Slashdot Mirror


Jackie Chan Discs Help Boost Solar Panel Efficiency

wbr1 writes Apparently the pit pattern on a blu-ray disk is great at helping trap photons, rather than reflecting them. Applying this pattern to the glass in a solar panel can boost efficiency by 22%. Researchers at Northwestern tested this system with Jackie Chan discs. From the article: "To increase the efficiency of a solar panel by 22%, the researchers at Northwestern bought a copy of Police Story 3: Supercop on Blu-ray; removed the top plastic layer, exposing the recording medium beneath; cast a mold of the quasi-random pattern; and then used the mold to create a photovoltaic cell with the same pattern....The end result is a solar panel that has a quantum efficiency of around 40% — up about 22% from the non-patterned solar panel."

194 comments

  1. Copyright? by BronsCon · · Score: 4, Funny

    Cue copyright infringement suit in 3..2..1...

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    1. Re:Copyright? by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Okay, now that I got my somehow-relevant first post...

      This is a really cool development and I hope they have very-near-future plans to develop this further and commercialize it. Every little bit of efficiency we can squeeze out of solar cells makes them practical for a wider variety of uses.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    2. Re:Copyright? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      Can you claim copyright infringement for a derivative work? Entitled to royalties at a minimum right?

    3. Re:Copyright? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I wonder if it gets even better if they first paint the sides of the Bluray disc with some kind of green marker pen.

    4. Re:Copyright? by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      It's not a derivative work, though; at the very least the mold they made of the disc is a direct (even if inverse) copy that can be used to make other direct (and not inverse) copies.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    5. Re:Copyright? by Frnknstn · · Score: 3, Funny

      Dunno about the solar efficiency, but it sure does make the picture quality better. And it makes my CDs sound so much warmer!

      --
      If it's in you sig, it's in your post.
    6. Re:Copyright? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      northwestern law school can help out there.

    7. Re:Copyright? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Of course derived works infringe copyright. Why don't you simply read the aprobriated law?
      How ever in thise case we don't have derived work ... hint: the law defines what a derived work is.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    8. Re:Copyright? by BronsCon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know... I can replace the batteries in my $5 calculator every year, or I can have a solar cell in my $5 calculator and never replace the batteries, because there aren't any. That's just one practical application where they're quite economical; there are many others, but I'm not up to the task of wasting my time doing your research for you, so you can seek them out yourself if you're interested.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    9. Re:Copyright? by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Color me ignorant, but I'm not quite sure what you're hinting at...

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    10. Re:Copyright? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Yea, at this rate of efficiency gains it'll only be ANOTHER 30 years until they're economical.

      You are a troll, yes? You know that thin film PV panels pay back the energy cost of their production in three years? And that even though PV solar is the least energy-efficient, it's profitable right now? You must be a troll, there can't be anybody out there who doesn't know this stuff.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Copyright? by mjwx · · Score: 2

      Dunno about the solar efficiency, but it sure does make the picture quality better. And it makes my CDs sound so much warmer!

      But thats only if you use a Monster power cable.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    12. Re:Copyright? by vivian · · Score: 1

      I don't see how a green marker would help.

      I think they would have gotten much better performance if they used a Chuck Norris disc though.

    13. Re:Copyright? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Yea, at this rate of efficiency gains it'll only be ANOTHER 30 years until they're economical."

      They're economical now even at their typical ~30% efficiency. My rooftop could've powered my entire house minus AC back in TN and had a payoff time of about 4 years. Oh, and they last typical 20 years MINIMUM and still produce ~85% original output.

      Not my fault you've failed to do basic math, and the prices are only falling faster and faster as China keeps dumping.

      Try again when you've done this stuff for a living.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    14. Re:Copyright? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Until that one time you are forced at gunpoint in a dark alley to calculate a cube root!

      And, actually, seriously bad example - who cares about the battery life of a shitty $5 calculator when these days you can solve differential equations on your phone? Maybe you *should* have done a bit of research first...

    15. Re:Copyright? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      One day the sun will kick your ass.

    16. Re:Copyright? by BronsCon · · Score: 2

      why, your average accountant might care... they're touch-typing their work into their adding machine (or cheap $5 calculator, if that's what's available at their client's office during an audit or consultation), without looking, which is something you just can't do on a phone...

      It's impossible to research the infinite number of strawmen, which is why people like you rely on them so strongly.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    17. Re:Copyright? by counterplex · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't steal a car!

      --
      $x = ($x * 10) % 10 >= 5 ? 1 + int $x : int $x
    18. Re:Copyright? by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, great, just what the world needs: The MPAA lawyers flying around in helicopters, noting the address of everyone with solar panels on their house, sueing them for copyright violations. Nice job, scientists!

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    19. Re:Copyright? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or those gold-plated optical spdif cables..

    20. Re:Copyright? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Oh well, (supposed) straw man still beats ad hominem!

      I actually agree with you that there are tons of good applications for *new* innovation in high-efficiency solar panels (the point of the article). But given $5 calculators have *already* been available for 30 years, sorry, it just isn't one of them ;)

    21. Re:Copyright? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Until that one time you are forced at gunpoint in a dark alley to calculate a cube root!

      Can't do 3 rounds of Newton-Raphson approximation in your head at gunpoint?

      Just think of it as evolution in action.

      BANG!

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    22. Re:Copyright? by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Huh, well now, that's strange, I could've sworn the post in which I originally mentioned solar calculators was in response to a post claiming we were still 30 years off from seeing any economical use of solar cells. Any currently viable, practical, economical use of solar cells is a valid counter to that, so you're right, the straw man I accused you of building was just me being nice and not calling your argumentum ad hominem when you insinuated that I'd make such an argument without adequate research.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    23. Re:Copyright? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      That's not how ad hominem works. It's "you're bad, therefor your argument is false."

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    24. Re:Copyright? by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Did I call Dahamma out for relying on a strawman argument? Yes, but only after calling the argument what it was, a strawman. After declaring the argument false based on its own merits, I had removed any legitimate claim that I had made any ad hominem argument, even in the face of calling my adversary out on their argumentative strategy. However, since they are very clearly misusing the term themselves (and it is equally clear what they were hinting at with their use of the term), it is safe to assume they would understand my similar use of the term.

