Which is better for concentrating sunlight ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter anjanamurthy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sunlight
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the efficiency of parabolic reflector configurations for concentrating sunlight, specifically comparing central axis (Cassegrain) and off-axis designs. For projects requiring direct solar illumination and tracking, the effective area of the reflector is crucial, with off-axis designs potentially losing some area due to shape distortion. However, Cassegrain systems may waste central area for the secondary reflector, impacting overall efficiency. Tracking accuracy and feasibility are also significant considerations, as they influence the effectiveness of each configuration. Ultimately, the choice depends on specific project requirements, including power needs and the size of the target area for sunlight concentration.
anjanamurthy
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
which is better for concentrating sunlight ??

I m doing a project on solar illumination . I wanted to know which configuration of parabolic reflector/ collector is better in terms of efficiency - central axis (cassegrain) or off axis ??
 
Science news on Phys.org


For a simple solar reflector where no high quality image is required, it's largely down to the effective area of the reflector. This may be reduced for an off axis reflector by a small amount due to the projection turning a circle into an ellipse, with a slightly smaller area - but the Cassegrain system 'wastes' all that central area for the secondary reflector.
 


Well this is for a direct solar illumination project which requires tracking of sun. So if we consider that also .. which of the two would be better ??
In terms of tracking accuracy required and feasibility to track ...
 


anjanamurthy said:
Well this is for a direct solar illumination project which requires tracking of sun. So if we consider that also .. which of the two would be better ??
In terms of tracking accuracy required and feasibility to track ...

What are your thoughts on reasons why one might be better over the other?
 


anjanamurthy said:
Well this is for a direct solar illumination project which requires tracking of sun. So if we consider that also .. which of the two would be better ??
In terms of tracking accuracy required and feasibility to track ...

How well does need it to track? What size object do you want to concentrate the sunlight on? How much power do you want? (a few Watts or several kW?)
So far it's 'how long is a piece of string?'
 
Last edited:
Thread 'A quartet of epi-illumination methods'
Well, it took almost 20 years (!!!), but I finally obtained a set of epi-phase microscope objectives (Zeiss). The principles of epi-phase contrast is nearly identical to transillumination phase contrast, but the phase ring is a 1/8 wave retarder rather than a 1/4 wave retarder (because with epi-illumination, the light passes through the ring twice). This method was popular only for a very short period of time before epi-DIC (differential interference contrast) became widely available. So...
I am currently undertaking a research internship where I am modelling the heating of silicon wafers with a 515 nm femtosecond laser. In order to increase the absorption of the laser into the oxide layer on top of the wafer it was suggested we use gold nanoparticles. I was tasked with modelling the optical properties of a 5nm gold nanoparticle, in particular the absorption cross section, using COMSOL Multiphysics. My model seems to be getting correct values for the absorption coefficient and...
Back
Top