However, if it’s spinning it would be true that there is ” no part in shadow for long”, also means that there is no part in the sun for long.
Spinning – are they creating AC by spinning the cones at a steady rate and using brush contacts to create a pulsed output?

If they are spinning then there’s likely a power loss for the motor and more stuff to wear out.

Planning a follow-up post, but waiting on some info.

“The proprietary electromechanical function of the system increases the efficiency of the photovoltaic cells deployed in the system leading to significantly higher output power compared to an equivalent footprint of a standard solar panel.

The proprietary electromechanical function is designed to provide alternating current output for electrical distribution without the need for inverter equipment normally required to modify the direct current output from the photovoltaic cells.”

I used to build electro-mechanical lab equipment. I can’t believe that there is a e-m way to convert DC from the cells to AC more efficiently than is done with solid state components.

Long time ago DC to AC inverters were DC motors running AC generators. That was far from efficient. Modern inverters are well above 90% efficient.

Maybe that’s why it’s shaped like a ‘dunce-cap’. – twice as ‘efficient’ (maybe) but barely half as useful.

Given that most homes are built without regard to the compass there should be a large number of homes with rear roofs facing east, southeast, southwest, and west. Whole roof installation could create large numbers of panels performing maximally at different times of the day.

If we can hit the $1/watt installed goal I suspect we’ll see that happening.

(Covering ~100% of the roof areas not facing the street would eliminate much of the aesthetic objection.)

Stacking lots of ittle ones next to each other is less of an advantage. Ignoring angle of incidence effects nothing is lost, the light is all pretty much falling on solar collectors, but yeah, angle of incidence might be a problem. I didn’t think of that at all and I don’t know how much of an effect it will have on performance, since every collecting surface is curved instead of flat. Maybe the problem won’t be so bad with thin cells.

So maybe the advantages for lots of little ones are down to, looks easy to install, don’t catch the wind so much, and gives bad film makers something new for villians to fall on.

Solar panels work best when pointed directly at the Sun.

With these inverted cones only a small percentage of the collector is going to be facing the Sun at any given time.

Lots of the collector area will be in the shade (except for those brief times when the Sun is directly over them). And then none of the collecting surface will be at a 90 degree angle to the Sun.

You can’t pack them tight. Do that and you start shading one cone with another when the Sun is lower in the sky.

The cone standing alone – part is facing north and those cells are not going to get hit by sunlight very often.

The cone tree – built in shade.

No inverter? Lower installation costs? Lower engineering costs? Lower balance of system costs?

How do they get from DC to grid AC? How do they deal with less-exposed cells pulling down system performance? They’ve always got part of the array in the shade.

How could it possibly be less work to install these little puppies as opposed to slapping down ranks of flat panels?

Why would an engineer charge less per watt to design the system?

How could the mounting systems possibly be cheaper than simple metal racks? Just consider that tree thing.

Finally, they’ve got to chop up and mount a lot of cells on their Hershey Kiss. That’s labor intensive.

Color me highly skeptical….