Hacker News Reader

Comment by hn_throwaway_99 | Hacker News Reader

Whether or not it is "misleading", I'd say, at least to a layman like myself, it was certainly confusing.

Why? Because just yesterday there was an article on the front page touting how Toyota was testing putting improved solar panels on the roofs of their vehicles, and that article quoted an efficiency of 34%, well above the "max theoretical limit" given in the present article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20364348.

So I guess my question is how would the proposed manufacturing process in this article be an improvement? Cheaper manufacturing costs? Even higher efficiency if you had "multi-junction cells" made using the processed discussed?

View on HN

> Whether or not it is "misleading", I'd say, at least to a layman like myself, it was certainly confusing.

> well above the "max theoretical limit" given in the present article

Ok, so how would you improve these articles? Do you want the news articles to draw upon a distinction between 'maximum theoretical limit of the substrate' (or whatever it's called), and the 'maximum theoretical limit of the resulting panels'?

Like, I understand and support your point here, but I'm wondering at what point do you accept that nothing is truly fully-accessible to a layman, that you need to have at least some surface knowledge to understand anything, and that it is likely impossible to eliminate this form of confusion?

I think your parent's implication is that the articles would be improved by answering the question posed in their last paragraph: 'So I guess my question is how would the proposed manufacturing process in this article be an improvement? Cheaper manufacturing costs? Even higher efficiency if you had "multi-junction cells" made using the processed discussed?'

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.

What 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.

I 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com