7
$\begingroup$

A common problem encountered on SE sites is that you offer a bounty on a question, but due to the short time limit, don't receive an answer and the points go unrewarded. To counteract this issue, I propose using this page as a longer running Bounty Board.

A post here should include:

  1. A link to an existing question on the site (not necessarily your own question)
  2. The amount of the proposed bounty
  3. A short description of what you are looking for in answer. In addition, you may include some criteria for addressing if multiple answers are given.
  4. A link to the Table of Contents, which should in turn include a link to your bounty post.

Once you have awarded the bounty for question, you should update the Table of Contents and your bounty post to reflect that.

| |
$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

Why has traditional solar cell improvement become stagnant?

Bounty:

  • 400 rep (for new users)
  • 200 rep (for existing users)

There is an answer, saying basically that traditional m-J solar cells are already near their optimal efficiency from a consumer-desire point of view, and improving them further is not worth it, especially when taking into account their very high cost, and the emergence of perovskite-based solar cells. I upvoted the answer, but it doesn't seem to come from an authoritative source or expert in the research area of improving m-J photovoltaics, and there is no reference to the science behind why it's not worth it to further pursue to the field.

Furthermore, NREL skipped 5J cells completely and started studying 6J, seemingly much before exhaustively exploring the capabilities of 4J, which doesn't make sense to me, and I'd like to know why this might have been the case. I am curious about the scientific obstacles, more so than the economic atmosphere at play (though I do appreciate both aspects).

Please warn me in advance if you are going to go for this bounty!

Return to Table of Contents

| |
$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Justification for use of Screened Functionals [CLAIMED]

Bounty: 50 rep

To start the Bounty Board off. I'm looking for some literature that provides intuition on why Screened Density Functionals make physical sense for modeling solids.

Answer

Return to Table of Contents

| |
$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Basis sets that were optimized to minimize the energy?

Bounty:

  • 100 rep (for new users)
  • 50 rep (for existing user)

I'm seeking an accurate answer, supplemented with some more information about the basis set family (why it created, why it didn't become popular, how it performed in some studies, etc.). Citing a widely unknown basis set family that only appears once in an obscure journal won't get you the bounty, nor will making a basis set family only to answer the question, but if you're a basis set expert and you know that there is indeed no such basis set family that is even remotely popular, and can give a detailed perspective on the issue (or mention any basis sets that almost achieve the goal or are close to it in spirit than Dunning sets for example), I would be delighted to offer the bounty :)

Please warn me in advance if you are going to go for this bounty!

Return to Table of Contents

| |
$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

When did these two fields first meet?

Bounty:

  • 300 rep (for new users)
  • 150 rep (for existing users)

These two very separately originating fields somehow found each other some time likely between 1961 and 1986. If you can help pinpoint which paper or conference first showed evidence of researchers from one of these fields knowing about the other, and provide some context, I would be delighted to offer away some of my reputation.

Please warn me in advance if you are going to go for this bounty!

Return to Table of Contents

| |
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .