Reading the original article written in the early 1900s, it’s fascinating that scientists believed that the sun’s nearly infinite energy came from the slow compression of its gasses. (Obviously nuclear fusion wasn’t known back then.) It seems like a reasonable explanation, if we didn’t know better today.
I mean…. Given that fusion is the combining of atomic nuclei it is kind of compression of matter into denser atoms.
It’s a very crude but surprisingly accurate description.
In 1905, we hadn’t invented semi conductors yet.
I highly doubt his invention worked.
It is completely unnecessary to have modern semis to make a solar cell. You can easily make one with copper sheets and a salt solution.
The first solar cell dates to 1884.
You do, however, need semiconductors, mercury arc valves (1930s I think, and rather big/expensive/fragile), or motor-generators to turn the DC from PV back into AC, or to another voltage DC.
Running everything at ~110VDC was an option - that’s what Edison wanted to do. However, you need your generation very close to your demand which just doesn’t work once you start looking at dense cities and skyscrapers.
It also breaks down once people start wanting radios and other valve or transistor based electronics, until about the 80s when switch mode DC-DC converters start becoming an option.
It seems like you’d need an enormous amount of copper, which was in short supply at various times.
Efficiency though.
Indeed, efficiency.
Semiconductors allow modern computing power, efficient solar panels and efficient LED lighting.
That said. I am still skeptical those panels worked, as in - produced a technically and economically viable level of output.
There was a lot of vaporware during that time.
That’s my impression also. The article mentions that he didn’t capitulate to the kidnapper’s demands, yet still his business fizzled out, and then it just glosses straight over it.
So we’re essentially 40 years behind in solar development. Cool.
Yes.
