organic solar cells – Notes on Disordered Matter

Transport resistance strikes back

Since the last time that I wrote on transport resistance as a voltage loss mechanism in organic solar cells, due to low active layer conductivities, we have continued working on it. double rainbow seen from the institute of physics in Chemnitz
While we learnt from our valued colleague Prof. Chang-Qi Ma that MoOx diffusion contributes strongly to fill factor losses by thermal degradation – they had published their convincing results in [Qin 2023], under our radar – we also understand better how to recognise and comprehend transport resistance losses.

The simplest way to characterise transport resistance is to determine the difference between a normal current density–voltage curve under 1 sun, and the suns-Voc curve. The latter is the pair-wise combination of generation current density and open-circuit voltage that is giving one current density-voltage point per light intensity: doing this for a wide range of light-intensities results in a pseudo-JV curve. To compare this suns-Voc curve to the current density–voltage curve under 1 sun, it has to downshifted so that the open-circuit voltage of both curves coincide on one point: $j(V) = (0, V_{oc})$ . The result could look like the scheme shown in the figure below. I have adapted this figure from Maria’s new publication on transport resistance losses in organic solar cells [Saladina 2025] (the title is Transport resistance strikes back: unveiling its impact on fill factor losses in organic solar cells ;-). The $j(V_\mathrm{external})$ curve (blue) is the normal JV curve under illumination, where $V_\mathrm{external}$ is the applied voltage. The down-shifted suns-Voc curve corresponds to the $j(V_\mathrm{implied})$ (red); the implied voltage is the voltage without any series-resistance imposed drops. In other words, the externally applied voltage drops over the diode and all series resistances, the external series resistance as well as the transport resistance that comes from a low active layer (or transport layer) conductivity. The implied voltage, as measured by the open-circuit voltage (at zero current, where series resistances do not play a role), corresponds to the voltage without drops over series and transport resistance. If a solar cell has a low active layer conductivity and is transport resistance limited, than the measurement of the suns-Voc curve to construct the $j(V_\mathrm{implied})$ -curve allows to evaluate the performance of that solar cell as if it did not have any transport resistance losses. One could also say: while the measured $j(V_\mathrm{external})$ curve is transport resistance limited, the pseudo- $j(V_\mathrm{implied})$ curve corresponds to the case of infinite conductivity, but contains the same recombination as the measured curve.

Also indicated in the figure are two further figures-of-merit to distinguish the measured JV curve and the series resistance-free pseudo-JV curve: the slopes around the open circuit voltage (indicated in the figure by $n_{id}$ and $n_{id}+\alpha$ ), and the fill factors – FF and the pseudo-FF. The FF is generally defined as fraction of the power at the maximum power point over the power given by short circuit current times open circuit voltage, $j_{mpp} V_{mpp} / j_{sc} V_{oc}$ . The pseudo-FF does essentially the same, but for the series and transport resistance-free pseudo-jV curve. The normal FF (blueish) is not a measure of just recombination, but of recombination and series and transport resistance losses! The pseudo-FF (reddish) is due to only recombination losses. The difference between pFF and FF is, therefore, a measure of the transport resistance losses that the organic solar cell has.

