ST...as Jamis pointed-out, 66% is the maximum 'the

ST...as Jamis pointed-out, 66% is the maximum 'theoretical' conversion efficiency limit for QDSC...just as 33% is said to be the max 'theoretical ' conversion efficiency limit for Si. And just like Si may never reach its fully optimized theoretical maximum conversion potential, QDSC is hindered by the same realized constraints...in theory. Further; it's important to note the words 'theoretical ' and 'conversion efficiency'.....theoretical is just that, 'theory'....'conversion efficiency' is different than "light absorption efficiency" (as you put it). And as I'm sure you're aware of, 'realized' conversion efficiency is different from 'theorized' conversion efficiency. I believe what you call 'light absorption efficiency' is known as 'quantum efficiency' by the researchers...which is a whole separate metric. And if this wasn't enough to thoroughly confuse things, there is talk that 'conversion efficiency-alone' doesn't tell the whole story, that there are 'other factors' that supersede this quotient. In addition, I've seen some QDSC test results that use separate mysterious metrics that I don't understand at all, where 'good' results are listed in the 1.5 to 5% category. But getting back to QE; "Quantum efficiency is a measure of how many electrons come out of a cell for every photon that goes into the cell." I posted a reference for this topic a few years ago here: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg...d=70141263 And for a much more detailed analysis with a lot of facts & figures on QDSC's, checkout this resource from 2015: https://www.intechopen.com/books/solar-cells-...olar-cells In any case, like Puravida said; the latest 13.4% number is a damn good number which could be made marketable...now we're talkin