A Theoretical Optimum Tilt Angle Model for Solar Collectors from Keplerian Orbit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Solar energy has been extensively used in industry and everyday life. A more suitable solar collector orientation can increase its utilization. Many studies have explored the best orientation of the solar collector installation from the perspective of data analysis and local-area cases. Investigating the optimal tilt angle of a collector from the perspective of data analysis, or guiding the angle of solar collector installation, requires an a priori theoretical tilt angle as a support. However, none of the current theoretical studies have taken the real motion of the Sun into account. Furthermore, a complete set of theoretical optimal tilt angles for solar energy is necessary for worldwide locations. Therefore, from the view of astronomical mechanics, considering the true orbit of the Sun, a mathematical model that is universal across the globe is proposed: the Kepler motion model is constructed from the solar orbit and transformed into the local Earth coordinate system. After that, the calculation of the optimal tilt angle solution is given. Finally, several examples are shown to demonstrate the variation of the optimal solar angle with month and latitude. The results show that for daily fixed solar collectors, the altitude angle of the collector should be about 6° above the noon solar altitude angle in summer and 6° lower in winter. For annual fixed collectors, the tilt angle should be slightly higher than the latitude. In summary, this study demonstrates that when a location is specified, this model can be used to calculate the theoretical optimum tilt angle of solar collectors for that position.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".