Doesn't it make sense that an empirical test would not reach a theoretical max? For instance you've discounted shade effects as where he went wrong. Maybe its exactly the shade issue that makes his findings significant. Every urbanite will have to deal with it, and his array may do a better job in intermittent shade.
If mass-distributed, most folks would not be optimizing anything - install-and-forget - so its a real solution to create something that works in most environments.
The shade issue implied by the parent post is that the tree configuration was mounted in a generally less shady position, as the Fibonacci-configured panels were located significantly further from the ground than the classic configuration. It is possible that the test was set up in a manner that puts the classic configuration at a disadvantage.
To control for that effect, the two panel configurations should be mounted at an equal average distance from the ground, and their positions swapped in different test runs.
Doesn't it make sense that an empirical test would not reach a theoretical max? For instance you've discounted shade effects as where he went wrong. Maybe its exactly the shade issue that makes his findings significant. Every urbanite will have to deal with it, and his array may do a better job in intermittent shade.
If mass-distributed, most folks would not be optimizing anything - install-and-forget - so its a real solution to create something that works in most environments.