There are also two systems in Sydney, the big tall one on Rhodes Central [1] and the slightly smaller on One Central Park [2].
I think the idea is that by removing some of the shadowing from the high-rise buildings, the local authorities allow the buildings to be taller, which makes this type of system pay off.
This is known as a charge pump, and is the third concept described in the linked article. The article only mention one flying capacitor, but you can use more than one and connect them in series to get a higher multiple of the input voltage.
This is a really cool concept! The term used for connecting mirrors to rotate together is a ganged heliostat. Most papers about ganged heliostats don't do anything fancy like what you describe, but there are some patents that show a nice way of connecting the rods to give the correct angles using a slightly different concept than what you are describing [1]. I previously made a visualization of how that concept works (click and drag the sun) [2].
I've not seen exactly what you describe published anywhere, but it sounds very smular to something I thought about as well. See this 2d illustration [2]. Is this the same as what you are describing?
I had a masters student try to make it mechanically. It turns out that though it's an elegant concept, you still end up with quite a few moving parts so it's a bit tricky.
Cool work! I do research in nonimaging optics, the optics of achieving high concentration ratios (or wide tolerances to errors) in solar concentrators.
I like that you are implementing closed-loop control. This is all the rage also in large-scale heliostat fields. Most traditional heliostats are controlled using open loop, which places very strict requirements on both the mechanical structure, the actuators, and on the kinematic model, leading to expensive and very stiff heliostats. People are therefore moving towards cheaper heliostats where the tracking precision is achieved through closed-loop control. Implementing closed-loop control is a little bit more tricky when you have overlapping focal spots from thousands of mirrors, but there are approaches that are being developed, e.g. having cameras around the target looking back out over the heliostat field (developed by Heliogen among others).
You mention the challenge of light only being focused for a few hours per day. This is also a problem with large helisotat fields, and is also a field of active research. There's a group at University of Arizona with Professor Roger Angel developing heliostats that actively deform through the day to keep the perfect shape, and there's also an Australian company (Heliosystems) building heliostats that passively deform from gravity to keep as correct shape as possible.
When you are only using a single heliostat, as in your project, you could also consider building it as a Scheffler reflector - placing it on a single-axis polar-aligned tracking axis that passes through your target. Then it only requires single-axis tracking through the day, with some (possibly manual) seasonal adjusting.
I am very happy to see that you are highlighting the inherent risks in concentrated sunlight. There are lots of stories about people accidentally settings stuff on fire if the tracking doen't track correctly.
Thank you very much for your kind and detailed reply!
Indeed, the closed-loop control was the initial idea which convinced me that it would be possible to build the mechanical parts by hand with common tools. In other words, the software "smartness" compensates for the mechanical "ugliness".
Another initial idea was to do multi-panels (several orientable panels) with a single camera looking at the target. Indeed, it's not easy, so I finally went back and decided to finish and release something with a single panel.
Nevertheless, I have some ideas to do multi-panels with a few more cameras. I would like to work on them in the near future.
Thank you for all the references, I will spend time to explore them.
There is also a company that uses vacuum to adjust the mirror shape, I'll try to find it and post it here.
I wanted to emphasize the inherent risk because my project is not a finished product, but a work-in-progress/proof-of-concept.
I like your cable-drive concept by the way. Did you describe it in more details anywhere? Heliogen were also developing a cable-drive system for their commercial heliostats, but I don't know if they are still working on it.
How are you getting the right mirror orientation for each mirror (aka canting)? Custom spacers for each mirror?
One trick for closed-loop control with many heliostats/panels is to have a few cameras surrounding the receiver. When they look back at the mirrors, they will see the circumsolar radiation (how the sky gets brighter as you get closer to the sun). By comparing the brightness of the sky at different cameras, you can estimate which cameras is "closest" to seeing the real sun, and get an estimate for the real position of the sun.
> Each cable is actually wrapped around the motor axis, then passed through the pulley and tied to a fixed ring in the corner of the panel.
Thanks, when seeing the video again now it makes sense! I didn't catch the counterweight the first time I saw it. Nice! In the Heliogen concept I mentioned previously they got around having to use a counterweight by attaching the other side of the cable to another part of the panel, such that the cable length stays approximately constant. Then they used a spring to compensate for the small changes in cable length that are inherent to the geometry.
> I use one bolt that pulls the mirror holder in the center and 3 bolts that push it in the corners. By screwing or unscrewing the corner bolts you can precisely orient each mirror independently.
Nice! Even in large heliostat fields it is often done in a similar way. It becomes quite labor intensive when you have thousands of heliostats in a field, with 10+ segments each, so there are ongoing efforts to find ways to do it automatically or to get around the need for doing it in the first place.
I wonder if you could set up 3 multi panels with a known pattern of red green or blue gels on each, then filter the camera image by color to identify which of the panels is pointed where so you can adjust them individually?
Speaking of risks and fire, is there a known limit to the temperature achievable by concentration? I was wondering if I could melt a piece of tungsten with this method.
The fundamental limit is given by the 2nd law of thermodynamics - you can never reach higher temperatures than the surface of the sun, or around 5800 K. We have the atmosphere that absorbs and scatters some of the light, so on the surface of the earth it is a bit lower, but not by a huge amount.
This means that there is a fundamental limit to how small and intense you can make the focal spot in a solar concentrator. The limit is around ~45 MW/m² or 45000 "suns" (which is plenty high, but far from infinite).
Concentrators used for eletricity generation use much lower concentration than this, on the order of 25 suns to 1000 suns depending on the type. There are also solar furnaces designed for reaching much higher concentration by using a different type of optics. The most impressive one is the huge Odeillo solar furnace [1]. I would guess that they could melt tungsten, but I have not actually run the numbers.
I did a talk last week about a concept we are developing for reaching furnace-level concentration ratios with conventional heliostats [2].
The thing that I can't wrap my head around is that if the concentrator "pumps" power into an object, and say you can somehow insulate it to stop the losses, how is this limit not unbounded? Where does the energy go once we reach the cap?
Does the black body radiation send the energy back out?
> Does the black body radiation send the energy back out?
Exactly, this is the issue. If an object is able to absorb sunlight, it is also able to emit blackbody radition back towards the sun. When the temperature limit is reached, these two exactly cancel each other. The object will emit blackbody radiation with the same brightness as the surface of the sun.
Another way to look at it is to imagine yourself standing at the center of the concentrated sunlight and looking out towards the concentrator. The concentrator makes the sun look "bigger" from your perspective, and this is what makes the sunlight concentrated. The limit to this effect is if the sun fills all directions in the whole hemisphere above you. Now it will be as if you are standing on the surface of the sun, and all you can see in any direction is sunlight. Normally, the solar disc fills 1/45000th of the hemisphere above you here on earth, thus the limit of 45000 suns concentration.
Thank you so much. It's the first time I do understand the _why_ of that fact.
But I could build up a lot of solar panels and use the electricity to heat up an oven more than the surface of the sun, right? Is that "cheating" in terms of thermo dynamics?
> I could build up a lot of solar panels and use the electricity to heat up an oven more than the surface of the sun, right?
Yes, this would be like using a hydroelectric dam to power a fountain that sprays higher than the initial reservoir. Machines can convert a large amount of low-quality energy into a small amount of high-quality energy, even when passive components (e.g. mirrors or pipes) cannot.
Great question, and this shows why we could never get a 100% efficient solar panel. Otherwise your scheme would brak thermodynamics.
The most efficient possible way to convert sunlight to electricity is ~86% and is related to the second law of thermodynamics. So we use the heat flow from a hot reservoir (sun) to a cold reservoir (earth) and are able to convert some of that heat into work (electricity) which can then be used to heat something else to a higher temperature without breaking the second law.
Wikipedia says a max temperature of 3500C, which is above Tungsten's melting point. Graphite is the only thing I know of with a melting point above that at 1atm, but I'm not a chemist so I'm sure there are other things.
You mention renewables and especially solar as a contributing factor to these negative prices when combined with capacity constraints. Can you explain how this works?
A PV installation can easily start and stop production as long as the sun is shining, right? Then it seems like PV producers should bid to produce as much as possible whenever the price is positive, and not produce anything whenever the price is negative. Is this how they operate, and if so, how does this contribute to negative prices and not just to bringing the price towards 0?
Certainly for wind operators in the UK, there is a "contract for difference" payment process such that they are not paid the spot price. Instead they're paid a guaranteed price within a range (i.e. the difference between the spot price and a benchmark). And there will be an agreement in place that if they're not allowed to export this power they will be paid for "curtailment".
I think the idea is that by removing some of the shadowing from the high-rise buildings, the local authorities allow the buildings to be taller, which makes this type of system pay off.
[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-13/heliostats-bringing-l... [2] https://good-design.org/projects/one-central-park-heliostat-...