CIGS P1, P2, P3 Laser Scribing with an Innovative Fiber Laser
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report for the first time production-quality P2 and P3 scribes in CIGS based solar cells using a nanosecond-domain industrial pulsed laser We also show how the same laser can be used to produce the P1 scribe, and report what we believe to be the first all-laser-scribed monolithically-integrated CIGS solar cells in which all scribes were made using the same laser, at the same 1064nm wavelength. This paper reports the results of a collaborative effort involving two national laboratories and two private companies, and focuses on the laser scribing processes. A paper describing the design and characterization of the solar cells has been published elsewhere in this journal [1]. The new laser-based P2 and P3 processes rely on a “brittle fracture material removal” mechanism whose material removal characteristics are somewhat similar to those of mechanical scribing in that the material is ejected from the surface in fragments. However, unlike mechanical scribing, the laser process produces highly regular and deterministic edges. The first cells produced showed poor conversion efficiency, mostly attributed to high series resistance. These cells then had additional AZO deposited on them, and the results improved dramatically. Finally, we show results obtained using conventional mechanical scribing for the P2 and P3 processes on cells which are in other respects almost identical. Initial results are similar to the laser-scribed results.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".