      I was using the term the way Dahamma had used it (e.g. the way they would understand it). Correct or not, that's effective communication and I'm sure it got my point across to my adversary, which was my intent.

      Thank you for educating my adversary, though, so they don't make the same error next time. So many people fail to see the value in being able to properly debate a given topic...

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    25. Re:Copyright? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Typical photovoltaic is unconcentrated single crystal silicon, the best daylight efficiency for which is 25%. Typical production devices are less, generally no better than 22%.http://www.solarplaza.com/article/1975-2013-all-solar-efficiency-records-in-one-char

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    26. Re:Copyright? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Yes, but agar works better.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    27. Re:Copyright? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      "Adversary!?" Jesus. Seriously? Get a life, dude. I'm not your "adversary", just someone who disagrees with something you said on a random tech blog.

      Solar calculators have been around since the 1970's and have perfectly capable since then without the technology mentioned in the article. Your example is bad, deal with it, it's ok, everyone shits the bed once in a while...

    28. Re:Copyright? by BronsCon · · Score: 1
      First of all:
      adversary

      noun: adversary; plural noun: adversaries
      1. one's opponent in a contest, conflict, or dispute.

      For reference, the US court system is said to be an adversarial system, with argumentative procedure drawing strongly from the Oxford debate format; it is also the debate format I see most often (very loosely) used here. It is a term used in debate, which is what we're doing here, so yes, you are my adversary and no, it's not my fault you thought the word had a much stronger meaning than it does.

      Please explain how an example of a well-established (by your own admission, over 40 years of history) practical and economical use of solar cells is a bad counter for the following:

      Yea, at this rate of efficiency gains it'll only be ANOTHER 30 years until they're economical.

      The claim above, which is what I was replying to, is that solar cells still won't be economical for another 30 years. My response illustrates that they've already been economical for at least 40. So... how is it a bad example?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    29. Re:Copyright? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      >2013
      >we're almost in 2015

      Care to give something with more up-to-date numbers? PV has improved quite a bit, and even MJPV panels are getting cheap.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  2. old joke is old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Imagine what it could be with a Chuck Norris movie!!!

    1. Re:old joke is old by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      Imagine what it could be with a Chuck Norris movie!!!

      Chuck Norris??? Bah. Bruce Lee beat up Chuck Norris.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:old joke is old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who wants that religious nut?

    3. Re:old joke is old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Charles Nelson Reilly have Chuck Norris' head mounted on a wall.

    4. Re: old joke is old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Produce 15% efficiency, but claim that it is really 100% efficiency?

    5. Re:old joke is old by Matheus · · Score: 1

      I for one am really looking forward to my brand new Enter The Dragon solar panels!

    6. Re:old joke is old by meglon · · Score: 5, Funny

      You know why there's not a Bruce Lee meme like there is for Chuck Norris? Bruce Lee isn't a joke.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    7. Re:old joke is old by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Is there any problem in the world that roundhouse kick from Chuck Norris can't solve?

    8. Re:old joke is old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Charles Nelson Reilly have Chuck Norris' head mounted on a wall.

      Chuck Norris has Chuck Norris' head mounted on his shoulders.

    9. Re:old joke is old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bruce Lee beat up Chuck Norris

      And guess who's still alive.

    10. Re:old joke is old by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 1

      You know what's really lowered the price of solar panels, and got them economical for the rest of the world? The Chinese Connection.

    11. Re:old joke is old by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Is there any problem in the world that roundhouse kick from Chuck Norris can't solve?

      Is it a problem if Chuck Norris keeps roundhouse kicking everything?

    12. Re:old joke is old by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

      Bruce Lee TAUGHT Chuck Norris!

    13. Re:old joke is old by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Apparently, it does not work on gay boy scouts. Also, something-something Obama.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    14. Re:old joke is old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Bruce Lee would never have to resort to stealing stuff from Vin Diesel.

    15. Re:old joke is old by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      it would hate gays and make shitty budget 90's movies

    16. Re:old joke is old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bruce Lee beat up Chuck Norris.

      And then died mysteriously the next year...

    17. Re:old joke is old by Mr.+Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Bad idea, the solar panel would grow a beard and proceed to roundhouse kick any researcher that came near to shave it.

      --
      Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
  3. Mass produce! by skaag · · Score: 1

    If this can be mass produced quickly by the likes of Solar City, imagine the gains! This could mean independence from fossil fuels in the next 2 years. Very exciting stuff.

    --

    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... time... to... die...

    1. Re:Mass produce! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If this can be mass produced quickly by the likes of Solar City, imagine the gains! This could mean independence from fossil fuels in the next 2 years. Very exciting stuff.

      The article makes it seem like this is something that can be added to the existing manufacturing process. I don't know about your 2-year time frame (it seems highly unlikely), but it's nice to read about something that can be done now and not 10 years from now.

    2. Re:Mass produce! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this can be mass produced quickly...

      And if pigs had wings they could fly.

    3. Re:Mass produce! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do, they're called PIGeons!

    4. Re: Mass produce! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other than coal and Nat gas, u do realize that electricity does not substitute for oil. Right?

    5. Re:Mass produce! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they already have to do litho to make the cells. why not add a pitting arrangement while you are at?

    6. Re: Mass produce! by xaotikdesigns · · Score: 1

      You just have to put the Blu-Ray on the roof of your car

      --
      XDInd
    7. Re:Mass produce! by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      A.) This doesn't mean a solar car is practical.

      B.) For much cleaner energy with much higher output, we already have a better option than coal that's been proven effective and safe as long as you don't build them on beaches in earthquake zones. Nuclear power pound for pound is much cleaner and much more efficient than coal and doesn't emit as much harmful radiation directly into the environment like coal. And with fast breeder reactors, the waste can be reused as fuel. And pebble bed reactors are nearly meltdown proof.

