Debunked: V3Solar's spinning solar panel cone spin cell "CoolSpin"

Pete

Member
Yes you are missing something. But have a chance to prove yourself correct.
Kind of small talk I expected.
Read the offer. You stand to benefit. (According to you)
Well done.
Waiting for personal abuse next for requesting 3rd party testing.

So far you were the first to dish out 'personal abuse' here (see your post #82). Well done.

Tell me right now, listing approximate component costs/size alone, how this is commercially viable, let alone competitive to a standard sizable solar array?! Lets go for a 5kW system.
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
Companies are struggling with CPV technology.
From what I gather, it has to do with inflated efficiency projections, the high cost and availability of manufacturing the new technologies, the toxic nature of producing (and disposal) of specialized PV cells, and the decreasing costs of standard flat-panels already in production/use, dominated by off-shore manufacturing.
All those above result in a major problem......real-world implementation.

Greenvolts' funding was dropped by ABB, and they basically folded. Reports like this from CRADA, NREL.....explained in part here....
Four different grid designs were tested. The standard parallel finger, double bus design that is quite commonly employed. The four quadrant design. A circular radial design. And a hexagonal design. All four designs had 10% shadowing losses and similar spacing. Modeling was performed using the standard 1-D grid design equations. Work on more advanced distributed resistance modeling of at lest two of these designs had begun.
The project was terminated when GreenVolts decided to scrap their optical system as unworkable. They have since moved to a more conventional freznel lens system with much greater flux uniformity. They have an uncertain economic future and are now focused on survival rather than next generation product. As such they are interested in trying to bring a product to market with off-the-shelf components.

Amonix, Solfocus, and many others....prognosis is not good.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/uciliaw...80-solar-panel-makers-will-disappear-by-2015/

....and other performance issues of CPV...Experience with CPV Module Failures at NREL
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
The area that I feel holds a lot of promise is the thin film solar panel. Especially the ones that are semi transparent. They are still on the pricey side, I understand.

Here in Dallas we have a lot of glass sided skyscrapers. Something that would make the sun hitting them useful would be nice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_film_solar_cell
 

Rmmm

New Member
My reply to Robert Styler the marketing guy for V3 Solar...

Thanks Robert...
But I remain very much unimpressed and skeptical of your technology. I left the gushing believers a long way back. Your Prototype is nothing of the sort. It is huge box with one cell. By now V3 should be way past this. Build something that would be affordable in scaled production -- that fits on and works on a roof as good or better than what is already available -- and I will reconsider. Till then, this remains a fancy toy worked up as bait hoping for deep pockets to come along. Make a bet, in five years time, this gadget will be nowhere. Fresnel Lens treatment is not new. Entech Solar was there long ago. But now they are closing up shop. Get your CV ready. RMM


On 7/11/2013 2:03 PM, V3Solar wrote:
I have posted a few pictures on our Facebook page of our CoolSpin prototype: https://www.facebook.com/V3Solar (Please like the page if you like what we are doing).

I am at the InterSolar event in San Francisco this week. If any of you are down here, it would be nice to meet in person. Just reply to this email and we will meet somewhere in the exhibit hall.

Go Solar!

Robert​
 

Uwe Zimmermann

New Member
I wish I did have the time (or energy) to write a debunk-article like this one. Me and my colleagues have been laughing and shivering regarding the ideas presented at V3's homepage after I discovered this "technology" in a serious solar energy newsletter.

One not even recognized fact regarding the use of standard silicon solar cells under concentration is not the heat load, but the increased current which the cells' contacts would have to deal with. The conductor structure on the front of a standard silicon solar cell has been optimized for the current collected under 1-sun illumination, i.e. about 300 amps per square metre. Increasing the illumination by a factor of 20x would mean that the current density would increase to 6000 amps per square metre of 600 milliamps per square centimetre. This would require a conductor structure with significantly decreased series resistance (either by means of better conductors, a denser spacing or larger cross section of the conductors) in order not to loose all the gain in additional electrical losses which go by current squared.

Keep on the good work, Mick!
 

tom roltsch

New Member
While researching tracking devices, I too thought that a shape would have "built-in tracking" as V3 claims for its cone shape. Actually, there is no shape; sphere, cone, ellipse, geodesic dome, or any other that outperforms a flat panel with the same area oriented to the south at the latitude where you live. The best that you can get is about four fifths of the energy output of the flat panel. If the flat panel tracks then then shape will only be able to approach about half of the output of the flat panel. This is easy to figure out, just do the math. Any shape will have one panel oriented at 90 degrees to the sun with the remainder of its panels off axis or in shade. Compare that to a flat panel getting the sine of the sun's angle on its full surface area all day long. Only at very low angles near sunrise and sunset does the shape outperform a flat panel. Integrating the energy gathered over a full day, the flat panel numbers always come out greater than a shape that has many small panels oriented at different angles. The cone is particularly poor in this comparison. The cone will collect about 70% of the energy that a flat panel will collect. It doesn't matter whether the light is concentrated or not, there is no possibility of output of energy that is not collected. However, this thing looks really futuristic and I would buy one as a decoration. If they added some LED lights to the spinning mechanism it would really look cool! The company may have some legitimate point that they can use less PV material by concentrating sunlight, but that is certainly not a technological breakthrough. For about the same ground area (say 2 meter diameter cone versus 2 meter x 2 meter square panel) this cone shape will have less electricity output than a fixed flat panel. Add in the fact that some of the electricity produced needs to go into spinning and levitating the thing and the electricity available for output is even less. Investors beware!
 

Eric H

New Member
Their entire value proposition stands on this radical idea of "dynamic spin". Apparently, these two words must always be together, lest someone confuse their technology with "static spin" or "dynamic stillness". Also, they can always admonish detractors to "discard static thinking and embrace dynamic thinking" to make them seem like curmudgeons. They have this idea that you can spin the cell in and out of light and pay no penalty ("This happens because the excitation rate of PV is the speed of light, and the decay rate is slower. The PV flashes out of the light so quickly that it never has time to decay."[1]). Or 35% penalty ("The key to our increased production is that even though half of the facets are "out of the light' at any time, they remain at a minimum of 65% excitation."[1]). It all depends on the latest press release strategy (though curiously those two quotes are in the same one).

Of course, you can't expect Robert Skyler to get the technical details just right, no matter how much technicalese he throws around, because he's not the engineer. That's what he invariably falls back on when someone points out the deficiencies in their science ... after about 5 rounds of sparring.[2] So just as with the spinning dome thing where they couldn't decide if they meant "power" or "efficiency" or "energy"[3] -- hey, what's the difference, really? they're all just different terms for electricity, right? -- now they seem to be throwing around "excitation" when they apparently mean "voltage" and are trying to imply "power". Because all they're really doing is turning parasitic capacitance from a bug into a feature.

When you light up the cell, you get a voltage and some current. It takes a finite amount of time ("speed of light'? yes, but in a much slower medium than vacuum) to charge the capacitor. When you abruptly take the light away, the voltage collapses somewhat slower because of the series resistance between the capacitor and the load (also at the speed of light, by the way). But the capacitor is small and the power delivered during this period is correspondingly small. So these guys are showing an idealized form of the voltage, calling it "excitation", and implying that this is "output power". Truthy enough for a press release, I guess.

There's another problem with their modeling demo: they are showing the vol, er, I mean "pow", um, "excitation" as if it was maximum and flat while the facet was in the light, and then it decays while out of the light, and then goes back up to maximum in the light.[2] Well, only if they were constantly illuminating it and chopping the light. In reality, the facet gradually enters the light and then gradually leaves it. During that time, the projected area of the facet is reduced, so you're really only getting cos(60/2) or about 86% of the incoming light hitting the cell. Plus, assuming their concentrator is any good and is focusing on the full area of the facet when it is normal (i.e. the Strehl ratio is high), the fall-off around the edges will be severe, so only a small portion of the cell will be receiving that 86%. Therefore, it will be receiving much less than 86% of full sunlight as it starts to rotate into the illuminated zone, increase up to 100%, and then fall off again. A more realistic model then would show a sinusoidal output that fell off a heck of a lot more than 35%. I will gladly concede that the concentrator design is not very good and that much of the light is spilling over onto the adjacent facet, but that's not going to help much.

So, no, I don't believe that they are getting 100% out of the cells in the light and 65% out of the other cells. At best, they get 100% from the illuminated cell at the one instant in time when it is normal to the light, and the rest of the time they get less than that - perhaps much less. And therefore, no, I don't believe their cost/benefit calculations. And they have not once responded to my observation that they will need specialized power management systems to interface to the load or grid and cannot take advantage of returns to scale there, since every other solar system is delivering a dc output while this will be delivering a very unique 2-phase, 15 Hz power scheme.

