OSA's Digital Library

Energy Express

Energy Express

  • Editor: Christian Seassal
  • Vol. 20, Iss. S6 — Nov. 5, 2012
  • pp: A924–A931
« Show journal navigation

Light induced fluidic waveguide coupling

Volker Zagolla, Eric Tremblay, and Christophe Moser  »View Author Affiliations


Optics Express, Vol. 20, Issue S6, pp. A924-A931 (2012)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.20.00A924


View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (1662 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

We report on the development of an opto-fluidic waveguide coupling mechanism for planar solar concentration. This mechanism is self-adaptive and light-responsive to efficiently maintain waveguide coupling and concentration independent of incoming light’s direction. Vapor bubbles are generated inside a planar, liquid waveguide using infrared light on an infrared absorbing glass. Visible light focused onto the bubble is then reflected by total internal reflection (TIR) at the liquid-gas interface and coupled into the waveguide. Vapor bubbles inside the liquid are trapped by a thermal effect and are shown to self-track the location of the infrared focus. Experimentally we show an optical to optical waveguide coupling efficiency of 40% using laser light through a single commercial lens. Optical simulations indicate that coupling efficiency > 90% is possible with custom optics.

© 2012 OSA

1. Introduction

State of the art solar concentrators use a combination of imaging and non-imaging optics to concentrate sunlight [1

1. P. Benitez and J. C. Minano, “Concentrator optics for the next-generation photovoltaics,” in Next Generation Photovoltaics: High Efficiency through Full Spectrum Utilization, A. Marti and A. Luque, eds. (Taylor & Francis, CRC Press, London, 2004) chap. 13. [CrossRef]

]. Mechanical actuators track the sun’s position to keep the concentrated light on a small high efficiency solar cell [2

2. H. Tabor, “Stationary mirror systems for solar collectors,” Sol. Energy 2, 27–33 (1958). [CrossRef]

, 3

3. H. Mousazadeh, A. Keyhani, A. Javadi, H. Mobli, K. Abrinia, and A. Sharifi, “A review of principle and sun-tracking methods for maximizing solar systems output,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13, 1800–1818 (2009). [CrossRef]

]. Solar concentration today is limited to solar farms due to the large size of mechanical actuators and panels. Since the demonstration of the luminescent concentrator in 1978 [4

4. R. Reisfeld and S. Neuman, “Planar solar energy converter and concentrator based on uranyl-doped glass,” Nature 274 (5667), 144–145 (1978). [CrossRef]

], a new class of planar self-tracking concentrators has emerged recently. Using a light induced refractive index increase at the focus of a concentrating lens, Baker [5

5. K. Baker, J. H. Karp, E. J. Tremblay, J. M. Hallas, and J. E. Ford, “Reactive self-tracking solar concentrators: concept, design, and initial materials characterization,” Appl. Opt. 51, 1086–1094 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] recently proposed a planar self-tracking concentrator, extending the work proposed by Karp [6

6. J. H. Karp, E. J. Tremblay, and J. E. Ford, “Planar micro-optic solar concentrator,” Opt. Express 18, 1122–1133 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] based on fixed prism couplers positioned at the focus of the concentrator. Schmaelzle [7

7. P. Schmaelzle and G. Whiting, “Lower critical solution temperature (LCST) polymers as a self adaptive alternative to mechanical tracking for solar energy harvesting devices,” MRS Fall Meeting & Exhibit (2010).

] presents a concentrator using a hydrogel that phase-changes to a diffuse, reflective state above a threshold temperature thus coupling the diffused light in a liquid waveguide. These self-tracking systems are not capable of full diurnal tracking with high efficiency, but instead aim to reduce the complexity of their associated tracking systems by self-tracking over a limited range. Luminescent [4

4. R. Reisfeld and S. Neuman, “Planar solar energy converter and concentrator based on uranyl-doped glass,” Nature 274 (5667), 144–145 (1978). [CrossRef]

] and Holographic [8

8. J. Castro, D. Zhang, B. Myer, and R. Kostuk, “Energy collection efficiency of holographic planar solar concentrators,” Appl. Opt. 49, 858–870 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] solar concentrators both perform a form of self-tracking by coupling sunlight into a waveguide. However these systems have drawbacks such as low concentration ratio (2 – 4x for a holographic concentrator) and low concentration efficiencies (η ≤ 7% for luminescent concentrators, even though new developments might increase this [9

