| Revision as of 19:08, 2 May 2012 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 90d) to User talk:Sbyrnes321/Archives/2012.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:51, 6 June 2024 edit undoSbyrnes321 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers7,380 editsm →Data source: clarify | ||
| (272 intermediate revisions by 60 users not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| |archive = User talk:Sbyrnes321/Archives/%(year)d | |archive = User talk:Sbyrnes321/Archives/%(year)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archive box|search=yes|],],],],],]}} | {{archive box|search=yes|], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]}} | ||
| {{talkheader}} | {{talkheader}} | ||
| == Oscillation period of caesium == | |||
| == Image fix or dataset share == | |||
| Steve: You ask: | |||
| We probably need to fix an image on the page for Bloch wave / bloch theorem. See last comment ], can you please check ? Then can you either fix the image or share the dataset (and imagine some matlab stuff) to rebuild the correct image ? | |||
| :"How can the defined oscillation period of caesium be identified as exactly the same concept as the experimentally measured oscillation period of caesium??" How would you answer that question? | |||
| comment added by ] | |||
| == What is the production process for your images? == | |||
| I'd assume that this question is related to the | |||
| :The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom. | |||
| I'm interested in the image work you've done. | |||
| I'd take it that you are suggesting that it is not possible to measure the period of the cesium atom in seconds, because it is defined in terms of the period. Of course that is true. | |||
| However, neither in your site nor here does it explain how you go about making them. | |||
| Are they all custom programs? | |||
| ] (]) 15:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| It also happens that this unit is defined in terms of a physical event that repeats in time, and not in terms of some other property entirely, like a length, or like the speed of light. Naturally, a unit of time can be chosen as the period of any repeated event, like the rotation of the Earth as another old example. | |||
| :Click the image. Click "Details" in the bottom-right. If you do it right you should get to a page like this: . You'll find details and (when applicable) source code. If you have trouble finding the image details pages, or if you still have questions after that, you're welcome to ask. :-) --] (]) 19:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| I don't think this example has any bearing upon ε<sub>0</sub>, which in the view of CODATA is defined by a formula involving μ<sub>0</sub> and c<sub>0</sub> and is not defined in terms of the permittivity of 'vacuum' or any real medium, as you seem to think. It is defined in terms of μ<sub>0</sub> and c<sub>0</sub> in , and is not related to any physical realization. ] (]) 19:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Quantum Harmonic Oscillator Animation. == | |||
| Maybe I don't have your question clear? The phenomena of the oscillation of cesium can be observed, but to measure it one has to compare it to another periodic phenomenon. If the standard for timing events is the oscillation of cesium, then it cannot be measured. Of course, one could compare a number of different periodic phenomena to see whether they agree over long time intervals, whether one was easier to use, whether one was more precise, and so forth. Those comparisons would decide whether cesium was the best choice. | |||
| Hello. | |||
| IMO, this exercise in deciding what is the best unit for time has no parallel in setting up ε<sub>0</sub>. Perhaps you disagree? ] (]) 18:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for your efforts to visualize hard to grasp concepts. It is appreciated (By many I am sure). I have a quick question. I have to admit I am not a programmer. But I am involved in a theoretical research where I find myself in need of wave form visualization tools, Is there perhaps a program you might suggest? or should I just bite the bullet and go back to school (for the third time lol) I am particularly interested in the harmonic oscillation wave forms animations. I am attempting to map those in three dimensions. Is it possible? | |||
| Thank you | |||
| :To recap where we seem to be...The two issues we seem to be discussing are (1) You think I must be crazy to think that ε<sub>0</sub> is by definition the same as ε<sub>EverydayWorld</sub>, (2) I think you are crazy to think that ε<sub>0</sub> is different from ε<sub>EverydayWorld</sub>. Within (2) is: (2a) If this were true, then the numerical value for ε<sub>EW</sub>/ε<sub>0</sub> would be an incredibly important parameter in real life, calculated in many textbooks and papers; however, in the real world, I still have not seen ''any'' numerical estimates besides my own rough guess of 1.2. (2b) All the hundreds of thousands of physicists and engineers in the world have "voted with their feet" that ε<sub>EW</sub> and ε<sub>0</sub> are equal, by measuring permittivities in a way that references them to "vacuum with quantum fluctuations", rather than "vacuum without quantum fluctuations" (which may be ~20% different). | |||
