Impact of semiconductor quantum dots bandgap on reabsorption in luminescent concentrator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have investigated the influence of the average radius r and its dispersion r v of the semiconductor quantum dots (QDs) used in luminescent solar concentrators (LSCs) on reabsorption. To minimize the detrimental reabsorption losses in LSCs, six semiconductors used to fabricate QDs with a wide range of their bulk band gap E g0 have been considered, specifically: CdS (E g0 = 2.42 eV), CdSe, (E g0 = 1.67 eV), CdTe (E g0 = 1.5 eV), InP (E g0 = 1.27 eV), InAs (E g0 = 0.355 eV), and PbSe (E g0 = 0.27 eV). Altering r and r v , we can determine the optimal size r for minimal reabsorption. As it was shown, decreasing the semiconductor bulk band gap from 2.42 down to 1.24 eV we can get such optimum QD size r that reabsorption reduces even below the combined experimental error in determination of the absorption coefficient and luminescence intensity. Further reduction of the gap E g0 , however, increases reabsorption at any values of r and r: for instance, for PbSe-based QDs of 1-nm radius and dispersion of 1%, reabsorption reaches 54%.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".