Comments

• 	$/KWH nekote on 03/13/2008 at 6:18 AM
  Posts: 122 Avg Rating:	The holy grail. What's it all translate to, in delivered $/KWH. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	Novel idea . DJTal on 03/13/2008 at 8:44 AM
  Posts: 116 Avg Rating:	Why not use charcoal particles suspended in water in glass tubes as a means of absorbing solar energy in a solar thermal style . The dark colour of the charcoal would convert the energy in to heat then electricity much more efficiently than photovoltaic . Comments welcome . Note to self : Remember to give self a five star rating for this comment . Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Re: Novel idea . protn7 on 03/13/2008 at 3:14 PM
    Posts: 40 Avg Rating:	Possible. It's very possible. Do you have figures on the efficiency? Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • Re: Novel idea . GreenPlease on 03/16/2008 at 7:29 PM

    Posts: 7 Avg Rating:

    While charcoal (essentially acting as a black body) would do a much better job of utilizing solar energy than PV for direct heat purposes, it would probably lose out for electrical generation. Using solar energy to drive a heat engine is a dandy idea but the problem is achieving adequate Carnot efficiencies, power densities, and capital efficiency ($/W). With no/low concentrations this does not appear to be an achievable goal. High concentration units, however, perform well with this concept. Rate this comment: (Reply)

    • 	Re: Novel idea . DJTal on 03/17/2008 at 4:17 AM
      Posts: 116 Avg Rating:	Why not combined heat and power ? Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	Semiconductive Polymer RD on 03/13/2008 at 10:49 AM
  Posts: 58 Avg Rating:	Perhaps Bell Lab's Intercept Technology resin would be a better substrate than the coated TiO2.  It is extrudable and is a semiconductor often used as a superior ESD packaging protection. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• Funding GaryB on 03/13/2008 at 2:16 PM

  Posts: 42 Avg Rating:

  I wonder how much funding is really in place for this kind of research?  All of these technologies seem to struggle around 10% efficiency when they would be "home runs" if they were within striking range of 20%. If there were a serious commitment to get there, 2X doesn't seem that hard -- worth a moon shot kind of effort considering the possible consequences of having to rely on coal to meet our future energy needs. I wish the candidates would start debating this instead of whether OB is sexist or Hillary is racist or McCain is holy enough. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Re: Funding protn7 on 03/13/2008 at 2:44 PM
    Posts: 40 Avg Rating:	What's the lifetime of those babes? And the dye components? http://vulvox.triod.com protn7@att.net Rate this comment: (Reply)

    • 	Re: Funding protn7 on 03/13/2008 at 2:50 PM
      Posts: 40 Avg Rating:	Vulvox my company has a program on the drawing board; an 80% efficiency solar cell based on technology that is going off patent next year. We plan to test more practical versions of Alvin Mark's lumeloid concept. Contact Neil Farbstein protn7@att.net Rate this comment: (Reply)

      • 	Re: Funding DJTal on 03/14/2008 at 4:14 AM
        Posts: 116 Avg Rating:	80%! You have got to be kidding . Isn't that beyond the maximum theoretical efficiency or something . Rate this comment: (Reply)

        • Re: Funding jaggspb on 03/14/2008 at 8:50 AM

          Posts: 9 Avg Rating:

          Theoretical limits depend on the structure used. Most single material limits are around 30% but using multiple materials that capture at different layers that push that up to between 50-70%.  I would say that efficiencies at 30-40% would be more realistic and cost effective in the next decade.  Hopefully one day we will reach mass availability of the higher efficiencies. Rate this comment: (Reply)

          • Re: Funding Siphon on 03/28/2008 at 12:51 PM

            Posts: 112 Avg Rating:

            High efficiency concentrator cells have demonstrated about 43 percent at about 20 suns. These are very expensive and thus only suitable for high concentration ratios, but 20 suns is relatively low for the concentrator industry so that's impressive. Still, they are not as efficient under one sun. Amorphous diamond could be over 50% efficient, and possibly be very cheap. It's hypothetical at this point of course, but the science is valid. Cooling under higher concentrations would be easier due to the high temperature resistance and extraordinary conductivity of diamond. Infrared nano antennas could be 80%, but as of yet no practical 'inverter' has been found. Maybe capacitors. The theoretical limit to the photovoltaic effect is around 97-98%, but for a long time to come there will be material constraints that prohibit approaching those levels, especially in a commercial product. Rate this comment: (Reply)

