Harvesting the electromagnetic energy confined close to a hot body

Philippe Ben-Abdallah; Svend-Age Biehs

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 80 references

Harvesting the electromagnetic energy confined close to a hot body

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A photovoltaic cell placed within a thermal wavelength of a hot body can harvest the evanescent electromagnetic field and, for the hBN/InSb model, convert it to electricity at about 25% efficiency with about $220\,\mathrm{kW\,m^{-2}}$ of…

desk verdict A competent, readable review of near-field TPV whose idealized efficiency numbers are overstated in the conclusion, though the body includes the necessary caveats. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02011 v1 pith:KC4PZNKS submitted 2019-08-06 physics.app-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

Philippe Ben-Abdallah , Svend-Age Biehs This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.app-phcond-mat.mes-hall

keywords near-fieldthermophotovoltaicsevanescentwavesphotontunnelingsurfacephononpolaritonsfluctuationalelectrodynamicsradiativeheattransferthermalradiationenergyharvesting

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper makes the case that a photovoltaic cell placed within a thermal wavelength of a hot surface can harvest not just ordinary thermal radiation but also the evanescent electromagnetic field that exists only near the surface. Because evanescent waves carry far more energy density than vacuum radiation, photon tunneling through a nanoscale vacuum gap can push electric power well above the classical thermophotovoltaic (TPV) value. The central illustration is a hexagonal boron nitride emitter at 1500 K facing an InSb cell at 300 K: at a 100 nm gap the model yields about 25% conversion efficiency and about $220\,\mathrm{kW\,m^{-2}}$ of electric power, roughly an order of magnitude above the far-field value. The paper positions this near-field thermophotovoltaic (NTPV) approach as the route to compact, high-power heat-to-electricity conversion.

What carries the argument

The working machinery is fluctuational electrodynamics cast in a Landauer-like form: the heat flux is the integral over frequency and transverse wavevectors of the thermal photon energy difference times a mode transmission factor $\mathcal{T}_j(\omega,\mathbf{k}_\perp;d)$. The key ingredient is that for transverse wavevectors larger than $k_0=\omega/c$ the modes are evanescent; they add flux channels that do not exist in the far field. When the emitter supports surface-phonon polaritons, these channels concentrate the spectrum near the surface-mode resonance, and at small gaps the flux can exceed the blackbody value by orders of magnitude. The PV cell converts this flux through the number of modes per unit area weighted by the Landauer transmission probability, with the cell's bandgap selecting which frequencies contribute.

What would settle it

Measure the electric power and efficiency of a macroscopic near-field TPV device at a controlled gap around 100 nm, using a low-bandgap cell with measured quantum efficiency and including parasitic absorption and cell-cooling power in the balance; if the net power per area does not exceed a classical TPV device at the same emitter temperature, the central claim is refuted. A cheaper check is to compute the same hBN/InSb system with a realistically absorbing cell rather than 100% quantum efficiency and see whether the 25% efficiency survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the near-field energy density close to a hot body—normally invisible to a distant receiver—can be directly converted into electricity by bringing a low-bandgap photovoltaic cell into the gap region. The excess energy is carried by evanescent modes, which tunnel to the cell and, when the emitter supports surface-phonon polaritons, arrive in a quasi-monochromatic band matched to the cell gap. For the paper's hBN/InSb example at a 100 nm gap, the calculated efficiency is about 25% and the electric power about $220\,\mathrm{kW\,m^{-2}}$, nearly an order of magnitude above the far-field power at the same temperatures. A fair reading is that this near-field technology allows to largely surpass the performances of classical TPV technology.

Load-bearing premise

The headline numbers assume that every photon absorbed by the PV cell produces one electron-hole pair (100% quantum efficiency); realistic cells absorb evanescent waves so close to the surface that much of that energy is lost, dropping the efficiency to about 20% at 10 nm and undermining the 'largely surpass' conclusion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At a 100 nm vacuum gap, the paper's model gives about $220\,\mathrm{kW\,m^{-2}}$ of electric power and about 25% efficiency, so a cell of $25\,\mathrm{cm^2}$ could in principle deliver on the order of $500\,\mathrm{W}$.
Near-field TPV can in principle beat the single-junction thermodynamic efficiency limit when the emitter's surface-mode resonance is tuned to the cell gap.
The main barriers are practical: maintaining a stable nanoscale gap over large areas, keeping spacer heat conduction low, and rejecting the heat the cell cannot convert.
Adding graphene layers or hyperbolic materials is predicted to raise the flux and efficiency further in the extreme near field.
The single experimental NTPV demonstration to date produced $6\,\mathrm{W\,m^{-2}}$ and about 0.02% efficiency at a 60 nm gap, so the theoretical numbers still await a large-area experimental confirmation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The near-field 'efficiency gain' is modest in the paper's own numbers, so the technology's real edge is power density, pointing toward compact high-power heat-to-electricity converters rather than efficiency records.
If evanescent modes deposit their energy within a shallow skin depth at the cell surface, then cell architectures that move absorption deeper—back reflectors, thin absorbing layers, hyperbolic materials—may matter as much as the emitter design.
The mismatch between the hBN surface-phonon resonance (about 5 µm) and the InSb bandgap (about 7.3 µm) implies that tuning the emitter resonance to the cell gap would improve performance, a lever the review mentions only in passing.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

