Groundbreaking New Solar Energy System - Too Good to be True?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2024
- Use code sabine at incogni.com/sa... to get an exclusive 60% off an annual Incogni plan.
The company Wavja claims to have developed a new method of converting sunlight into electricity that is much more efficient than currently existing solar cells. Are their claims too good to be true? What’s up with their strange spheres? I've had a look, and here is what I think.
🤓 Check out my new quiz app ➜ quizwithit.com/
💌 Support me on Donorbox ➜ donorbox.org/swtg
📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ sciencewtg.sub...
👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ / sabine
📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ sabinehossenfe...
👂 Audio only podcast ➜ open.spotify.c...
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
/ @sabinehossenfelder
🖼️ On instagram ➜ / sciencewtg
#science #sciencenews #solarenergy #technology #technews
Hearing Sabine use "big if true" in the proper context with a dry delivery with only the mildest hint of sarcasm is extremely hilarious
It is very German and I love it.
Her constant disclaimers where she says she's not saying they are lying... are a total copout where she tries to avoid the scammers suing her.
These super clean, super-green energy companies are all the same. They are like the people that claim they've got some car that runs on nothing but air and water (and of course their constant claims that big oil and the auto industry are trying to shut them down or remove their videos). They are fishing for gullible investors, and will keep stringing them along with tales of how their big breakthrough is just around the corner, and eventually how they are gearing up for mass production and the big bucks will start rolling in soon. And once they've soaked those investors for all they are worth, and people start demanding results... they will just take the money and run.
She keeps getting better over time.
Love the dry wit.
I stand by my claim that Sabine is the best comedian on RUclips. Her delivery is pure gold.
This is an obvious scam. It reminds me of the time I was supposed to review an "artificial photosynthesis" project for a town which wanted to invest in it. The biggest red light was the claim that the system produces enough energy to power the UV lamps, which drive the photosynthesis. This is not how physics works. There were two scientists on the panel, and we both gave the same opinion, saving the town some money. And the funny thing was that I have been invited by the activists who wanted to sell the idea. They were honest people but duped by some "inventors". The other expert, invited by the town, was surprised that we agreed totally. But we were both physicists.
Doomsday climate change is obviously a scam. Know what also is reflective there for not good at storing Solar energy. ? Carbon dioxide 😮Why is it always phycist who call out climate change models that violate thermal dynamics
Wait a second, if @sabine liked your comment and you said "this is an obvious scam" does that mean she's said it was a scam 🤔. I'm pretty sure she said that she definitely wasn't saying it was a scam! Lawsuit on the horizon?
;)
Your example reminds me of the game Rimworld, where you can have an indoor rice plantation the harvest of which is converted into biofuel for a diesel generator, which then powers the lamps and hydroponics used to grow said rice. The funny thing is that this system isn't merely fully self sufficient if built properly, but can actually output net power.
lol, shine a torch on battery to charge it. "wanna buy a bridge mister?"
the TEMU of solar energy.
5:34 It's like homeopathy. The smaller the lens opening, the greater the efficiency! Their launch product converts only 3000% of the incoming sunlight to electricity, but in a couple of years they'll start selling a new and improved version with a smaller lens opening that's 3500 or 4000% efficient. It's brilliant.
the true increase happens when you rotate the units, the faster they spin the more powerful they become.
I've had Christmas baubles that looks similar, scam defo.
I'm well ahead of them. I've designed a sphere with zero holes and it produces infinite power! 😁
Well, if believing that you have a super-efficient solar power array reduces your heating and makes your PC run with less watts, I'm game.
But I'm sceptical if we can carry the Placebo effect over to our oven or our fridge - those poor things are just too stuck in their ways.
From a practical perspective and ignoring their claims of 1000s % gains, it is actually correct, the smaller the hole the greater the efficiency. Since less light is allowed to escape from inside compared to a larger aperture size.
It does not equate, however, to generating useful and practical amounts of power, since efficiency is a *ratio* of input power and useful output power. You could use a pin hole and gain better stats but generate microWatts.
It's very clear. The solar energy system is using a turboencabulator. As you all may know, the turboencabulator has a base-plate of pre-famulated amulite, surmounted by a malleable logarithmic casing in such a way that the two spurving bearings are in a direct line with the panametric fan. The Turboencabulator is being successfully used in the operation of nofer trunnions. Moreover, whenever a barescent skor motion is required, it may be employed in conjunction with a drawn reciprocation dingle arm to reduce sinusoidal repleneration.
Wouldn't the drawn reciprocation dingle arm result in an excess of cosinusoidal paraphysiolation? Or is this being captured by a repolypherated carbo-plate placed behind it?
"Well you see, Andy, this here is the turboencabulator"
You got me on 'dingle arm' 😂.
Where does the encabulator connect to the lynch pin?
Fantabulistic exprolatoration!
During WW II my dad worked in an army botanical biological warfare lab - and all of the interesting things in the lab were microscopic. Bigwigs would come through, look around, and wonder what all the money was being spent on, it looked like the researchers were just doing dull stuff with microscopes, petri dishes and bits of leaf. So dad and his co-workers made a big sciency construction on a corner table with various flasks and tubes and sputtering safety valves, and when a bigwig was expected they'd pop alka selzer in a couple of the flasks, turn on a Bunsen burner under another flask with colored water in it, and the whole thing would bubble and circulate liquid and make noise and look Very Important, which always made the bigwigs think they were getting their money's worth.
This looks like that kind of scam, aimed at investors.
c.f. Monty Python "I see you have the machine that goes PING!"
looks like another Theranos
@@ZothaqquaCan I have your liver then?
Good thing its so obviously a scam. Most likely cant do much harm then 😎
ill take things that never happened for 200 Alex....this is a well known made upstory. you and your dad not fooling anyone poser
They clearly aimed to build a Dyson sphere, but totally forgot that it has to fit a sun inside. Their icosahedra seem small, even for dwarf star.
😆
Maybe put a small black hole inside. Maybe the radiation pressure keeps it centered
isn't a Dyson sphere becomes useless when a civilization is advanced enough to make its own small fusion reactors thus eliminating the need for a Dyson sphere.
@@steffenbendel6031 Ooh, like a Zero Point Module from Stargate!
if you put one of those devices near the sun....will it instantly create a supernova?
