Nick, <br><br>here's a fellow how is inclined to agree with you. <br><br>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br><br>I came across this story and then was directed to this post - <a href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:JmlMNqVPKlsJ:uvdiv.blogspot.com/2011/08/solar-panel-trees-really-are-inferior.html+http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/2011/08/solar-panel-trees-really-are-inferior.html&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com" target="_blank">http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:JmlMNqVPKlsJ:uvdiv.blogspot.com/2011/08/solar-panel-trees-really-are-inferior.html+http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/2011/08/solar-panel-trees-really-are-inferior.html&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com</a><div>
<br></div><div>It
 apparently disproves what the 13 year old is said to have found. I will
 leave it to those who wish to work through the math and physics to say 
which is true.</div><div><br></div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 3:02 PM, nick pine <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nick@early.com">nick@early.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
The tree design made 20% more electricity and collected 2 1/2 more hours of sunlight during the day.<br>

<br>
The text and graphs have no evidence to support those claims.<br>
<br></blockquote></div>