Submission + - Is the fibonacci solar power proven wrong? (gizmodo.com) 2
dvdme writes: Gizmodo writes that the 13 year old fibonacci solar power breaktrough, that we could read about here on slashdot on http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/08/19/1218219/13-Year-Old-Uses-Fibonacci-Sequence-For-Solar-Power-Breakthrough, could be already proven wrong.
A blogger wrote that the 13 year old made some mistakes and why. On the blog article (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:JmlMNqVPKlsJ:uvdiv.blogspot.com/2011/08/solar-panel-trees-really-are-inferior.html+http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/2011/08/solar-panel-trees-really-are-inferior.html&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com) we can read that "by mistake he did not measure power outputs from the solar cells. Instead he measured voltage, without a load attached ("open circuit"). They are barely related — in solar cells, voltage is actually almost a constant, independent of power." After reading the full article, it seams the the breaktrough, after all, wasn't!
A blogger wrote that the 13 year old made some mistakes and why. On the blog article (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:JmlMNqVPKlsJ:uvdiv.blogspot.com/2011/08/solar-panel-trees-really-are-inferior.html+http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/2011/08/solar-panel-trees-really-are-inferior.html&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com) we can read that "by mistake he did not measure power outputs from the solar cells. Instead he measured voltage, without a load attached ("open circuit"). They are barely related — in solar cells, voltage is actually almost a constant, independent of power." After reading the full article, it seams the the breaktrough, after all, wasn't!