I’m an optical researcher in next-gen solar technologies… I saw their video a few weeks ago and was dumbfounded by the ludicrous claims that I couldn’t even begin to comment on their videos. Per usual, thx for doing the heavy-lifting, Sabine!
So there is not a way to collect light like water inside something that light enters but not come out?? like a light battery???
@@antoniobortoni I really hope you are joking....physics 101...
@@antoniobortoniSure - if you have Star trek physics.
@@antoniobortoni There is! You just need a 100% reflective surface. And it has to be 100% reflective in the entire frequency spectrum. And then you need an infinite amount of individual surfaces so the light keeps bouncing around without ever accidentally finding it's way out again. Oh, and it needs to be strong enough to hold an absolute perfect vacuum.
But this thing supposedly doesn't just store light, since that's a bit useless if you want electricity instead of a single use flash that can light up New York for a femtosecond. Which means that even your questions were a misunderstanding of the topic at hand.
@@antoniobortoni For storage, use a flashdark. They’re also very useful if you have forgotten your sunglasses, or are a vampire wishing to stroll around in the daytime. I’m expecting Mr. Cheng to file the patent for it week after next.
It reminds of those ads you see here on YT. You know the ones. One or two "engineers" at some company got sick of management ripping off the consumer and went out and invented "The Widget" which does everything 100 times better and for half the cost; and it's available now, but only online and its selling fast, so get in on it quick! Hey, if the solar cell works; make one and put in on display so people can see it does what you say. Otherwise ... it's a bit on the nose.
I think it might be 200x more efficient at taking money and producing nothing. Solar cells aren't particularly good at producing nothing, unless they are broken.
But these things get more out of the sunlight than is in it, that´s what I call scientific breakthrough🤣
the only better way i can think of it is that it reduces waste by from 90% to about 0.45% but there's not a single power source generator with that high efficiency
We already have taxes to make money "disappear" , what is the point of a new scheme?! Just tax more😅
Producing nothing from something takes a lot of energy!
Okay, hear me out: we use those spheres to convert 3000% of the light into electricity, then use that electricity to drive LED light. Endless energy! Unless we'll accidentally start filling the universe with endless radiation, that way it will be very sad
It's very stinky. Anytime people make claims that break the laws of physics, I tend to get uninterested really fast.
😂 same
So I’ve got this material that *mostly* superconducts at room temperature…
@@lobabobloblaw 😂 stolen from the aliens that live in the hollow earth no doubt...
@@repairstudio4940 borrowed lol
Well, it is”not” a scam! What do you think? 😅
It is highly refreshing to attend to your videos. No bla-bla, just facts, clearly and quietly presented. Thank you Sabine.
What a coincidence I also had 3 things come to my mind immediately when seeing this.
1. It's a scam
2. It's a scam
3. it's totally a scam
4. It's magic
@@SimonWoodburyForget It's not JUST magic, it's PFM!
I've come to terms with the fact 21% efficiency is as good as it will ever get, until we figure out a way to harness the power of dark energy.
Or 5. Maybe it’s a scam!
@@ElMistroFeroz we'll sort out cost effective "dual junction" cells soon enough. That will push us north of 30%. IDK, maybe 10 years.
3:55 "PES operates efficiently for up to 8 hours, regardless of weather." After that you'll have to change batteries.
Nice find.
🤣🤣🤣
Now we see what the ancient Roman Dodecahedron was really about! It wasn't about knitting gloves, it was an over unity solar power generator that works in all weather(!)
I love your humour! These three non-scam statements made me laugh at the end of the day. And as a former journalist I really appreciate finding all details that do not match their statements - like "V" in voltage meter or googling their marketing babble. That's how research should be done.
Would 200% not be 2 times?
@@gterhorstYes, but it's not what they say: they say "200 times", which translates to "20'000 % ".
Quite the difference
100% is double or 2 times.
@@RM-lv9ng100% INCREASE is double, not 100% by itself.
That was the best part of the video.
I love how he's supposedly founded half a dozen tech startups in different areas, is an expert in photonics, and has a title of esquire. Really inspires confidence that he's shit in a lot of different areas instead of just the one.
I think it's more telling that there's still people that take him serious considering everything mentioned, including his past endeavors.
perhaps he just needs to buy his own social network to be taken seriously 🙊
@@IvnSoft OK, THAT comment was awesome!
@ericaschner3283 is he shit or *the* shit?
The distinction seems important. 😂
Agree completely........
It's Humbug my dear,,...........
From the drawing it seems like they are going to make the absurd claim that photons enters the sphere then reflect around hitting solar cells mounted inside the sphere creating electricity on each reflection. Totally absurd since photons need to be absorbed to knock electrons free. I hope no one loses their money with these scoundrels.
"Flux Capacitor. 1.21 Gigawatts!" 😊
Hahahahaah, excellent!
O'Reilly Auto parts has flux capacitors on their online catalog
Jigawatts to be precise
All we need is a little plutonium lol
@@Ironstarfish They do look a little plutonium-like. Maybe 3 years in jail was not enough?
Hm, well I do need some new decorations for the Christmas tree..
😅
That was my first association as well!
as john boy walton said "come and help me make a balls up of the christmas tree"
And they'll produce enough electricity to light up the rest of the tree... Win-win!
@SabineHossenfelder sounds like solar research meets 0 point energy this would seem like a inevitability for any solar researcher if there was such thing as 0 point energy
Just make really big spheres, and live inside them ... that way you get both power and a house.
That's 200% efficiency.
wow revolutionary. mind blown.
2 for 1 special? obviously a great deal and totally not a scam
Sure. You take your heat energy, turn it into electricity and use it to run the AC
No no they mean 200 times more efficient at making money
I want to cover my electric car with these so I no longer have to plug in. Or have an extra large cape so I can literally shock people I don’t like. The possibilities are endless.
You are a genius.
"While I was in prison, I had a lot of time to think, and thats when I came up with the idea."
[bunk mate]: what if like you could make light bounce around inside a mirror ball and like somehow make more light keep coming in
So he stole the idea from you while in prison
I think he is heading there again, with even a bigger splash.