9. R. Reisfeld, “New developments in luminescence for solar energy utilization,” Opt. Mater. 32(9), 850–856 (2010). [CrossRef]

, 10

10. R. Koeppe, O. Bossart, G. Calzaferri, and N. S. Sariciftci, “Advanced photon-harvesting concepts for low-energy gap organic solar cells,” Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 91(11), 986–995 (2007). [CrossRef]

]). In 2010 Teledyne Scientific & Imaging started a project on the development of an optofluidic concentrator. They aim to use an array of liquid prisms and electrowetting to refract the incoming light onto a focusing fresnel lens [11

11. Teledyne Scientific & Imaging, “Optofluidic solar concentrators,” ARPA (2010).

]. Another fluidic approach for a one axis passive solar tracking is used commercially whereby a liquid is moved side to side due to differential heating by the sun [12

12. M. J. Clifford and D. Eastwood, “Design of a novel passive solar tracker,” Sol. Energy 77(3), 269–280 (2004). [CrossRef]

].

In this paper we propose and demonstrate the key features of a self-tracking waveguide coupling mechanism for planar concentration. The proposed concentrator uses an opto-fluidic approach (similar in function to [13

13. K. Zhang, A. Jian, X. Zhang, Y. Wang, Z. Li, and H.-Y. Tam, “Laser-induced thermal bubbles for microfluidic applications,” Lab Chip 11, 1389–1395 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]) that provides a self-adaptive, light responsive mechanism to couple light into a planar waveguide and guide it towards the edges (see Fig. 1). The concentrator makes use of the energy present in the infrared portion of the solar spectrum to create vapor bubbles in a liquid waveguide as Fig. 1 illustrates. The vapor bubbles act as a micro reflector due to the change in refractive index at the liquid-gas interface from which light is reflected by TIR (Fig. 1(b)). By focusing the light onto an infrared absorber material a heat gradient is generated inside the liquid. Due to the negative temperature coefficient of the surface tension of most liquids and the systems tendency to minimize its overall energy, a flow is generated inside the liquid that traps the vapor bubble at the hotspot [14

14. A. Ohta, A. Jamshidi, J. Valley, H. Hsu, and M. Wu, “Optically actuated thermocapillary movement of gas bubbles on an absorbing substrate,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 91, 074103 (2007). [CrossRef]

]. An axicon is aligned with the optical axis of the focusing lens to generate a ring at the bubble for the purpose of restricting the concentrated light to the reflective area on the bubble. A fraction of the light reflected at the liquid/vapor bubble interface is coupled within the waveguide by TIR.

Fig. 1 Principle of the opto-fluidic concentrator. (a) Light is focused to a ring inside the waveguide. (b) Once a bubble is generated, light is reflected from the bubble by TIR and coupled into the waveguide.

2. Coupling efficiency

The coupling efficiency is here defined as the ratio of output power collected at the edges of the waveguide to the input power at the aperture of the collecting lens for a single lens element. Losses due to Fresnel reflections and absorption are not taken into account. Karp et al. modeled a complete planar system (i.e. multiple lenses simultaneously coupled into a waveguide) and showed that 82% efficiency is possible with concentration up to 300x using the basic geometry [6

6. J. H. Karp, E. J. Tremblay, and J. E. Ford, “Planar micro-optic solar concentrator,” Opt. Express 18, 1122–1133 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] and up to 85% efficiency at 900x if additional concentration is included [15

15. J. H. Karp, E. J. Tremblay, J. M. Hallas, and J. E. Ford, “Orthogonal and secondary concentration in planar micro-optic solar collectors,” Opt. Express 19(S4), A673–A685 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. Baker et al. proposed a self-tracking mechanism for the planar microoptic concentrator based on an induced change of refractive index in the cladding material of a colloidal suspension [5

5. K. Baker, J. H. Karp, E. J. Tremblay, J. M. Hallas, and J. E. Ford, “Reactive self-tracking solar concentrators: concept, design, and initial materials characterization,” Appl. Opt. 51, 1086–1094 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. While the simulations estimate an efficiency of 80% at 230x concentration, waveguide coupling using this mechanism has not yet been demonstrated. These values take into account outcoupling from secondary interactions with neighboring coupling elements, Fresnel reflections and absorption in the waveguide. Although we have not optimized and modeled the performance of a complete multi-lens system in this paper, we expect that an optimized system using our proposed self-tracking mechanism will approach these values, and have similar performance trade-offs to those described in the above references.

