tinwhiskers

I think a mobile phone camera is vastly superior to these, although might not be great at night vision for the reasons you said, but is it entirely crazy to not just use a spare phone? It has built in backup power, can store videos locally if there is an internet outage, and can use its own data connection if wifi is not available.

One of the things that weighs me down is posts making me dwell on the things that weigh me down.

I’m located in a van in New Zealand so I only use mobile data. I pay NZ$40 (US$25) per month for “unlimited” data, which is all I can eat but capped at 1Mbps. I can stream 720p barely, but I mostly torrent. I typically use about 60-80GB a month.

TLDR; the front side is 23% efficient, and the rear side 20% efficient.

They don’t actually give an overall efficiency but it implies a total of 43%. They compare this to typical panels also at 23% efficient, so it’s really remarkable if true. Other emerging solar tech is up to about 32% but if that could also benefit from multiple layers then total efficiency could become insane.

Seems a little too good to be true, really, but great if so.

Edit: Yeah, I don’t think these efficiencies can be added like that. I guess the overall efficiency will depend on how reflective the ground under the panels is, and they will extract 20% of that. Maybe that’s why they don’t give an overall rating.