| Dr. Akopyan MD <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Out of those two issues, right here we're focused on (1): Am I crazy to think that ε<sub>0</sub> could possibly be the same (by definition) as ε<sub>EW</sub>? Well, I ''thought'' that your argument was "ε<sub>EW</sub> is a kind of real-world thing that has something to do with experimental measurements. On the other hand, CODATA says that ε<sub>0</sub> expressed in SI units is an exact numerical quantity. Therefore ε<sub>0</sub> and ε<sub>EW</sub> cannot possibly be the same." I was rebutting this argument by saying that there ''are'' real-world things that have something to do with experimental measurements, that are nevertheless exact numerical quantities when expressed in SI units. The oscillation period of caesium is a good example, the mass of the IPK is another, the mass of a mole of carbon-12 is yet another, etc. | |||
| :You can click any image on my ], and click "more details", and you'll get to a page like and I always put the source code (or how I made it) at the bottom. You'll see that I made that particular image with Mathematica. Later on you'll see that I mostly switched to using Python to make images, and for the animations I would make a bunch of images programmatically using Python and then call imagemagick to stitch them together into an animated gif. Maybe there are better methods, I dunno. I don't have any special training, just general "ability to write code". --] (]) 16:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :It seems your argument was subtler than that. If I understand now, you are saying: "Yes, it is possible for a quantity to have an exact value in SI units, but nevertheless to be experimentally realizable (at least in principle). This funny situation ''only'' occurs when the SI unit is defined ''directly'' in terms of the quantity. For example, it is possible for the oscillation period of caesium to be an exact fixed number of seconds, because the second is defined as a multiple of the oscillation period of caesium. As another example, it is possible for the mass of the IPK to be an exact fixed number of kilograms, because the kilogram is defined as a multiple of the mass of the IPK." | |||
| == "Polar vector" listed at ] == | |||
| :"But," you say, "ε<sub>0</sub> is not like this, because there is no SI unit defined as a multiple of ε<sub>0</sub> or otherwise in terms of ε<sub>0</sub>. Without that trick, it is impossible to think that ε<sub>0</sub> could simultaneously be exact in SI units, and experimentally realizable (at least in principle)." | |||
| ] | |||
| An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ] and has thus listed it ]. This discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] ] 04:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == How to Cite Your Shockley Queisser Curve == | |||
| :"Finally," you say, "CODATA says ε<sub>0</sub>=1/c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>μ<sub>0</sub>, not approximately equal but exactly equal. If ε<sub>0</sub>, c<sub>0</sub>, μ<sub>0</sub>, were separately defined as three different parameters describing the real-world, experimentally-realizable vacuum (at least in principle), it would be impossible to say with certainty that they satisfy any exact relation." | |||
| Hello, | |||
| :I will hold off on responding until you can confirm that I am correctly understanding and summarizing your arguments. :-) --] (]) 19:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I want to use your SQ curve as seen in this ] in my publication and I want to cite you. How can I do that? | |||
| For the time being, I will mention your , the Misplaced Pages link, and your name, is that correct? | |||
| The citation will appear as: | |||
| Byrnes S. Shockley Queisser Full Curve . Misplaced Pages. ; Available from: https://sjbyrnes.com/misc.html. | |||
| Please tell me if you want it to appear differently. ] (]) 16:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It's ultimately your call, but I would recommend linking to either https://en.wikipedia.org/File:ShockleyQueisserFullCurve.svg or https://github.com/sbyrnes321/SolarCellEfficiencyLimits/blob/master/sq.ipynb , rather than to sjbyrnes.com which is not a good archival link because I reorganize my site now and then, and also that page doesn't directly have that curve anyway. --] (]) 16:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Looks largely correct. The definition of ε<sub>0</sub>≡1/c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>μ<sub>0</sub> clearly precludes any measurement of ε<sub>0</sub>, because we know its value exactly and no measurement of permittivity can change that. Moreover, ε<sub>0</sub> does not refer to any realizable "unit" of permittivity (say, in terms of the capacitance of some standard capacitor) in the way the period of cesium refers to an actual unit of time. | |||
| ::Thank you for the prompt response. | |||
| ::In the event the logic of the matter is obscure, I appeal to the fact that all models that might apply to real vacuum, such as QED vacuum, demonstrate nonlinearity, dispersion, nonlocality and whatever, while ε<sub>0</sub> shows none of this behavior. Consequently, it seems likely that when experiment rises to the occasion where these things can be demonstrated, ε<sub>0</sub> will not be a candidate to describe any real vacuum. I understand photon-photon scattering has already been observed in real vacuum, showing nonlinearity is an experimental fact as well as a theoretical prediction. | |||