      Nuclear could be a lot more efficient with even less waste if it weren't for the non-proliferation BS.

      C.) Solar cars aren't really practical. I'll take a fission or RTG-powered car though. Decades with no refueling, near unlimited horsepower and if the reactor is designed well and SEVERELY armored, no real risk of mushroom clouds or radiation poisoning during an accident. That seems far more interesting than a slow, inadequately armored, dangerous to drive solar vehicle. I'm not driving a toy just to make people good inside about the planet. As long as a Chevy 350 can be repaired, you will never see me drive a solar car.

    8. Re:Mass produce! by spiritplumber · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've had a solar bike for about six months, and it works fine for my needs (mostly grocery shopping and laundry). Now that it's winter, I have to occasionally charge it. It cost about $350 to put together.

      --
      Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
    9. Re:Mass produce! by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      Let's put some nuclear reactors in your backyard!

    10. Re:Mass produce! by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Solar panels = Small percentage of power production
      Small percentage * 1.22 = Small percentage, just a shade higher.

      Its not a game changer. Its just a nice development.

    11. Re:Mass produce! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are there always these pro-nuclear morons like you who pepper every thread with your cheerleading? Fuck off!

    12. Re:Mass produce! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Fine by me.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    13. Re:Mass produce! by suutar · · Score: 1

      Fine by me, if it's one of the smaller thorium types that would actually fit in one backyard.

    14. Re:Mass produce! by spiritplumber · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's the picture: http://f3.to/quickgal/14049339...

      --
      Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
    15. Re:Mass produce! by jdschulteis · · Score: 2

      Solar panels = Small percentage of power production Small percentage * 1.22 = Small percentage, just a shade higher.

      Its not a game changer. Its just a nice development.

      Efficiency improvements, mass production, and making coal internalize the cost of CO2 emissions will eventually make photovoltaics more cost-effective than coal. Once that point is reached, solar will take over a large percentage of electricity production. This might not be the improvement that puts it over the top, but I think your dismissive analysis is a little too simplistic.

    16. Re:Mass produce! by fyngyrz · · Score: 0

      It's an attempt to inform anti-nuclear morons like yourself.

      Hopeless, I know, but laudable all the same.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    17. Re:Mass produce! by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Electricity is fungible - IE most people don't care where it comes from, so any one kWh is equivalent to any other.

      Consider if Biodiesel is $3.50 and fossil diesel is $3. You're going to sell vastly more diesel than biodiesel. Make Biodiesel 22% cheaper and it's now $2.73. The situation will reverse practically overnight. More realistically what will happen is that investments in BD would languish until diesel hit $3.50, then plants would be built right and left, pushing down the price of both, but as process improvements decrease the cost of BD and capacity is increased even as fossil oil becomes harder to extract, that more and more BD would be sold even as FD sales decrease. Eventually FD would occupy more or less the same position as BD now.

      To put it another way - alternative energy is very cliff-like - you don't notice much change until you actually fall of the cliff, then change happens very quickly. We're relatively close to the cliff right now. Hawaii is holding onto the old production model by it's fingernails. It's possible that very soon daytime electricity will be cheaper there than nighttime.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    18. Re: Mass produce! by HiThere · · Score: 1

      FWIW, if you have enough energy then synthetic gasoline can be manufactured. It's not the most efficient of processes, however. Using it for fuel would probably be unwise. (I think electric cars would work out better.) But you can also build lubricants.

      Mind you, this process doesn't sound efficient enough to make the process practical.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    19. Re:Mass produce! by cheater512 · · Score: 0

      We are going to need 2,200% or 22,000% changes for solar, not 22%.

    20. Re: Mass produce! by crow · · Score: 1

      Actually, using electricity to produce fuel is something that can have practical use:

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

      In short, it's relatively easy to deploy a small nuclear reactor (much like one found in a submarine) to an operational base. If the excess power can be used to synthesize fuel, then that fuel doesn't have to be trucked in, which is a massive savings in a combat zone.

      Also, it's a potential way of storing excess production, such as when demand drops overnight.

    21. Re:Mass produce! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice!

    22. Re: Mass produce! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong.

          It's a jump from 22% efficiency to 40% efficiency. In other words, almost double. I realize math is passe for the uneducated, but stay the fuck out of a discussion if you can't keep up.

    23. Re:Mass produce! by Firethorn · · Score: 1, Informative

      I'm not sure what you're talking about. Right now you can get a 250W panel for around $200. You should be able to generate around 438kWh from it a year(20% capacity factor). Or around $4.38 worth of electricity, which is a 46 year straight payoff(not worth it). If you pay 20 cents like some people, it's only a 23 year payoff(worth it).

      A 22% increase in efficiency makes that 250W panel into a 305W one. 534kWh/year, $5.34 - 37 year payoff, which is barely not worth it, but you're looking at not needing to be paying on the highest end of the scale anymore for it to be worth it.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    24. Re: Mass produce! by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      It's not double the efficiency my friend, it's more than triple the efficiency: 22% + 40% = 68%.

      Try to keep up.

    25. Re:Mass produce! by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      37 year payoff is 'barely' not worth it? When the panel efficiency starts drooping somewhat at the 20 - 25 year mark?
      A 250 Watt panel doesn't stay at 250 Watts - it drops over time.

      It would also be an extremely poor investment.
      40 year investment = $16.02 return.
      A crappy 1% interest savings account for the same $200 over 40 years = $98 profit.

      For something to be a smart investment, it has to pay better than a crappy virtually risk free savings account.
      Hell in 10 or 15 years politicians might wake up and decide Nuclear was actually the right solution and then you'd lose money!

    26. Re: Mass produce! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Breaking even on $200 after *just* 23 years?! Wow, what an amazing investment.

    27. Re:Mass produce! by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      While very cool, I live in rural SC. Distances are pretty extreme. I want one to play with, but I couldn't use an electric vehicle as serious transportation until battery efficiency increases quite a bit more. A Tesla would ALMOST be practical but would cost a lot.

      I'm very pro-electric but I don't see solar cars being a reality for anyone outside of a well-populated urban bubble.

