from an email to the energy 21 newsgroup



 There is another solar cell method even more efficent. called the "in situ" proccess

Which uses beach sand and a metal plate like a cookie sheet sand is put in and then an organic chemical is applied to the beach sand (sprayed on)the chemicals name is 3,7 dimethylpentadecon-2-olpropionate the chemical is available from organic chemical supply companies.


I thought it might interest you. I haven't tried it myself but it may work,

Normal solar power for its current price is pretty damn awful. 10%-20% of sunlight converted to power. And the panels are (to be kind) exorbitant. However what big brother doesn't like people to know is that cuprous oxide is photosensitive. It's not as efficient as

Silicon cells but its way cheaper. Take a piece of copper heavily rusted on one side use nitric or muriatic acid (diluted) to rub of this rust until a reddish layer of copper is exposed.

Over this new layer put wire mesh and connect an electrical contact to the mesh. then put a transparent plastic cover over the thing. fill the inside with 95%water and 5% clorox bleach. Then on the other side of the copper (the normal side without any of the afore mentioned junk) make an electrical contact. This contact is positive. The mesh contact is negative. Then put the thing in the sun. This comes from "creative

Science and research" an organisation in the ads at the back of popular science.

One member of the energy 21 newsgroups feels this way about the above design

I wrote an email to a local chemical supply asking about the chemical indicated in in this article how to make the solar cell The answer is as below.

Does any know the correct name of the chemical or is this thing a hoax. Any one have any ideas,

Did the article appear in Popular Science and someone got the name wrong.

If it is a hoax its a pity I was willing to give this one a try.


Dear Geoff, If the chemical compound you are after is a sex pheromone of the pine sawfly and normally used in picolitre quantities 2 litres would never be affordable.

It is not listed with any of the major chemical companies. From some of the other stuff on the internet it maybe a pseudo hoax. a lot of the stuff published on the internet is not scientifically substantiated. Sorry.

Scott Mayfield
General Manager
Chem-Supply Pty Ltd



It is a thermal activated electrochemical cell.

It is also my perception that photovoltaic cells are also an activated electrochemical reaction.

The stored chemical energy is released slowly by the wavelengths that the material absorbs best.

Ever wonder why these cells have a life expectancy of about twenty or so years. In fact, focus the sunrays on them to get more current out and you will

Shorten their life. What does this tell you? I just don't buy the electronic theory behind them that the consumer eats right up.

Let's go back when Bell Labs got their first transistor patent. There were several transistors already patented, as far back as 1933. Moray was actually the first patent application on the transistor in 1931. He was denied the patent because he could not explain how his semiconductor emitted electrons without having a heated cathode.

Anyway, Bell Labs had to make up a theory that would get them a transistor patent so that they could monopolise on prior-art without paying royalties to the rightful inventors.

End of his theory

See also his at article,


Main Links Directory

Subscribe to energy2000
Powered by

Encyclopedia of free energy now on CD click for more information