I mean, this is obviously a scam, but he was in prison for completely dumb reasons. He went to prison for importing toy guns which he intended to use as a basis for 3D models in a videogame. Not really what I personally think of when I think of crime.
How did he went to jail buying toy guns? Did he try to buy an shipment of real ones and it was an trap, I don't think you get just 3 years in China for that. Or was it an more normal scam, buy but not pay producers then resell the toys.
We went through this with Solyndra and their cylindrical solar panels. You wouldn't believe the grief I got from their true believers, while I tried to explain that the maximum light you can collect is just the projection of your panels in the direction of the light (basically, the shadow your panels cast onto a plane perpendicular to the light). And since that projection is always flat, the cheapest way to capture that solar energy (minimal panel area and thus minimal cost) is a flat panel. Any other shape requires more panel area to capture the same or less sunlight.
You might be able to get higher average conversion from a different shape if the panels are fixed (unmoving), for certain trajectories of the sun through the sky. (e.g. If your flat panel is oriented so its edge faces the sun's track through the sky, then any other shape will beat it.) But any non-flat shape will always be beaten by a flat panel mounted on a tracker so it remains perpendicular to the sunlight.
There's a difference if using curved mirrors onto smaller solar units.
@@PMA65537 Even if you're using concentrators, the smallest surface area to capture the light is still a plane. You only need curved receivers if you're trying to concentrate the light into as small an area as theoretically possible (basically form a perfect image of the sun, like with lenses). Which isn't really necessary for solar power generation, since allowing some slop greatly reduces manufacturing costs. Try comparing the cost of PV panels to telescopes with the same surface area.
A PV and renewable energy research engineer here. Some years ago I spent some time conducting technolgy due dilligence on some alternative PV concepts. These ideas incorporated mirrors to concentrate the light onto small PV cells. The basic concept was that a mirror coated plastic assembly could be lower cost to manufacture than a conventional large scale PV cell. All the concepts that I analyzed basically ended up being less cost effective than the conventional style PV panel that the industry has been using for the last 60 years.
It turned out that the engineers developing these alternative designs were failing due to having an inaccurate understanding regarding the cost models of existing PV modules confounded on top of unrealistic expectations for how much the cost could would come down due to mass production of their complex designs.
It turns out that if you want to make something low cost you need to keep the construction details simple - I.E., the design of conventional PV modules.
They would also be running up against heat problems, PV materials lose efficiency as temperatures rise so any solar concentration on a PV material needs active cooling. This is why all effectiv solar consentration systems go to thermal colection where you can push temperatures far higher and then benifit from the carnot efficiency of high temperature heat engines.
As Elon says, "The best part is no part".
KISS
on the one hand, capitalism warns us that wild claims of superiority over the established industry should be taken with caution... on the other hand, it lets suckers be parted with their money
Concentrator photovoltaics (CPV) is a potentially useful category of PV, though it has to be designed carefully to make it worthwhile. Apparently, it requires abundant direct sunlight for it to be practical, for example. In that sense, it has less usefulness to the general population than conventional PV would have.
When scams are so obviously scams do they even count as scams?
Hard to tell if it's actually a scam, or just a shitpost. 😛
I was thinking that at this points this is sort of an art. This is on an elementary school kids project level.
burh 3000% energy
don't you want to go to alpha centauri
gosh
👍
they still do, especially if you have some adjacent.
LaForge: "Captain, we've increased the efficiency of the solar cells in the warp core by 3000%!"
I think i sus’d out the premise… the lens pulls in light, and there is a solar panel inside the ball. The inside of the ball is reflective, so the light becomes “trapped” inside the ball, and any light not absorbed by the panel on the first round gets reflected back to get another attempt. There must be 200 facets to the sphere which means that for every photon that strikes a normal panel and gets reflected and not “used” it has 200 more chances to be absorbed. Hence 200% more efficient.. the issue is that this is only advantageous if there was a limited number of photons and we had to cycle them to capture as many as possible. We currently have a surplus of photons available, so there is no advantage to this set up.. if you want to argue that “well it can use smaller cells and therefore cost less” a lens focusing light on a smaller cell would have basically the same advantages, with less material and less complicated than these christmas ornaments.
There's zero reason it should be reflective on the outside.
You should have just shown them Mein Kampf to convey how ridicolous the situation is.
@@a.x.w Why not? It would keep the balls cooler. The goal wouldnt be to collect energy from the bottom, nor sides of the balls. Only the top, where the lens is located.
@@johndough8115 replacing the lense with a mirror would keep the ball cooler, too.
yeah, its fd up
solar converts about 25% of the spectrum in the first place, if not less.
lessening the area to a pinhole, you are asking for a beating.
In my aerospace career I spent some time using a uniform energy light source called an integrating sphere. The aperture of the sphere is much smaller diameter than the sphere of course, but a very high percentage of the light emitted from the illuminator in the sphere does get emitted from the aperture, dependent upon the coefficient of reflectivity of the internal surfaces. The illuminators are located in an internal ring surrounding the aperture so that the emitted light is nearly all indirect reflected light from the interior surface of the sphere.
This device seems to reverse that process, and their claim for a percentage increase over flat panels most probably is a form of "lying through statistics" by only counting the planer circle size of that tiny aperture as the active area.
If only the suns rays came in from all directions.
I think this is an example of don't lie about things you don't know. As a fairly competent computer guy, it always amuses me when people pretend to be hackers and proceeds to say something that reveals they think source code is some kind of administrator password.
Reminds when i was 16 my dad had an "investment opportunity" into a company turning "quantum noise" into energy. I went to police straight away. Unfortunately, German prosecutors dropped the case "despite it looking fishy because there was a book on that topic". Written by the scammers. So I hope those v
were clever enough to publish a book on it, too, to have their backs covered.
Quantum noise?? 😂 funny you could make all kinds of things that could be bent into that claim while being absolutely worthless. I call my device the Casimir effect generator 😂
Quantum spin maybe...
Did they sell it to Google as a quantum computer?
A Johnson noise rectifier? I know the circuit. It's one of those perpetual motion machines that really looks like it ought to work, and you have to get deep into arcane physics of thermodynamics in semiconductor materials to find the flaw that kills the idea. Every now and again someone comes up with the idea as a means of energy harvesting, and wastes some money before realising it's a dead end.