From Fig. 1, it is straightforward to note that the efficiency depends on the F/# of the focusing lens, the axicon angle and the ratio of the beam size to the bubble size. Simulations of the coupling efficiency as a function of these scale invariant parameters were obtained using a ray-tracing design software (Zemax) assuming collimated input solar light with divergence of ±0.25° and normal incidence on the focusing lens (aberration-free paraxial lens). The graphs in Fig. 2 show a volume of the parameter space for which the coupling efficiency is higher than the indicated efficiency value. In Fig. 2(a) the triangle indicates the parameters used in the experimental setup described in section 3, with its values indicated as black spots on the xy, yz and xz axes.

Fig. 2 Theoretical target space: a scale invariant volume space that defines all parameters dependent on the coupling efficiency (a) Efficiency > 50%, (b) Efficiency > 90%. The inset in (a) shows our demonstration system while the inset in (b) shows a solution for 100% coupling efficiency (neglecting scattering and Fresnel reflections).

Figure 2(a) shows a volumetric parameter space yielding a coupling efficiency higher than 50%, while Fig. 2(b) shows the parameter space for efficiencies higher than 90%. For example, the point F/# = 7.5, α = 3.3° and DBeam/DBubble = 1.7 can yield 100% efficiency (shown by small triangle and inset in Fig. 2(b)). The scale of the concentrator system (focal length and lens size) can then be chosen to satisfy other system design constraints such as power levels to create a bubble, panel size and concentration. The results of the simulations show that for 50% efficiency a solution exists for any axicon angle > 1.5° but that either the f-number or the DBeam/DBubble ratio is constraining the solution space. As can be seen in Fig. 2(b) the solution space for > 90% efficiency is significantly smaller. While a large range of lens F/# is possible, only large axicon angles and low values of concentration parameter DBeam/DBubble will yield high efficiency.

The coupling efficiency simulation in Fig. 2 is performed for an on-axis illumination. In order to quantify the effect of off-axis illumination on the coupling efficiency, simulations have been conducted using the optimal parameters obtained from Fig. 2(b). Figure 3 compares the coupling efficiency as a function of the light’s incident angle on the lens-axicon, for an ideal, aberration free lens and the aspherized, achromatic lens used in the experiments (f= 15 mm, F/1.18). The results show a high coupling efficiency (> 80%) over an angular range of 28 degrees (±14°) in case of the ideal lens and 24 degrees (±12°) in case of the real lens. The drop in coupling efficiency is due to the increase in both focal ring diameter and thickness and the stronger aberrations present in off-axis illumination. Figure 3 shows the behavior of the coupling efficiency over a 48 degree (±24°) range which is approximately the seasonal angular variation of the sun. The simulation assumes an optimal position of the bubble, which is the center of the ring for small angles but more difficult to predict as the ring elongates beyond the bubble size at large angles. To account for our imprecise knowledge of the trapped bubbles location in simulation, the orange and grey lines describe the coupling efficiency at a 0.1 mm lateral displacement from this position for the two lenses respectively. Since the two lines do not vary significantly over the whole angular range, the simulation appears to hold true even considering variations in the bubble position which would likely occur due to variations in the energy distribution of the ring spot.

Fig. 3 Simulation results on the coupling efficiency in an off-axis illumination configuration as a function of the light’s incident angle.

3. Experimental demonstration of vapor bubble generation and waveguide coupling

Fig. 4 Schematic of the setup. Two lasers are co-propagating and focused on the IR absorbing glass.

The waveguide sample chamber consists of a small fluidic chamber (Fig. 5(a)), made of glass where one side is made of the IR absorbing glass. Fluid is inserted on the side through an entrance and exit channel. The internal pressure in the waveguide chamber is adjusted manually with a syringe, though not measured. The threshold power for generating bubbles in methanol was approximately 98 mW using the set-up in Fig. 4. Methanol was used in all experiments due to its low surface tension (22.70 mN/m) and viscosity values. The optical density (due to absorption) of the IR glass is 4.88 at 808 nm and thus, about 90% of the power is absorbed in the first 200 μm. The IR power is adjustable by changing the injection current in the laser diode.

Fig. 5 (a) Photograph of the experimental fluidic chamber. The BG39 is clearly visible (blue glass). (b) Photograph showing the bubble and the focus ring for illustrating purposes.