The suns-Voc curve is used in the literature to determine the recombination ideality factor of solar cells. Even on the linear scale, the (inverse) slope of the corresponding $j(V_\mathrm{implied})$ -curve around Voc is given by the ideality factor $n_{id}$ . The $j(V_\mathrm{external})$ curve has a slope which is given by the ideality factor and a figure-of-merit describing the transport resistance: $\alpha$ . It was introduced by [Neher 2016], and I state it here in its general form,
$\alpha = \frac{eL}{kT} \frac{j_\mathrm{gen}}{\sigma_{oc}},$
where the recombination current density equals $j_\mathrm{gen}$ at $V_{oc}$ , and $\sigma_{oc}$ is the effective conductivity at open circuit. $L$ is the active layer thickness, and $kT/e$ the thermal voltage. That means, $\alpha$ increases when the active layer conductivity decreases. Correspondingly, the slope of the jV curve under illumination (the $j(V_\mathrm{external})$ curve) becomes less steep and the FF goes down: these are the transport resistance losses.
FF vs Voc due to transport resistance. For a selection of devices that we characterised for [Saladina 2025], we show on the right-hand-side the impact of transport resistance on the fill factor. The upper limit of the FF (solid line) can be reached when the recombination ideality is unity and there are no transport resistance losses. The FF (open circles) is often much lower, but in modern devices such as PM6:Y6 it can exceed 75%. The pseudo-FF (filled circle), however, is much closer to the upper limit, and is due to the trap-assisted recombination found in organic solar cells, at ideality factors that are often larger than unity. All in all, the largest loss for the fill factor is the transport resistance loss, essentially the difference between the pseudo-FF and the FF, even for the (not shown here) record-efficiency organic solar cell devices! I believe it makes a lot of sense to quantify the transport resistance in all publications that present the performance organic solar cells, so to avoid drawing wrong conclusions – for instance, that a given low fill factor is due to recombination, when the FF loss is likely dominated by low active layer conductivities. This is even more important when looking at the losses of organic solar cells with thicker active layers.

If you want to understand more about the transport resistance loss, I recommend (and self-advertise:) Maria’s paper, [Saladina 2025]. It contains information on how to predict the pseudo-FF just from the recombination ideality factor, how the conductivity of the active layer can be determined from the transport resistance, that $\alpha$ is actually voltage dependent and not the best measure to describe the FF losses, how energetic disorder influences transport resistance, and how transport resistance losses can be minimised. As always, I am happy to hear your thoughts, in the comments or by email.

Pitfalls when measuring recombination lifetimes in organic solar cells

Six years ago, I came across an interesting publication by David Kiermasch and Kristofer Tvingstedt, [Kiermasch et al 2018], titled Revisiting lifetimes from transient electrical characterization of thin film solar cells; a capacitive concern evaluated for silicon, organic and perovskite devices. It shows that particular in thin film solar cells, the time constant determined by voltage based techniques – open circuit voltage decay (OCVD), transient photovoltage (TPV), intensity modulated photovoltage spectroscopy (IMVS) – is in many cases not the recombination lifetime, but corresponds to an RC-time from the device itself. While the authors did not find this effect, they showed impressively how most modern solar cells are limited in this respect, and it has to be verified carefully whether or not the experimentally determined time constants do correspond to recombination lifetimes!

I took this publication very seriously. Below I show you a summary slide I made for my group seminar in the year of publication, 2018.

Carstens tuesday note 2018.

The shown equation was actually animated, sorry for making your life harder (but mine easier;). Briefly, the idea of why an RC limitation shows up is the following. The charge in the device $Q$ is changing with time during the measurement – no matter if the method is a large signal (OCVD) or small signal method (TPC, IMVS):

$\frac{dQ(t)}{dt} = \underbrace{\frac{dQ(t)}{dt}}_{-\frac{Q(t)}{\tau_\text{rec}}} - \underbrace{\frac{\partial Q}{\partial V}}_{C(V)} \frac{d V(t)}{d t},$

where the first term on the right hand side represents the recombination rate – of which we want to measure the recombination lifetime $\tau_\text{rec}$ – and the second term a contribution coming from the response of charge due to the measured signal of the experimental technique: the time variation of the voltage as response to a time dependent light signal (pulsed or modulated). If the latter capacitive term becomes dominant, the recombination lifetime cannot be determined anymore, as is hidden behind the RC time.

As you can see in this slide, based on our data, for P3HT:PCBM (bottom left of the slide) the capacitive (RC) times remain lower than the measured time constants. We can state with some confidence that the RC times do not limit the measured recombination lifetimes. Also, the slopes of $\tau$ vs $V_{oc}$ are different and, in this case, a measure of the recombination order.

In contrast, for the PCDTBT:PC70BM solar cell, for which I took the measured time constants at room temperature from literature, you see that the RC time limits the recombination lifetime, as the measured time constants just correspond to the RC times. This implies that the recombination lifetime is too short to be measured for the given RC limitation.