LOL
You can't change physics. If it's 99.9% efficient it's still not going to generate more power than the sunlight that falls on the panel.
Šta je sunčeva svetlost? Ona samo vidljiva, ili njeno celokupno radijantno zračenje u celom frekventnom opsegu? Šta ako imaju panele koje mogu transferirati tu radijantnu energiju na puno širem frekventnom opsegu???
@@josip.harasic I did a little reading and I still don't think the increase is possible. Infrared is just going to be waste heat. Here in Florida solar pool heaters work great but most people here want cool water.
It's 200 percent more efficient at making money
5:15 If it sounds like a scam, smells like a scam, looks like a scam, then it is definitely a legit tech!
I mean, "200 times higher efficiency" could mean "200 times less loss".
But I think, they themself don't know, what they mean.
+200% means 2 times more efficient but then they say ... 200 times.
Lol
Edit: +200% = 3 times
@@nostro19403* times more efficient if you phrase it like that
I've thoutht of that as well, but 200% less loss would make an insanely high efficiency like 99.9%
No, they may say that if confronted but that is not what they say. We need to keep people accountable. Politicians do that kind of thing all the time and then manipulate people via the empathic tendency to be agreeable. The video is full of the claim, they know what they are doing. For legal reasons, they probably have a get our of jail interpretation (maybe that it's an attempt to a solar capacitor of some crap that is not what they say)
My guess is that "200 times higher efficiency" comes from combining the "30x smaller" and "7.5x the output" claims, and then rounding down the result. Which would still be wildly wrong even if the size and output claims were real, because those value would already be connected. ("30x smaller" only has meaning if it is "30x smaller to produce the same output", while "7.5x the output" only has meaning when comparing the same sizes.)
From the Terrence Howard sector of the multiverse.
This is amazing! What must be happening is a Photon enters the small hole and the rebounds around in the sphere never finding it's way out ....generating almost UNLIMITED POWER!! Brilliant I tells Ya!
their home page mentions the application for this being "flying cars" and "electric flying buses". I see.
Haha, omg, can they make it any more obvious that this is a scam?
@@Sanquinity You misjudge the number of stupid people in the world.
What? They didn't mention "hover-tanks"? 😂
what the hell are you talking about.... i have just 6 of the spheres on my delorean, finaly i could get rid of the unpratical Mr. Fusion
"When pigs fly"
1. "multiple layers of materials and special spheres" is the regular design of literally any solar-cell: You have the two layers of the junction which generate the current and voltage, sandwiched by a so-called window-layer in the front and a so-called backside-field layer in the back which prevent parasitic solid-state effects that reduce the efficiency, and that is again sandwiched by multiple contact-layers front and back which allow you to put wires onto the solar-cell. And on top you have an anti-reflective coating made from sintered titanium-dioxide nanoparticles.
2. The power output per m² is already 30 times smaller than other systems.
3. *"200 times more efficient" is likely meant to mean "200% more efficient,"* meaning double the efficiency of regular solar-cells. *THAT* is sorta-kinda doable if the entry to the sphere is a lens, because if you increase the photon-injection on a solar-cell, then efficieny-losses due to solid-state-defects become less relevant in multi-photon-processes: The power-output of a solar-cell increases faster than linear with the amount of photons per area and time you put onto the solar-cell. *HOWEVER* doubling the efficiency is ludicrous. The best concentrator-photovoltaics have an efficiency 1.3-1.4 times higher than regular photovoltaics, not 2 times higher. And *EVEN IF* they managed to build a concentrator-solar-cell with twice the efficency of a regular solar-cell (which is extremely doubtful because that would be so far beyond present cutting-edge technology that they wouldn´t need their funny little spheres to get filthy rich), they still have 15 times less power-output per area than a regular solar-panel, because they have 30 times less active area.
4. Assuming that the entry to the sphere is indeed a lens, then you cannot mount that on a panel: If the light comes into the opening of the sphere at an angle, then the focused light inside the sphere will miss the solar-cell, will get scattered inside the sphere and you gained absolutely nothing.
This whole thing reads like a scam: Someone went to a conference about concentrator-photovoltaics, heard how actually the lens and the solar-tracking structure are the most expensive components, and decided to make some money with this literally incredible sphere-idea.
"Something from nothing". "Output greater than input". Nah...couldn't possibly be a scam.
These things look like an approximation of an integrating sphere (Ulbricht sphere), which is a real piece of equipment in the optical sciences. A real integrating sphere is both spherical and painted white on the inside and can be used to measure the power of a beam of light entering it. Ones with reflective coatings are known and are called Coblentz spheres. The obvious problem is the small entrance aperture which would greatly reduct the area of sunlight collected.
If I really wanted to make one of these work, a large lens placed to focus sunlight onto the entrance and a sun tracker would be obvious improvements. The lens would not have to particularly good since distortions would not matter so long as all of the photons got through the entrance aperture, and even a molded Fresnel lens might be good enough.
Of course any power not absorbed by the collector would show up as heat which could represent a serious problem.
This device is a very inefficient method of separating people from their money. The "inventors" are hoping there are a very large number of people on earth so efficiency does not have to be high for it to be profitable.
I obviously wouldn't want to call it a scam, but it looks all the world like an integrating sphere used in photo spectrometers for measuring things like the power of an LED and 0.6V looks like a regular silicon solar cell to me.
Exactly what I was thinking
And how much Amps?
Where is Terrance Howard when we need him!? His Ferodonous Penticle patent would help clarify this so quickly!
Snake oil. We've seen a lot of these in the residential wind turbine market as well, with similarly wild claims. As always, doing the math is easy: surface area (or swept area in case of wind) gives you the max power that can be generated. If they are near that number, you can be fairly sure it's a scam or at least a false claim. If they exceed that number, well...
Look at the tiny aperture on top of those spheres. That's the area you're working with, the rest of the ball reflects most of the light striking it.
Well, until they manage to conduct it and explain it properly, I'll stay on the "It's a scam" side 😅
my de grasse tyson personal scamometer is blinking.
Why not ask the developer about how the top aperture is able to amplify the energy density of the solar energy available there? You should not be able to improve the watts/square unit of solar energy available at the aperture once the energy has passed through it.