The IR-absorbing glass (Schott BG 39 [17]) is positioned at the focal point of the focusing lens. The IR light is absorbed by the glass and creates a vapor bubble while the visible light is used to measure the coupling efficiency enabled by the light induced bubble. A light source placed at the side of the sample provides light in a dark field configuration for imaging purposes in order to measure the bubble radius. The bubble radius is measured by drawing a rectangle around the recorded images of the bubble and taking the arithmetic mean of the two diameters. A picture of the bubble as seen by the camera depicted in Fig. 4 is shown in Fig. 5(b).

Figure 6(a) shows the optical IR power at the focal spot and the bubble diameter created with this power as a function of time in seconds. The graph shows that a constant bubble diameter is generated at a fixed IR power (plateau in the graph). Note that the threshold to generate a bubble (98 mW) is higher than the levels indicated in the graph. This stems from the fact that more energy is needed to create a bubble than to maintain it. We observed that the bubble size for a given IR power can be modulated by changing the pressure inside the chamber. In the experiment of Fig. 6(a), the pressure in the chamber is not regulated in any way. The bubble diameter varies between 160 μm and 300 μm when the IR power varies between 40 and 100 mW.

Fig. 6 (a) Experiment: Bubble size for specific power levels, as a function of time for an existing bubble. (b) Experiment vs. Simulation: Light reaching Detector vs. Bubble size.

The amount of infrared solar power above 750 nm at normal incidence on a single half inch lens is 52 mW assuming AM 1.5 G, therefore a maximum of 71 mW is coupled into the waveguide, depending on the initial coupling efficiency of the mechanism. The infrared portion of the solar spectrum over 750 nm provides the required power for the self-tracking, adaptive mechanism. The simplification of external mechanical tracking leads to a reduction in the energy required to power it, and as such corresponds to an increase in the overall system efficiency. In our demonstration the cut-off wavelength for the trapping mechanism was chosen by the availability of the IR glass absorbing material. Given a cut-off wavelength at 1100 nm the ratio between the coupled energy and the energy used to actuate the mechanism is 5.6, compared to 1.4 at 750 nm. Changing this cut-off would change the amount of optical energy available for bubble trapping and would in turn affect the required lens size to power the tracking mechanism. With the current power threshold, a lens aperture of at least 19 mm will be needed to collect the necessary 98 mW for bubble generation.

The solar cell benefits from the increased efficiency possible with concentration, due to the logarithmic increase in the open circuit voltage. The power in the infrared part of the solar spectrum (above 750 nm) is smaller than the necessary power (98 mW) to generate bubbles in methanol, as obtained (using an IR laser diode) from the experiments. The proposed device is targeted to be used with either amorphous silicon (a-Si) or crystalline silicon (c-Si) solar cell. With the bandgap energy of a-Si (1.7 eV), wavelengths higher than 730 nm do not contribute to the generation of electrons, and allows for the infrared part of the spectrum to actuate the self-tracking mechanism. In the case of c-Si however the spectrum up to 1100 nm could be used. In that case, due to the lower power available a collecting lens size of at least 30 mm diameter would be required to generate bubbles. However, as will be discussed in section 4, a lens as small as 2 mm radius could be used to track a pre-generated (permanent) bubble.

The concentration values expected from the proposed concept depends first of all on the ratio between the area receiving the incoming sunlight over the area of the edge of the waveguide. Secondly, since for a complete solar concentrator system, a two-dimensional array of axicons/lenses will be needed, each generated bubble may scatter out some portion of the light guided in the waveguide and decrease the efficiency. Therefore, in order to obtain simultaneously high efficiency and concentration, an optimum between waveguide thickness and the parameter DBeam/DBubble would need to be found. Such an analysis is beyond the scope of this paper and left to future system work. However, expected values can be estimated by the planar concentrator design with lens arrays [6

6. J. H. Karp, E. J. Tremblay, and J. E. Ford, “Planar micro-optic solar concentrator,” Opt. Express 18, 1122–1133 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

].

The coupling efficiency of the waveguide chamber is measured indirectly by placing a detector in close proximity behind the waveguide sample as the zoom-in insert in Fig. 4 illustrates. The detector measures the light transmitted through the sample (i.e un-coupled). By modeling the transmitted light with the same ray-tracing simulation as used in section 1 and validating it with experiments, one can deduce the system coupling efficiency. The visible light transmitted is measured as a function of bubble diameter (varied experimentally with IR optical power according to Fig. 6(a)).