      Electric engines bring some interesting benefits compared to gas engines of comparable size and can keep up with and often exceed gas engines in performance. You won't be able to power such a beastly motor on solar cells. Screw solar, I want a 350mph turbine-electric hybrid.

    28. Re:Mass produce! by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      a) true but more practical than now if it can be covered in enough solar to add charge to its batteries during it being driven

      b) yes, but a practical nucleur car, i doubt it - the military would be all over it if it could be done practically.

      c) sci-fi solution at the moment, by the time its possible all cars will probably be autonomous

      Solar is definitely more practical than nucleur at the moment.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    29. Re:Mass produce! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another one? I've already got a couple of PWR less than 800 yards from my house.

    30. Re: Mass produce! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I realise reading is for the educated masses, but the summary itself says its a 22% increase to 40%.

      So that means that the starting value is 18% as 18 + 22 = 40.

    31. Re:Mass produce! by weilawei · · Score: 1

      Sign me up! Especially if you're offering a discount on it because of all the NIMBYs!

    32. Re:Mass produce! by Cola+Junkee · · Score: 1

      Speaking as a Canadian, where it gets dark at 4:30pm, I hate you.

      --

      f u cn rd ths, u r prbbly a lsy spllr.

    33. Re:Mass produce! by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      Not really, nuclear is pretty easy. It could be done NOW if it weren't for insane fear of all things nuclear in this day and age.

      The Navy's had nuclear boats forever. The Air Force looked into nuclear aircraft, the Army looked into nuclear tanks, etc.

      Most of that was a long time ago and in the early days of nuclear power. Things were a lot scarier back then. Materials science sucked and reactor designs were in their infancy. You could probably very easily make a small enough nuclear reactor to squeeze in a car. Getting it past regulators and getting the public to be accepting of something they were taught would bring the end of humanity is the science fiction part.

    34. Re:Mass produce! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Electric cars can be done...

      Take a hybrid flow battery where you fill up with zinc-paste or similar at a station and then slowly pump that to a used tank.. Then when you pass the next station you just pump out the used and fill up with some more... The fuel-station can use solar or whatever to charge it up again for reuse.

      Benefits of an electric car with the flexibility of a fuelcell, in a fairly cheap setup.

    35. Re:Mass produce! by catprog · · Score: 1

      Where are you getting 1c/kwh power from currently?

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
    36. Re:Mass produce! by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      Fine with me.... I used to go swimming not too awful far from the North Anna nuclear plant in VA and I haven't grown a 3rd eye yet.

    37. Re:Mass produce! by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Welp, that changes my figures almost completely. Back to remedial math for me...

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    38. Re:Mass produce! by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you're talking about. Right now you can get a 250W panel for around $200. You should be able to generate around 438kWh from it a year(20% capacity factor). Or around $4.38 worth of electricity, which is a 46 year straight payoff(not worth it). If you pay 20 cents like some people, it's only a 23 year payoff(worth it).

      Massive screwup on my part - assuming 10cent electricity, it's actually $43.80 worth of electricty a year, which is a 5 year payoff, not including other equipment. Easily worth it.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    39. Re:Mass produce! by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      37 year payoff is 'barely' not worth it? When the panel efficiency starts drooping somewhat at the 20 - 25 year mark?
      A 250 Watt panel doesn't stay at 250 Watts - it drops over time.

      They're still rated for something like 40 years for 70-80% production.

      But I missed a rather large math error. At 10 cents a kwh, it's not $4.38/year, it's $43.80/year. That's what I get for not using a calculator for it. At that point it's only 5 years to break even, everything after that is pure profit.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    40. Re: Mass produce! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      If you'd bothered to read TFA you could have examined the graph of external quantum efficiency vs wavelength, which shows a relative efficiency improvement from about 33% to about 40%. That's 0.33 * 1. 22 = 0.4.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  4. when dirty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happens when dirt gets trapped in the crevices? With flat panels the dirt will surely wash off with rain, with these ones will that be the case?

    1. Re:when dirty? by blackomegax · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The data density in bluray means that the pits are far, far, far, far too small for dirt to get stuck in, or on. Think of it like placing a pebble on a beach. There are pits between sand grains but the size disparity means it acts like a flat surface for most intents and purposes.

    2. Re:when dirty? by wbr1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The data density in bluray means that the pits are far, far, far, far too small for dirt to get stuck in, or on. Think of it like placing a pebble on a beach. There are pits between sand grains but the size disparity means it acts like a flat surface for most intents and purposes.

      Not only this, but presumably the pits can be under the glass, just as they are under polycarbonate on a disc. Then the pits are not exposed to dir, and a normal washing will remove surface dust, bird poop, etc.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    3. Re:when dirty? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      The data density in bluray means that the pits are far, far, far, far too small for dirt to get stuck in, or on. Think of it like placing a pebble on a beach. There are pits between sand grains but the size disparity means it acts like a flat surface for most intents and purposes.

      Not only this, but presumably the pits can be under the glass, just as they are under polycarbonate on a disc. Then the pits are not exposed to dir, and a normal washing will remove surface dust, bird poop, etc.

      Which raises the question: Why did they use a Jackie Chan disc instead of a Brad Pitt disc?

  5. Why wast a good Blu-ray movie by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    Why wast a reasonably good Blu-ray movie when I'm sure there are plenty of bad ones looking for a use?

    I don't know if supercop was a good movie or not but it had to have been better than a number of movies.

    --
    Time to offend someone
    1. Re:Why wast a good Blu-ray movie by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      It is one of the best Jackie Chan movies in my opinion.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    2. Re:Why wast a good Blu-ray movie by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I might have to watch it then even if I haven't been a big fan of some Jackie Chan movies I have seen, although all the ones I have seen have had Chris Tucker in them and I can't stand him as I just find him annoying so that my have been the problem.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    3. Re:Why wast a good Blu-ray movie by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      No worries, Supercop much better than that Rush Hour crap. Generally the late 80ies/early 90ies movies were the best, from the newer ones only "New Police Story" is really good, "Who am I" is somewhat entertaining, the rest is mostly a waste of time.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    4. Re:Why wast a good Blu-ray movie by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Well now I will have to put some more things in my Netflix queue.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  6. What a waste! by dohzer · · Score: 1

    They should have used a really bad movie instead. This is such a waste.