I installed a square meter of it in my basement, I can heat, and cool my home, run all my appliances even at night. Amazing product.
I have the exact same setup! Sometimes however when I want to charge my hydrogen car it can’t handle the energy demand, but then I just shine my flashlight at the silicon conductor module and I’m good to go again
Ha, ha, ha...
Me too. It also runs my car very well inside my apartment.
I'll take THREE!
I installed a mirror above it to double the generated energy. This started an uncontrolled feedback loop and now I have a small sun in my basement.
These Christmas decorations will look rad on my Christmas tree. And I think that's the best they can do.
It's a probably a tad cheaper to fire up the ol 3d printer and print a couple yourself. Could even dump a battery and a led down there and give your tree that glow it so rightfully deserve.
I guess I got some ornaments to make if the wife sees this comment.....
I have seen an example of a solid-state engine. It converted burning fuel into a single wavelength of light which is then collected by a tuned solar collector. If someone were to take the sun's given solar radiation and all its variable wavelengths and convert those all into a single wavelength, then you could start tuning the collectors.
If you absorb everything than it can be converted to heat. So, infrared. But I don't think it's practical.
@@ImperativeGames A solar concentrator system could be used to drive the same sodium emitter+tuned collector, wirh the same caveats that it's not maintenance
Though at the moment price per watt is far more relevant that watt per square meter.
@@ImperativeGames Just about everything we do causes heat/infrared. Should we be looking to convert everything to a more productive/usable/conveyable wavelength? The solid-state engine converts the heat into a monochromatic single wavelength.
It is a scam and I reject the patent on grounds of vagueness and word salad.
The silicon conductor module alone could be worth a fortune if enough people bought one.
@@AstroGremlinAmerican Silicon conductor module sounds like something that Jake and Nog would sell after they made a small fortune with self sealing stem bolts.
Honestly the fact that you said you didn't say it was a scam is a big reassurance to me. I totally thought it would be, when the video started.
It feels so much like an AI was asked to make a business venture that would attract investors. Then it was asked to explain how it worked.
Absolutely correct. Only it's the kind of AI that existed before computers, meaning: 'Not Real Intelligent'.
Surface area matters, and if light is only being permitted through a small aperture, it’s only going to receive the wattage concentrated at that small opening. Flat panels that track the position of the sun will always be more efficient than anything crinkled or curved or reflecting or lens-like, because sun rays are parallel (and scattered light is mostly blue). In short, even a small concentrator that brings light down to a small solar cell still has to be have a wide collector to receive the sun’s energy across a wide area.
If it uses a fisheye lens, I can see consistent production through the day. That might get your power output up but it doesn’t make up for all the “issues” you pointed out.
Just make really big spheres, and live inside them ... that way you get both power and a house.
That's 200% efficiency.
I can imagine a company rep: "But Sabine, like you said, they're not spheres"
Very clever, it also works as EM-drive!
Science is not a request concert ("...ist kein Wunschskonzert", German adage).
Science is not a Pony Hof! An old German saying, meaning science is not a pony ranch….😮
The enabler is not a scientist and his motto is "Theres one born every minute" or in Hello, Hello style "Vere iz vun bourne avery seconda"!?!
That seems more like Deltoidal Hexecontahedron, not a hexakis icosahedron (though there are some really faint edges that might make it one). 0:50
The scammers website claims that solar panels only produce power for two hours a day. I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out how these light power balls can operate 24/7.
Oh, that's easy. They do nothing, so they can operate round the clock for years!
They produce the same amount of power at night as they do in the day. ..None.
The only "miracle tech" in solar would be someone building a viable solar rectenna. IIRC there have been some experimental short wavelength rectennas in the deep infrared range, but if they can crack it, you'll get a much higher conversion efficiency than anything voltaic cells are likely ever going to be capable of, with none of the capacity reduction over time.
Short wavelength in deep infrared is an oxymoron.
@@O_Lee69 It's redundant. But is it an oxymoron?
@@sabsajosubjeckt It's not redundant, it's self conflicting. IR has wavelengths longer than all visible light. The deeper you go into IR, the longer the wavelength.
just send ships up that have big nets to fish for solar rays, i have some crayon drawings of my idea if you'd like to invest.... :)
@@AtlasReburdened color only exists in brains. what color is a photon?
The wares of hucksters... You've convinced me (you made it really clear, without actually doing so for legal reasons).
They don't appear to have much of a test equipment budget. That is a $29 meter :D
You don't need expensive equipment to scam people, just a 3d printer, a few semi-conductors from the shelf and a multimeter... That's all you need to get millions from investors. That could easily give them 3000% from their initial investment! Maybe that's where they got this 3000% efficiency thing? lol
@@Alfred-Neuman Don't forget the flashlights. They look fancy.
@@alexanderpoplawski577 That's where the rest of the budget went.
@@stevemawer848 And a bottle of Vino, to celebrate the web-site launch.
I used to have the exact same devices as decorations on my Christmas tree some years ago. Had I know then that it was cutting edge tech, I would have used them to power my Christmas lights 😂
I all ways harp on to people I know when decorating a room consider this an opportunity to install insulation. I quote my own experience with a stone build property I owned to which I installed 100mm foam false walls and triple glazed windows. At the time the materials (I did the work myself) was just over £1000 for 2 rooms and my winter bills totaled about £300, after the work this dropped to just over £100. i.e. 5 years to recoup costs. I found the difference astounding and one of the best investments if your trying to cut costs.
Just wait and see. If the inventors die under suspicious circumstances within the next year, it will be clear that this innovation was truly groundbreaking.
I agree, it's definitely not a scam. It seems more likely to be a translation error. The device might be designed to convert techno-babble into cash with 200% efficiency.
Nowadays, it's almost impossible to browse the web without encountering a scam. I'd wager that over 50% of biotech stocks trading on various exchanges are fraudulent. I wouldn't be surprised if this "solar" company launches an IPO in the near future.
That makes sense. I’ve been using "MARGARET ELLEN WHITLOCK" for two years now and I own a six-figure diversified portfolio from investing in stocks. I want to diversify more this year, though.
I see what you did there. Very crafty.
Thinking about conspiracy theories, why wasn't Edison or Tesla or Ford killed in mysterious circumstances? Maybe someone needs to come up with a new theory.