Figure 6(b) shows the simulation (line) and experimental (points) results in an on-axis configuration. The horizontal axis displays the bubble diameter and the vertical axis is the fraction of power transmitted. Due to the limited power available from the IR light source, the maximum bubble diameter was 370 μm. As can be seen in Fig. 6(b), a bubble diameter of 300 μm yields a minimum light transmission of 17% through the sample, matching the expected simulation value, although with a small error in bubble size. Note that not all of the light that does not reach the detector is actually coupled into the waveguide. A fraction of it, dependent on the bubble diameter, is refracted at the interface BG39 glass/air to such high angles that it misses the detector entirely. The simulation model in Fig. 6(b) features an exact model of the lens used in the experiments. By using a bubble diameter of 300 μm and the lens-axicon parameters, simulation yields a coupling efficiency of 35%. However calculating the coupled light from the minimum power reaching the detector gives a coupling efficiency of 40%, slightly lower than the predicted, theoretical, maximal value of 49%.

4. Bubble tracking

The illustration in Fig. 7 shows a bubble following the location of the spot as it is translated. Patterned chromium-oxide was chosen over the BG39 since it allows a better visualization of the tracking effect due to its structure. We observed experimentally that the optical trap is extremely robust to sudden acceleration of the chamber. Thermal trapping of bubble have been shown to be strong and stable [18

18. W. Hu, K. Ishii, and A. Ohta, “Micro-assembly using optically controlled bubble microrobots,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 99, 094103 (2011). [CrossRef]

]. The surface tension coefficient of Methanol decreases with increasing temperature by a factor of −0.0773 mN/(m · K). By increasing the temperature, ie. absorbing light, a heat gradient is created at the interface which directly results in a surface tension gradient with the lowest surface tension value at the hotspot. Due to this, a flow towards the hotspot is generated. This flow transports a vapor bubble to the center of the hotspot where all the forces acting on it are equalized. Therefore a generated bubble will stay at the focal point of the system and track the slow motion of the focal spot due to the sun’s motion (micrometer/second).

Fig. 7 Illustration of the tracking of a vapor bubble ( Media 1).

With simple plano-convex or Fresnel lenses the sun’s motion produces an aberrated focal spot when off-axis. By translating the chamber laterally in the experiment, the focal spot retains a constant spot size. The experiment was designed to show the strength of the trap. In contrast to bubble generation, tracking a bubble requires less energy and can be reasonably efficient over angle (see Fig. 3). We showed that the experimental set-up could trap a bubble with as little as 5 mW of power, thus we expect that the aberrated focus spot given by off-axis illumination would still be able to track the bubble. For vapor bubble generation a lens system with well-controlled off-axis aberrations is necessary to avoid reduced irradiance from off-axis aberrations. Two-element plano-convex lens designs can be used to deal with this since they have been shown to have good performance over ±24° [19

19. F. Duerr, Y. Meuret, and H. Thienpont, “Tracking integration in concentrating photovoltaics using laterally moving optics,” Opt. Express 19, A207–A218 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

, 20

20. J. M. Hallas, K. A. Baker, J. H. Karp, E. J. Tremblay, and J. E. Ford, “Two-axis solar tracking accomplished through small lateral translations,” Appl. Opt. 51, 6117–6124 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

].

It should be noted here that a reflective particle trapped at the focus of the focusing lens provides similar coupling into a waveguide, however the advantages of using vapor bubbles as opposed to reflective particles is the superior trap strength and the generation of a bubble self-aligned with the focal spot.

5. Conclusion

We successfully demonstrated the creation of vapor bubbles in a fluidic, methanol filled, waveguide chamber. Infrared power level of 98 mW focused with an axicon-lens arrangement (f=15 mm, DBeam = 8 mm, 1° axicon angle) onto an infrared absorptive glass medium gave rise to a stable bubble diameter of 300 μm. Experimentally, the coupling efficiency to the waveguide reaches 40%. The bubbles track the infrared focal spot at a sufficiently high speed that passive solar tracking is expected to be possible. Although the IR power of 98 mW used for bubble generation requires a rather large lens (19 mm) when used with > 750 nm IR sunlight, a power of only 5 mW is necessary to track the bubble. This suggests that a tracking system with much lower power usage and smaller optics (4 mm lens) could be used if a bubble could be permanently maintained in the liquid chamber.

