant output to electricity or any other form of energy yet.
Not true, just because u cant see it, does not means it lesser then when u can see. In fact, Earth is heated by the IR ray that the Sun emits. If the atmosphere is good at reflecting IR light, Earth will be a cold place. Our atmosphere trap Heat energy well, not reflect them well. -.-
Second, IR is a long-wavelength form of radiation, not an ultra-short one as the article purports. It's longer than radio and microwave, sure, but it's longer than visible light.
OMG? IR is right after RED dude... When did IR turn longer then radio and microwave? This are stuff even Asian kids knew when there are 9? Plz go read the EM chart.
Third, how can it be a solar panel if it works at night? If it truly collects IR, then it's probably collecting it from the earth's thermal radiation or the atmospheric reflexions thereof.
There are still some SUNLIGHT reflected to earth at night. The Moon is a great example. But ok, i believe if it still work, it would most likely NOT to be solar energy. But, why cant it work at night? The only thing skeptical about this project is, how can it be 80% when u cant convert it to any other energy? To me, its the same as saying, my new invention convert solar energy at 100%. My secert? A Black paper! It converts visible light energy at 100%. Just that i have a problem now, it cant output to electricity or any other form of energy yet.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Temporalmaniac, February 02, 2008
omg i insult myself! 
Oops it spelt Correcting. try to get the facts right next time. Its bad and irratiting. Its like crying "Iraq have WMD" when they have none.
Oops it spelt Correcting. try to get the facts right next time. Its bad and irratiting. Its like crying "Iraq have WMD" when they have none.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Steve, February 03, 2008
I always read the comments after articles like this. Why? Because it's fun to read the responses from intelligent people who don't realize that idiots and trolls are posting things like this
Good for a morning laugh, thanks people.
I don't know about everyone else, but Nano-technology should be taken a lot more seriously. I mean, what if the nanobots become self-aware, and start reproducing? Nobody ever considers the tragedies these inventions could cause... Don't come crying to me when you get infected, ass holes.
Good for a morning laugh, thanks people.
-
- +0
-
-
written by johan, February 05, 2008
solar = sun. night = no sun. Maybe you could call it a lunar panel, but it isn't a solar panel if it works without the sun.
But regardless, this hyped and buzz-word filled article is straight off their own press! Don't believe what a salesman tells you.
But regardless, this hyped and buzz-word filled article is straight off their own press! Don't believe what a salesman tells you.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bill Brasky, February 06, 2008
I actually bought this thing the other day and installed it on my roof *loud boom behind me followed by crashing noise as i watch the panels destroy my entire family* OH SHIT DEAD YOURE ALL DEAD GET THE FUCK OUT
-
- +0
-
-
written by Morgan Freeman, February 06, 2008
When the technology is fine tuned and efficiently produced, I can see an abundance of new uses for it.
/me comes walking out in a new line of Victoriath Thecret Lingerie, spasticly convulsing and in a state of ectasy, due to the electricity flowing through his inner child. OH LORD IN HEAVEN, WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO FREE OURSELVES FRO*dead*
/me comes walking out in a new line of Victoriath Thecret Lingerie, spasticly convulsing and in a state of ectasy, due to the electricity flowing through his inner child. OH LORD IN HEAVEN, WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO FREE OURSELVES FRO*dead*
-
- +0
-
-
written by NanooGeek, February 06, 2008
Wowee, what a diversity of opinion. For a science reference, check "Physics of Climate", Peixoto and Oort, 1992, AIP, chapter 6. Figure 6.1 shows the spectral distribution of solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere, and has an overlay of absorption due to CO2, H2O, O2 and O3.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Eon, February 07, 2008
Doesn't this kinda go against the second law of thermodynamics? Surely you can't tap energy out of an environment (the night case) that's just as warm as the object itself.
If this could truly produce usable energy from a room temperature environment then this would be man's greatest invention yet.
If this could truly produce usable energy from a room temperature environment then this would be man's greatest invention yet.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Jerome, February 07, 2008
I think solar energy is great invention. However, we must start to find another energy resource than petroleumas soon or later it will be run out. Steven Novack has done very great...I hope this technology can be socialized soon and most people can start to use this new energy resource.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Brian, February 10, 2008
From what I read from the original article posted by Bob, the IR radiation causes each of the individual antennas to vibrate. The vibration of the antenna creates a current. The problem with the panel is that it produces electricity that alternates at a frequency far to high to be used in any electronics. To resolve this they need to either lower the frequency of the solar panel someway or convert the energy into a direct current.