| ::Okay, I will use both the Misplaced Pages and the Github links. ] (]) 18:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The case of the speed of light is an interesting one. Choosing ''c<sub>0</sub>'' as the unit of speed might refer to a real speed as entertained by relativity, and if so, it does make it unobservable in SI units, just like the second makes the period of Cesium unobservable. And like that case, this speed can be compared to other speeds to decide what is the best choice for a standard. The experiments supporting relativity indicate it has some undisputed advantages in reproducibility etc., although in practice people will use the speed of light in air or in helium-filled chambers and correct for the medium using c<sub>0</sub>/''n'' | |||
| ::In an exactly similar fashion to realizing the standard speed in air, it may turn out that the refractive index of no real vacuum has identically ''n''≡1. In which case choosing the speed of light as a constant independent of frequency, wavelength, polarization, intensity, etc. makes this choice a convenient fiction, which nonetheless can be used here as well to refer to the speed of light in real vacuum as c<sub>0</sub>/''n''. ] (]) 21:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hi Steve: Have you decided we are at an impasse at this point, or have you decided that in fact we are on the same page? ] (]) 14:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Data source == | |||
| ::::I've been busy, sorry. | |||
| ::::*YOUR ARGUMENT 1: "all models that might apply to real vacuum, such as QED vacuum, demonstrate nonlinearity, dispersion, nonlocality and whatever, while ε<sub>0</sub> shows none of this behavior." | |||
| ::::*MY BELITTLING REPHRASE 1: "There are some people--not CODATA but other people--who use the term "vacuum permittivity" for the quantity ε<sub>0</sub>. They do not call it "vacuum permittivity in the limit of weak fields", they just call it "vacuum permittivity". Therefore we must require that ε<sub>0</sub> is the permittivity of "vacuum" (whatever that is) at any field whatsoever, no matter how high. This proves that "vacuum" cannot be "real-world vacuum", because the permittivity of a real-world vacuum changes at extremely intense fields." | |||
| ::::*MY RESPONSE 1: I think that ε<sub>0</sub> is the permittivity of the real-world vacuum in the limit of very weak fields but ''not'' in the limit of extremely intense fields. I don't see any reason to be bothered by that or any suggestion that SI authorities think differently. | |||
| ::::*YOUR ARGUMENT 2 (as rephrased by me): "CODATA says ε<sub>0</sub>=1/c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>μ<sub>0</sub>, not approximately equal but exactly equal. If ε<sub>0</sub>, c<sub>0</sub>, μ<sub>0</sub>, were separately defined as three different parameters describing the real-world, experimentally-realizable vacuum (at least in principle), it would be impossible to say with certainty that they satisfy any exact relation." | |||
| ::::*MY RESPONSE 2: OK, fine, we can take ε<sub>0</sub>≡1/c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>μ<sub>0</sub> to be a definition. (It is certainly the definition in the CODATA paper.) Then I would say μ<sub>0</sub>=μ<sub>EverydayWorld</sub> ''by definition'', c<sub>0</sub>=c<sub>EverydayWorld</sub> ''by definition'', and ε<sub>0</sub>≈ε<sub>EverydayWorld</sub> ''insofar'' as Maxwell's equations hold in the EverydayWorld limit, which is probably "they hold exactly in this limit", and certainly "they hold within parts-per-billion in this limit", and definitely not "they are 20% wrong in this limit". We can shift the debate, therefore, to whether μ<sub>0</sub>=μ<sub>EverydayWorld</sub> exactly by definition (which I believe), or whether μ<sub>0</sub>=μ<sub>EverydayWorld</sub>*1.2 (which is the value you would get based on the QED calculation of vacuum fluctuations; "the QED vacuum is diamagnetic, with relative magnetic permeability < 1", as you put it.) | |||
| ::::So I'm sorry about the unnecessary diversion into ε<sub>0</sub>. You can now please try to explain to me why "Steve, you would have to be crazy to believe that μ<sub>0</sub>=μ<sub>EverydayWorld</sub> exactly by definition!" and also why "There is nothing at all implausible or troubling in my belief that μ<sub>0</sub>=μ<sub>EverydayWorld</sub>*1.2." Again, for the latter, there is (1) the fact that all the engineers of the world have "voted with their feet" that μ<sub>0</sub> and μ<sub>EW</sub> are not 20% different; (2) the fact that CODATA has explicitly endorsed measurements in the literature that use the assumption μ<sub>0</sub>=μ<sub>EW</sub>; (3) the fact that no one on earth has ever given a numerical estimate for the extremely-important ratio μ<sub>0</sub>/μ<sub>EverydayWorld</sub> except for my own estimate of 1.2 right here; etc. --] (]) 21:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, i was wandering if you could share what data set you used for the awesome Shockley-Queisser limit graphs? I want to re-use this data for a graph with different markup ] (]) 15:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Disambiguation link notification == | |||
| :I suggest to use the code at https://github.com/sbyrnes321/SolarCellEfficiencyLimits/blob/master/sq.ipynb - it might take a few hours to run, but then you’ll have regenerated the data, and you can plot it or export it however you want. --] (]) 17:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hi. When you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (] | ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == The discussion continues == | |||