Wavja's got balls to make this kind of claim!
It is 30 times cheaper to get the (smaller) photovoltaic cell which produces 7.5 more power (because of the reflected light inside the integrating sphere), giving a 200 times improvement of the "efficiency" in money revenue for this scam and an ironclad legal protection.
Friends, I can perhaps help here due to my 37 year association with electrostatic probes employed in the world’s most used polyethylene production process running in the gas phase. I’ll cut to the chase as it took me years to determine how the probes work; it’s not intuitive but obvious with a couple three critical insights, then you’ll have it yourself.
First, this is not a voltage device; it is a current machine, (each photon producing an electron based on the photoelectric effect) so we have to reorder our thinking while holding to the basic laws.
This is further the classic RC circuit wherein the capacitance is not so obvious but it’s there inherently just as it was in our probes due to its design without the inclusion of an actual capacitor per se. its right there fully visible in their device but our brains don’t click. See it? OK, most of our PhD’s even don’t understand how our voltage probe works either. The capacitance is in the plastic geodecic whatever domes where they are lined thinly on the inside with one of the classic photoelectric materials. Got it?
Ok and finally, RC circuits all have an exponential dynamic term describing the rate of accumulation and discharge of charge in time based on a time constant that is the product of the resistance and the capacitance. (Their circuit includes a resistor for that is across which voltage is always measured.). The “trick” here is to match the capacitance and the voltage to put the time constant in the range of seconds to perhaps minutes that matches the rate of electrons derived from the entering photons such that there is an accumulation on the capacitor so they don’t bleed off through the resistor too quickly. Remember, in a current vs voltage machine, the electrons just want to go somewhere regardless of the voltage, and the voltage arises because of the design of the circuit. Weird right, but accurate. Sure as a Chem E, we did electronics as well, and these are new concepts to some, but think about it as your bathroom sink with the faucet on at some set flowrate and then adjusting the drain so thst yes the water level comes up to a steady state level and remains there according to the same math and a classic problem in hydraulics - the constant current is the faucet water, the drain is the resistor and the capacitor is the sink bowl where the water accumulates. If the water drains out as fast as it flows in as often the case, there is no accumulation on the bowl. That’s why the RC circuit time constant has to be in the proper range.
Now you may realize that simply adjusting the RxC time constant dramatically affects the voltage measurement, and herein they are measuring a steady state with the capacitance charged and electrons coming out as fast as they are generated. Mark my words, the current is low and remains the same low, but these folks could soon realize even greater voltages going even to 60 volts or 6,000 volts even by simply employing a bigger resistor. If this is hard to swallow, look up the British Petroleum patents on electrostatic current probes for monitoring electrostatic phenomena in their gas phase fluid bed polymerization reactor wherein they employed resistors of about 10 to the 7 ohms and tried unsuccessfully to monitor plus and minus really fast dynamic current flows in and out of the reactor by mathematical means to assess the health of the reaction environment. I won’t say what, but their time constant was so low they could never accumulate the more reliable voltage indication, which when tuned properly in our system provides a very dynamic voltage response where on commercial scale we could generate either by accident or by will, easily plus 10,000 volts or negative 10,000 volts in literally a heartbeat like an impulse function. It was truly impressive and also fully deleterious to reactor operation, so yeah, my friends and I spent a lot of effort and patents learning how to ameliorate and mitigate its effects but that’s another war story when you have to teach the US Patent office because they don’t understand what’s going on.
Then finally again, whatever big work their device can do is locked up in the device itself with its capacitance, according to the well known expression 1/2 V x (C squared). This is not the continuous work, but the energy stored in the capacitance. It’s of no value for steady state power generation. Now ours would throw a blue streak like 2 meters in length and knocked a heard hat off once, causing that individual to also cuss a blue streak. So I’ll let you think about that how much energy and how to do it in like less than a second, which is far beyond a van de graff generator and more like on some respects a Tesla Coil in response.
And they seem to evoke some new physics as well based on the description of some current enhanced photoelectric effect, which I suggest is them hooking the singular devices together in series or parallel, and thus benefiting from the collective increase in capacitance inherent in each device, which in turn increases their capacitance and time constant and apparent voltage without providing any gain in power beyond just having extra devices.
In my view, therefore, this published patent application should be struck down by the WO examiner for it lacks novelty and inventive step. We don’t believe in perpetual motion machines and free energy (yet), and it’s unwise to allow bad science to junk up the patent literature which may one day become an impediment as “prior art” to those doing good research and actual contributions.
That said, noting I am always open to new ideas and concepts and have learned they can come from anywhere and anyone. Should you wonder that I might be some crackpot, I refer you to my 69 publications in the US Patent literature that translated to who knows how many the company filed and were granted all around the world. It is what it is. I take no pride in it really. It was fun and what we did and I owe so very much to my peers and mentors and those way more smarter with better ideas.
And herein I would venture the one parent I like the most is the one that has no known explanation yet was fully reproducible, and even my friends laughed at me yet the company thankfully published on the basis of my other research.
And Sabine, if you are interested in this one I would like to discuss either for any plausible explanation lies in your field of study and what I see and have learned in retirement, there are too many things that align both in materials and observation which justify looking deeper to again explain observable phenomena from the quantum realm.
So I’m Mark G, Goode with all my parents published from my West Virginia addresses, and I am easy enough to find through the US Patent office former street addresses and the magic of the internet to current address and other information surely. Truly I would appreciate peer to peer correspondence on this matter for a have now little access of any to quantum physicists being retired, and I judge Sabine to be one of the good people on the planet.
Kindest Regards,
MG
If we discard the laws of thermodynamics, it sounds plausible.
Re: the 200-times higher efficinecy number, sometimes one can mean that the losses are 200 times less than the state of the art (70%/200 - 0.35%, thus the efficiency is 99.65%). Not to say this is what they meant or that this is not b.s.
Or: 200-times higher efficiency than the worst solar cell in existence.
Or, you get the same output from 0.5% of the PV panel area.
PV panels can utilise far more visible light than is available on earth.
What they don't like is the associated infrared.