They are not converting the IR energy into heat like a black object would, they are converting it directly into energy electricity.
Anyone who is confused about how this technology works, the original article does a much better job explaining.
They are not converting the IR energy into heat like a black object would, they are converting it directly into energy electricity.
Anyone who is confused about how this technology works, the original article does a much better job explaining.
-
- +0
-
-
written by newbie, February 11, 2008
Folks,
The original source article by the Idaho National Laboratoryexplains that the reason for the difficulty in using energy captured by the nano antennas is AC current switching at 10 terahertz. It need to be dropped to 60 hertz or to DC.
Any technology that involves printing on plastic has to be way cheaper than poly silicon
http://www.inl.gov/featurestories/2007-12-17.shtml
The original source article by the Idaho National Laboratoryexplains that the reason for the difficulty in using energy captured by the nano antennas is AC current switching at 10 terahertz. It need to be dropped to 60 hertz or to DC.
Any technology that involves printing on plastic has to be way cheaper than poly silicon
http://www.inl.gov/featurestories/2007-12-17.shtml
-
- +0
-
-
written by Jaime Soto Figueroa, February 12, 2008
Here in Chile there is a secret competition to perforate ultra deep holes, and the record is about 9.5 Km. Russians have reached some 14 Km. The purpose is to explore new technologies to reach deep mineral reserves, but as a side product they have found that even at far distances from any volcano the temperature rises to very high levels, depending in the thickness of the earth crust. Here in Chile the law prohibits the perforation of volcanoes and thermal sources, but after this experience it is not necessary. The greatest energy reserve is right under our feet, at some 20 Km deepness.
Jaime Soto Figueroa
Jaime Soto Figueroa
-
- +0
-
-
written by Birdman, February 13, 2008
Here in Soviet Russia we have competition to find nanobots hiding underground so we can use them against the hated enemies of Mother Russia
-
- +0
-
-
written by Silent Pickle, March 07, 2008
Currently, the best solar cells i could find that can be made for monochromatic infrared light is Gallium Arsenide cells getting over 40% efficiency and damn expensive. This new kind of cell could mean great things for power transmission using lasers (Space Elevator! www.spaceward.org).
-
- +0
-
-
written by solar energy, March 21, 2008
According to my knowledge, highest convert rate for silicon panel is 20%, for CIGS it is 12%, what's this solar panel made from? It can get 40% rate, even 80% later.
-
- +0
-
-
written by boxa888, April 07, 2008
LOOK UP UTILIZATION OF RADIANT ENERGY 1901 NIKOLA TESLA ON GOOGLE PATENT SEARCH. IVE REPLICATED A BASIC FORM OF THIS, ITS ON YOUTUBE UNDER THE NAME IM USING HERE. THE COILS I SEE ON THIS PANEL ARE BIFILLAR COILS, THIS IS THE SAME AS WHAT HE USED YEARS AGO. ATLEAST THATS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Methusullah, April 07, 2008
It amazes me that you all dont understand, once God gives his thumbs up on solar , all anyone will have to do is pray and their home will be solar powerd, thats just so obvious I cant believe no one thought of it, regardless of the limitations we have today in energy conversion
-
- +0
-
-
written by blank, April 28, 2008
The idea seems incredible! Well done for creating an ingenious design.
Just one question, though:
How much energy is used to makethis solar panel?
Just one question, though:
How much energy is used to makethis solar panel?
-
- +0
-
-
written by cameron belt, May 24, 2008
who gives a rats ass where the energy comes from? as long as it produces a lot of energy for little cost why bother with the technicalities? seriously man think about the stuff before you say it.
-
- +0
-
-
written by brian, May 29, 2008
maybe this guys onto something .i read the artical and it seems great apart from the fact they say they havnt been able to capture the energy being created by this technology perhapes instead of trying to capture it as per normal there could be other ways of putting it to use / if this can generate the sort of energy that is implyed then they could look at using that direct energy to power catalic converters for prodution of Hydrogen fuel Which at this stage from what i have read seems to be an area being held back. because of carbon emisions in normal electrical production
and other forms of creating hydrogen are using fosal fuels and therefor creating carbon emisions which is what the world goverments and enviromentalists are trying to reduce so I Hope this guy can work out a way to use this energy sourse / that way we maybe able to become fosil fuel free
and other forms of creating hydrogen are using fosal fuels and therefor creating carbon emisions which is what the world goverments and enviromentalists are trying to reduce so I Hope this guy can work out a way to use this energy sourse / that way we maybe able to become fosil fuel free
-
- +0
-
-
written by yop, June 03, 2008
Imagine the nanites out of control 
it can be the begining of the end....half century from now....I don't know but yet, who does?
it can be the begining of the end....half century from now....I don't know but yet, who does?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Jim, June 09, 2008
George Carlin solved this problem decades ago. Car Seats. Nothing gets hotter than Car Seats. I think he claimed 120% efficiency.
-
- +0
-
-
written by jason, June 17, 2008
Until they hit the market and are available for purchase by you and me none of this really matters much.
-
- +0
-
-
written by jay draiman, June 22, 2008
You must serve as an example in implementing energy efficiency.
I think if corporate America is serious about energy conservation; it must start with people at the top and roll down from there to the rest of the executives and employees.
In order to accomplish such an important mission as energy conservation every executive and employee has to believe that what he is doing is the right thing.
They must practice the same attitude at home and implement energy conservation at home. This attitude will carry on to the workplace.
First thing that must be done is, each employee should be asked what has he/she done in their own lives to conserve energy, and than if the answer is positive advance the initiative from there, if not an education process must be implemented to drive the process home once this process has been achieved, it will be easier to get everyone to participate in energy conservation.
The motive and behavior has to come from within each individual person – it must become part of a routine practice – it must become a way of life – reducing waste in any form.
In today’s rising cost of energy – conservation must become a national theme.
Jay Draiman, Energy Analyst
I think if corporate America is serious about energy conservation; it must start with people at the top and roll down from there to the rest of the executives and employees.
In order to accomplish such an important mission as energy conservation every executive and employee has to believe that what he is doing is the right thing.
They must practice the same attitude at home and implement energy conservation at home. This attitude will carry on to the workplace.
First thing that must be done is, each employee should be asked what has he/she done in their own lives to conserve energy, and than if the answer is positive advance the initiative from there, if not an education process must be implemented to drive the process home once this process has been achieved, it will be easier to get everyone to participate in energy conservation.
The motive and behavior has to come from within each individual person – it must become part of a routine practice – it must become a way of life – reducing waste in any form.
In today’s rising cost of energy – conservation must become a national theme.
Jay Draiman, Energy Analyst
-
- +0
-
-
written by solarup, June 27, 2008
For all those who are speculating with too little info, here's the original press release: http://www.inl.gov/featurestories/2007-12-17.shtml
There is more detail provided, which some will find useful.
Interestingly, Idaho National Labs is under the Department of Energy. For the sceptics out there, it's unlikely that a government lab would be chasing some pie-in-the-sky idea. I hope they make the breakthroughs they're looking for!
If we can make computer chips half as small every 18 months for the last several decades (Moore's Law), surely we can crack the solar problem and, in time, develop highly efficient solar systems.
Surely we can also create batteries that are significantly more efficient and powerful than today's batteries. Soon, we'll all be driving plug-in cars, powered by our ultra-efficient solar panels.
There is more detail provided, which some will find useful.
Interestingly, Idaho National Labs is under the Department of Energy. For the sceptics out there, it's unlikely that a government lab would be chasing some pie-in-the-sky idea. I hope they make the breakthroughs they're looking for!
If we can make computer chips half as small every 18 months for the last several decades (Moore's Law), surely we can crack the solar problem and, in time, develop highly efficient solar systems.
Surely we can also create batteries that are significantly more efficient and powerful than today's batteries. Soon, we'll all be driving plug-in cars, powered by our ultra-efficient solar panels.
-
- +0
-
-
written by scott williams, July 04, 2008
I want to know where to purchase these ultra efficiant panels. I am a home builder and to make this type of tech. avilable to my costomers is very important. Green is the push !
-
- +0
-
-
written by Alex, July 15, 2008
I would like to know more about the solar cell.
I intend to change the power supply in my home, so I am interested in this matter.