A nice aspect of the paper by Kiermasch et al. is that it gives a comparatively simple way to estimate the RC times:

$\tau_{RC} \approx \frac{C(V_{oc})}{j_\text{gen}(V_{oc})} \frac{nkT}{e}$

Here, $nkT/e$ is the recombination ideality factor times the thermal voltage, $C$ is the voltage dependent capacitance, which can be estimated (as lower bound) by the geometric capacitance of the active layer, $C_\text{geo} = \epsilon_r\epsilon_0/L$ , with the dielectric constants (relative and vacuum) and $L$ the active layer thickness (you could also include organic transport layers, but probably not PEDOT:PSS as it has a relative dielectric constant $\gg$ 3). The generation current density can be approximated, in most cases, by the short circuit current density $j_{sc}$ (unless the transport resistance loss is too large:).

Please note, that in this particular RC time where both $R$ and $C$ come from the solar cell itself, the active area cancels out (as both $j$ and $C$ contain it and are in denominator and numerator, respectively). So, in order to reduce the RC time for a given solar cell, the only way seems to either 1. increase the current, by increasing the light intensity, measuring up to higher Voc… if possible, or 2. reduce the (geometric) capacitance by increasing the device thickness… a lot.

All of this came to my mind again when looking at IMVS data that we took on PM6:Y12 solar cell devices (made by Chen, measured by Nino with support from Christopher).
PM6-Y12 IMVS RC time vs IMVS time constant.
On the left, you see the estimation of the RC time $\tau_{RC}$ after Kiermasch 2018, compared to the measured time constants by IMVS, $\tau_c$ . Except for, maybe, low temperatures, the RC times dominate the measured signal at high open circuit voltages, whereas the shunt limits the lifetime determination at lower open $V_{oc}$ . A direct comparison is shown on the right hand side, where everything in the shaded triangle is either shunt or RC-limited.

While quite sad, I think this is important: if you want to determine recombination lifetimes in thin film solar cell devices, check for limitations by RC times and shunt.

The transport resistance in organic solar cells

In one of my last posts on the diode ideality factor (6 years ago…), I promised to talk about the transport resistance in organic solar cells. I came across it already during my time at IMEC in Leuven, Belgium, around 2004: my colleagues and I worked on an analytic model of the open circuit voltage in organic bilayer solar cells. The corresponding paper was published a few years later, [Cheyns et al 2008], but I have to admit that I did not grasp its importance as a relevant loss mechanism for organic solar cells in general, focussing on geminate and nongeminate recombination – until this paper by [Würfel/Neher et al 2015] came out. I think now I have;)

The transport resistance is an internal resistance in the active layer (or transport layer(s)) of the solar cell, acting like an internal series resistance: It changes the slope of the current density–voltage characteristics – for instance around the open circuit voltage – and thus reduces the fill factor.

If you can live with an effective conductivity $\sigma_\text{eff} = e n_\text{eff} \mu_\text{eff}$ for now, I’d say that the transport resistance is given as

$R_{tr}= \frac{1}{e} \int_0^L \frac{1}{n_\text{eff}(x) \mu_\text{eff}(x)} \text{d}x \approx \frac{L}{\sigma_\text{eff}}$