The opto-fluidic approach, based on a light induced micro-bubble reflector, demonstrates the basic features for the realization of a self-adaptive, passive tracking planar solar concentrator system. Simulations show that the waveguide coupling efficiency can be increased to over 90% by optimizing the optical system, ie. the focusing lens and the axicon.

References and links

1.

P. Benitez and J. C. Minano, “Concentrator optics for the next-generation photovoltaics,” in Next Generation Photovoltaics: High Efficiency through Full Spectrum Utilization, A. Marti and A. Luque, eds. (Taylor & Francis, CRC Press, London, 2004) chap. 13. [CrossRef]

2.

H. Tabor, “Stationary mirror systems for solar collectors,” Sol. Energy 2, 27–33 (1958). [CrossRef]

3.

H. Mousazadeh, A. Keyhani, A. Javadi, H. Mobli, K. Abrinia, and A. Sharifi, “A review of principle and sun-tracking methods for maximizing solar systems output,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13, 1800–1818 (2009). [CrossRef]

4.

R. Reisfeld and S. Neuman, “Planar solar energy converter and concentrator based on uranyl-doped glass,” Nature 274 (5667), 144–145 (1978). [CrossRef]

5.

K. Baker, J. H. Karp, E. J. Tremblay, J. M. Hallas, and J. E. Ford, “Reactive self-tracking solar concentrators: concept, design, and initial materials characterization,” Appl. Opt. 51, 1086–1094 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

6.

J. H. Karp, E. J. Tremblay, and J. E. Ford, “Planar micro-optic solar concentrator,” Opt. Express 18, 1122–1133 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

7.

P. Schmaelzle and G. Whiting, “Lower critical solution temperature (LCST) polymers as a self adaptive alternative to mechanical tracking for solar energy harvesting devices,” MRS Fall Meeting & Exhibit (2010).

8.

J. Castro, D. Zhang, B. Myer, and R. Kostuk, “Energy collection efficiency of holographic planar solar concentrators,” Appl. Opt. 49, 858–870 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

9.

R. Reisfeld, “New developments in luminescence for solar energy utilization,” Opt. Mater. 32(9), 850–856 (2010). [CrossRef]

10.

R. Koeppe, O. Bossart, G. Calzaferri, and N. S. Sariciftci, “Advanced photon-harvesting concepts for low-energy gap organic solar cells,” Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 91(11), 986–995 (2007). [CrossRef]

11.

Teledyne Scientific & Imaging, “Optofluidic solar concentrators,” ARPA (2010).

12.

M. J. Clifford and D. Eastwood, “Design of a novel passive solar tracker,” Sol. Energy 77(3), 269–280 (2004). [CrossRef]

13.

K. Zhang, A. Jian, X. Zhang, Y. Wang, Z. Li, and H.-Y. Tam, “Laser-induced thermal bubbles for microfluidic applications,” Lab Chip 11, 1389–1395 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

14.

A. Ohta, A. Jamshidi, J. Valley, H. Hsu, and M. Wu, “Optically actuated thermocapillary movement of gas bubbles on an absorbing substrate,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 91, 074103 (2007). [CrossRef]

15.

J. H. Karp, E. J. Tremblay, J. M. Hallas, and J. E. Ford, “Orthogonal and secondary concentration in planar micro-optic solar collectors,” Opt. Express 19(S4), A673–A685 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

16.

I. Golub, “Fresnel axicon,” Opt. Lett. 31, 1890–1892 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

17.

Schott BG39 “http://www.schott.com/advanced_optics/english/download/schott_bandpass_bg39_2008_e.pdf”.

18.

W. Hu, K. Ishii, and A. Ohta, “Micro-assembly using optically controlled bubble microrobots,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 99, 094103 (2011). [CrossRef]

19.

F. Duerr, Y. Meuret, and H. Thienpont, “Tracking integration in concentrating photovoltaics using laterally moving optics,” Opt. Express 19, A207–A218 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

20.

