51–60 of 86 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> set to the equivalent output of two suns... I didn't realize we have achieved a Kardashev Type II civilization already :)
Achieving the effect locally for a few milliseconds has been possible for like 70 years now. Damn hard to get a license for that nowadays, though, no matter how important your science is.
I did a quick Google for the Power Conversion Efficiency of Barium Titanate based solar cells and they are currently mostly in single-digit percentages [1]. A thousandfold increase would be over 1000%. Unless I'm missing something important, they probably mean 1000x over a super basic BaTiO3 system, not 1000x over the current state of the art. [1] For example, this 5.13% PCE from "hierarchical barium titanate micro f…
> Our apologies for not making this clear. The photovoltaic effect was increased by 1000 times compared to previous output achieved from cells made of ferroelectric crystals, not from prevailing solar cells made of silicon or other conventional materials.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yup, my thoughts exactly. otherwise a 1000x increase in 30%-ish efficient pv silicon-based solar cells would be far above unity
Depends on how you count. If your process is 30% efficient, it wastes 70% of input. If you increase efficiency 1000x, it wastes 70% / 1000 = 0.007% of input, so it's 99.993% efficient.
I'd expect the headline to resolve to some perspective where the numbers do make sense, in some very special, limited way, assuming that they didn't just roll dice to decide how many orders of magnitude to falsely claim.
Unfortunately, there's a huge crowd out there that combines, in a surprising way, radical science scepticism with radical science optimism. The "science said man cannot fly, then came the Wright Brothers" crowd who refuse all painful achievable improvements based on their hope for some convenient miracle. These headlines are dangerous.
This project has a mind-boggling amount of complexities and involved a special large ship, one of the only kinds of its type, to move things around—very impressive project.
It made me realize just how revolutionary solar is. Also, why it can compete and be so cheap compared to other forms of energy production.
You just put this almost magical thing on your roof, and it silently creates green renewable energy for decades. Power plants can be complex and expensive buildings. Solar is just stupidly simply.
What is: Power output per m2? Durability (life span)? Production cost? At least theoretical ...
This type of cheeky criticism is probably fair when you have a startup claiming crazy numbers with no prototype, but this is reporting on a paper from a research institution. No need for snark.
I did a quick Google for the Power Conversion Efficiency of Barium Titanate based solar cells and they are currently mostly in single-digit percentages [1]. A thousandfold increase would be over 1000%. Unless I'm missing something important, they probably mean 1000x over a super basic BaTiO3 system, not 1000x over the current state of the art. [1] For example, this 5.13% PCE from "hierarchical barium titanate micro f…
From the comments section of the article: > Our apologies for not making this clear. The photovoltaic effect was increased by 1000 times compared to previous output achieved from cells made of ferroelectric crystals, not from prevailing solar cells made of silicon or other conventional materials.
Even if they made the best theoretically possible solar cell, the starting point of 1/1000th of that would not have been considered useful for anything.
I did a quick Google for the Power Conversion Efficiency of Barium Titanate based solar cells and they are currently mostly in single-digit percentages [1]. A thousandfold increase would be over 1000%. Unless I'm missing something important, they probably mean 1000x over a super basic BaTiO3 system, not 1000x over the current state of the art. [1] For example, this 5.13% PCE from "hierarchical barium titanate micro f…
They also compare photocurrents under a solar simulator and achieve 100x increase vs bulk BTO.
At no point do they make comparison to state of the art BTO cells, which almost certainly aren't just bulk BTO but are likely doped, nanostructured, or have some other novelty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Achieving the effect locally for a few milliseconds has been possible for like 70 years now. Damn hard to get a license for that nowadays, though, no matter how important your science is.
Is...this a nuclear explosion joke?
http://wordpress.mrreid.org/2015/04/18/the-nuclear-double-fl...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This type of cheeky criticism is probably fair when you have a startup claiming crazy numbers with no prototype, but this is reporting on a paper from a research institution. No need for snark.
criticism, snark ?! What are you talking about?! All I am trying to get some numbers, if anyone has them, but it seems amount of unhelpful comments begins to be overwhelming on HN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like some people are unable to handle actual questions on anything that appears challenging and want to dismiss as being hyper critical and snarky for not just drinking the kool-aid. There was no snarky tone-of-voice in your reply when I read it. Maybe cultural differences? Please, kindly inform me of the output of the power output per m2? Also, is there any information available regarding the durability (lifes…
Honestly, I do not know how much technical my question can be, there is no tone, there is 14 words in total. I was googling and I could not find anything useful so I hoped I could get some answer from some technical person (material science/physic person). In my mind finding those number is the first thing I would do on the test bench, they give you prospect of technology some kind a range you would attract investors…
Which one would you find more snarky?