Which type is more efficient (polychristaline, amorphous, etc.) and why. It can be affected by weather condition (by procent)? If yes, how can be avoided?
Should I install an "stand alone" or "on grid"?
Can anyone advise about the best supplier?
Thanks
I intend to change the power supply in my home, so I am interested in this matter.
Which type is more efficient (polychristaline, amorphous, etc.) and why. It can be affected by weather condition (by procent)? If yes, how can be avoided?
Should I install an "stand alone" or "on grid"?
Can anyone advise about the best supplier?
Thanks
-
- +0
-
-
written by dquest, July 25, 2008
pls, my question is a bit diff. is this statement true? "100watt solar panel translates to 100watt of power fed into the batteries in every hr"
thnks
thnks
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dx, July 28, 2008
pls, my question is a bit diff. is this statement true? "100watt solar panel translates to 100watt of power fed into the batteries in every hr"
Not true,for 100watt solar panel 100w is maximum power it can provide under ideal sunlight conditions.
under real life conditions it will make about 40-50% of rated power in average.
-------------------------
So these clowns made small antennas, and now the only very small problem is to make several trillions of "super mega ultra" high frequency diodes (one for every antenna) that can rectify at least few THz frequencies. just about few times more than fastest ones today.
even if this miracle will happen and someone invents a way to manufacture such diodes at moderate prices, efficiency will be not very good, because diodes have quite significant voltage drop.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Mankottil, August 06, 2008
I have been dreaming of such a technology to apply it on to every roof and exposed surface - buildings, cars, trains, roads and railway tracks and satiate man's hunger for power! Wish it became a reality soon enough to avert an impending environmental catastrophe!
-
- +0
-
-
written by Homercles of Edinburgh, August 12, 2008
If you feel yourself vaguely worrying about whether absorbing infra red radiation might 'upset the balance of nature somehow' or you have a generalised opposition to 'nano technology' because you think tiny robots will eat you, you should really be over at www.ecohippy.org.
-
- +0
-
-
written by BigD, August 13, 2008
First let me state that I used to work for the Idaho National Lab (INL) and I know a lot of the technology that is being developed there. I worked on the nuclear side of things, but I still know a bit about this project. This is a real technology that will revolutionize the energy industry. This material is highly efficient and as soon as the delivery and storage issues get worked out (which won't be long), it will go into production, probably for the government first though. Although some might say that the production of these solar sheets isn’t entirely environmentally clean, the vast uses for this product are relatively endless and the energy savings would make up for that. Just think, this can be adhered to light posts and cell phone antennas. Almost like gold leaf, you can cover almost any object and make it a generator. As for cost, estimated costs will be roughly the same as cheap carpet. Not bad. This is all very exciting if you ask me.
-
- +0
-
-
written by arian, August 24, 2008
Hi!
We are Iranian students. We have met your website. It was excellent. congragulations. After having met, we became
interested in the sunny lamps. We have plan to search about them. Would you mind sending us some information about its making and using?
With the best regards
F.Dehghan , R.Arian and L.Khosravani
We are Iranian students. We have met your website. It was excellent. congragulations. After having met, we became
interested in the sunny lamps. We have plan to search about them. Would you mind sending us some information about its making and using?
With the best regards
F.Dehghan , R.Arian and L.Khosravani
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deet, August 29, 2008
I read this same idea 10 or more years ago in the IEEE Spectrum magazine. It was just a small blurb but I believe it said scientist had etched antenna into a substrate as proof of concept, also predicting 80% efficiency.
Not taking anything away from these guys, I suspect many ideas have been mentioned in passing in some mag or other.
Not taking anything away from these guys, I suspect many ideas have been mentioned in passing in some mag or other.
-
- +0
-
-
written by shirley, September 03, 2008
How much would it cost for an average family to install one of these?
-
- +0
-
-
written by sagar, October 15, 2008
give explanation about charging of batteries , & how much time the solar panel takes of 80 watt ,to charge the batteries .
-
- +0
-
-
written by Ray The Money Man, October 31, 2008
Poly Silicon will be obsolete before we even get started!
Great post!
Great post!
-
- +0
-
-
written by Rob, November 06, 2008
This comes to prove that the sun is fun and we want to share in harnessing the Sun Fun.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Har!, November 09, 2008
God, what a hoot! Made my day reading all the hilarious commentary.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Luke, December 07, 2008
I just love the potntial for this. First of all we could harness the IR at night. Even in a cold climate where there is little to no heat or IR outside, the typical attic it would be harnessing the heat from the home that would typically be lost to the colder outside climate.