    1. Re:What a waste! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Another team tried it with Star Wars discs and coundn't reproduce the effect.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:What a waste! by sconeu · · Score: 1

      It only works with the original VHS, because Han has to shoot first.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  7. Jackie Chan by Harry_Bawls · · Score: 1

    It's not the random pits it the disc boosting efficiency, it's Jackie Chan's awesomeness. If you use a JCVD disc it won't work at all, it will just suck the light in and not produce any energy.

    1. Re:Jackie Chan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's well known that Jackie Chan captures his own photons. Most actors employ photovoltaic stunt doubles and there's nothing wrong with that... but c'mon. It's Jackie Chan we're talking about here!

  8. BLUE ray by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The pits on a blu ray disc are optimized for reading with a blue laser. Sun's output have more energy at the other end (red spectrum). I'm thinking they might get even better efficiency if they tried a disc pitting pattern that was meant for reading with a red laser.

    1. Re:BLUE ray by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      Now that they have a proof of concept, it is an obvious thing for researchers to try different pit sizes and patterns in order to optimize the efficiency. One thing they probably haven't checked yet is the effect of Sun angle. Most solar panels are on a fixed mounting. So the Sun lights them from different angles during the day. Therefore any patterning will have a different apparent pit spacing. I think there is a lot more to learn about this effect, but even small efficiency gains have dramatic effects. Most of the cost of a solar system these days is the "balance of system", i.e. everything besides the panels. More efficient panels means you need less of them, and therefore less installation labor and other overhead costs.

    2. Re:BLUE ray by pavon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now that they have a proof of concept, it is an obvious thing for researchers to try different pit sizes and patterns in order to optimize the efficiency

      Actually, that already happened. As the abstract of the paper notes, previous research has already identified how to theoretically optimize patterns, but arbitrary patterns require expensive photo lithography equipment to create. This research shows that an existing inexpensive mass production technique generates results that are almost as good as the optimized patterns, but not quite as good because the spacing of the pits is a bit too periodic (especially across tracks rather than along them).

    3. Re:BLUE ray by kf6auf · · Score: 2

      I expect that the reason the efficiency is increased is precisely because the pits are narrower than the wavelength of the light, making it less likely to be reflected and more likely to be absorbed. (You can view this classically as the index of refraction changing gradually.) If you use a pit size greater than the wavelength of the light, you'll end up with each photon either hitting the bottom of the pit or next to the pit, and the pit will have no effect.

    4. Re:BLUE ray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      removed the top plastic layer, exposing the recording medium beneath; cast a mold of the quasi-random pattern; and then used the mold to create a photovoltaic cell with the same pattern

      So you use your expensive photo lithography equipment to create a master, make as many molds from that as you like, and then create the photovoltaic cells from those. The mass production of BD-ROM discs is irrelevant, it just makes your master cheap, but when you're making 10,000s of cells the cost of the master is unimportant.

    5. Re:BLUE ray by jasonmantey · · Score: 2

      In the paper they show the enhancement of quantum efficiency by wavelength. It's pretty uniform (+10-20%) throughout the 350nm (blue) to 700nm (red) range - and is really enhanced at longer wavelengths (>100%, but there isn't as much energy to be harvested here, so not as exciting as it sounds)

      --
      JM
    6. Re:BLUE ray by pavon · · Score: 2

      If you look at the absorption and efficiency plots in the linked nature abstract, the improvement is pretty broad spectrum as it is. Based on the Fourier analysis plots, it does seem like a slightly wider pit spacing would better concentrate the energy in their desired sweet spot, but CDs and DVDs would be too wide. HD-DVD actually looks like it might have the most ideal pit spacings.

    7. Re:BLUE ray by lgw · · Score: 4, Funny

      Replacing your roof with solar panels will always be an overhead cost!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re:BLUE ray by swillden · · Score: 1

      removed the top plastic layer, exposing the recording medium beneath; cast a mold of the quasi-random pattern; and then used the mold to create a photovoltaic cell with the same pattern

      So you use your expensive photo lithography equipment to create a master, make as many molds from that as you like, and then create the photovoltaic cells from those. The mass production of BD-ROM discs is irrelevant, it just makes your master cheap, but when you're making 10,000s of cells the cost of the master is unimportant.

      Sure, but the cost is very relevant when you're doing research. This Blu-Ray disc experiment demonstrates that the theoretical work done previously will probably work as well as the theory predicts.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    9. Re:BLUE ray by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      The pits on a blu ray disc are optimized for reading with a blue laser. Sun's output have more energy at the other end (red spectrum). I'm thinking they might get even better efficiency if they tried a disc pitting pattern that was meant for reading with a red laser.

      Actually, it works by simply reflecting the Sun in high-def. They tried this previously with DVDs (regular and superbit), Laserdisc, Betamax and VHS, with less efficiencies.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    10. Re:BLUE ray by synaptic · · Score: 1

      I think of colors of visible light in terms of bandgap energy -- red light has an energy of about 1.7 eV and blue light has an energy of about

  9. Piracy! by Ydna · · Score: 1

    Quasi random my eye. That's copyright infringement! Unleash the hounds!

    --

    "The great thing about multitasking is that several things can go wrong at once." -me

  10. Talismans by Rakhar · · Score: 1

    How are there no references to the Jackie Chan cartoon show here? C'mon people...

    1. Re:Talismans by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Source of my .sig.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Talismans by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Cartoon not important. Only life important.

  11. In related news ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... Uwe Boll DVDs are experiencing an uptick in sales.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  12. The First Attempt by MarkRose · · Score: 5, Funny

    I heard the first attempt was with Chuck Norris discs, but they burnt holes through the panels.

    --
    Be relentless!
    1. Re:The First Attempt by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      I heard the first attempt was with Chuck Norris discs, but they burnt holes through the panels.