@@januslast2003 True! :)
Honestly, I don't know how photovoltaics work, so the only evidence that I have is seeing that they work. But if you'd asked me without a priori knowledge, I'd be skeptical. Where do all the electrons come from? Won't the material degrade as the photons go peeling off electrons? Can it really get enough potential for them to move down the circuit to more distant atoms? Where are the equations? How many photons produce how many electrons of how much energy displaced by what distance and how much time before re-establishing bonds....only to be displaced again? Can you really create a measurable net flux of charge through the conductor?
For these mirrored polyhedron, we give it the "does it look like sci-fi?" test. And it does. therefore it's fiction. Although you can ask the same thing. I think the idea is that even though fewer photons are captured, they're guaranteed to be used, because they'll bounce around the mirrors until some interaction occurs. With a regular old photovoltaic, who knows how often a photon interacts to contribute to net current. Maybe only one out of a billion. (somebody surely has done the math), in which case, there may be some advantage to giving a photon multiple chances to connect and transfer energy. But I doubt it. (someone surely has already done the math and decided concentrated light from mirrors is better at producing heat, then steam, then motion, then current ... than producing current directly through PV materials.) Besides, any real photon multiplier would have the equivalent of the JWST mirror geometry directing light into each cubicle.
So, scam? Most assuredly. A sucker born every minute? Undoubtedly. Billions wasted on rabbit holes dug by liars, cheaters, and thieves? as well as legitimate technical blind alleyways? Most definitely. It's only money after all. We have an infinite supply and an infinite amount of time to waste it.
Unless someone starts to complain.
Well said and well explained. Thank you mate
Well said and well explained, thank you mate
Make glass, dope with p and n type, choose a doping material that will release their electron when hit by light (electron absorbs photon, higher energy level, jumps out of shell of atom), make a barrier and cable connecting the p and n type, shine light on it, electron has higher power state as it absorbs photon, jumps away, moves through the cable attracted to the positively charged other side
I find even the whole "photons bouncing around to make sure it will interact" thing stupid. What about all the photons hitting the outside of the spheres? Those should also be counted as a loss in efficiency compared to a flat solar panel.
Many scammees are so ashamed that they fell for such an obvious stupid idea that they retreat into silence and slither away.
A NEW HAND TOUCHES THE BEACON!
I was wondering if anyone else saw the obvious Meridia reference!
Lol I thought of that as well. 🤣
I'M SO HAPPY I FOUND SOMEONE ELSE WHO MADE THIS COMMENT! i'm a new skyrim fan (started less than 2 weeks ago) and i immediately notices that it looks like meridia's beacon
I saw this too and scratched my head hard. I wondered who tried this but an infant research reader like me knew it was bolaks. when you said you were missing something i laughed so hard i nearly fell off my chair. Goodness these people use big words for people who do not read. Thank you for this video. big thumbs up from Odessa in Trinidad and Tobago.
Wavja sounds like a Temu storefront
i think the problem is the lady was given a bad script or has a bad understanding of the numbers so she said "200 times" when she should have said "200 percent" (which is only 2 times.)
The problem is...even two times is bs.
No, in the promotional video @2:00 or thereabouts, it states "two hundred times more efficient".
@@cdl0 yes and im saying they probably meant to say 200%
I recall Ray Kurzweil suggesting some years ago that if we only captured a fraction of a fraction of one per cent of the sunlight that hit our planet we would be provided with unlimited clean energy for all 'for ever' . I have no idea how more efficient capture of this free energy is achieved but it seems sensible to pursue the possibility with gusto and great vigour. If there is a comparable even close to Moores Law where my first home computer in the 80s had 64kb memory, then there will surely be a process/material that will exponentially transform the efficiency/delivery of solar capture devices will be found soon. My feeling is that so much has been invested in current methods that the ROI needed is artificially holding up that process.
You are aware that you change the Reflexion of the Earth surface ? In this size done it certainly will change climate in the regions it is used. The size btw is like whole Sahara region for the needs of Europe alone.
How do you transport the energy with as few losses as possible over 3000 km ?
And this energy is NOT free. You have to invest large resources and money into these power plants. Wich break down after like 20-25 years and need to be replaced. Sun also only shine at day. The daytime in Germany as example in December is 9 hours, usually clouded so you get no or around up to 10% energy in the season you'll need energy most.
If it walks like a duck and ...
I can almost guarantee that they have batteries inside, which is where the power comes from. Classic engineering scam.
As I am currently trying to find a way to use solar energy to power mobile, robotic, enegy dilevery systems for field use...I find this entertaining, no matter how make-believe it may be. 😊
To be fair, they meant >200X more efficient per square unit of area, based on the earlier claim of 30X smaller and 7.5X more output (30 * 7.5 being 225). This doesn't make it any less bunk, but their claim was at least theoretically possible.
Yes 👍
The area doesn't matter. You can't go above 100% efficiency. If it's 30x smaller than a conventional solar panel, it would only receive 1/30th the amount of sunlight, and would produce 16% the energy of the conventional solar panel even at 100% efficiency.
@@djinn666 Yes you cant go over 100% effinency but who knows what the right maximum is. Scientist used to say that humans can never fly... Wright brothers think differently adn even the scientist proved that humans are too heavy to fly... Rest is history and we have airplanes. Who know how much there is really energy in what ever area. So it is very possible from that view to have 200 more efficient thing. I dont know if this invention is the thing or not but the Sun is one big powerhouse, not just the heat energy but also light radiation etc. form of energy.
Airplanes don't defy the laws of physics.
Ah the bull shit battery. They generate 20% from heat and light and the rest from bullshit.
Powered by Methane then?
200 times more efficient at making a profit
Wow! Homerun for science used to improve people’s lives! I put them on the roof of my electric car and now I can drive from San Francisco to New York in 4 hours! No more waiting in airports for me.
If you changed your number, who am I calling 20 times a day? I think those are nothing more than photovoltaic cells in a 3 dimensional lattice to make us think that we're eating snow cones.
Lol
What they don't tell you is that this is actually a nano nuclear device. The photons exert pressure on the sub-critical plutonium nano particles. The reflection amplifies this pressure. The pressure compresses the nano particles, making them go critical and start producing energy. Remove the light, the pressure is gone and the particles go back to sub-critical. The key innovation is in the use of plutonium nano particles and the associated manufacturing techniques.
