Talk:Multijunction solar cell

Article needs work

This article needs a huge amount of work. I cleaned up the first section but I realized that much more work needs to be done. The article is written in a poor English and in the "we" form. Many words are mispelled or improperly used. Images have letters instead of numbers and some are not properly linked. The figure for maximum theoretical efficiency is incorrect. Choice of colors for some images is very bad. The article lacks a solid definition and a proper introduction. The current efficiency figure is ambiguous and cannot be used as a record efficiency since multijunction solar cells are tested under different conditions.

ICE77 (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Odd reading, especially in Au

Normally, in technical wiki articles, I scan through and find numbers, equations, referenced studies, et c; however, when I hit on the Au nano-particles, I noticed that it reads like it was stolen off of a site written for proto-laymen. It seems to refer to images that altogether underwent sudden uniform existence failure, or was hallucinated by the author...or pulled from a site for proto-laymen. In fact, I'd say it reads like the script for an informative movie for 4th-graders.... Just my kvetch, but this page needs serious geek lovin' or removal. 207.118.173.56 (talk) 05:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the others here, that the article needs a lot of work and somehow really sucks in its current form. But I'm definitely against removal, as it contains some information which isn't available anywhere else on wikipedia, e.g. about the back surface field! Definitely worth keeping, even it's just for this one part. --MarsmanRom (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make a decision!

The parts that refer to current as I are probably written by engineers, and the parts using J are probably written by physicists. Could someone please decide which convention to use and then everyone stick to it? The diagrams will have to be changed to match. Ehusman (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J isn't current, it is current density. Device engineers will also use J.Wefoij (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point.Ehusman (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]