What you should know: this is a review, not a new research contribution. The core formalism (Polder–van Hove / Landauer) and the hBN/InSb example are standard, and the paper makes no new prediction or derivation. But it is a competent, readable survey of near-field thermophotovoltaics, and the illustrative calculation is transparent and consistent with the literature.

What it does well: the paper lays out the basic physics of evanescent energy density, the Landauer form of the radiative flux, and the key experimental milestones (Ottens, Fiorino/Reddy, etc.) with honest commentary on spacer conduction and cell cooling. The section on realistic modeling (Park et al.) is particularly useful because it flags exactly where the idealized theory breaks down.

The soft spots: the concluding claim that NTPV 'largely surpasses' classical TPV rests on Eq. (14), which assumes 100% quantum efficiency. The paper itself cites Park et al. showing that realistic cells drop to about 20% at 10 nm, and the only experiment reports 6 W/m^2 at 0.02% efficiency. So the order-of-magnitude power advantage is a theoretical upper bound, not a demonstrated performance. The paper does mention these limitations, but the abstract and conclusion don't carry the same caveat. That is a real overstatement, though for a review it's a fix that can be made with a few sentences, not a fatal flaw. I would push back on the stronger version of the stress-test: the caveats are present in the text, so it's not a load-bearing contradiction of the paper's own evidence; it's a matter of framing.

Recommendation: worth a serious referee if the venue wants a review. I'd suggest accepting with minor revisions, mainly tempering the conclusion. I'd be comfortable citing this as a review reference.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript reviews near-field thermophotovoltaic (NTPV) energy harvesting. It introduces the local density of states near a hot body, presents the Polder–van Hove fluctuational electrodynamics expression for radiative heat transfer, and illustrates near-field energy density and heat flux for hBN. The central illustrative calculation considers an hBN emitter at 1500 K and an InSb cell at 300 K, reporting an efficiency of about 25% and an electric power of about 220 kW/m^2 at a 100 nm gap, about an order of magnitude above the far-field value. The paper then reviews the state of the art, including realistic device modeling and the only experimental NTPV demonstration, and concludes that near-field technology can largely surpass classical TPV technology.

Significance. If the ideal performance numbers were realistic, the paper would make a strong case for NTPV as a disruptive energy-conversion technology. The strengths of the manuscript are its use of the standard, externally benchmarked fluctuational electrodynamics formalism, its reliance on published material data for hBN and InSb with no fitted free parameters, and its comprehensive and mostly honest review of experimental near-field heat-transfer milestones and device challenges. However, the headline conclusion rests on an idealized 100% quantum-efficiency assumption that the paper itself later contradicts with cited realistic modeling. The central claim is therefore not supported as stated, though it can likely be repaired by a caveated conclusion and a realistic-loss estimate.

major comments (3)

[Section IV, Eq. (14)] The electric power P_PV is computed under the explicit assumption of 100% quantum efficiency, and this calculation produces the paper's headline numbers of 25% efficiency and 220 kW/m^2 at d=100 nm. Section V immediately reviews Park et al., who find for a comparable near-field cell an efficiency of about 20% at d=10 nm, and lists further loss channels: sub-bandgap parasitic absorption, series resistance, photon recycling, and cell cooling. Since a 100%-QE cell is not a realistic benchmark, the claim that the near-field power 'is almost an order of magnitude larger than in far-field' is not established for a real device. The authors should either repeat the illustrative calculation with a realistic external quantum efficiency for InSb, or explicitly present the Section IV numbers as an upper bound and adjust the abstract and conclusion accordingly.
[Section VI, Concluding remarks] The statement that this near-field technology 'allows to largely surpass the performances of the classical TPV technology' is difficult to reconcile with the state of the art described in Section V. The only NTPV experiment (Fiorino et al.) produced about 6 W/m^2 at roughly 0.02% efficiency, and the more realistic theoretical model of Park et al. gives about 20% efficiency at 10 nm. The comparison with classical TPV is not defined: the baseline should be a specified far-field TPV system with the same cell temperature, loss mechanisms, and system-level parasitic loads. As written, the conclusion overstates what the evidence in the paper supports.
[Section IV, efficiency definition] The efficiency η = P_PV/P_rad is a radiative-conversion efficiency computed with P_rad as the net radiative transfer across the vacuum gap. It does not include the power consumed by cell cooling, the parasitic heat conduction through spacers that Section III discusses, or electrical losses in the cell (series resistance, fill factor). These omissions are acknowledged qualitatively in Section VI, but the 25% figure is then used without qualification in the conclusion. The manuscript should state explicitly that η is an upper-bound radiative efficiency, not a system efficiency, so that it is not compared with system-level performances of classical TPV.

