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

[ExPVengineer]

Why would someone send such a letter? Why don't you?

Great questions Mick, let me address the latter first: I have several reasons for not doing it: I just started a new job with a considerable learning curve which takes more time and mental energy than my old job, so I don't have the time at work; I just enrolled in a part-time master's program and I'm in the middle of my first accelerated course which demands the vast majority of my personal time; as my screen name states, I am no longer an engineer at a PV manufacturing facility [due to plant shutdown and outsourcing manufacturing] and, as a result, no longer have access to the programs used for modelling various scenarios. I do believe presenting the math/physics in a documented proof of why the product can't substantiate their claims is a rather critical accompaniment to the letter itself. Really the only reason I got on here to post was that I remembered reading this thread a few months ago and given that I'd already spent several hours studying prior to this morning's post and one of the topics of my next exam is the Lanham act, so I figured it would be an appropriate study break.

Why would someone send such a letter? For starters, refer to your post on 2 April 2013 (#61 on this thread): "Because it might not work, and people might waste money investing in it." Furthermore, Jazzy mentioned that "debunking bunkum is our self-appointed task," isn't part of that to put a stop the people pushing the aforementioned "snake oil"? Lotek also writes, "My personal gripe, why i bother to "waste my time" on this is because the whole idea of funneling tight public research money into this is appalling to me when such isolated one off units will never be the answer to full scale solar power production and appear to me little more than another pipedream and waste of time like those stupid 1000mah solar window hockey puck things. I feel grant money could be better spent elsewhere, on more industrial systems. not stuff that looks like toys with more effort put into public appeal than industrial functionality." One other point not mentioned at any point earlier in this discussion is that the solar industry has suffered numerous "black eyes" and I know of at least one on the horizon, so it doesn't need V3 making things worse by getting people's hopes up only to have them realize later that they were duped (and hopefully they didn't invest any money before making that discovery).

Clearly there are a lot of strong feelings about this, and some people in this thread seem to have either temporal or financial resources (or both) to dedicate to stopping the perpetuation of this scam. It seems to me that the first logical step is doing what I stated in my earlier post, sending a C&D letter to V3, hence my question.

 

[ExPVengineer]

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.

Gbrecke, I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Are you saying that it's worthless to try and stop V3 because they're no worse than our own government?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it fair to say that the more that people get away with taking investors' money via psuedo-scientific scam products, more people will get into the business of startups that don't have a legitimate product and continue operating/behaving the same way?

 

[Mick West]

Clearly there are a lot of strong feelings about this, and some people in this thread seem to have either temporal or financial resources (or both) to dedicate to stopping the perpetuation of this scam. It seems to me that the first logical step is doing what I stated in my earlier post, sending a C&D letter to V3, hence my question.

I don't get what legal basis an individual would have for sending a C&D letter to someone just because he thought their product was defective. Can you give a comparable example?

 

[gbrecke]

Gbrecke, I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Are you saying that it's worthless to try and stop V3 because they're no worse than our own government?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it fair to say that the more that people get away with taking investors' money via psuedo-scientific scam products, more people will get into the business of startups that don't have a legitimate product and continue operating/behaving the same way?

It's quite likely you are younger and far less cynical than I am. I am only attempting to point out that this company is fairly typical of many out there. Hydrovolts was a startup in Seattle, their idea was to get energy out of irrigation canals. Their claims were pretty crazy, but the 'green' awards they touted were impressive to some.

For those who study the irrigation canals they were going to exploit, they were purposely designed to assure the water flowed from one end to the other with low energy in the water flow. Several reasons, one, is high velocities help destroy a canal, another, is it is an advantage to deliver the water high as possible above points of use. Not one green mind I know did anything but applaud the idea. the Greenies are destroying their own market place and their credibility, it is they who should weed out the crooks. I do know a woman so sweet..... she heads up a group that helps decide what green idea gets their award. She's good in diction, but doesn't know a BTU from an IOU.

 

[Uwe Zimmermann]

... why has nobody sent a cease and desist letter to them citing section 43 of the Lanham Act regarding false and misleading advertising?...

Why should anyone? As a European scientist in the field of photovoltaics I have nothing to gain from them stopping their efforts to get vulture capital. I don't even know what this Lanham Act is about. Even US scientists have neither the time nor the means to bother, I assume. And finally: from the way I understand the system (not the PV system, but the legal one) I as a private person would never dare to try to put any company into its borders.

The best thing we scientists can do is to try to educate the public and try to debunk myths in forums like this one.

 

[Eric H]

Incidentally, the Bill Revers review of the system has disappeared from v3Solar's website.
http://v3solar.com/technology/technical-review-by-bill-rever/
A search of the site returns no new links to the review. Web Admin error, or ...?

 

[Mick West]

Incidentally, the Bill Revers review of the system has disappeared from v3Solar's website.
http://v3solar.com/technology/technical-review-by-bill-rever/
A search of the site returns no new links to the review. Web Admin error, or ...?

