> This method achieved an energy conversion efficiency of about 130%, exceeding the traditional 100% limit
I am extraordinarily confident that it did not.
> In practical terms, this means about 1.3 molybdenum-based metal complexes were activated for every photon absorbed, surpassing the conventional limit and demonstrating that more energy carriers were generated than incoming photons.
... Which is not the same thing as a >100% energy conversion efficiency (which would imply an infinite-energy-generating pump)
So it seems that their definition of 100% means 1 excited state per incoming photon, and then they use a material that converts a single high energy excited state produced by one photon into 2 half as energetic excited states...but then they apply the definition that just counts any excited state per incoming photon to juice their numbers.
So more like 65% energy conversion efficiency at best.
The "absolutre efficiency" limit has been moved before.used to be 17%
tripple junction and other exotic panels have been getting up to 50%+- efficiency, but the standerdised efficiency limit of 33%
conversion of solar energy is for single junction conventional panels.
Suggestion here is for 45% +- conversion of solar to electricity, so 450w/m², 20m²/18kw,
and of course as this is capturing infrared
energy, there would be residual generation at night.
The demand from aerospace will drive earlier development, but as there will be other solutions, not that there are results, research happening everywhere will shift.
edit: has shifted
"... if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."
8 comments
[ 235 ms ] story [ 317 ms ] threadI am extraordinarily confident that it did not.
> In practical terms, this means about 1.3 molybdenum-based metal complexes were activated for every photon absorbed, surpassing the conventional limit and demonstrating that more energy carriers were generated than incoming photons.
... Which is not the same thing as a >100% energy conversion efficiency (which would imply an infinite-energy-generating pump)
No it did not. Please find a science correspondent who at least passed high school physics.
So more like 65% energy conversion efficiency at best.
I was expecting such a "dogma" from a catholic university. But from a Japanese one ? What happened to critical thinking ? Has been left to AI ?
Sir Arthur Eddington
Imagine if they got that to 10% someday, would be amazing