      I weep that I have no mod points.

  13. Talismans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Movie not important! Yu mo gui gwai fai di zao, yu mo gui gwai fai di zao...

  14. Just maybe..... by meglon · · Score: 2

    Maybe this means there will finally be a use for that Green Lantern movie dvd.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  15. I can't be the only one wondering... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    whether "boosted by 22%" means quantum efficiency went from 18% to 40%, or from 33% to 40% ?

    1. Re:I can't be the only one wondering... by jasonmantey · · Score: 1

      The latter - but that's still a nice jump in the solar cell world.

      from ~350-700nm the absorption is enhanced by ~20%. For longer wavelengths, it's much higher (>100% enhancement). They said "the overall EQE is enhanced by 30.8%." on average

      --
      JM
    2. Re:I can't be the only one wondering... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      from http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/renewables/bluray-discs-find-useful-application-in-increasing-solar-cell-efficiency :

      This raised the panels’ power conversion efficiency by nearly 12 percent.

      and http://phys.org/news/2014-11-blu-ray-disc-solar-cell.html

      12% efficiency improvement is the figure they seemed intent on hiding behind a pay-wall.
      Which presumably means your 20% efficient cell would be 22.4% now; if it didn't already have a random textured finish to achieve the 20% which is already a high end domestic figure.
      But you might get upto12% more cash from your grid feed in tariff.

  16. I'm impressed by Zeromous · · Score: 1

    That's one helluva case of 'sticky hands'. Photons beware!

    --
    ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
    1. Re:I'm impressed by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Photons be free!

  17. Electricity vs. oil by crow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Electricity and oil are both energy. You can substitute one for the other, though obviously there's advantages for certain forms in certain uses.

    For home heating, oil, natural gas, and electricity are all viable depending on the cost. Right now gas is the cheapest and electricity is, in most places, the most expensive. It would take a lot of progress to get electricity to be the most economic solution for heating.

    For aircraft, the weight of batteries rules them out.

    For cars, Tesla is proving that electricity is an option. I know that we just signed a contract for solar panels on our house to produce more than we currently use on the assumption that we'll need the extra production to power our next car.

    1. Re:Electricity vs. oil by mriswith · · Score: 1

      Electricity and oil are both energy.

      Well techincally, all matter is energy...

    2. Re:Electricity vs. oil by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

      Well technically, does is really matter?

    3. Re:Electricity vs. oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >For home heating, oil, natural gas, and electricity are all viable depending on the cost. Right now gas is the cheapest and electricity is, in most places, the most expensive

      Not exactly true. Electricity is mostly used to power a Geothermal heat pump in developped world. those are highly efficient.

    4. Re:Electricity vs. oil by orzetto · · Score: 1

      It would take a lot of progress to get electricity to be the most economic solution for heating.

      This depends a lot on where you live, especially for gas. For house heating, a heat pump is quite efficient, especially if you have a water reservoir available. For cooking, gas looks very cost-efficient since you simply have to burn it under a pot to extract all its heat, but a lot of the heat gets lost as hot air that bypasses the pot. Induction heating uses electromagnetism to generate heat inside the pot's metal, so even though the cost per kWh is higher, you end up using less energy, so it may very well be competitive.

      However, you are forgetting the one source I have in my house, district heating. Industries generate enormous amounts of waste heat that could be used for district heating, I remember one air cooler in a refinery that dissipated over 16 megawatts of heat. If you hook up factories, offices and homes with district heating, you can provide heat without any other external source.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    5. Re:Electricity vs. oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All depends where you are in the world. Right now, in Quebec,Canada, electricity is the cheapest way to heat. We have massive amount of energy (clear or not, it all depends who you talk with, but basically it's 98% hydroelectric). First 30 kWh/day is 5.57c/kWh, after that its 8.26c/kWh

  18. Jackie Chan films by robstout · · Score: 1

    They can probably make it even more efficient by adding random props in the mix. Maybe try to capture solar energy while fighting around a ladder, or using some chickens as nunchucks. This is Jackie Chan after all....

  19. Because it's Jackie Chan by wonkavader · · Score: 1

    There is no way a Jet Li disc could accomplish this.

    1. Re:Because it's Jackie Chan by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

      What's kind of funny is that the meme invokes Chuck Norris, a complete hack of a martial artist who came to fame in a time when crude technique was the general order of the day (Bruce Lee notably excepted.) Then you invoke Jackie Chan here, who is really pretty good; but you also disrespect Jet Li, who is nothing short of an awesome martial artist. 1-2-3 in skill inverted to 3-2-1 in offered kudos. All I can conclude is that the public has a very weird perception of martial artists.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    2. Re:Because it's Jackie Chan by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      There is no way a Jet Li disc could accomplish this.

      A Jet Li disc would not only accomplish this, but it would do it after it said it wouldn't.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Because it's Jackie Chan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, Chuck Norris was a 6-time world champ in Karate and is an 8th degree Black Belt in Tae Kwon Do. Bruce Lee considered Norris' kicks to be the best in the world. He was/is a legit badass, even if he's a hack at acting.

      Jackie Chan is a stunt man - his style is based in Chinese Opera and is meant to be showy rather than effective, and he happily admits as much. Jet Li stopped competing at 19 and also has a primarily theatrical style. Further, he practices wushu, which looks cool but is not a very effective martial art.

      TL;DR: You are full of shit.

    4. Re:Because it's Jackie Chan by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      lol -- you have been marketed.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  20. Split the difference.... by Dareth · · Score: 1

    Use Commando, remastered on BluRay!

    "Get the sunlight to the Choppah!!!!"

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
    1. Re:Split the difference.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're thinking of Predator.

  21. Worthless Headline. by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

    What the HELL does the name of the movie on the disc, much less the star of said movie, actually contribute to this process / article? Confused clicks, thats what. I nominate this headline for this years "Most Worthless Headline" award.

    --
    I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    1. Re:Worthless Headline. by Livius · · Score: 1

      Irrelevant, but factually correct, thus better than many, many other examples.