with the effective carrier concentration $n_\text{eff}$ , the effective mobility $\mu_\text{eff}$ , and the active layer thickness $L$ . For a finite current $j$ , the externally applied voltage $V_\text{ext}$ of the $j(V_\text{ext})$ curve (red in the sketch) losses in current-voltage characteristics is reduced by $\Delta V = V_\text{ext} - V_\text{int} =j R_{tr}$ as compared to the transport resistance free case which I call $j(V_\text{int})$ (violet). The reason is that the electron and hole energy levels equivalent to conduction and valence band are more tilted due to the influence of the low conductivity. Rod MacKenzie from Durham used his drift–diffusion simulation programme gpvdm – which among many other features allows to use the multiple-trapping-and-release model to account for energetic disorder – to calculate an example. In the figure, the energy levels corresponding to conduction and valence band are shown, and the yellow shading between the band edges correspond to the trap populations which I will ignore. So focus on the edges! Band bending due to transport resistance, by Rod MacKenzie using gpvdm The upper left inset features the band bending of the transport resistance free case at a current–voltage point in the fourth quadrant of an illuminated solar cell, $V_\text{int}$ being at 0.8 V. The red lines show that in the bulk, the bands are perfectly flat despite not being at any “flat band” voltage. In contrast, the lower left inset shows the band bending for the illuminated current–voltage point at the same current, but at $V_\text{ext}$ of 0.69 V. The voltage difference $\Delta V$ of 0.11 V is due to the transport resistance. The two perfectly horizontal red lines, just shifted down from above, now show a discrepancy due to the band bending in the bulk. This tilt sums up to the voltage loss $\Delta V$ , and corresponds to a gradient of the quasi-Fermi levels, as discussed clearly in [Würfel/Neher et al 2015] around Eqn (8). Let me note that the denomination of $V_\text{int}$ as opposed to $V_\text{ext}$ is a bit unfair, as the latter still drops across the whole (active) layer thickness $L$ – but the gradient is different. So, can the two different band bendings (upper left and upper right) occur at the same time? No of course not. The lower right shows you how a simulated organic solar cell with realistic parameters looks inside: it is limited by a transport resistance due to low effective conductivity in the active layer, which shows up as tilt in the bands, and implies a gradient in the quasi-Fermi levels. The upper right shows you how the bands looked if the solar cell were not limited by a transport resistance (and how they do look under the special case of open circuit conditions).

Still, the voltage drop due to the transport resistance – coming from the low conductivity and leading to the tilted transport levels – is real and does reduce the fill factor.

In my recent talk at the MRS Spring meeting (invited! in person! on Hawaii! slides here:), I showed the approximate difference of the internal and external voltage of a fresh, inverted PM6:Y6 bulk heterojunction solar cell ( $L$ = 200 nm, but qualitatively similar for 100 nm) at different light intensities, from 3 micro-suns to 1 sun (300 nW/cm² to 100 mW/cm²). Sa Vint vs Vext The ideal diagonal case where $V_\text{int}=V_\text{ext}$ is only seen for the lowest light intensities. In contrast, at 1 sun illumination, when 0.4 V are applied, the internal voltage is still at around 0.7 V. The fill factor at 1 sun is, by the way, somewhat above 60%, whereas the transport resistance free pseudo fill factor (determined using the Suns-V_oc method, see below) is above 80%. As If you are interested in the details of this study, please have a look at our preprint. [Update 2022-07-01]: now published in Nature Communications.

How did we determine the approximate internal voltage, or $j(V_\text{int})$ , when we only have direct access to the external (i.e., applied) voltage? Similar to [Schiefer et al 2014], we used the Suns-V_oc method as a measure for the series and transport resistance free current–voltage characteristics. The idea is in the post on the diode ideality factor, but before sending you away again I repeat it here: the current density, as given by the diode equation under assumption of the superposition principle,

$j = j_0 \left( \exp\left(\frac{q(V_\text{ext}-jR_s)}{nkT} \right) -1 \right) - \frac{V_\text{ext}-jR_s}{R_p} - j_\text{gen}$ (*)

is influenced by the series resistance $R_s$ and parallel resistance $R_p$ . At open circuit, $V_\text{ext} = V_\text{int} = V_{oc}$ , the current $j(V_{oc})$ is zero,

$0 = j_0 \left( \exp\left(\frac{q(V_{oc}-0 R_s)}{nkT} \right) -1 \right) - \frac{V_{oc}- 0 R_s}{R_p} - j_\text{gen}$ ,

so that the terms including the series resistance (but not the parallel resistance!) become zero as well. Reordering the equation,

$j_\text{gen} = j_0 \left( \exp\left(\frac{qV_{oc}}{nkT} \right) -1 \right) - \frac{V_{oc}}{R_p}$ ,

we have an equation very similar to the diode equation (*). The pairs $j_\text{gen}(V_{oc})$ measured under a wide range of light intensities can, when shifted down by $j_{sc}(\text{1 sun})$ , correspond to the so called Suns-V_oc curve. It represents the $j(V_\text{int})$ curve, as the open circuit voltage is transport resistance free so that (only) there, $\Delta V=0$ . The Suns-V_oc curve is equivalent to the illuminated $j(V_\text{ext})$ curve, but lacks the influence of the series and transport resistance. The generation current $j_\text{gen} \approx eGL$ with the generation rate $G$ is sometimes (ok, often..) approximated by the short circuit current $j_{sc}$ .
An example of how a Suns-V_oc curve looks is shown in my earlier post on the diode ideality factor in the third figure (red = illuminated $j(V_\text{ext}$ ), green symbols = Suns-V_oc curve).

Of course there is a better way by measuring both the voltage dependent current and luminescence of a solar cell, as done by [Rau et al 2020] on Cu(In,Ga)Se₂ solar cells: from the luminescence, which depends on the quasi-Fermi level splitting, the internal voltage can be determined. For organic solar cells, as singlet and charge transfer exciton photoluminescence need to be separated – the internal voltage will be proportional to the latter – this is harder and has not been done yet, as far as I know.

How can the impact of the transport resistance on the fill factor, and thus performance, of organic solar cells be minimised? To reduce the transport resistance, the active layer conductivity needs to be increased. This can be done by, either, increasing the charge carrier mobility – for a molecular hopping system this means reducing static (low $\sigma$ ) and/or dynamic disorder (low $\lambda$ ). Or, increasing the carrier concentration – e.g. by doping, which is kind of hard in a bulk heterojunction, but starting with the material phase with the lower conductivity could be a viable approach.

Some hat tips here beyond the very nice cooperation of our study: Maria and Rod for feedback to an earlier version of the post, and Julien for being the first commenter on it:)

The diode ideality factor in organic solar cells: basics

Where does one start after so long an absence — meaning only the blog abstinence; I have been working and publishing since last time;-) One of the things which have been on my mind is the ideality factor, a figure of merit for the charge carrier recombination mechanism in a semiconductor diode. In short, a diode ideality factor of 1 is interpreted as direct recombination of electrons and holes across the bandgap. An ideality factor of 2 is interpreted as recombination through defects states, i.e. recombination centres. More on that in a later post, let’s start with the basics.

A couple of years ago, I wrote about some general properties of current-voltage characteristics of organic solar cells, but did not describe the ideality factor.¹ I think the ideality factor was mentioned only once, and then without details.

The Shockley diode equation describes the current–voltage characteristics of a diode,

$j=j_0 \left(\exp\left(\frac{eV}{n_{id}kT}\right)-1\right) - j_{gen}$ .

Here, $j$ current, $V$ the voltage, $e$ elementary charge, $kT$ thermal voltage, $j_0$ the dark saturation current, and $j_{gen}$ the photogenerated current. If the ideality factor $n_{id}$ was equal to one, one could call this the ideal Shockley equation. It derivation can be found in semiconductor text books, but it can also be derived based on thermodynamic arguments (see Peter Würfel’s excellent book on the physics of solar cells).

The current $j$ flowing out of the diode is defined to be negative. Essentially, the charge carriers which can flow out are the generated ones (e.g. $j_{gen}$ ), but reduced by the recombination current. That means,

$j=\underbrace{j_0 \left(\exp\left(\frac{eV}{n_{id}kT}\right)-1\right)}_{j_{rec}} - j_{gen}$ .

However, the term $j_{rec}$ contains also a negative contribution, $j_0$ times the $-1$ from the bracket. This is the thermal generation current $j_{gen,th} \equiv j_0$ , i.e. charge carriers excited across the bandgap just by thermal energy — and therefore very little. Still, the term is very important, as it is the prefactor of the whole $j(V)$ curve. Without light, i.e. with photocurrent $j_{gen}=0$ , we can clarify

$j=\underbrace{j_0 \exp\left(\frac{eV}{n_{id}kT}\right)}_{j_{rec,dark}} - \underbrace{j_0}_{j_{gen,th}}$ .

so that at negative voltages, $j=-j_0$ . Jdark (Please note that under realistic conditions, $j_0$ is not only pretty small and difficult to measure in principle, it is also hidden behind shunt currents in the device. ) At zero volt, $j=j_0-j_0=0$ . Thus, generation = recombination — or more specifically, thermal generation current = recombination current — which essentially implies that 0V correspond to the open circuit voltage in the dark.

How can one determine the ideality factor and the dark saturation current (at least in principle, see below for a better way on real devices)? It is common to neglect the thermal generation current (the term -1, multiplied by $j_0$ ), which is a good approximation for voltages some $kT/e$ larger than 0. Then, calculate the logarithm of the dark current ( $j_{gen}=0$ ),

$\ln(j) = \ln(j_0) +\frac{e}{n_{id}kT}V$ ,

so that the ideality factor can be determined from the inverse slope of the ln(current) at forward bias, and the dark saturation current from the current-axis offset. Let me already tell you that I do not recommend this approach, for reasons written below, and as explained in more detail in a recent paper of Kris Tvingstedt and myself [Tvingstedt/Deibel 2016].

Under illumination and at open circuit conditions, $j(V_{oc})=0$ , we can rewrite the Shockley equation as

$j_{gen}=j_0 \left(\exp\left(\frac{eV_{oc}}{n_{id}kT}\right)-1\right)$ ,

which has the same shape as the Shockley equation in the dark. This means that if you measure ( $j_{gen}, V_{oc}$ ) pairs for a (wide) range of different illumination intensities (thus varying $j_{gen}$ ), the points should overlap with the dark $j(V)$ curve! We’ll come back to this important point further below. Note that for solar cells with good fill factor, $j_{gen}$ can be approximated by the short circuit current $j_{sc}$ . Continue reading “The diode ideality factor in organic solar cells: basics”

Nongeminate recombination in organic solar cells – slower than expected

In a “recent” post (just 3 posts but 10 months ago;-) I wrote once again on the derivation of the Langevin recombination rate for nongeminate recombination. The question is, is Langevin recombination really what governs the charge carrier loss rate in organic solar cells?

Recombination of electrons with holes is usually a 2nd order decay. As electrons $n$ and holes $p$ are photogenerated pair wise, the respective excess charge carrier concentrations are symmetric, $n=p$ . Then a recombination rate $R$ is

$R = k n p = k n^2$ ,

where the recombination prefactor $k$ could be a Langevin prefactor – more on that later. In a transient experiment with a photogenerating, short laser pulse at $t=0$ , the continuity equation for charge carriers (here, e.g. electrons) under open circuti conditions (no external current flow, for instance if the experiment is done on a thin film without electrodes)

$\frac{dn}{dt} = G-R$

becomes

$\frac{dn}{dt} = -R$

for $t>0$ (as the generation was only at $t=0$ ).

If all electrons and hole are available for recombination (i.e., can reach all other charge carriers and can be reached by them), then the recombination rate and the continuity equation for $t>0$ yield

$\frac{dn}{dt} = k n^2$ Continue reading “Nongeminate recombination in organic solar cells – slower than expected”

Belectric aquires German Konarka Daughter

Related to this post on Konarka’s bankruptcy: According to a range of news sites, including pv-tech.org, the german company Belectric has acquired Konarka Technologies. Find the press release here (pdf).

The system integrator Belectric is situated in Lower Franconia, less than 50km from Würzburg and less than 10km from where I live. Let’s keep our fingers crossed!

Nongeminate Recombination: Langevin (again) and beyond (later;-)

Nongeminate recombination is the major loss mechanism for state-of-the-art organic solar cells. In an early blog post, I showed how the Langevin recombination was derived.

Although there is more to nongeminate recombination than just this mechanism, it is still instructive and also relevant to trap-assisted recombination mechanisms, due to its mobility-containing prefactor.

[Nenashev 2010] pointed out that in the derivation of the Langevin recombination,

since the electric field scales as r⁻² and the surface area of the sphere scales as ², the value of r chosen is unimportant, leading to a simple solution with constant electron den- sity, thus justifying the neglect of diffusion.

Continue reading “Nongeminate Recombination: Langevin (again) and beyond (later;-)”

Konarka bankrupt

Via Juan Bisquert’s post: solar cell company Konarka filed for bankrupty yesterday according to Businessweek. It is always hard to be the first… Konarka received its first venture capital in mid 2001.