        • 	Re: Funding N O M on 08/20/2008 at 1:07 AM
          Posts: 9 Avg Rating:	Neil Farbstein, so called president of Vulvox, isn't kidding, but he is lying. He gets lots of practice at this. He makes wild claims of impossible breakthroughs on many different technology websites. But if you look for any, they don't exist. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	Hybrid concentrated solar photovoltaic ronwagn on 03/17/2008 at 11:50 PM
  Posts: 10 Avg Rating:	Has anyone combined these two technologies? Could concentrated solar be retrofitted with photovoltaic when it becomes more economical? Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • Re: Hybrid concentrated solar photovoltaic Siphon on 03/28/2008 at 12:57 PM

    Posts: 112 Avg Rating:

    Might be nice for a peaker plant, but not for a high capacity plant as you would lose the cheap and simple storage benefit that solar thermal has. It could be a great idea if electrical storage becomes cheaper. Superconducting magnetic storage, ultracaps etc. My favorite is no-fuel CAES as this could prove to be efficient and quite workable. I prefer trying to increase the efficiency of the power block though, so the cheap storage benefit of solar thermal remains exploitable. Maybe those infrared nano antennas or more efficient thermoelectrics... Rate this comment: (Reply)

• Lumeloid TM & Quensor TM Technitron on 09/26/2008 at 4:23 PM

  Posts: 1 Avg Rating:

  I find it humerous to read about Neil Farbstein from Vulvox is working on Lumeloid TM Technologies that were invented by my father the late Dr. Alvin M. Marks. The Research and Development of Lumeloid is being pursued by my company and we plan on filing a new patent once prototype development has been completed. It is possible to get 80% efficiency out of Lumeloid TM according to our calculations and current principles of rectifying antenna theory. Experiments in other labs have confirmed this. There are other labs that are working on a similar approach to Lumeloid, but it has become obvious to me that the original inventors approach is the most logical to getting anywhere near 80% conversion. Some of our calculations point to a possible 100% conversion is possible. Calculation and theory are quite different than the R&D that will lead to a working prototype. Only further investigation into this area will confirm what my father has claimed in Lumeloid and Quensor as it has never been done before. I further note that key chemistry and process elements were never included by my father in the original patent filed in "86 and the improvement patent filed in "93 # 5,229,624. I would further like to state that Farbstein had contacted me personally and it is my opinion that this guy makes wild claims and project affiliations to technologies and Intellectual Property that he has nothing to do with whatsoever. My father's last patent #122 Quensor TM #6,501,093 issued in 2002, a high density quantum energy storage or retrieval device will soon start initial R&D through my company once adequate funding is secured. Both these technologies require many-millions in investment for R&D to reach prototypes and commercial applications. There is no doubt to anyone involved in these areas that if Dr. Marks technologies prove successful that it would revolutionize the Alternative Energy and Storage fields. A simple internet search will lead you to information on the status of both technologies as well as a www.uspto.gov search on ownership. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • Re: Lumeloid TM & Quensor TM protn7 on 11/07/2008 at 5:31 AM

    Posts: 40 Avg Rating:

    It's not humorous at all. Why is this guy trying to ruin my reputation? His diatribe discusses the old patents his father got that are all out of date in in the public domain. Anyone can use the lumeloid technology now that his patents have expired. He attempts to erect a smokescreen and make it seem he still has a research program going by talking about his irrelevant quensor patent. It's not related, it's a capacitor type device that, like the lumeloid IP, has never been tested. I did meet Alvin Marks' son in a restaurant in New York City in the Village. I still have the phony literature he gave me. No working prototype of the quensor or the lumeloid devices have ever been constructed. This guy is a real failure living on his father's money, his father is senile he is his care taker. He blew his chance to exploit his father's intellectual property and the lumloid patents are now in the public domain. He spent a million and half trying to design a prototype a year before the patent expired and his program is total loser. Now other's are refining his invention and the royalty money will go to them. But why is ruining my professional reputation? Why did he write "I would further like to state that Farbstein had contacted me personally and it is my opinion that this guy makes wild claims and project affiliations to technologies and Intellectual Property that he has nothing to do with whatsoever. " I will tell you he is slandering an important scientist. Its nobody's business what transpired the one time we met. Anyone who divulges private information like that is obviously committing libelous acts. I told him Dr. Tom Netzel, the former President of the American Chemical Society wrote a technical review of my nanoelectronics project and stated it is a great invention that might change the world in innumerable ways if the project is funded. He offered to work on it in his lab if i got the funding. I have that letter if anyone wants to see it. I have others like his review too. What this guy has is a libel and slander suit against him. Hey Technitron! I'm putting you on notice now that if you dont retract your remarks and apologize I will sue you and have you prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Any lawyers willing to sue him are encouraged to contact me at protn7@att.net Rate this comment: (Reply)