    2. Re:Worthless Headline. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Take a guess, the reason for mentioning the title and start are:
      A) Humor
      B) Pissing you off
      C) Something else

      DING DING DING, time is up, the correct answer is A: HUMOR.

      Thank you for playing "i do not understand what's so funny about that", you are going home empty handed.

  22. Copyright? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it legal to make molds from Bluray disks?

  23. Imagine what they could have achieved.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they used a Chuck Norris movie instead!

  24. Different movies for different effects.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet that any Chuck Norris Blu-ray would increase it 200%

  25. Real world testing? by Dereck1701 · · Score: 2

    I wonder if they did any real world testing, as in a static solar panel and a complete day average. Somehow I would imagine these would make the solar panels great, during a narrow window of the day where the sun is directly overhead. I can't shake the feeling however that this kind of patterning would have a detrimental effect on indirect exposure. Not that it is a major issue, sun tracking systems are becoming more prevalent, but it may be an issue.

    1. Re:Real world testing? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Seems to me like making the surface one big corner reflector would guarantee the maximum absorption. A DVD or CD has space between the tracks, but a corner reflector is guaranteed to reflect twice at a broad variety of angles...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Real world testing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought crystalline silicon solar cells manufacturing process already incorporated a step of etching a grid of parallel V-grooves, like the ones in VMOSFET-s. orthogonal to the PN junction ? V-groove is pretty much a tiny corner reflector.

  26. Isn't this just increased suface density? by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 1

    Please correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't this an increase in the surface area of the solar cell..? Sure, some kind of pitting is going to be more effective at capturing rays (as one reader pointed out, sizing it for the red light of the sun) than a totally flat surface, assuming surface space is a factor in solar collection.. I imagine those minuscule pits would actually greatly increase the surface area of a disc.

  27. That's great and all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But can the panels do their own stunts???

  28. Cat got your tongue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    finally a use for twilight!

  29. Room for further research.... by pollarda · · Score: 5, Funny

    If they can do this with SuperCop, just imagine what sort of efficencies they could get by using an AC/DC album! Also by using AC/DC as the base pattern it might allow them to create native AC and skip the use of a DC->AC power inverter.

    1. Re:Room for further research.... by TWX · · Score: 1

      I vote we use the entire discographies of Tiffany, Yoko Ono, and Hansen. And by entire discographies, I mean all of the discs minted.

      I don't mind listening to AC/DC from time to time, and power conversion aside, there are much worse acts whose work could be destroyed^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hused for this.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Room for further research.... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      If they can do this with SuperCop, just imagine what sort of efficencies they could get by using an AC/DC album! Also by using AC/DC as the base pattern it might allow them to create native AC and skip the use of a DC->AC power inverter.

      You better be careful of which album you try. "High Voltage" and "Powerage" will probably get you the best results. "Back in Black", may just give you the opposite outcome you're looking for. And good luck if you use "T.N.T", "Highway to Hell", or "Ball Breaker". It might be safer to stick with a U2 or even an Enya album.

    3. Re:Room for further research.... by mjwx · · Score: 5, Funny

      If they can do this with SuperCop, just imagine what sort of efficencies they could get by using an AC/DC album! Also by using AC/DC as the base pattern it might allow them to create native AC and skip the use of a DC->AC power inverter.

      AC/DC is bad, the last thing you want is for your solar panels to be... THUNDERSTRUCK.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:Room for further research.... by yanyan · · Score: 2

      That's ok because their panels deliver... HIGH VOLTAGE.

    5. Re:Room for further research.... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      While I enjoy the good musical pun play here, I should note - PV is glass-coated, typically. Not exactly the most conductive thing.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    6. Re:Room for further research.... by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Actually, no, apparently you do not enjoy a good musical pun or a good hard rock band. If you did you'd know that glass does nothing to stop AC/DC.

    7. Re:Room for further research.... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Chuck Norris.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    8. Re:Room for further research.... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Actually, no, apparently you do not enjoy a good musical pun or a good hard rock band."

      You say to a VIP to Dimebag Darrell's funeral, where, lo and behold, I got shit-faced drunk with David Dreiman, Angus Young, Jerry Cantrell, and many others in Arlington, TX.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    9. Re:Room for further research.... by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Wow, now that's *2* AC/DC-related joke comments you have ruined, Captain Serious... ;)

  30. Competitive within 30 years? Try 2. by Rujiel · · Score: 2
    1. Re:Competitive within 30 years? Try 2. by knightghost · · Score: 1

      A biased web site cooking the books through subsidies, tax dodges, and unrealistic projections.
      Solar here costs 60 cents/kw (down from 90 c/kw a decade ago). Hyrdo is 3 c/kw. Wind is 4 c/kw. Natural gas and coal are 9 c/kw. Nuclear is 12 c/kw.

    2. Re: Competitive within 30 years? Try 2. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just curious. But do those prices inclided the subsidies paid to oil, gas and coal? Also do they include the externalities such has respritory health care, and mitigating the effects of climate change?

      Cost accounting is hard.

  31. Oh no, you di'nt go there... compulsion... by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

    Costs are often through the roof with these technologies; mounting complexities and steep installation costs result in flash peak expenses that only gutter out after years of trussing up the math in spreadsheets. Tiling the cells can shake out some additional margin, but just the thought of it gives me shingles.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Oh no, you di'nt go there... compulsion... by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Soffit! Soffit right now. Vent someplace else!

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    2. Re:Oh no, you di'nt go there... compulsion... by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Not a chance. I stand upon the selvage of my convections. I can go many laps with this. Care to joist further?

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  32. TERRIBLE efficiency by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    The latter - but that's still a nice jump in the solar cell world.

    No, that's a terrible quantum efficiency in the solar cell world.

    Quantum efficiency is electrons out per photon in. In the wavelength band over which a solar cell absorbs, the quantum efficiency of a good solar cell ought to be very close to 100%. Even a mediocre solar cell should be 90% or better.