My math must be lacking. I thought 200% more than 15% would be 45%. I think they were saying it is 45% efficient.
200% = x 2 so 2 x 15% = 30%
Maybe the claims are based in per unit of PV area. Additionally, it’s possible they’re also generating current from heat (temperature) differences, which would make some claims closer to possible with known science.
Concentrated solar with heat diodes is my guess. Potentially adding IR reflective coating which use “space” as a passive heat sink. In my mind, the “reflector” in the center of the sphere has a solar PV collector facing the inside of the sphere. Surrounding the collector is an other reflector which ensures any light which hits it is reflected to the collector on the second bounce.
Surrounding the heat radiator, at the sun-facing end of the lens assembly, is another reflector ensuring any light which which reaches it from the emitter (heat, IR energy) is rejected into space.
This design can passively cool the PV collector while generating additional energy from the process of rejecting heat.
The sphere-like reflectors don’t have to be that shape or size. This tech can be scaled for any size (length unit ^2) application.
Principle seems to be the fact, that inside a inner reflective sphere, once a photon entered, it bounces so long, until it is absorbed by a relatively small absorbtive area.
And no matter, which angle the photon comes in, it is almost equally effective.
But:
This has been used in light measuring devices, where power output is irrelevant.
Its called "Ulbricht Kugel (Sphere)"
I am glad you said that it isn't a SCAM because calling something a SCAM that isn't a SCAM is a SCAMMY SCAM SCAM SCAM.
Hi Sabine, love your sober opinions on most matters of science. I praise your outreach and dumbing down facts for including a wider variety of people. In my neck of the world, opinions are often un factual and left to people with the loudest voice. Wish you could produce a scientific fact check segment on this issue, you certainly feed my opinions well. Thank you for what you do
Further evidence of their mathematical disability: 30x smaller. Typical solar panel for rooftop = 1 x 1.7 m = 1.7 sqm or 17000 sqcm. Surface (max interior) area of a sphere = 4.Pi.r squared with a radius of say 3cm = 36 Pi or approx. 115 sqcm. 115 into 17000 = 150?? So not 30?
Sad part is you just know some people are going to hear their figures and just straight out believe them because they can't or won't be bothered checking first. C'est la Vie.
My hot take on the 200x more efficient. That ball is 30x smaller than regular solar panels, but produces 7.5x the electricity output. Multiply both values, and you get a ball that is 225x more efficient than regular solar panels for the same surface area.
Sabine, back in the early 2000's, ATS, a Canadian Automation company, licensed a technology from Texas Instruments, called Spheral Solar. It dramatically reduced the use of silicon by taking small spheres of silicon, doped with various materials to make them tiny little solar cells. These were then placed into a very small reflective pocket, specially shaped to concentrate the light on the outside of the sphere.
It was very promising technology, and ATS, together with various levels of government spent millions of dollars attempting to commercialize the technology.
Unfortunately, the practical difficulties, combined with unfortunate passing of ATS' CEO, Klaus Woerner, who was championing the process, caused them to abandon the process.
I think that is one application of optics that might actually improve solar cells.
The other was the California company, Solyndra, that created a similar technology, but on a macro scale. Caring tubes with silicon and then using solar non-focusing optics to optimize solar collection through passive solar tracking. Obama invested billions in that technology and, it, again failed.
At this point, the good old flat solar panel seems to be king, though vertically oriented bi-facial solar panels seems to be the current hype, along with residential solar.
Many solar panel brands exceed 20% SunPower=22.8%, REC Group=22.3%, Panasonic=22.2%, Maxeon Solar Technologies=22.2%, Jinko Solar=22.02%, Silfab Solar=22%
It's definitely not a scam. Pure genius. You made that clear as can be Sabine. If I had the money I'd say sign me up.😁
their theory is that the inside of the sphere has a bigger area, then what it covers, so more solar pannel area gives more energy... but why then not to cut it in half and pack it in an hexagonal array? maybe they want the rebound fotons to be recaptured and mimic the eyeball?
Years ago our engineering office had a random guy come in claiming to have this brilliant invention and wanted engineering support to help promote it. He wasn't too happy when we told him it defied the laws of physics, because he was adamant that he had a working prototype.
I'd say this solar device is a money grab before they then decide to shut down.
No, no, we definitely can’t call it a scam. That would be entirely inappropriate. I’ve been reliably informed that the lens comes from a Type S dashcam. The S-Cam lens is super efficient at collecting light, and that’s the secret behind the literally incredible energy output.
So, just remember, it’s “S-Cam,” not “scam.” A “scam” isn’t a real product, but an “S-Cam” lens is. The hyphen is important!
Totally legit. That's how this works, some startup, run by people nobody's ever heard of, develops a product that companies, and universities around the world, with qualified scientists, and large budgets just aren't able to do.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt, one thing they might be saying is that the system is more efficient in the use of photovoltaic material, just like concentrated solar is. Getting to 100% solar efficiency is impossible, but it's also irrelevant, since the sun is free. Even if your solution is 1% efficient, if it's cheap enough that it can generate more electricity per dollar invested than traditional solar panels, then it has a shot at being disruptive. I could imagine a sphere with a small opening that wastes 90% of the sunlight reaching it but which concentrates the remaining light on a very small piece of photovoltaic material, producing 10% of the energy at 1% of the cost.
Now, this sounds unlikely given their other claims, and also such a system might be very difficult to cool, so I just wanted to clarify that wasting 90% of the sunlight might not be a problem in many scenarios of you use the remaining portion cheaply and effectively enough.
Hello! The 20% percent is a specific band that I am told makes up 40% of light. So solar panes adsorb 205 out of 40%. This is less than many think. Regards
Anti scam claims, hilarious delivery Sabine!!!!
People do not understand... It's not possible to convert more than 25-30% with existing(!) materials (I mean available materials, not experimental ones), because 75% of a photon energy is converted into a waste heat right at a moment 25% is converted into an electricity/ There is no way to "save" those 75% to use them in a second try (except to add some Stirling engine to a system).
I think the 200x is its 7.5x more output while being 30x smaller. 7.5 x 30 = 225
So, I think their exact claim is that the tiny lens is gathering 7.5x more energy than a solar panel of equal size to that tiny lens
Overall its all stupid, so many leaps.