Fig. 1. Schematic of the condensation in parabolic trough system

Fig. 2. Non-uniform flux distribution of the absorber tubes measured by CTM method[12]

Fig. 3. Collector with ParaScan-II[13]

Fig. 4. Flux distribution on the surface of bend absorber[19]

Fig. 5. Flux distribution on the outer surface of absorber[21]

Fig. 6. Comparison of flux distribution between the MCRT method and Jeter’s method[22]

Fig. 7. Heat flux distributions on parabolic trough receiver[23]

Fig. 8. Temperature distribution on the outer surface of absorber tube[23]. (a) Contour plot; (b) temperature versus coordinate Y

Fig. 9. Comparison of flux distribution between MACM method and the method proposed by Jeter and He[24]

Fig. 10. Trough receiver with secondary reflector[34]

Fig. 11. Radiation path and irradiance distribution of the VFPT concentrator on the receiver[35]

Fig. 12. Trough condenser system with homogenized reflectors[36]. (a) Schematic of structure; (b) light path

Fig. 13. Comparison between conventional parabolic trough collector and parabolic trough collector with homogenizing reflector[36]

Fig. 14. Linear Fresnel concentrating system layout

Fig. 15. Schematic of evacuated tube and CPC

Fig. 16. Light path of CPC cavity receiver[41]

Fig. 17. Relative radiation intensity distribution of the collector tube[41]

Fig. 18. Flux distribution on the absorber and CPC[45]

Fig. 19. Circumferential temperature distribution on absorber[45]

Fig. 20. Flux distribution of linear Fresnel absorber with different incidence angles. (a) 45°; (b) 60°; (c) 75°; (d) 90°

Fig. 21. Geometric structure of a winged secondary reflector[47]

Fig. 22. Radial distribution on wing receiver[47]

Fig. 23. Profiles of SPC[48]

Fig. 24. Flux distribution of different target lines in SPC configuration[48]

Fig. 25. Surface flux distribution on the absorber of systems with three typical reflectors three types of reflector system[49]

Fig. 26. Flux distribution corresponding to five kinds of scattered sight lines[50]

Fig. 27. Influence of surface error on the flux distribution of collector tube[49]

Fig. 28. Simple diagram of tower collection system

Fig. 29. Heliostat

Fig. 30. Beam PHLUX diagram on tubular receiver[53]

Fig. 31. Solar flux distribution on the aperture of cavity receiver[65]

Fig. 32. Distribution of surface flux in cavity receiver[66]

Fig. 33. Solar flux distribution in the porous absorber of volumetric receiver[67]

Fig. 34. Heat flux distribution at different receiver mounting height[67]

Fig. 35. Optimized fluid flow layout for receiver[69]

Fig. 36. Temperature distribution on the outer surface of receivers with or without porous insert[70]

Fig. 37. Optimal distribution of energy flux density after the receiver surface optimization[65]

Fig. 38. Comparison of solar flux distributions on inner surfaces of cavity receiver[73]. (a) 1 aiming point; (b) 21 aiming points

Fig. 39. Cavity receiver wall temperature distribution under different depth[75]. (a) 0; (b) 1.0 m; (c) 2.0 m; (d) 3.0 m

Fig. 40. Schematic of dish light collecting system light

Fig. 41. Flux distribution on absorbing surfaces for different cavity receivers in solar dish system[84]. (a) Cylindrial; (b) dome; (c) heteroconical; (d) ellipse; (e) spherical; (f) conic

Fig. 42. Cavity absorber surface of dish system[85]. (a) Radiation flux distribution; (b) temperature profile of the inner surface

Fig. 43. Solar flux density in focal plane[24]. (a) Comparison and confirmation; (b) distributed cloud map

Fig. 44. Sketch of shape pattern of upside-down pear cavity receiver[87]

Fig. 45. Comparison of solar flux distribution on receiver surface between spherical receiver and pear-like receiver[87]

Fig. 46. Cavity receiver with flat convex quartz glass[88]

Fig. 47. Comparison of solar flux distribution of three hemisphere receivers in solar dish system[88]

Fig. 48. Schematic of plane mirror array