J. M. Hallas, K. A. Baker, J. H. Karp, E. J. Tremblay, and J. E. Ford, “Two-axis solar tracking accomplished through small lateral translations,” Appl. Opt. 51, 6117–6124 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

OCIS Codes
(220.1770) Optical design and fabrication : Concentrators
(230.7390) Optical devices : Waveguides, planar
(350.6050) Other areas of optics : Solar energy

ToC Category:
Solar Concentrators

History
Original Manuscript: July 11, 2012
Revised Manuscript: September 26, 2012
Manuscript Accepted: October 7, 2012
Published: October 15, 2012

Citation
Volker Zagolla, Eric Tremblay, and Christophe Moser, "Light induced fluidic waveguide coupling," Opt. Express 20, A924-A931 (2012)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?URI=oe-20-S6-A924


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  

References

  1. P. Benitez and J. C. Minano, “Concentrator optics for the next-generation photovoltaics,” in Next Generation Photovoltaics: High Efficiency through Full Spectrum Utilization, A. Marti and A. Luque, eds. (Taylor & Francis, CRC Press, London, 2004) chap. 13. [CrossRef]
  2. H. Tabor, “Stationary mirror systems for solar collectors,” Sol. Energy 2, 27–33 (1958). [CrossRef]
  3. H. Mousazadeh, A. Keyhani, A. Javadi, H. Mobli, K. Abrinia, and A. Sharifi, “A review of principle and sun-tracking methods for maximizing solar systems output,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13, 1800–1818 (2009). [CrossRef]
  4. R. Reisfeld and S. Neuman, “Planar solar energy converter and concentrator based on uranyl-doped glass,” Nature 274 (5667), 144–145 (1978). [CrossRef]
  5. K. Baker, J. H. Karp, E. J. Tremblay, J. M. Hallas, and J. E. Ford, “Reactive self-tracking solar concentrators: concept, design, and initial materials characterization,” Appl. Opt. 51, 1086–1094 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. J. H. Karp, E. J. Tremblay, and J. E. Ford, “Planar micro-optic solar concentrator,” Opt. Express 18, 1122–1133 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. P. Schmaelzle and G. Whiting, “Lower critical solution temperature (LCST) polymers as a self adaptive alternative to mechanical tracking for solar energy harvesting devices,” MRS Fall Meeting & Exhibit (2010).
  8. J. Castro, D. Zhang, B. Myer, and R. Kostuk, “Energy collection efficiency of holographic planar solar concentrators,” Appl. Opt. 49, 858–870 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. R. Reisfeld, “New developments in luminescence for solar energy utilization,” Opt. Mater. 32(9), 850–856 (2010). [CrossRef]
  10. R. Koeppe, O. Bossart, G. Calzaferri, and N. S. Sariciftci, “Advanced photon-harvesting concepts for low-energy gap organic solar cells,” Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 91(11), 986–995 (2007). [CrossRef]
  11. Teledyne Scientific & Imaging, “Optofluidic solar concentrators,” ARPA (2010).
  12. M. J. Clifford and D. Eastwood, “Design of a novel passive solar tracker,” Sol. Energy 77(3), 269–280 (2004). [CrossRef]
  13. K. Zhang, A. Jian, X. Zhang, Y. Wang, Z. Li, and H.-Y. Tam, “Laser-induced thermal bubbles for microfluidic applications,” Lab Chip 11, 1389–1395 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. A. Ohta, A. Jamshidi, J. Valley, H. Hsu, and M. Wu, “Optically actuated thermocapillary movement of gas bubbles on an absorbing substrate,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 91, 074103 (2007). [CrossRef]
  15. J. H. Karp, E. J. Tremblay, J. M. Hallas, and J. E. Ford, “Orthogonal and secondary concentration in planar micro-optic solar collectors,” Opt. Express 19(S4), A673–A685 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. I. Golub, “Fresnel axicon,” Opt. Lett. 31, 1890–1892 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Schott BG39 “ http://www.schott.com/advanced_optics/english/download/schott_bandpass_bg39_2008_e.pdf ”.
  18. W. Hu, K. Ishii, and A. Ohta, “Micro-assembly using optically controlled bubble microrobots,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 99, 094103 (2011). [CrossRef]
  19. F. Duerr, Y. Meuret, and H. Thienpont, “Tracking integration in concentrating photovoltaics using laterally moving optics,” Opt. Express 19, A207–A218 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. J. M. Hallas, K. A. Baker, J. H. Karp, E. J. Tremblay, and J. E. Ford, “Two-axis solar tracking accomplished through small lateral translations,” Appl. Opt. 51, 6117–6124 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.

Supplementary Material


» Media 1: AVI (2871 KB)     

« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited