Comments on: Quantum Dots…The Future of Solar? http://cleantechnica.com/2009/03/12/quantum-dotsthe-future-of-solar/ Clean Tech News & Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. & More. Fri, 25 May 2012 22:41:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: stephen squires http://cleantechnica.com/2009/03/12/quantum-dotsthe-future-of-solar/#comment-5149 stephen squires Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:54:39 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2319#comment-5149 Solterra Renewable technologies Inc is actually scaling up both the high volume production of low cost quantum dots and a printed quantum dot solar cell. Solterra Renewable technologies Inc is actually scaling up both the high volume production of low cost quantum dots and a printed quantum dot solar cell.

]]> By: Chris Johnson http://cleantechnica.com/2009/03/12/quantum-dotsthe-future-of-solar/#comment-5148 Chris Johnson Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:43:28 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2319#comment-5148 Hi Michael: Good article. I remember seeing something about this subject a few months ago, then lost track of it. So I tried googling 'Quantum Dots' but that brought up too much that was not directed toward solar power. After a few variations I was overwhelmed by the results. There is a whole lot going on out there in the labs. Cheers, Chris Johnson Hi Michael:

Good article. I remember seeing something about this subject a few months ago, then lost track of it. So I tried googling ‘Quantum Dots’ but that brought up too much that was not directed toward solar power. After a few variations I was overwhelmed by the results. There is a whole lot going on out there in the labs.

Cheers, Chris Johnson

]]> By: Chris Johnson http://cleantechnica.com/2009/03/12/quantum-dotsthe-future-of-solar/#comment-22455 Chris Johnson Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:43:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2319#comment-22455 Hi Michael: Good article. I remember seeing something about this subject a few months ago, then lost track of it. So I tried googling 'Quantum Dots' but that brought up too much that was not directed toward solar power. After a few variations I was overwhelmed by the results. There is a whole lot going on out there in the labs. Cheers, Chris Johnson Hi Michael:

Good article. I remember seeing something about this subject a few months ago, then lost track of it. So I tried googling ‘Quantum Dots’ but that brought up too much that was not directed toward solar power. After a few variations I was overwhelmed by the results. There is a whole lot going on out there in the labs.

Cheers, Chris Johnson

]]> By: Michael Ratliff http://cleantechnica.com/2009/03/12/quantum-dotsthe-future-of-solar/#comment-5147 Michael Ratliff Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:17:08 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2319#comment-5147 Good question! I should have clarified that. The researchers reported that in the greatest case scenario, 1 photon was able to excite 3 electrons. Although the quantum dots were able to achieve the degree of excitability, there are still cases where 1 photon excites only 1 electron. There should also be cases (I assume) that quantum dots allow 1 photon to excite 2 electrons. I think the researchers looked at the average ability of photon to excite electrons (through quantum dots) and then estimated that efficiency could be improved by one third. One third of an improvement is still a pretty big advance in my opinion though. Good question! I should have clarified that.

The researchers reported that in the greatest case scenario, 1 photon was able to excite 3 electrons. Although the quantum dots were able to achieve the degree of excitability, there are still cases where 1 photon excites only 1 electron. There should also be cases (I assume) that quantum dots allow 1 photon to excite 2 electrons. I think the researchers looked at the average ability of photon to excite electrons (through quantum dots) and then estimated that efficiency could be improved by one third.

One third of an improvement is still a pretty big advance in my opinion though.

]]> By: Michael Ratliff http://cleantechnica.com/2009/03/12/quantum-dotsthe-future-of-solar/#comment-22454 Michael Ratliff Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:17:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2319#comment-22454 Good question! I should have clarified that. The researchers reported that in the greatest case scenario, 1 photon was able to excite 3 electrons. Although the quantum dots were able to achieve the degree of excitability, there are still cases where 1 photon excites only 1 electron. There should also be cases (I assume) that quantum dots allow 1 photon to excite 2 electrons. I think the researchers looked at the average ability of photon to excite electrons (through quantum dots) and then estimated that efficiency could be improved by one third. One third of an improvement is still a pretty big advance in my opinion though. Good question! I should have clarified that.

The researchers reported that in the greatest case scenario, 1 photon was able to excite 3 electrons. Although the quantum dots were able to achieve the degree of excitability, there are still cases where 1 photon excites only 1 electron. There should also be cases (I assume) that quantum dots allow 1 photon to excite 2 electrons. I think the researchers looked at the average ability of photon to excite electrons (through quantum dots) and then estimated that efficiency could be improved by one third.

One third of an improvement is still a pretty big advance in my opinion though.

]]> By: Steve http://cleantechnica.com/2009/03/12/quantum-dotsthe-future-of-solar/#comment-5146 Steve Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:57:48 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2319#comment-5146 Wouldn't that be 3 times the performance rather than 1/3 times? I'm no scientist so help me out. Thanks. Wouldn’t that be 3 times the performance rather than 1/3 times? I’m no scientist so help me out. Thanks.

]]> By: Steve http://cleantechnica.com/2009/03/12/quantum-dotsthe-future-of-solar/#comment-22453 Steve Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:57:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2319#comment-22453 Wouldn't that be 3 times the performance rather than 1/3 times? I'm no scientist so help me out. Thanks. Wouldn’t that be 3 times the performance rather than 1/3 times? I’m no scientist so help me out. Thanks.

]]>