Transparent Solar Panels

As we all know that solar cells are used to convert sun light into electricity. It is generally made of silicon. But the researchers of MIT has invented solar cell which is transparent! Yes, it is transparent and still it can make electricity from sun light.

It is very thin and transparent and it can be applied to the widows of buildings, surface of buildings and in many more applications you could imagine. You would be more surprised to know that this can be available at very low cost than traditional solar panels.

Researcher Richard Lunt with a prototype.
Photo: Geoffrey Supran

It uses a photovoltaic cell based on organic molecules, which harnesses the energy of infrared light while allowing visible light to pass through. This way it generates power while being transparent.



The previous version of transparent solar cells failed because of their low efficiency and their low transparency. But the researcher at MIT(Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Richard Lunt said that this invention has relatively more efficiency and transparency than previous version of transparent solar cell.

However there are many difficulties to face for this invention to be commercially successful. The researchers are trying to make its lifetime upto minimum 25 years.

The efficiency of transparent solar cells is 20% of the traditional solar cells. But still it can be used where the traditional solar cells can’t be used. It can be used in huge sky scrapers where they have very large surface area. Thus it can generate a good amount of energy needed for sky scrapers.

The installation process of this is very easy as an average person can install it on his own. However for commercial success, the windows manufacturers are aiming to ensemble transparent solar cells into windows during manufacturing process.

Prototype of transparent solar cells can be seen on top of the banner at
150th anniversary of MIT.
Photo: Geoffrey Supran.

What Is SOPA & PIPA ?

A Guide to Understanding the Online Piracy Bill

If a day without Wikipedia was a bother, think bigger. In this plugged-in world, we would barely be able to cope if the entire Internet went down in a city, state or country for a day or a week.

Sure, we’d survive. People have done it. Countries have, as Egypt did last year during the anti-government protests. And most of civilization went along until the 1990s without the Internet.

But now we’re so intertwined socially, financially and industrially that suddenly going back to the 1980s would hit the world as hard as a natural disaster, experts say.

No email, Twitter or Facebook. No buying online. No stock trades. No just-in-time industrial shipping. No real-time tracking of diseases.

Q: What is the purpose of the bill?

A: There are actually two bills, the Stop Online Piracy Act, known as SOPA, in the House and sister legislation called the Protect IP [Intellectual Property] Act, or PIPA, in the Senate. Both are designed to tackle the problem of foreign-based websites that sell pirated movies, music and other products.

Federal law enforcement has the authority to shut down U.S.-based websites that offer pirated content, but they can't directly do the same to foreign sites like Pirate Bay. The Motion Picture Association of America, the legislation's main backer, estimates 13% of American adults have watched illegal copies of movies or TV shows online, and it says the practice has cost media companies billions of dollars.

Q: How do the bills attempt to stop piracy?

A: The basic method is to stop U.S. companies from providing funding, advertising, links or other assistance to the foreign sites. The bills would give Justice Department prosecutors new powers to prevent pirate sites from getting U.S. visitors and funding.

Q: What are the new powers?

A: The Justice Department could seek a court order requiring U.S. Internet providers to block access to foreign pirate websites. Access could be blocked either by making it impossible for users to type a simple web address into an Internet browser to reach the site or by requiring search engines like Google to disable links to the sites.

The attorney general could also seek a court order requiring credit-card processors to stop processing payments to the sites and requiring advertising networks to stop placing ads on the sites or taking ads from the pirated websites for display elsewhere.

In addition, both bills would allow Hollywood studios and other content owners to take private legal action against websites that are alleged to be hosting pirated material.

The legislation would allow content owners to ask a court to require credit-card companies and advertising networks to stop payments to sites allegedly hosting pirated material.

Q: How does this harm free speech? A Wikipedia official said the legislation could allow for "censorship without due process."

A: Opponents of the legislation worry that the language in the House bill is so broad that it would allow content owners to target U.S. websites that aren't knowingly hosting pirated content. This has been a particular concern of bill opponents Facebook, Wikipedia and Twitter, all of which have sites that depend heavily on content uploaded by users.

In an extreme case, opponents say, media companies could get a court order blocking payments to an innocent site, with the effect of shutting it down and stripping it of its rights to free speech.

Also, they say the legislation would encourage authoritarian countries that have already been trying to block content on the Internet they don't like.

Q: What about the charge that the legislation could undermine cybersecurity efforts?