| Steve: I wondered if you noticed ]. It would seem that this issue is not clear from the present intro, and is not understood even by Blackburne, who says the "exact value" is a consequence of advanced concepts from special relativity. Could it be that there is no English language formulation possible, or could it be that the climate on this page is so tempestuous that no agreement can be found? ] (]) 18:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I stopped watching that page a long time ago...was getting too time-consuming...maybe I'll look. I owe you a response on this page too but I've hit a very busy patch at work....well, that hasn't quite totally stopped me from procrastinating via wikipedia, but still, I'm trying to minimize it :-) --] (]) 18:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == A point you raised... == | |||
| on the ] on March 15th, the new subsection | |||
| :'''5.1 - {{]}} "here to stay just because of ]"????''' | |||
| sparked an argument and then settled down, concerning the pointless {{]}}. I also find no use with the template. Just thought I'd let you know. Keep up the good + hard work, cheers, ] (]) 17:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == I agree with your revert at ]... == | |||
| ... but ] used the term "Natural (Planck) units", for example. I don't like that ] uses that general term, particularly when their unit voltage is the SI volt, hardly a natural quantity to reference. A natural unit system is one that requires some definitive meaning: it should be possible for the aliens on the planet Zog can come up with the same system. There is no possibility that the Zoglings will come up with the ] for their unit energy. Planck units '''do''' have a special claim to "naturalness", moreso than the eV-based "natural units" of particle physics. And the article mentions that, but I also don't think it should be "a.k.a. Natural units". ] (]) 03:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Glad you agree with the edit. Whether or not the particle-physics community is justified in calling something "natural units" when it has eV's is an unrelated issue. The more relevant issue here is that Zoglings may not be using exactly Planck units. Maybe they set h=1 instead of hbar=1, to take just one example. The Frank Wilczek quote is interesting, but I do think he's using "natural" as a describing adjective, rather than as a specific terminology...notwithsanding the capitalization. :-) --] (]) 04:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: I consider it quite salient that particle-physics community calls the ] a "natural unit" of energy. It just isn't, and the name they attach to that system of units is not appropriate. Nonetheless, they use it. | |||
| :: So I'll emphasize a word ''A natural unit system is one that requires some definitive meaning: it should be '''possible''' for the aliens on the planet Zog to come up with the same system.'' Zoglings ''could'' choose to normalize ''ħ'' (or they could ''h''), but they cannot choose to normalize the eV as the unit of energy. So whether it's ''ħ'' or ''h'', it's a "natural" system. But it's not if it's the ]. BTW, I think that if the Zoglings come to a similar understanding of the laws of nature, they will be thinking about the ''ħ'' vs. ''h'' issue and will likely choose ''ħ''. And I think they would normalize 4''πG'' rather than ''G''. But that, of course, is idle speculation. ] (]) 15:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't think you'll find anyone who says "the eV is THE unit of energy in natural units". Once you set <math>\hbar = c = 1</math>, then everything is expressed in powers of a single unit, but the phrase "natural units" does not speak to what that single unit is. Usually it is eV or keV or MeV etc. But if a particle physicist said | |||
| :::::''The particle's energy is 20 nanometers<sup>-1</sup> (by the way, I'm obviously using natural units here).'' | |||
| :::then I think he or she would be understood quite clearly and would not be saying anything unusual or incorrect. Again, I think the phrase "natural units", as it is used in particle physics, just refers to <math>\hbar = c = 1</math> and nothing else. eV is merely a common and conventional choice of unit that ''supplements'' "natural units", rather than being one of the natural units. | |||
| :::If you agree that "natural units" means <math>\hbar = c = 1</math> and nothing else, then I think your objection is based on the word "units" rather than the word "natural". Maybe you think it should be called "some natural units" so that it does not imply a complete system of units? :-) --] (]) 15:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I think ''any'' '''system''' of units must be complete in that any quantity can be expressed with that system. As best as I can tell, that means you don't need any ] or ] as long as you have ], ], ], ], and ] or some other independent combination. Like you can eliminate either length, time, or mass from the list if you include ] or ] in its stead (or like SI, you can use ] instead of charge as a base unit). Temperature is largely considered a scaling factor applied to energy per particle. | |||
