Talk:Flexible solar cell research

Marketing Pitch

This article starts well but ends badly. It ends with a sales pitch/promotion of all the neat things it can do if future research is applied. It seems researchers often think the same - need more money for research and development to make it into a usable product. I don't think Wikipedia is the right forum for promoting research. This article needs work to make it more factual and objective and not compromise the principles of Wikipedia. --96.244.247.130 (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"Sales pitch" is a bad faith perspective. It is the type of information that would be included in any Wikipedia article: who what where when why. Why would people use this technology, How would they use it. Green Cardamom (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree. This opens the door to every inventor to start promoting investment into their product or research. It is not factual but speculative marketing.--96.244.247.130 (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine a Wikipedia article about a new technology that didn't say how that technology might be applied (with appropriate sourcing). Green Cardamom (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

1001 uses for a rock is not always useful information. I'm not disputing the possible uses of a mature technology, but this is still research.

Furthermore, chemical vapor deposition is not anywhere near like using a inkjet printer and a lot more expensive to perform. Its not really printing at all, since printing involves patterning of material and CVD does not do that. Also, compare the cost of CVD equipment and its supporting infrastructure against an inkjet printer. I doubt the solar chemistry is as cheap as an inkjet cartridge too.--96.244.247.130 (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The article seems to be sourced for this information to MIT News. Green Cardamom (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

So what? Claims of being as cheap as an inkjet printer are controversial at best and lies at worst. Doesn't belong here.--96.244.247.130 (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you support that with a reliable source? Green Cardamom (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to take the time to chase this down. However I have 20 years of microelectronics experience. A new CVD chamber and supporting infrastructure can cost upwards of $100,000. A new inkjet printer at BestBuy is about $80. The referenced sources never listed cost comparisons either, so take it or leave it. I leave it up to others (if they choose to do so) to compare the cost of CVD technology to inkjet printers.--96.244.247.130 (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I assume what they meant was recurring cost, comparing what it might cost to print a ink-jet color picture, perhaps a couple bucks in ink or so, compared to printing a index-card size PV costs $10 in materials, sort of in the same magnitude (I'm just making these numbers up, assumptions). Seems possible. But you are correct it's ambiguous in the source is the problem. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Finally: is this really the first example of a solar collector using CVD technology? Hardly. Maybe on paper it is, but this is out-of-place. --96.244.247.130 (talk) 00:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Does the article say it was the first? Green Cardamom (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph infers that it was originally developed by MIT, e.g. first.--96.244.247.130 (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It says "The technology was developed by a group of researchers from MIT". It doesn't mention CVD, but solar printed on paper, which is how the article defines "printed solar panel". You sound like more of an expert on this, perhaps you can expand on the definition and/or technology development history. Green Cardamom (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The article states that it "is done by coating vapor print conformal conductive polymer electrodes with oxidative chemical vapor.". That's CVD. CVD is not "printing" since printing involves a patterning process, also not described in the referenced articles. Again, I must insist that this article (and its associated references which also lack details) is nothing more than marketing a novel concept. A common inkjet printer was not used to manufacture this, since, by itself is incapable of "coating vapor print conformal conductive polymer electrodes with oxidative chemical vapor." --96.244.247.130 (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I see what your saying now. This is a known existing process called CVD and MIT applied it in a novel way for use on paper, and came up with a neologism "printed solar panel" for marketing purposes. Probably what we need to do is rename the article to CVD (what does the acronym stand for?) and describe the MIT work in a sub-section of that article. Would that make sense? Green Cardamom (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Chemical vapor deposition? I'm really out of my depth here. The question is, how different is the MIT process, does it deserve its own article or folded into the CVD article. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I see Green Cardamom did some edits to the page, but this article does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. The MIT references are very vague about the technology and I have no way to clean this up because of it. I dispute the use of the word "printed" everywhere in the page and the title, since patterning technology is not described at all. This article is beyond repair and I recommend it be deleted. And what is this "American neologism" statement come from? This is an attempt to reinforce acceptance of what is essentially vaporware (pun intended). I added the tag template:original research since it is clearly lacking in the area of verifiability. --96.244.247.130 (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the published research paper? Direct Monolithic Integration of Organic Photovoltaic Circuits on Unmodified Paper, Advanced Materials, Volume 23, Issue 31, pages 3500–3505, August 16, 2011. I framed it as a neologism to put it in context to address your previous concerns of marketing, but will remove that if you disagree. I'm going to remove the OR tag because the article is verifiable from at least two reliable sources (the Applied Materials paper and the MIT news article) so OR doesn't really apply here (you may disagree with the sources but nonetheless there they are we just report on them). It looks like we need the help of an expert who knows more about it, so will add an expert tag. Green Cardamom (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I cannot view the page because it is not open-source information. I have to register to read it, and I cannot assure my anonymity is protected. I believe "neologism" is no more than an opinion of yours. I have 20+ years of manufacturing and semiconductor experience, but I invite other expertise to help refine what I deem to be an unsalvageable and scientifically unverifiable page. --96.244.247.130 (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Since your in the field, I was hoping you would have access to the Advanced Materials archives through your work or library. Perhaps someone will be able to verify the Advanced Materials science paper matches the MIT News journalism article. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, your edits are good, thanks for taking the time. I think putting things in quotes is problematic for Wikipedia purposes. We just need to say what it is. If it's not printing, than what is it? We can rename the article if needed. What about solar circuits on paper? Green Cardamom (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

There is not enough information in the article or references (unless I get my hands on the pay-for-information reference). There is a wikipedia page on printing, but what is described could be considered lithography, but even then, it lacks sufficient information to describe it accurately. I'm giving up. I still think this article stinks and needs a title change, for it is neither "printed" nor a "panel", but maybe "patterned" and a "cell" is better description. Yet the reference is to a single technology source (MIT research) which also isn't right. The references describe cells manufactured both on paper and PET. It's more about a specific MIT research project than general technology. At this point, I pass it on to others to make right. "Flexible solar cell research" is probably the best I could come up with for a title, but I don't know how to make a title change. Sorry, but I've given up. It is no longer worth my time.--173.69.135.105 (talk) 01:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good will try that. Thanks. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)