Howard Berke, CEO of Konarka:

This is a tragedy for Konarka’s shareholders and employees and for the development of alternative energy in the U.S.

Let’s hope that our friends from Konarka find other suitable positions, and that other companies such as Heliatek take up the lead!

Add to Connotea

Links

and nothing else.

Photovoltaics:

Science writer Don Monroe summarises recent research on periocally arranged graphene which interesting light absorption properties: Graphene Arrays Could Be Perfect Absorbers
MIT technology review’s Katherine Bourzac on A Leap Forward for Plastic Solar Cells on Yang Yang‘s (UCLA) 10.6% record efficiency organic solar cells based on new polymers from Sumitomo Chemical. See also the press release by UCLA
@joergheber, editor of Nature Materials, twittered his scepticism (not concerning the research, but the outlook) concerning a recent press release from University of Cambridge. Jörg’s followup message was this one…. Read for yourself, but I think he has a point.

Global warming:

Climate sceptics on the go, via /.: Don’t Worry About Global Warming, Say 16 Scientists in the WSJ; I am no climate scientist, but what I read usually points in the other direction… at least judging from most scientists with peer reviewed publications in contrast to non-peer reviewed “scientists”. Nevertheless, the scientists cited above seem to be real ones, although (mostly?) not with scientific background related to the global climate
we have a similar discussion here in Germany, with RWE manager Fritz Vahrenholt writing a book trying to confute evidence of global warming, relating any temperature change to the solar activity: summary by Die Zeit (german, google translate) and an article (again Die Zeit) by Toralf Staud, refuting the seven main theses of Vahrenholt ( german, google translate).

Other stuff:

Chronical of higher education summarised the Elsevier boycott. See also The Economist and Nature
If you do not boycott Elsevier, you may be interested in the booklet Charting a Course for a Successful Research Career by Prof. Johnson, available for free on the sciverse website
mini statement about the importance of rewriting for better writing of manuscripts etc
I liked Roman Cortes’ short note on Monte Carlo methods: beautiful!
douglaswray explains social media
comment on balancing collaboration and competition for young scientists by Lydia Murray
Matt Ford, ars technica: Survival in academia, the tenure track not taken
Article level metrics (in contrast to impact factor) by altmetric with their Bookmarklet
The coffee setup 2010, though still uptodate, by Marco Arment
Nature editorial on Tough choices: Scientists must find ways to make more efficient use of funds — or politicians may do it for them and Feature Funding: Got to get a grant
Alternative for your paper collection now also for windows: Papers by Mekentosj
German profs underpaid, court says by Quirin Schiermeyer
blog entry by Hamish Johhnston at physicsworld.com on pondering the power law

sciseekclaimtoken-4f7073f2d8ca8

Add to Connotea

Pseudosymmetry of the photocurrent physically relevant?

Two days ago, a paper considering the role of the “quasiflat band” case in bulk heterojunction solar cells by device simulations was published online [Petersen 2012]. It is critical of the pseudosymmetric photocurrent found and interpreted by [Ooi 2008] and later also ourselves [Limpinsel 2010]. In order to focus on the physical relevance of the (non)symmetry of the photocurrent, the paper by Petersen et al neglects a field dependent photogeneration. As some good points are raised, read the new paper if you are interested in the photocurrent.

[Update 2.4.2012] Another paper showing that band bending is not needed to explain the particular shape of the photocurrent: [Wehenkel 2012].

I will come back to field dependent photogeneration later, it is still intruiging: also here, the photocurrent should (and will be) complemented by pulsed measurements such as time delayed collection field, see e.g. [Kniepert 2011].

Add to Connotea

	Transport resistance… on The transport resistance in or…
	Pitfalls when measur… on The transport resistance in or…
	deibel on The transport resistance in or…
	deibel on The transport resistance in or…
	Julien Gorenflot on The transport resistance in or…
	Julien Gorenflot on The transport resistance in or…
	deibel on The transport resistance in or…
	deibel on The transport resistance in or…
	Julien Gorenflot on The transport resistance in or…
	Julien Gorenflot on The transport resistance in or…