Printable View
I just got this from a Facebook friend, and decided to share it here.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-...efficient.html
It takes a child to see the intracacies imbedded in the world around us...where seasoned and trained professionals have been ignorant due their schooling and limited focus...and apparent mistrust of the system which has sustained us for all these generations.
Cheers!
This points to the breakdowns of the religion of modern science...where any and all solar panel researchers would surely have been incensed over someone's suggestion that they involve plant studies in their electrical pursuits!
I know there are a FEW integrationists...but most who've gone through traditional schooling have been groomed and trained to only be an expert in what they focus upon. Science has tried to study the whole by dividing it into parts...which is simply idiotic overall...but the only way they could control their studies 'scientifically', LOL!
Funny to me...that they then lord their incorrect assumptions and conclusions over the rest of us...Global Warming? I think not. There are other reasons why our planet is heating up. Every planet in our solar system is going through amazing changes...but most not studied in astronomy will never know it. They remain ignorant.
<sigh>
This points to nothing more than the fact that
a) the American Museum of Natural History failed to have the student's project reviewed by an electrical engineer before they selected it for their award
b) we have an all-too credulous press that prints anything that sounds good [["it takes a child") and a gullible public that passes their scribblings around as if it were the truth.
If the OP had taken the time to read the comments following the linked article, he would know that the errors in this student's project have since been pointed out and that his conclusions have been debunked here and here.
Ah, from one obviously steeped in the deep faith it takes to support science, nice.
Why do you truly think that any form of de-bunking is necessary? Why that stance?!
Probably because taking nature as the benchmark is a risk to using science to allow humankind to be godlike.
This is the only comment in that whole section worth repeating, because while this person recognizes the things missing in the experiment...they also recognize that there is something to it.
Quote:
This is a good idea for panels that are only capable of ~ 21% efficiency, as are most current commercial panels, but when we are able to boost that to higher levels of efficiency, a flat panel will do just fine. I do believe I have seen some articles concerning nanoscale design of PV panels here on PO. Still though, looking to nature for design inspiration is a wise move. Not all plants that are apically dominant follow the Fibb sequence with nodes/branching, and many don't maintain that form from vegetative to flowering states, they change physically through the seasons, so to say it's the most efficient when if it where nature would design everything like that, ...smart, but needs more thought. I think the kid should also study botany/horticultural science, he's got a bright future.
Of course, he still has faith that technology will achieve a certain level of competence versus the perfection of the natural world...obvious in his choice of language. "When"...not "if", LOL!
Undoubtedly, you share the same mania, MikeG!
Cheers, and thanks for the illumination...even if it was heavy-handed and nearly insulting. I forgive you.
I'm the one with the mania? Calm down and go find a good cup of coffee!
As for me, I've been deeply "steeped" in the sciences throughout my formal education and professional career and I make no apologies for it.
I took "heavy-handed" aim at the American Museum of Natural History, the press and the gullible public for their roles in spreading this [[non) story - not you personally.
I'm sorry if you feel "nearly insulted", but you were the one who created this thread without fully reading the web page that you linked.
I appreciate that...but my premise still stands.
Fractionalized Science will never understand the complexities of nature, and the further we attempt to manipulate it...the worse the undesireable 'unintended' side effects.
[[W)holistic perspectives are rarely entertained by the various subsets, and the pride which drives each to succeed in their particular area of study usually blinds them to the things they affect outside their pursuit.
I simply find it curious...
Mikeg, are you trying to debunk the Fibonacci sequence or the work of the 13 year old kid. The kid might not have gotten it right, but just the fact that he attempted to apply the Fibonacci sequence found in nature to a solar array, probably opened a few eyes in the research field. If you're attempting to debunk the Fibonacci sequence or other applications derived from it, go sit in the corner with Michelle Bachmann. This isn't voodoo science. This has been used in design and architecture for a very long time. Even an average, good carpenter understands the golden rectangle. As a young carpenter I was taught early on about the golden ratio. Not much to dispute here.
The fact that the kid is conceptualizing a more efficient solar array by using this number system is quite impressive. The light bulb wasn't invented on the first try. To me, hearing that there are kids out there attempting to take solar to the next level, is very refreshing news. Maybe you just don't get it. It happens.
I think Mike is pointing out how uninformed people can pass on invalid test results when they don't understand what they are looking at.
Voltage is not power and the students measurements are completely flawed. This student's teacher should have spotted the flaw in the experiment and told the student to go back and recheck his results.
The Fibonacci sequence is usefull in many places, However the students flawed measurements didn't prove anything.
[[I'm also pretty sure that a Fibonacci arranged solar array would be far less efficient than one that pointed the solar array at the sun.)
I admire the "out of the box" approach taken by the 13 year old boy and I am not disputing the validity of the Fibonacci sequence in nature. While I don't expect the work of a 13 year old to be peer-reviewed, I do expect a supposedly scientific organization like the American Museum of Natural History to do some error-checking prior to presenting the teenager with an award for his work. His conclusion were fatally flawed because he made the error of assuming that there is a linear relationship between his measured open-circuit voltages and the actual power output, which is not the case for photovoltaic cells.Quote:
Originally Posted by old guy
However once the award was given and publicized, this alleged harmonious connection between nature and optimal design for a green energy source was just too tempting for the press to run with without first asking any questions. For similar reasons, a gullible public picked it up and spread it like wildfire.
I worry about our future when those who practice and believe in scientific skepticism increasingly find themselves getting ridiculed, told they just don't get it, have their sanity questioned, etc. whenever they challenge claims like this that cannot be backed up with reproducible data.
I don't have a problem with skepticism and I think it's healthy to challenge ideas that you don't agree with. I also understand the flaws with his measurements. I don't see where the kid was making a claim that couldn't be backed up with data. I see it as an experiment that was flawed, and someone didn't catch it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeg
I am saying that sometimes a basis for a new idea comes along, and not everyone is going to understand it. There are different underlying thought processes in all of us. Once in a great while, a number of people start to look at a basic idea, have a similar thought process and are able to expand on it. Others don't see the value in pursuing it, and rather than take a wait and see approach, criticize it. We desperately need that new, good idea and I'm just glad to see there are young people out there pursuing it.
Or as Dylan so eloquently put it.
Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.
Let me help you: the kid was claiming that his Fibonacci-inspired photocell array was a more efficient way to generate power [[which is a function of voltage and current) than the traditional flat-panel array. His claim was based on the open-circuit [[no-load) voltage data he collected. However, the open-circuit voltage of a solar cell does not increase linearly as as it receives greater amounts of light. In fact, the open-circuit voltage is basically the same in low light situations and in full sun. Because of the unique open-circuit voltage characteristic of solar cells, you cannot use that kind of a data measurement to draw any conclusions about how much power is actually being generated and whether one kind of arrangement generates power more efficiently than the other when it is connected to a load [[electrical appliance). Therefore his claim about the better power generating efficiencies of a Fibonacci solar cell array are easily disproven up when you actually measure their power output.Quote:
Originally Posted by old guy