minor comments (6)

[Section IV, Eq. (11)] Equation (11) is typeset ambiguously: the expression 'ni = α0c 2ω' does not clearly show whether the prefactor is α0 c/(2ω) or α0 c^2 ω; please correct the display and define α0.
[Figure 2 caption] The vertical axis label 'uth' should be 'u_ω' to match the notation in Eq. (4).
[Throughout] Please correct typographical errors: 'dominat' (Section II), 'devided' (Section III), 'saphire' (Figure 4 caption), 'achieavable' (Section V), and 'pioner' and 'emiter' (Section V).
[Reference [13]] Reference [13] is dated '3003'; this should be '2003'.
[Section IV, Eq. (12)] The Heaviside factor H(ω − ω_g) multiplies only the back-emission term, which is physically reasonable because the cell absorbs/emits only above the band gap, but the placement is easy to misread; clarify the range of integration for each term.
[Section IV, Fig. 5] Since Figure 5 presents an original illustrative calculation, the manuscript should state the numerical integration parameters (frequency and wave-vector ranges, number of quadrature points, and convergence checks) or provide a reproducibility appendix.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central calculation is conditional on an explicitly stated 100% quantum-efficiency assumption, and the underlying fluctuational-electrodynamics formalism and material data come from external benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper is a review with one illustrative near-field thermophotovoltaic calculation. The derivation chain is not circular. The heat-flux expression in Eq. (6) is the Polder-van Hove fluctuational-electrodynamics result, originally external (Ref. [5]), and the Landauer-like form attributed to Refs. [33,34] is a published, parameter-free rearrangement rather than a conclusion whose premises include the paper's target numbers. Material properties entering the calculation come from Palik (Ref. [14]) and Forouhi-Bloomer (Ref. [59]), i.e. external tabulated optical constants. The electric-power formula in Eq. (14) explicitly states 'assuming a quantum efficiency of 100%'; the reported 220 kW/m^2 and 25% efficiency are therefore conditional idealizations, not fitted parameters renamed as predictions. The paper itself, in Section V, cites Park et al. (Ref. [63]) to show that realistic modeling lowers the efficiency to about 20% at 10 nm, and the concluding remarks acknowledge that cooling and other losses further reduce performance. That tension weakens the strength of the concluding claim, but it is a correctness or overstatement concern, not a circular-reasoning concern. No parameter is fitted to the target output, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work to force a choice, and no known result is merely renamed. The self-citations that occur (Refs. [33,34,61]) are not load-bearing in a circular sense: they point to independently published derivations and model choices, not to an unverified private loop. Hence no circular step is present and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters that are fitted to data. Material constants (hBN Drude-Lorentz parameters, InSb gap) are taken from external references. The main assumptions are the validity of fluctuational electrodynamics and the idealized PV cell model, both of which are standard or clearly stated. No new entities are postulated.

assumptions (4)

standard math Fluctuational electrodynamics (Rytov formalism) provides the thermal emission and heat transfer between bodies.
The paper's entire theoretical framework, including Eq. (6) for heat flux, is based on the fluctuational electrodynamics of Rytov and Polder-van Hove, cited as Ref. [31] and Ref. [5]. This is standard physics assumed without proof.
standard math The local density of states formulation for the near-field energy density, Eq. (4), is valid.
The generalized Planck law u_omega = Theta(T) D_loc(omega) is cited from Refs. [9-13] and used to discuss the energy density near hBN. This is an established result in fluctuational electrodynamics.
domain assumption The photovoltaic cell operates with 100% quantum efficiency above the band gap, and the simplified cell model of Eq. (9)-(11) captures the dielectric response.
Eq. (14) states the power calculation 'assuming a quantum efficiency of 100%'. The dielectric function from Forouhi-Bloomer (Ref. [59]) is adopted without validation against measured cell response, and the paper itself notes realistic models reduce efficiency.
domain assumption The cell operating voltage is set to V0 = hbar * omega_g * (1 - Tr/Te) / e, following Ref. [61].
This choice, introduced in Section IV, fixes the operating point of the cell and directly affects the back-radiation term in Eq. (12) and the electric power in Eq. (14). It is not derived within this paper and is taken from a prior publication.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Harvesting the electromagnetic energy confined close to a hot body." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KC4PZNKS

