3 ms·
I think a distinction like that is the bare minimum if you intend to broadly distribute the text. Additionally, simply don't mention the word maximum until it'
by emn13 7y ago
I think a distinction like that is the bare minimum if you intend to broadly distribute the text. Additionally, simply don't mention the word maximum until it's clear from context that you're talking about one component of many and that the overall system can be do better than the max of one component.
Just look at that opening sentence, it's really bad if the aim is to inform readers. It's great if it's intended to be self-aggrandizing marketing without consideration of how deceptive it can be to readers.
Any expert can trick uninformed readers into drawing misleading conclusions. If you want to be trusted as an expert, it's necessary to avoid doing that.
MIT is a pretty renowned brand it its own right - I think it's fair to demand better. This doesn't come across as trustworthy to me, anyhow.
- selimthegrim 7y agoWhat they mean is the so-called "Shockley-Queisser limit" from detailed balance, but they probably didn't want to define terms in a press release.
- swordsmith 7y agoI think your concerns are addressed a bit toward the end of the article > Other approaches to improving the efficiency of solar cells tend to involve adding another kind of cell, such as a perovskite layer, over the silicon. Baldo says “they’re building one cell on top of another. Fundamentally, we’re making one cell — we’re kind of turbocharging the silicon cell. We’re adding more current into the silicon, as opposed to making two cells.” The opening sentence is accurate -- "conventional" silicon solar cells are exactly what this work is improving.