In the actual MIT article, the solar panel itself isn't even credited as the thing they invented. Actually, the invention was phospholipids that provide a unique way of arranging existing photovoltaic molecules. The only advantage/disadvantage being that this is self repairing and does not degrade, unlike current photovoltaics.
Originally posted by King Kandy
In the actual MIT article, the solar panel itself isn't even credited as the thing they invented. Actually, the invention was phospholipids that provide a unique way of arranging existing photovoltaic molecules. The only advantage/disadvantage being that this is self repairing and does not degrade, unlike current photovoltaics.
Self-repairing when a solution is added.
Yeah, that's pratical. 😬
And, no, it fails: the cell has no mechanism bus the freed electrons as it requires a "technology" that does not exist yet.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Self-repairing when a solution is added.Yeah, that's pratical. 😬
And, no, it fails: the cell has no mechanism bus the freed electrons as it requires a "technology" that does not exist yet.
ok, so here is the scenario:
you are the editor at "DDM's relevant scientific journal: proceedings A"
these researchers send you a manuscript outlining this new discovery
your reaction is to reject said manuscript?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Scientists discover tiny solar panels that create th
Wow, everyone was a dick in this thread, including me.
This is the most spot-on point in the thread, however:
Originally posted by dadudemon
It pales compared nano-cell technology will be used for a far more efficient photovoltaic cell: the one I referenced earlier. That technology is already developed to the point that it's cheap and absurdly efficient and can be sprayed on "plates". The only problem: we need nano-tubes to collect the freed electrons. So we already have a cheap highly efficient solar technology developed that needs the use of long nano-tubes. Guess which one will get the green light when we have a cheap frab process for nano-tubes?
There are probably a dozen other solar technologies that are more efficient and cost far less than this discovery. They would be first in line for the application of carbon nano-tubes (used to collect the freed electrons). I mean...why did the thread progress any further than that point.
It is fun to discover new stuff, for sure, but why was everyone not being more realistic?
This technology existed as far back as 2008...and it is in need of those CNTs more than these phospholipid cells:
http://ecogeek.org/2008/01/80-efficient-solar-panel-works-at-night/
There were lots of very bad comparisons in this thread. The wheel comparison and the combustion engine comparison, especially.
The wheel had existed for thousands of years before the automobile was created in very rudimentary forms. Unlike this technology, which literally has no method of collecting the "freed excitons", automobiles made use of wheels with an engine (steam powered). The solution was pragmatic and worked but it was not practical due to the very short distances. This did not matter as this was a proven solution that had real use and application: this solar technology doesn't. To compare it to the car is illogical. This would be like someone building the frame, throwing on some decent wheels, and calling it a modern car: that's hilariously stupid. You need a damn engine. To put it into perspective and to compare it this solar technology, this technology would be like creating any vehicle that had a frame and wheels. That structure has existed for thousands of years. Obviously the very first device constructed for this could not be considered an "automobile." This is the same for this solar technology: without a way to collect the electrons, this technology is no different than a vehicle that has no engine. It's just a frame on wheels.
You need the engine, first, before you can have the automobile. This was my point. We need a way of collecting, ultra-efficiently, freed electrons from solar cells/technologies. If you have that, you can come up with all sorts of wild technologies that can fit on top of your collection system (not literally "on top", of course).
Any solar technology that is released WITHOUT a method or solution in place to collect freed elections should be glossed over by investors (generally). We should not get excited (lol, pun) about them. "Hmm, interesting" is about what we should think. Why? Because there have been hundreds or thousands of solar technology "breakthroughs" with no practical real-world use...they just won't work. If a technology is invented that can make use of another old invention, there are millions of scientists who have access to that research and can revive it. This is what happened with memristors and look how HP has taken off with those? Memristors were considered Sci-fi level shit and now they are in commercial production. Just because a technology has no practical use, now, does not mean we cannot re-purpose it with another technology that does not exist, yet...let us not go ape-shit over these things until that happens, though.
If someone comes up with a solar technology that is relatively simple to fabricate BUT is ridiculously expensive, I would call that a breakthrough. We could figure out how to reduce the cost of fabrication, most likely.
Compare that to this technology: "Here is a new technology...but it is completely useless because it directly depends on the existence of a nonexistent technology."