| :::: So a '''system''' of natural units must define more than ''ħ'' and ''c'' as natural units. It must pick another universal quantity in nature (perhaps the mass or rest energy of an elementary particle if not ''G'') just to get to the mechanical units, and it must pick up something regarding the EM interaction (perhaps ''e'' or ''ϵ''<sub>0</sub>) to define a natural unit of charge. And I cannot think of any other constant, other than the ], ''k''<sub>B</sub>, to use for a natural definition of a temperature unit. If there is '''any''' unit defined by an anthropocentric physical quantity, the system that uses that unit is not a "natural system of units". ] (]) 17:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yea, I think that's why people usually say "natural units" rather than "natural system of units". . (Incidentally, this is an example where it is stated very clearly that the extra unit is not part of the phrase "natural units", and also an example of eV not being used.) But again, 90% of the time or more, the word "system" is not used. I agree with you that the word "system" should not be used. "System" implies "Complete system". :-) --] (]) 17:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Chemical potential == | |||
| My draft is now available at http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Petergans/sandbox | |||
| Please feel free to comment, amend etc. Watch out for typos, there may be lots of them which I don't see! ] (]) 13:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :See ] :-) --] (]) 13:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:51, 6 June 2024
 Archives |
|
2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
| This is Sbyrnes321's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Image fix or dataset share
We probably need to fix an image on the page for Bloch wave / bloch theorem. See last comment ], can you please check ? Then can you either fix the image or share the dataset (and imagine some matlab stuff) to rebuild the correct image ? comment added by User:flyredeagle
What is the production process for your images?
I'm interested in the image work you've done. However, neither in your site nor here does it explain how you go about making them. Are they all custom programs?
Unknow0059 (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- Click the image. Click "Details" in the bottom-right. If you do it right you should get to a page like this: CLICK HERE. You'll find details and (when applicable) source code. If you have trouble finding the image details pages, or if you still have questions after that, you're welcome to ask. :-) --Steve (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Quantum Harmonic Oscillator Animation.
Hello. Thank you for your efforts to visualize hard to grasp concepts. It is appreciated (By many I am sure). I have a quick question. I have to admit I am not a programmer. But I am involved in a theoretical research where I find myself in need of wave form visualization tools, Is there perhaps a program you might suggest? or should I just bite the bullet and go back to school (for the third time lol) I am particularly interested in the harmonic oscillation wave forms animations. I am attempting to map those in three dimensions. Is it possible?
Thank you
Dr. Akopyan MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:214C:8472:DC00:4D2C:56FB:77:C236 (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- You can click any image on my user page, and click "more details", and you'll get to a page like this one and I always put the source code (or how I made it) at the bottom. You'll see that I made that particular image with Mathematica. Later on you'll see that I mostly switched to using Python to make images, and for the animations I would make a bunch of images programmatically using Python and then call imagemagick to stitch them together into an animated gif. Maybe there are better methods, I dunno. I don't have any special training, just general "ability to write code". --Steve (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
"Polar vector" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Polar vector and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 3#Polar vector until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ChromaNebula (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
How to Cite Your Shockley Queisser Curve
Hello, I want to use your SQ curve as seen in this link in my publication and I want to cite you. How can I do that? For the time being, I will mention your website, the Misplaced Pages link, and your name, is that correct? The citation will appear as: Byrnes S. Shockley Queisser Full Curve . Misplaced Pages. ; Available from: https://sjbyrnes.com/misc.html. Please tell me if you want it to appear differently. AmrShalaby92 (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's ultimately your call, but I would recommend linking to either https://en.wikipedia.org/File:ShockleyQueisserFullCurve.svg or https://github.com/sbyrnes321/SolarCellEfficiencyLimits/blob/master/sq.ipynb , rather than to sjbyrnes.com which is not a good archival link because I reorganize my site now and then, and also that page doesn't directly have that curve anyway. --Steve (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the prompt response.
- Okay, I will use both the Misplaced Pages and the Github links. AmrShalaby92 (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Data source
Hi, i was wandering if you could share what data set you used for the awesome Shockley-Queisser limit graphs? I want to re-use this data for a graph with different markup 87.212.32.53 (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I suggest to use the code at https://github.com/sbyrnes321/SolarCellEfficiencyLimits/blob/master/sq.ipynb - it might take a few hours to run, but then you’ll have regenerated the data, and you can plot it or export it however you want. --Steve (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)