[1] http://us6.campaign-archive1.com/?u=80fb864fefa4b4efe048fbd7f&id=65fa0feeca&e
[2] http://cleantechnica.com/2013/07/07/v3solar-video-dynamic-spin-technology/
[3] http://cleantechnica.com/2013/01/24/v3solar-spin-cell-cones-cheap-solar/
 

Rmmm

New Member
$$$ Startup Time $$$ Let's see.. No real crowdfunding system. No idea how many "first 99's" there will actually be. Nothing would make them happier, we are told! Sheesh. I am feeling less and less happy. Guess that is my conscience talking.

http://us6.campaign-archive1.com/?u=80fb864fefa4b4efe048fbd7f&id=819637b8e4&e=65fb4f08fd

Check out the latest! Now people who trust this lot will get a chance to jump in. The next
==
Now you can invest in V3Solar with as little as $5,000. For more information please go toInvestor Inquiries.

On September 23rd the JOBS Act began and the rules changed. Companies like V3Solar can now directly market to accredited investors through social media and the internet. We are big believers in crowdfunding because it is distributed power, just like solar.
We want to see how big we can make this. Nothing would make us happier than to see many "small" investors enjoy the legendary returns normally reserved for a handful of elite -- so we lowered our minimum investment from $50,000 to $5,000. This is limited to the first 99 investors.

==
Rmmm
 

Keef Wivanef

New Member
Interesting review of the V3 here which seems to have been inspired by Mick's excellent assessment of the cone (one cone too many?)

http://www.academia.edu/3994154/V3_Solar_Whitepaper_copy


Conclusion & Final Recommendation
The moment that I had heard about the new technology and design that V3 Solar was in the process of developing in the area of Concentrated Photovoltaic panels, I was intrigued. I went immediately to the company’s website and read about how one of their spin cells (CPV) equaled the output of 5 regular flat pan-els (PV). I was excited about the many other ideas that were reported; including the conical shaped design, the innovative way they had overcome the problem of heat dissipation, how the angle of solar incidence did not need to be calculated, to using less PV material and thereby lowering the cost so everyone could afford it, when they had enough investors. The very next thought I had was followed by a sinking feeling in my gut. It was the phrase; “If something seems too good to be true, then it is.”.
Immersed in the field of utility engineering I had explored just about every kind of renewable energy, including reading most of the related technical journals. In reading the solar technical journals I found that there was nothing mentioned by the experts of V3 Solar or their related technology. I searched their archives and many other online recourses to find any reference to it at all. (Cue sound of crickets) The silence was deafening. Why was nothing being said about this?
Interspersed between V3’s self promotion and a short write up on the Forbes website I began seeing blog postings that were attacking the legitimacy of the V3 technology. The bloggers themselves were not ex-perts and offered no concrete evidence discounting all of it, only parts. (One reported that the word libel might have had a say in the details not reported on. Summing up the items that were mentioned I learned more of the complete picture of V3. V3 Solar is part of the Holophasec Group. One part of this group was called Solarphasec (now V3 Solar); which had reportedly has been developing a new 3D solar power genera-tion method. The next part of this group is the company called Hydrophasec; which is developing a new effi-cient water desalination method. The last company in this group is called Comsphasec; which coincidentally had also reported that they were developing a new true smart grid technology. Each of these divisions had reports of incredible breakthroughs. I learned some employment history of Robert Styler, the chief mar-keting officer of V3 Solar. Before V3 Solar he worked for Equinox International. Equinox International was a well known multi-level marketing corporation before the Federal Trade Commission succeeded in closing it in April 2000. Robert Styler was President of a company called Citizenre. Citizenre had secured $20 million from the investment firm Adam Capital in 2007, in order to begin installation of 15 MW of residential solar PV sys-tems in California. In 2011 people were still wondering when they were going to begin to deliver on that “promise”.
During the process of researching and evaluating the legitimacy of the claims of V3 Solar I was re-minded of an interesting saying; “You can not change the laws of physics.”. In understanding the conditions that affect CPV and how those conditions in turn affect the production of electricity the only conclusion that I am able to make is that although V3 Solar has proposed many interesting concepts, behind those ideas are the flawed science that multilevel marketing corporations use to entice there “marks” with. Being reminis-cent of what P.T Barnum said, “There is a sucker born every minute.”. I can not recommend any investment at this time.
Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rmmm

New Member
Care to comment Bobby?:rolleyes:

Thanks Keef...
Just forwarded the above to Robert Styler, V3's marketing guy. AKA "Bobby". All the believers on Facebook and YouTube need to see this history.
I was similarly excited at first. I truly wanted to believe in the "Cone". Fortunately, Mick's careful study and the tough questions by Mick and others that go unanswered show the fact. Then the Cone morphed...TWICE. Some people are going to get hurt, I fear. Styler's history tells the tale.
Rmmm
 

Keef Wivanef

New Member
I was similarly excited at first. I truly wanted to believe in the "Cone"

That is why these Green Widget scams are a sure fire recipe.
Not only are they offering something that a lot of people would love to have (cheaper, better, greener) but any naysayers can be branded as Luddites or as part of the Big Oil conspiracy.
Mick's original post sums it up brilliantly.
It is not just "out there" widgets like the V3.
There are hundreds of other Green Widget Scams operating and a new one is launched every day.
So long as the law gives them THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT Robert Styler and his ilk can carry on business as usual.
I'm a great believer in commonsense.
If the authorities had any commonsense Robert Styler would have been charged over the Citizenre scam and would be safely locked away so that he would not be running this V3 scam.

I'm having an amusing discussion with Jigar Shah "Energy Visionary" who introduced his friend Bill Rivers to the V3 gang.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...eate-some-cleantech-wealth#comment-1078430996

Jigar got started by selling Solar-In-A-Box and had a very similar pitch to Citizenre.
To his credit though, he actually delivered the goods and a shirtload of solar panels were installed at zero cost to to the householder.

Jigar can't see the problem with having his name and that of his friend Bill Revers associated with V3 Solar.

I think Jigar Shah the visionary needs to see an optician.
He has severe myopia!
 

Rmmm

New Member
Just shared a personal exchange with Robert Styler and challenged him as shown below. Curious about what it would take to bring solid critique into a format acceptable to both parties. Let Mick moderate the process so a consistent thread of analysis prevails instead of mere back and forth argument. I am skeptical that this is possible but if you folks with the science and engineering experience team up and speak with one voice, it would interesting to follow.
See http://v3solar.com/technology/metabunk/
Rmmm
==
Hello Robert..
I take my concerns for the welfare of innocent victims no less "passionately" than you. Put your project onto a legitimate crowd funding site, instead of Facebook and YouTube. The truth is...the tech is not even close to the necessary point to take up funds from small investors. So.....If your science is so very solid...go get the bucks from the big guys who can afford to lose. OR....Build the real product and show the results. Should not be hard to do. OR......reply fully to every concern via your Engineer, not with marketing talk using non-scientific splashy terms, eg. "We make the electrons dance." Oh right...proprietary technology, intellectual property, NDA's. The initial focus solely on and then the later morphing of the Great Cone of Power (CoolSpin as opposed to SpinCell) is enough to raise alarm bells as loud as a fog horn beside your head.

==
Robert Styler's reply:
Tell me one, specific, technical concern based on our current technology and we are happy to answer it.

I told Mick that we would be happy to have an open dialogue and answer any questions, but we are not going to send people to a web link that starts out by labeling us as a potential scam. We even put a link about it on our site: http://v3solar.com/technology/metabunk/


We have nothing to hide. Our engineers just can't invest a lot of time into debates. Our focus is to get the technology to market.
Robert Styler Chief Marketing Officer www.V3Solar.com

==
 

Keef Wivanef

New Member
I'l just see if I can stir Jigar Shah into action.
He is a successful entrepreneur and is probably worth a few dollars.
I have the advantage that I HAVEN'T GOT A BRASS RAZOO (or even a turnip) so I can say what I like.
I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!

Keef Wivaneff
4 minutes ago

[...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Nemo

New Member
Dear Lotek,
Re: V3Solar
Understand your points.
Notwithstanding criticisms of the advertising.
You and many of your cohorts state the innovation does not work without doing any testing or scientific investigation whatsoever.
The science of the innovation works with significant advances and breakthroughs that has hampered solar energy production since inception .
On that basis I question your(pl) credibility.
It is apparent that what I say is meaningless to you. You will not believe me anyhow.
Therefore some verification is needed by you to get the data required to be taken seriously.
Then the discussion has some currency.

