Talk:Organic solar cell

Proposed merger from Organic solar cell

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Merge pages to Organic solar cell, as the broader topic, as the two topics are closely related and difficult to disentangle. Not a unanimous view. Klbrain (talk)

---

Polymers are in general organic molecules. Polymer solar cells are photovoltaic cells in which the active(light absorbing) layers contain polymers. To my knowledge all active solar cells containing polymer donors also contain organic materials as acceptors (most often PCBM derivatives). Thus, the entire active layers of polymer solar cells are organic. I can think of no good reason that polymer solar cells should not be considered a subsection of organic solar cells. Hence, I also support the merger and think that this article should be entered (after major revisions) as a subsection of Organic Solar Cells. Dr.Nathan.C.Heston 11:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• For me these two articles (Organic and Polymer solar cell) are the same. In German and French they are also in one article. - Chogo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.83.204.241 (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Polymer solarcells is more or less a subtopic of the more general organic solarcells or molecular solarcells. Generally in organic electronics materials can be devided into conducting polymers and small molecules. For organic solar cells however mostly a blend of molecules and polymers are used (often a polymer and a fullerene-derivative). For this I would say it is even confusing to devide the topics.

Hence I would support the merging.

WouterKP (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable to me. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Polymer solar cells are a subgrouping of 'organic solar cells' (contrary to what the header for this article says - not many inorganic polymers kicking about.. ok that isn't true, but not many that are used in this field), as such I concur that the articles should be merged and cleaned up (likely also with an additional section on small molecules, which are becoming increasingly relevant and researched in this field). Arguably could be entitled 'Organic Solar cells', 'Molecular Solar Cells' or 'Excitonic Solar Cells', although the last one (Excitonic-SC) is a pretty argued term. --Mdb23b (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• The merge of these two articles has long been proposed. I am going to start actually merging them. I plan to use the information in the two articles, the corresponding German Wikipedia article and additional material to create a new article under the heading "organic solar cell". Jule, Die (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• I agree the two should be merged, although the organic page is better than the polymer page. The main reason for merging is so that better information be available when someone searches for polymer solar cells. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.219.143.106 (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support Lfstevens (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• To me both articles are in a bit of a mess. There are two distinct organic solar cell technologies; a) small molecule organic solar cells. and ;b) polymer (organic) solar cells. I would suggest having two articles called "Organic solar cells based on small molecules" and one called "organic solar cells based on polymers". I think the article "Organic solar cells" has quite a lot of content on small molecules, suggest renaming that "Organic solar cells based on small molecules" and moving any content to do with polymers to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roderickcimackenzie (talk • contribs) 18:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oh God, lol

Cringe: "A conjugated system is formed where carbon atoms covalently bond with alternating single and double bonds, in other words these are chemical reactions of hydrocarbons. These hydrocarbons electrons pz orbitals delocalize and form a delocalized bonding π orbital with a π* antibonding orbital. The delocalized π orbital is the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO), and the π* orbital is the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO). The separation between HOMO and LUMO is considered as the band gap of organic electronic materials."

There are about 10 or 15 different "nopes" in there. honestly, it is very sad because some 2nd or 3rd year undergraduate taking (and probably failing) organic chemistry, inorganic, and/or p-chem... who was probably super excited and interested in this field of research decided to write this section of the article and absolutely bungled the job horribly. Suffice it to say absolutely every statement I quoted above is completely wrong or vastly over simplified/misleading. For future note: if you go to a university, you have journal access. Go to your library, use their online resources, or install a VPN and download some JACS/Macromolecules/JOM ASAP articles or a review or 2 on this subject. You will notice that serious physical and theoretical research in this field is relatively limited in scope and complexity, whereas the absolute majority of the published research is focused on experimental (device construction and characterization) and synthetic (making the polymer/oligomers/monomer/catalysts/etc) aspects.68.6.76.31 (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

An explanation of the physical chemistry maybe pre-mature and even out of scope (where does the topic end?) if this is considered an application technology article.

P.S. as an application technology oriented article it might be appropriate to note that COST of cell technology can be just as important as EFFICIENCY in many common applications, i.e. use 4 times as many cells might generate the same power more cheaply than cells that are 3 times as efficient but 5 times as expensive. So where is the COST data in this race for "BEST" solar cell? Or better yet data on the capital cost per watt? Notes on inherently expensive rax materials versus simple production technology might be appropriate if available. 72.182.15.249 (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

History

This article (or the Polymer solar cell-article) would be greatly improved with a history section. 77.212.171.42 (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

agreed, does anyone have time for this?Millertime246 (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Graded heterojunction.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Graded heterojunction.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal additional text

I would like to add the following text in the Modeling Solar Cells Section of this article:

Designing organic solar cells requires optimization of a large number of structural and compositional parameters, such as band gaps and layer thicknesses. Numerical device simulation can provide instrumental insight to identify the optimum stack configuration. This allows reducing the requested time for the development of efficient solar cells.

I would reference this article: NUMERICAL OPTIMIZATION OF ORGANIC AND HYBRID MULTIJUNCTION AND TANDEM SOLAR CELLS

from this website: https://www.fluxim.com/simulation-multi-junction-solar-cells

Is this acceptable? DEH100 (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)