I think they are cleaning up the site to focus more on their newer claims. The Revers pieces is still available via archive:
https://web.archive.org/web/2013092...om/technology/technical-review-by-bill-rever/
http://archive.is/na4TH

 

[NoParty]

Great questions Mick, let me address the latter first: I have several reasons for not doing it: I just started a new job with a considerable learning curve which takes more time and mental energy than my old job, so I don't have the time at work; I just enrolled in a part-time master's program and I'm in the middle of my first accelerated course which demands the vast majority of my personal time; as my screen name states, I am no longer an engineer at a PV manufacturing facility [due to plant shutdown and outsourcing manufacturing] and, as a result, no longer have access to the programs used for modelling various scenarios. I do believe presenting the math/physics in a documented proof of why the product can't substantiate their claims is a rather critical accompaniment to the letter itself. Really the only reason I got on here to post was that I remembered reading this thread a few months ago and given that I'd already spent several hours studying prior to this morning's post and one of the topics of my next exam is the Lanham act, so I figured it would be an appropriate study break.

Why would someone send such a letter? For starters, refer to your post on 2 April 2013 (#61 on this thread): "Because it might not work, and people might waste money investing in it." Furthermore, Jazzy mentioned that "debunking bunkum is our self-appointed task," isn't part of that to put a stop the people pushing the aforementioned "snake oil"? Lotek also writes, "My personal gripe, why i bother to "waste my time" on this is because the whole idea of funneling tight public research money into this is appalling to me when such isolated one off units will never be the answer to full scale solar power production and appear to me little more than another pipedream and waste of time like those stupid 1000mah solar window hockey puck things. I feel grant money could be better spent elsewhere, on more industrial systems. not stuff that looks like toys with more effort put into public appeal than industrial functionality." One other point not mentioned at any point earlier in this discussion is that the solar industry has suffered numerous "black eyes" and I know of at least one on the horizon, so it doesn't need V3 making things worse by getting people's hopes up only to have them realize later that they were duped (and hopefully they didn't invest any money before making that discovery).

Clearly there are a lot of strong feelings about this, and some people in this thread seem to have either temporal or financial resources (or both) to dedicate to stopping the perpetuation of this scam. It seems to me that the first logical step is doing what I stated in my earlier post, sending a C&D letter to V3, hence my question.

Would such a letter take as long to compose as this robust post? (I'll address the envelope)

 

[Maury Markowitz]

Collaboration aims to harness the energy of 2,000 suns
With such a high concentration and a radically low cost design scientists believe they can achieve a cost per aperture area below $250 per square meter

This is a perfect example to illustrate how rapidly this market has been moving.

A couple of years ago, 25 cents/meter would sound amazing. Back then you might be looking at $2/meter for a conventional panel.

But today, you can buy panels in bulk for about 40 cents/watt.

This has killed off pretty much all of the alternative approaches. Theoretically they sill outperform traditional flat-plate modules, but getting to that point will require a whole lot of money that's currently being directed to the traditional companies. There's still more that can be squeezed out of those lines, so I suspect it will be a few more years before that well starts bottoming out and people really start to look at other options.

 

[Curious]

Fascinating insight, Mick West, so glad to have read you, so much so I've joined this forum. Thanks!

 

[Graham2001]

A good detailed explanation of why this does not work. Sadly it looks as if the company has removed a lot of their marketing videos from YouTube. Thunderf00t did a debunking video about four months ago, what I find more interesting is the ease with which these types of 'green scam' promoters seem to get positive and enthusiastic press.

 

[Trailblazer]

what I find more interesting is the ease with which these types of 'green scam' promoters seem to get positive and enthusiastic press.

Newspapers and websites are increasingly understaffed and want to fill space as easily and cheaply as possible. Press releases often get copied and pasted almost verbatim with minimal (if any) fact checking before publication. It's sad but that is the state of the majority of modern journalism.

 

[Graham2001]

Newspapers and websites are increasingly understaffed and want to fill space as easily and cheaply as possible. Press releases often get copied and pasted almost verbatim with minimal (if any) fact checking before publication. It's sad but that is the state of the majority of modern journalism.

Jason Colavito today discussed the same issue, albeit in a topic he covers (PseudoArchaeology) in his latest blog post which deals with a Buzzfeed promotion of Ancient Aliens claims which he traced to:

The interesting thing is that all of the video's claims about the pyramid appear, nearly verbatim, on the Aliens Built the Pyramids webpage, including the magnetic north mistake. That error occurred because the page writer didn't realize that the compass rose on a map is not a depiction of a magnetic compass held in front of the map. It's pretty clear that BuzzFeed simply used Google with the keywords "aliens built the pyramids" and then copied freely.

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/b...s-to-investigate-the-ancient-astronaut-theory