To that end. To clear the air I'll make you all an offer.
Here's your chance to back the spirit of your convictions.

Let's test my previous statement. (It's a big statement).

ie "The science of the innovation works with SIGNIFICANT ADVANCES and BREAKTHROUGHS that has hampered solar energy production since inception"

Points without expanding as follows:

-Choose a University (prefer California) with a Solar Engineering Department.
-Get them to formulate and set up the scientific tests needed to confirm or debunk the above statement.
-Let them quantify base results required to confirm or debunk the statement.
-Head of the Faculty of Engineering can adjudicate the University findings to confirm or debunk.

If agreed we proceed.

How will this be funded.
I will put $20,000 into a designated University Bank Account controlled the criteria of the test results.
You and any Metabunk members who have said the technology does not work pool your resources to put $10,000 in the same fund.
If statement is debunked. You(pl) will receive $20,000 back (nett $10,000 windfall). My remaining $10000 will be left to the University as a donation for their efforts.
If it is confirmed you will lose your $10.000. It will go to the University as a donation. And I will get my $20,000 back.
We can work out the mechanics of Bank Accounts to protect either party upon deposit.

Mick you must be rubbing your hands together to make some easy money.
Enough talk.
I purposely have made a strong statement on the technology.
Good deal for you guys based on your endless postings!
Need an independent third party to manage this offer.
If you have any suggestions to make this offer fairer I would welcome it.

MikeD

Just discovered this thread. Nobody's taken up MikeD on his offer? I'll do it. I live in LA, have a degree in electrical engineering, know people who have design satellite solar arrays and worked for Emcore, and I'm willing to raise $10k for this demonstration.

-Choose a University (prefer California) with a Solar Engineering Department.
I've never seen a university with a dedicated solar engineering department. Is the electrical engineering department at UCLA or USC acceptable?
-Get them to formulate and set up the scientific tests needed to confirm or debunk the above statement.
No need for fancy tests. All I need is a pre-test inspection to prove there are no power sources other than the cells, and then see that your Cool-Spin can generate 20X the amount of power while operating at the same temperature as a conventional solar panel with the same amount of PV cells.
-Let them quantify base results required to confirm or debunk the statement.
Sure, why not.
-Head of the Faculty of Engineering can adjudicate the University findings to confirm or debunk.
No need to get the dean. I'll be satisfied with some associate professors and grad students.

If it actually does work, then it will be the first public demonstration of an amazing technology and I'll be happy to pay $10k. I want to record your moment of glory, so I'll have a film crew on hand, and I would like to interview you before and after the demonstration.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
They don't actually claim 20x for the same amount of cells. They claim slightly cheaper bill of materials, via something like at 20x magnification onto 1/20th the number of cells resulting in 1.1x the power (or something similar) due to the pulsing effect of the light.
 

Nemo

New Member
If he has 1/20th the number of solar cells generating the same power, then that's 20X the power for the same number of cells.
He's advertising a 97% reduction in the number of cells needed per watt:
http://v3solar.com/products/coolspin/

So if I need 100 cells, he only needs 3 to generate the same amount of energy, AND his cells run at a lower temperature.
On their website (http://v3solar.com/technology/metabunk/), Robert laments that you didn't give him a fair chance to prove his technology. But I'm willing to give him that chance.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If he has 1/20th the number of solar cells generating the same power, then that's 20X the power for the same number of cells.
He's advertising a 97% reduction in the number of cells needed per watt:
http://v3solar.com/products/coolspin/

So if I need 100 cells, he only needs 3 to generate the same amount of energy, AND his cells run at a lower temperature.
On their website (http://v3solar.com/technology/metabunk/), Robert laments that you didn't give him a fair chance to prove his technology. But I'm willing to give him that chance.

Yeah, but he also has a 20x concentrator. That's always going to give you 20x the power, providing you can cool it.

And I think he does not actually have 1/20th the cells, more like 1/4, as you need cells that are not being illuminated.
 

Nemo

New Member
If he can use 25 cells with a 20x concentrator and get the same power and operating temperature as my 100-cell panel, that's still amazing. But it's not a 97% reduction.
 
Last edited:

Keef Wivanef

New Member
Just discovered this thread. Nobody's taken up MikeD on his offer? I'll do it. I live in LA, have a degree in electrical engineering, know people who have design satellite solar arrays and worked for Emcore, and I'm willing to raise $10k for this demonstration.