@misc{pith2026190802011,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Harvesting the electromagnetic energy confined close to a hot body},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KC4PZNKS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02011}
}

read the original abstract

In the close vicinity of a hot body, at distances smaller than the thermal wavelength, a high electromagnetic energy density exists due to the presence of evanescent fields radiated by the partial charges in motion around its surface. This energy density can surpass the energy density in vacuum by several orders of magnitude. By approaching a PV cell with a band gap in the infrared frequency range this non-radiative energy can be transferred to it by photon tunneling and surface mode coupling. Here we review the basic ideas and recent progress in near-field energy harvesting.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02011 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Semi-log plot of the spectral energy density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Sketch of the emitter and receiver separated by a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Near-field heat flux Φ between two hBN halfs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: (a) Radiative power exchanged between a hBN thermal source at Te = 1500 K and a InSb junction at Ts = 300 K and electric power generated in this system with respect to the separation distance. (b) Efficiency of produced electricity in a hBN/InSb TPV conversion system w…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

[1]

Coutts, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review 3, 77-184 (1999)

T.J. Coutts, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review 3, 77-184 (1999)

work page 1999
[2]

Lenert, D.M

A. Lenert, D.M. Bierman, Y. Nam, W.R. Chan, I. Celanovic, M. Soljacic, and E.N. Wang, Nat. Nanotech- nol. 9, 126 (2014)

work page 2014
[3]

Shockley and H

W. Shockley and H. Queisser, J. Appl. Phys. 32, 510 (1961)

work page 1961
[4]

Laroche, R

M. Laroche, R. Carminati, J.-J. Greﬀet, J. Appl. Phys. 100, 063704 (2006)

work page 2006
[5]

Polder and M

D. Polder and M. van Hove, Phys. Rev. B 4, 3303 (1971)

work page 1971
[6]

Planck, The theory of heat radiation, (Forgotten Books, Leipzig, 2010)

M. Planck, The theory of heat radiation, (Forgotten Books, Leipzig, 2010)

work page 2010
[7]

O. Ilic, M. Jablan, J. D. Joannopoulos, I. Celanovic, M. Soljacic, Opt. Expr. 20, A366 (2012)

work page 2012
[8]

Energy Information Administration, Househod Electric- ity Reports (2005)

work page 2005

Show all 80 references

[9]

Agarwal, Phys

G.S. Agarwal, Phys. Rev A 11, 253 (1975)

1975
[10]

Eckhardt, Z

W. Eckhardt, Z. Phys. B 46, 85 (1982)

1982
[11]

I. A. Dorofeyev and E. A. Vinogradov, Phys. Rep. 504, 75 (2011)

2011
[12]

A. V. Shchegrov, K. Joulain, R. Carminati, and J.-J. Greﬀet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1548 (2000)

2000
[13]

Joulain and R

K. Joulain and R. Carminati and J.-P. Mulet and J.-J. Greﬀet, Phys. Rev. B 68, 245405 (3003)
[14]

Palik (Academic, New York, 1998)

Handbook of Optical Constants of Solids, edited by E. Palik (Academic, New York, 1998)

1998
[15]

Formanek, R

Y De Wilde, F. Formanek, R. Carminati, B. Gralak, P.- A. Lemoine,; K. Joulain, J.-P. Mulet, Y. Chen, and J.-J. Greﬀet, Nature 444, 740 (2006)

2006
[16]

Babuty, K

A. Babuty, K. Joulain, P.-O. Chapuis, J.-J. Greﬀet, Y. D. Wilde, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 146103 (2013)

2013
[17]

Kittel, U

A. Kittel, U. Wischnath, J. Welker, O. Huth, F. R¨ uting, and S.-A. Biehs, Appl. Phys. Lett. 93, 193109 (2008)

2008
[18]

F. Huth, M. Schnell, J. Wittborn, N. Ocelic, and R. Hil- lenbrand, Nat. Mat. 10, 352 (2011)

2011
[19]

A. C. Jones and M. B. Raschke, Nano Lett. 12, 1475 (2012)

2012
[20]

Q. Weng, S. Komiyama, L. Yang, Z. An, P. Chen, S.-A. Biehs, Y. Kajihara, W. Lu, Science 360, 775 (2018)

2018
[21]

Komiyama, J

S. Komiyama, J. Appl. Phys. 125, 010901 (2019)

2019
[22]

Ben-Abdallah, K Joulain, J

P. Ben-Abdallah, K Joulain, J. Drevillon and G. Domingues, Appl. Phys. Lett. 94, 15,153117 (2009)

2009
[23]

Messina, J.-P

R. Messina, J.-P. Hugonin, J.-J. Greﬀet, F. Marquier, Y. De Wilde, A. Belarouci, L. Frechette, Y. Cordier and P. Ben-Abdallah, Phys. Rev. B 87, 085421 (2013)

2013
[24]

E. G. Cravalho and C. L. Tien and R. P. Caren, J. Heat Transf. 89, 351 (1967)

1967
[25]

G. A. