MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966823244 · doi:10.1364/ol.39.004301

Nonparabolic solar concentrators matching the parabola

2014· article· en· W1966823244 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Thomas Cooper, Max Schmitz, Philipp Good, Gianluca Ambrosetti, Andrea Pedretti, Aldo Steinfeld

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Letters · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topicsolar cell performance optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBundesamt für EnergieNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaKommission für Technologie und Innovation
KeywordsParabolaParabolic troughParabolic reflectorOpticsNonimaging opticsConcentratorStack (abstract data type)Limit (mathematics)Curved mirrorGeometrical opticsPhysicsGeometrySolar energyMathematicsComputer scienceMathematical analysisEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the limit of geometric concentration for a focusing concave mirror, e.g., a parabolic trough or dish, designed to collect all radiation within a finite acceptance angle and direct it to a receiver with a flat or circular cross-section. While a concentrator with a parabolic cross-section indeed achieves this limit, it is not the only geometry capable of doing so. We demonstrate that there are infinitely many solutions. The significance of this finding is that geometries which can be more easily constructed than the parabola can be utilized without loss of concentration, thus presenting new avenues for reducing the cost of solar collectors. In particular, we investigate a low-cost trough mirror profile which can be constructed by inflating a stack of thin polymer membranes and show how it can always be designed to match the geometric concentration of a parabola of similar form.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.169
Teacher spread0.166 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptics LettersSame topicsolar cell performance optimizationFrench-language works237,207