Worked for Emcore!
I'm not sure if that is much of an advantage.
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/Cases/Emcore.html

The lawsuit is for purchasers of the common stock of Emcore Corporation (NASDAQ: EMKR) between June 12, 2007 and June 30, 2008.
The lawsuit alleges that the Company made false and misleading statements throughout the class period in violation of federal securities laws by publishing statements that its main customer, Green and Gold Energy ("GGE"), was a viable company that could afford to purchase the product it had backordered from Emcore. In fact, the lawsuit alleges, Emcore knew that Green and Gold Energy would not be able to pay for its backlogged orders because, among other things, Emcore knew that:
(1) the CEO of GGE formerly promoted a failed venture to produce a "perpetual motion machine" (a machine that modern science has proven cannot be made, and for which investors reportedly lost all their money),
(2) GGE did not even have a plant to build the machine in which it was going to use the product it ordered from Emcore,
(3) the prototype of GGE's machine in which it would use Emcore's product was not functional, and
(4) the company GGE touted as it "exclusive distributor" (Zolar Distributors) was a sham company with no physical address created by GGE itself. Moreover, the lawsuit alleges that Emcore's insiders traded on the information that they concealed from the investing public, making big profits on unscheduled and unusual trades that they made ahead of the precipitous fall in the Company's share price.
On March 18, 2008, reports that GGE was not a viable company started to surface. On the basis of these reports, and Emcore's rebuttal to the reports, made the same day, which failed to address the specific allegations against GGE, the price of Emcore's shares dropped precipitously, falling more that 23% from the previous day's trading, on heavy volume.
 

Eric H

New Member
Keef - You didn't actually read the whole thing, or follow up on the outcome of the case, did you?
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In FDCO 20120928L16: "IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Corrected Consolidated, Amended Complaint [Doc. 81] is GRANTED."

In other news, V3Solar has changed tack again.
http://www.altenergymag.com/news/20...-first-ac-generator-fueled-by-sunlight-/31311

As I have long wondered, they have this oddball ~15 Hz quasi-sinusoid output, but how to tie in to the rest of the world? It would require special (read: costly) electronics to convert to either DC or to standard household AC. Which way will they go? Well the first hint sounds great: "it also produces direct AC power – no inverter required." But then you get the bad news: "To connect to the electrical grid (and take advantage of net metering) the AC power needs further conditioning. Fortunately, there are plenty of inexpensive solutions." Yes, grab a Digikey catalog and start perusing the inexpensive AC->DC->AC dual converter solutions. Good luck.

As noted above, they are crowdfunding at $5000 a head, but now the release date is pushed out to 2014 Q4. Is this when they are going to start manufacturing? Well, sadly not. It appears that -- in addition to recruiting hundreds of suckers investors via the crowdfunding, they're also going to charge someone a licensing fee to actually figure out how to manufacture these. This is a brilliant strategy: when the licensees fail to figure it out (as they must), they can continue claiming that it works on paper and attracting "investors". Be sure to get in early on this one. If you're not on the "Bio" page, you're probably too late.

Also, I see on this site http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11282037.htm that they have updated the "lens" graphics to give them a nice swirly-doo look and completely removed the actual solar parts (that's probably their home page). Finally, we have authoritative proof that the design works, 'As stated clearly by Michael Fulton, PHD, who has studied the relationship of spinning and optical design, “Spinning increases the efficiency of absorption of photons in solar cells.”' So, 1000W/m^2 ... spinning ... "20% increase in voltage". It's magic! Nevermind that increased effective area would translate to higher current, not voltage, which is intrinsic to the semiconductor used.
 

Keef Wivanef

New Member
Oh I read the results alright.
CASE DISMISSED!!
They seem to have had one of the best judges that money can buy.
Perhaps if the trial venue had not been in Alberquerque (Emcore's home town) the plaintiffs might have had a better chance.
What I found utterly amazing and a tad suspicious was that the complaint was amended from Greg Watson and his 3 dollar back shed operation could not afford to complete those hundred million dollar orders into Emcore did not have sufficient manufacturing capacity to supply all those cells.

Predictably the lawyers for Emcore were able to argue that Emcore could easily have ramped up production capacity to cope with the massive demand for SunCubes.

I have just returned from Adelaide where I paid Watson a visit along with a TV camera crew.
The show will be going live within a few days.

Laugh?......I nearly wet myself!
Watch this space for program details.
Happy days are here again :)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
http://v3solar.com/spin-cell/ (http://archive.is/VkRUS)


The surface of a solar cell looks and feels flat, but it is Mount Everest meets the Mariana Trench at the micro level.
Content from External Source


The deep crevasses create myriad surfaces for light, which enters at divergent angles through the optics on the outer cone to excitate more electrons. The bands of light created by the optical lensing of the Spin Cell do not focus the light at a single angle. Instead, the lenses vary the light in multiple angles to take full advantage of the varied surface of the PV cell.

One of the big challenges people have in understanding the Spin Cell breakthrough is trying to apply a flat, static paradigm over a dynamic spinning model. The classic is that there are only 1000 watts of light in a square meter. Yes...if you are looking at a flat surface. But when you calculate in the 3D aspect of PV, you can have four or five times more surface area to capture light -- if the light is coming from myriad angles.

A coastline, for example, might only be one mile as the crow flies, but it might have five miles of beaches. The problem has been that static flat panels only receive the light from one angle, which has limited PV's potential (yes, the sun will hit the panel from multiple angles as it moves across the sky, but this pace does not take advantage of PV's ability to respond in nanoseconds). The Spin Cell is specifically designed to capture the flashing light from myriad angles that flat panels have been missing.

This confusion goes so deep that some PV experts have stated that if dynamic spin had any value, it would have showed up during the standard flash testing of PV. But that light is still coming from a single angle during those tests. The advantages of dynamic spin have never been tested or documented until now.
Content from External Source
What's bizarre about this is that the pyramid appearance of the solar cell is something that is deliberately done in order to minimize light loss from reflection. Solar cells would naturally be flat if they did not make them with this textured surface. Any yet V3 present this as if it's a problem they have cunningly managed to overcome.

Their science above seem utterly and irredeemably backwards. The 1000 watts per square meter is irrespect of if the surface is flat or not. It's 1000 watts in a square meter cross-section perpendicular to sunlight. You can't get any more perpendicular. You can't get any more than 1000 Watts out of a square meter that is facing the sun.

If anyone needs an example of how V3 are spouting nonsense, then the above is all you need to look at.
 
Last edited:

Eric H

New Member
This just keeps getting better.


First, what's with their super awesome incredible power gain? They have 12 cells that are capable of achieving 111 mW each (Pmax). 12 x 111 mW = 1332 mW. Then they put it under 50 x sunlight. Is it AM1.5? Probably not, so who knows what the test is really telling us. Anyhow, 50 x 1.332 W = ~66 W. They get ... 19.2 W?! What happened? They're only getting the equivalent of 14 x magnification. Despite this, they go on to talk of this incredulously ("how is it possible?"). May I suggest that having only half of them are on at one time, and even when exposed, experiencing a sinusoid exposure, is not the same as placing a single cell under 50 x magnification?

Second, we no longer see the same 35% drop in voltage that they claimed was some kind of technological "Eureka!" moment (which most engineers would recognize as junction capacitance discharge). Instead, we see that they have wired them up so that every other cell is reversed in polarity. How can you tell? First, look at the way they are wired. Second, look at the closeup on the oscilloscope: The voltage ranges from +6.5 V to -6.5 V (note how close this is to the rated Voc). Solar cells don't generate negative dc voltages, so they are clearly wired in the other polarity. Under rotation, each is turned on in sequence, but each is wired out of phase with the next. Their "proprietary" connection scheme is not patentable and could not be considered a trade secret worth protecting because it's obvious to a person skilled in the art. Incidentally, note the rounding of the voltage waveforms and the hint of a deadband at the 0-crossings: those are very different from the squared-off waveforms they were showing previously which led them to claim how quickly the cells were turning on and off. And if you think the voltage signal is rounded, just wait until you see the current and power waveforms (if we ever do)!

Third, they've changed something. Their old rotor speed was 300 rpm, which is 5 cycles per second. Since there were 3 light paths in each revolution, it meant that there were 15 illumination cycles per second, for a period of 1/15 = 66.67 ms. Read the period on the scope: they are now running at 16.67 ms. You can draw at least two possible conclusions: the old "scientifically-derived" period based on the capacitor discharge time was arbitrary and has now been abandoned, or the test is not a test of the system and configuration previously advertised. I think both. The old system was arbitrary, and the new system is here to try to imply that inverters will not be needed.

By the way, if you think that you will be allowed to connect this very cheap but very noisy AC waveform to the grid, think again. Good luck getting past the IEEE 1547, UL 1741 and/or FCC Part 15B requirements for total harmonic distortion (THD).
 

Uwe Zimmermann

New Member
This just keeps getting better.

...By the way, if you think that you will be allowed to connect this very cheap but very noisy AC waveform to the grid, think again. Good luck getting past the IEEE 1547, UL 1741 and/or FCC Part 15B requirements for total harmonic distortion (THD).

Well, they could always throw in a couple of diodes and re-rectify this ac to charge a battery :rolleyes:
 

Rmmm

New Member
Eric.. Just be sure to flag this clip on Youtube with a comment as a suspected scam and advise readers to do research via Metabunk's website and many others. I was encouraged to see a Google search on "V3 Solar Hoax 2013" filling up the entire page with various hits exposing the bad science and hyped claims of this outfit. Keep getting the word out. It matters to spare a few people the shock of reality when this thing goes flat. Puns intended.

When this first hit the Internet, they claimed a massive South American installation was in the works using their technology. Now that is nowhere to be seen. What's up with the manufacturing plant in Mildura, Australia? Note the constant morphing of the "Cone of Power" that only exists in CG form.

But hey, better hurry, only 99 chances for you to give away $5,000.
 

Pete

Member
I think perhaps the founders have been so blinded by their own 'guff' that there is just no going back now.
 
Last edited:

Eric H

New Member
I think perhaps the founders have been so blinded by their own 'guff' that there is just no going back now.

No, in fact I would say they have doubled down. Check out what happens starting at 0:39 in this video.


As one of the commenters says, "This is incredible." Yes, and literally so.
 

Pete

Member
This makes me chuckle too, when searching for metabunk on google, the 4th link down is this: http://v3solar.com/technology/metabunk/

He then says: "Unfortunately, whenever you strive to do something significant, there will always be haters, doubters, and critics. We will continue to document our technology. People will always have opinions, we can only control results. People tend to see life through their own filters. Some see the soft tendrils of life emerging from the dirt and think, "That will never be anything significant!" Others know that with the right support, time and sunshine, that young plant will produce much fruit."
 

ExPVengineer

New Member
I completely agree with everyone's skepticism, these guys are just crooks. Perhaps they have and I missed it, but why has nobody sent a cease and desist letter to them citing section 43 of the Lanham Act regarding false and misleading advertising? Anyone who has a solid grasp of photovoltaics / electricity / general physics / marketing knows that their claims are not accurate. If it can be proved [that they are making exaggerated performance claims] with math and computer models, the case should be a slam dunk, right??
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I completely agree with everyone's skepticism, these guys are just crooks. Perhaps they have and I missed it, but why has nobody sent a cease and desist letter to them citing section 43 of the Lanham Act regarding false and misleading advertising? Anyone who has a solid grasp of photovoltaics / electricity / general physics / marketing knows that their claims are not accurate. If it can be proved [that they are making exaggerated performance claims] with math and computer models, the case should be a slam dunk, right??
Why would someone send such a letter? Why don't you?
 

gbrecke

New Member
I completely agree with everyone's skepticism, these guys are just crooks. Perhaps they have and I missed it, but why has nobody sent a cease and desist letter to them citing section 43 of the Lanham Act regarding false and misleading advertising? Anyone who has a solid grasp of photovoltaics / electricity / general physics / marketing knows that their claims are not accurate. If it can be proved [that they are making exaggerated performance claims] with math and computer models, the case should be a slam dunk, right??

I'm not so sure that the claims made here are more exaggerated than those in our government make. Is there any penalty to be paid when the majority of people so desperately want to believe in fairy dust? And those who report on new innovation, don't we all click on the author and see that their last article was about baking cookies, and the one before that on the importance of separate toilets for transgendered people. Where is the interest in the truth? One young lady wrote an article covering a new air powered motorcycle, she says it'll do 80 mph, and it does it all on what looks like a scuba tank of air. It was selected as an idea up for a prestigious award she says. Compressed air power.. an idea as old as Carnot, and proven a bad idea at least that long ago. If you are not skeptical, you are either gullible or receiving payments.
 
Top