The great thing about IR is that it travels easily through most solid objects, and so the panels would not necessarily have to face the light or heat source. Imagine a roof during the day with heat sunlight striking it. The IR hits the roof and converts to heat, conducting through the roof. When it hits the air space below, IR is then emitted into the space. About 93% of all the heat entering a home through the roof will be IR in that space. A single conductor on the roof would both collect the IR during the day from the sun and the heat from the home that would typically be wasted at night.
This revolutionizes insulation. Since even the best insulation envelope cannot hold 100% of the heat indefinantely (most just delay the heat loss), this allows any heat that does escape to be converted into usable energy, and this is energy that we would not have at all with solar pannels.
The great thing about IR is that it travels easily through most solid objects, and so the panels would not necessarily have to face the light or heat source. Imagine a roof during the day with heat sunlight striking it. The IR hits the roof and converts to heat, conducting through the roof. When it hits the air space below, IR is then emitted into the space. About 93% of all the heat entering a home through the roof will be IR in that space. A single conductor on the roof would both collect the IR during the day from the sun and the heat from the home that would typically be wasted at night.
This revolutionizes insulation. Since even the best insulation envelope cannot hold 100% of the heat indefinantely (most just delay the heat loss), this allows any heat that does escape to be converted into usable energy, and this is energy that we would not have at all with solar pannels.
-
- +0
-
-
written by david, February 14, 2009
nanosolar claims that they have reached 1GW capacity, still we haven't see a real piece of panel under the sun yet. The nano-technology is too good to be true, durability is also an issue.
www.dmsolar.com
www.dmsolar.com
-
- +0
-
-
written by Rob, February 22, 2009
How would we get these??
In this website send me the link to get one of these and how much?
In this website send me the link to get one of these and how much?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Nicholas Dykema, March 21, 2009
On the plus side this appears to be innovative research that may eventually help resolve some of the enormous environmental problems we face. But on the down side, in the here and now, is the appallingly depressing implication of 90% of these comments: Not just their arrogant, feckless stupidity, but the incredible mediocrity and vacuity they represent. Can't read, can't reason, can't think, can't write, can't communicate. And these are people who actually have enough interest in science to read about it! Is it any wonder that practically every new scientific research paper is written by at least one Indian?
-
- +0
-
-
written by watever, April 16, 2009
I would like to know the cost to produce one of these solar panels?
The size of one of these solar panels?
The watts per meter squared they produce?
The time they have before their efficiency goes down?
thank you
The size of one of these solar panels?
The watts per meter squared they produce?
The time they have before their efficiency goes down?
thank you
-
- +0
-
-
written by dirk, April 20, 2009
why are there a billion spaces between mah wordz?!!
FAIL
FAIL
-
- +0
-
-
written by dirk, April 20, 2009
hey
written by Joe , April 08, 2009
I Like Men :)
hEY!!
So do I!
NOT!!
written by Joe , April 08, 2009
I Like Men :)
hEY!!
So do I!
NOT!!
-
- +0
-
-
written by Van Covington, July 02, 2009
Although I didn't read all of these comments, (many would have been a waste of time anyway)I do appreciate those able to think for themselves rather reading books on why things shouldn't work. Trust me, there are very powerful factions that don't want any innovative developments to displace petroleum usage. More serious research should be devoted to the concepts of Nicola Tesla. Even the phenomenon of tapping ambient electrical energy from earth's static potential that powers 260 lightening strikes 24-7, all over the planet. These discharges keep the earth to atmosphere static charge in balance, why not use it?
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
First off, I'm fairly certain that most of the Sun's rays hitting the earth come in visible light, as our atmosphere is rather adept at reflecting IR.
Second, IR is a long-wavelength form of radiation, not an ultra-short one as the article purports. It's longer than radio and microwave, sure, but it's longer than visible light.
Third, how can it be a solar panel if it works at night? If it truly collects IR, then it's probably collecting it from the earth's thermal radiation or the atmospheric reflexions thereof.
These are the issues I and my scientific education have with this article. If anyone more knowledgeable can shed some light on this, that would be great.