    40%??? That's nothing to brag about.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:TERRIBLE efficiency by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      So, then, where can I purchase one of your 90% or better efficiency solar cells?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  33. Further on Li, Chan, Norris, etc. by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sorry, didn't quite mean to submit there.

    TKD is a very specialized sport art. Very limited engagement rules and a complete lack of tools for dealing with anything but an upright, sparring style opponent relegate it to at best a functional niche limited to kicking (which any well rounded martial artist can convert into a different engagement, ground for instance) in the course of which instantly defanging most of the TKD stylists tools. TL;DR, TKD is more of a sport than a martial art. I should know; I'm dan-ranked in it within the context of the Korean taekwondo jidokwan, one of the earlier kwans that preceded the establishment of the WTF and ITF collaboration / standardizations.

    Chan's martial arts background spans several styles (Shaolin gongfu, taekwondo, and hapkido), and consequently is broadly based with ground, standup, upright grappling, locking, striking, blocking, kicking, footwork and defensive components. He is by *any* sane measure a much more well rounded martial artist than Norris (and if you just admire kicking skill, I'm surprised you didn't bring up Bill "superfoot" Wallace.)

    Li started training at age 8. He won his first national championship at age 11 -- remember we're talking about China here -- he traveled to more than 45 countries as a member of the Beijing wushu team. He held the title of All-Around National Wushu Champion from 1974 to 1979. He trained in internal and external styles, as well as the (then) required shíba ban bingqi (eighteen arms or weapons.)

    (Please excuse the mangled pinyin; I don't use pinyin much, preferring actual hanzi, and traditional hanzi at that. (hanja for you TKD folks.) But slashdot doesn't support them (why? some geek site, lol)

    Further, he practices wushu, which looks cool but is not a very effective martial art.

    Wushu means "martial art." It doesn't tell you squat about martial art effectiveness, other than that the practitioner, like a "martial artist" in the US, practices some martial art or arts. You should have a look right here so next time you use the term wushu in the context of a Chinese martial artist, you actually know what you're saying. Although, technically speaking, just like gongfu (doesn't really mean martial art at all), the term carries implications you might not initially grasp; for instance, to a Chinese, a Korean TKD master is both a gongfu and a wushu master, plain and simple. Which again demonstrates that wushu doesn't mean anything even close to what you thought it meant.

    However, your previous statement is worse in that it amounts to a blanket dismissal of all of China's martial arts, which is nothing short of ludicrous. Combined with your bewilderment of both Chan and Li's training backgrounds, your credibility is somewhere south of zero on this matter.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  34. Neat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can I still play the disk at night? I love Jackie Chan and being able to get free Jackie Chan movies with my solar panel order would be a huge plus.

    1. Re:Neat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At night, you aim a blue laser at the panel and enjoy the movie while still producing some power... could that be the path for an ever generating loop ? Just do not blink.

  35. And this is why... by brxndxn · · Score: 1

    you save all of your AOL cd's...

    --
    --- We need more Ron Paul!
  36. Pitt by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

    > solar panel that has a quantum efficiency of around 40%

    Conventional panels have a QE around 90%. That's why they're opaque.

  37. Fools by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    If only they had used a Dragon Ball Z Blu-ray disc instead, the efficiency would have increased by over 9000%!!!.

  38. when dirty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the crevices get dirty the disk just won't play, or it will give constant errors. Wipe it with damp cloth. And don't give it to your kids again.

  39. rubbish, as usual, who is this poster? by rewindustry · · Score: 1

    blueray is compressed, therefore the bit pattern has practically nothing to do with the actual content, is simply random distribution.

  40. Norwegian Hillbillys. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1
    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:Norwegian Hillbillys. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finnish. But yes.

  41. 50/50 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't the best efficiency come from a Blu-ray with random noise?

  42. Now they starting getting it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...what the blue-ray was really designed for... to solve energy problems...

  43. even higher kicks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just imagine the efficiency gains had they used Chuck Norris discs!
    But alas the world may not be ready

  44. Not exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You can use oil to make plastics.

    Electricity, not so much...

  45. It's been 30 years for cryin out loud by tacokill · · Score: 1

    So in all of this time researching solar panels, are you telling me nobody checked into the glass or the pattern of glass on top of the panels themselves? And they also did not look into the various wavelengths of light that penetrate through the glass to know what works better and what works worse?

    Pardon me, but is this a joke? This seems like such an obvious area of research related to the industry of gathering solar power that I almost can't believe it wasn't studied before now. What am I missing here?

  46. Comparable efficiency? by pev · · Score: 1

    Can someone who understands PV cells properly answer me this - it's my understanding that most standard PV cells get say low 20-something percent efficiencies and that the highest at the mo is around 40% acheived with significant solar amounts of concentration. Is this a genuine like-for-like beating of the best of the current crop or some fudging of the maths?

  47. Quantum efficiency is not energy conversion by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    So, then, where can I purchase one of your 90% or better efficiency solar cells?

    Quantum efficiency is not the same as energy conversion efficiency. A solar cell with 90% quantum efficiency isn't too hard to find. It's not going to have 90% energy conversion efficiency.

    https://www.google.com/search?...

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  48. No big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Modern silicon cells are ALL textured & include anti-reflection coatings, which increases qe to near 100%. They are merely showing the increase over unpatterned Uncoated cells. If they were to compare their method to traditional silicon cells results would be comparable or worse.

  49. Chuck Norris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's see Chuck Norris do that!

  50. Don't add more mirrors. by tomxor · · Score: 1

    Adding another layer of material will decrease transmission of light in the opposite way that surface patterns work to increase the transmission of light: Any medium with a refractive index different to air will reflect some percentage of incident rays that are not perpendicular to the surface, surface patterns can help avoid this by effectively changing the angle of incidence to be closer to the surface normal or redirecting some of the reflected rays.

    It would be better if the surface doubled as the protective layer. Provided the pattern is small enough or better yet if a pattern was chosen which is also poor at allowing particular sized molecules (i.e water) to settle on it's surface in the same way that hydrophobic surfaces work... then it should be perfectly suitable as a protective layer also.