I am involved with research on Dye - Sensitised Solar Cells (DSSCs) at an institution which does not currently have (and presumably cannot afford) a solar light simulator. I was wondering if there are feasible alternatives to obtaining a simulator, and possible implications on the quality of the research and data obtained. We had considered calibrating a Xenon lamp to obtain 1000W/m^2 equivalent light intensity, but the logistics involved in designing a working testbed would probably be a diversion from the main focus of the research.
The institution is a University located in the Tropics, and has clear, sunny weather for most of the year, so extended data collection (via datalogger) might be a last resort alternative.
If you already have a Xe lamp you can often buy filters to make the spectral response more like simulated solar. I would recommend an AM1.5 filter and you can aslo use neutral density filters as needed (I usually purchase through Newport-Oriel, but there are other companies as well). The investment will be significantly cheaper than buying a solar simulator.
Finally, for this measurement I would say it is worth the investment of time to properly calibrate your light source. If, and only if, you have a reliable light source can you fully trust your data.
I will also warn that you should invest time/effort into properly calibrating and controlling your light source. You can save hours, days or weeks of wasted time by having reproducible and representative data. Without a proper light source there are techniques to use other light sources and a known QE curve for your device. These spectral matching methods are often used as a corrective measure on near-solar simulated light.
Good luck!
- Badges
- Science topic