A: One of the biggest issues for Google, eBay and other Internet companies is a provision that in some instances would require "DNS blocking." The domain-name system, or DNS, is an integral part of the Internet, ensuring traffic goes where it's supposed to when users type in a Web address like www.wsj.com or www.whitehouse.gov. Those addresses are converted into the series of numbers that make up a site's Internet protocol address.

The original legislation would have required Internet providers to redirect traffic away from pirate websites by blocking the conversion system.

The problem, according to cybersecurity experts, is that such redirection is also sometimes used by hackers to deceive Internet users and commit cybercrimes.

On Saturday, the White House issued a warning that it couldn't support the legislation if it included DNS blocking because of the possible impact on cybersecurity efforts.

This issue may be resolved. Last week, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R., Texas) said he would eliminate the DNS blocking provision from the House's SOPA legislation. In addition, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) said he would propose changing the Senate legislation to require more study of the cybersecurity concerns before implementing DNS blocking.

Q: What's the difference between SOPA and PIPA?

A: The bills are very similar. One major difference is that the House bill includes a provision making it illegal to stream unauthorized copyrighted content.

The provision has been called the "Free Bieber" provision by the legislation's opponents in honor of teen singer Justin Bieber, who became famous after posting videos of himself performing other singers' songs on YouTube.

Q: What would have to happen for the bills to become law?

A: The House's SOPA legislation is awaiting consideration by the House Judiciary Committee, which tried unsuccessfully to complete its review of the bill in December. That effort was derailed after a bipartisan group of House members, including Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), filed dozens of amendments and used stalling tactics to prevent the bill from being considered before Congress left for the holidays. The bill's main sponsor, Rep. Smith, said Tuesday he plans to reschedule the hearing in February.

The Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously passed the PIPA legislation in May, but it has been awaiting floor action ever since. Forty senators are co-sponsoring the bill. However one opponent, Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.), has vowed to filibuster the bill if Senate leaders try to move forward. On Jan. 13, six Republican senators sent Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid a letter asking him to delay floor action until concerns are resolved. However, a procedural vote is still scheduled in the Senate for Jan. 24.

In short, the legislation has several hurdles in both houses of Congress. If both houses pass the bill, President Barack Obama would have to make the choice: To sign or to veto. The White House on Tuesday reiterated that it has concerns about the legislation but agrees with proponents that more needs to be done to stop piracy.

What Are Magnet Links ?

Soon, popular torrent site The Pirate Bay will no longer host torrent files. Instead, it will only offer magnet links. Magnet what now?You may have seen the term "magnet link" before, but if you haven't used one, here's the lowdown on what this change means for you as a BitTorrent user.

How Magnet Links Are Different From .Torrent Files

When you download a .torrent file, you're essentially downloading a small file that contains information on the larger files you want to download. The torrent file tells your torrent client the names of the files being shared, a URL for the tracker, and more. Your torrent client then calculates a hash code, which is a unique code that only that torrent has—kind of like an ISBN or catalog number. From there, it can use that code to find others uploading those files, so you can download from them.

A magnet link does away with the middleman. A magnet link is essentially a hyperlink containing the hash code for that torrent, which your torrent client can immediately use to start finding people sharing those files. Magnet links don't require a tracker (since it uses DHT), nor does it require you to download a separate file before starting the download, which is convenient.

How to Use Magnet Links

Magnet links are dead simple to use. If you head to the Pirate Bay now, you'll notice that magnet links are now the default, with the "Get Torrent File" link in parentheses next to it (a link which will disappear in a month or so). Just click on the magnet link, and your browser should automatically open up your default BitTorrent client and start downloading. It's that easy.

What This Ultimately Means for You

The short answer is nothing. In fact, it could mean that downloading torrents takes one or two fewer clicks, since all you have to do is click on the link to start the download. When magnet links first came out, not all torrent clients supported them, but now you can use magnet links with just about any semi-popular torrent client out there—including our favorites uTorrent, Transmission, and Deluge, among others, so you shouldn't notice a problem with that.

The main reason torrent sites are moving toward magnet links—apart from convenience to the user—is that these links (probably) free torrent sites like The Pirate Bay from legal trouble. Since The Pirate Bay won't be hosting files that link to copyrighted content—that is, the torrent files—it's more difficult to claim the site is directly enabling the downloading of copyrighted material. Whether this semantic leap actually protects torrent sites remains to be seen, but for now, you can sleep soundly knowing that the sites will stick around for awhile longer and that your torrents will take one less click to get started. Of course, if you're using a public site like The Pirate Bay, we highly recommend you set up a proxy and encryption service like BTGuard to protect your downloading from prying eyes. If you want to read more about magnet links, check out the Wikipedia page on the subject.