So it seems that their definition of 100% means 1 excited state per incoming photon, and then they use a material that converts a single high energy excited state produced by one photon into 2 half as energetic excited states...but then they apply the definition that just counts any excited state per incoming photon to juice their numbers.
So more like 65% energy conversion efficiency at best.
Useful idea buried under abject science-writing is that
quantum yields quantify how likely a chain reaction is. It's like r for COVID-19. One usually says "1.3", not "130%"
Quantum yields greater than 1 are possible for photo-induced or radiation-induced chain reactions, in which a single photon may trigger a long chain of transformations
> This method achieved an energy conversion efficiency of about 130%, exceeding the traditional 100% limit
I am extraordinarily confident that it did not.
> In practical terms, this means about 1.3 molybdenum-based metal complexes were activated for every photon absorbed, surpassing the conventional limit and demonstrating that more energy carriers were generated than incoming photons.
... Which is not the same thing as a >100% energy conversion efficiency (which would imply an infinite-energy-generating pump)
So more like 65% energy conversion efficiency at best.
quantum yields quantify how likely a chain reaction is. It's like r for COVID-19. One usually says "1.3", not "130%"
Quantum yields greater than 1 are possible for photo-induced or radiation-induced chain reactions, in which a single photon may trigger a long chain of transformations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_yield#:~:text=Quantum%...
Diagram from the paper showing the initiation of a light-generated "avalanche"
https://xcancel.com/YoichiSasaki1/status/2036808566011789536
I am extraordinarily confident that it did not.
> In practical terms, this means about 1.3 molybdenum-based metal complexes were activated for every photon absorbed, surpassing the conventional limit and demonstrating that more energy carriers were generated than incoming photons.
... Which is not the same thing as a >100% energy conversion efficiency (which would imply an infinite-energy-generating pump)
No it did not. Please find a science correspondent who at least passed high school physics.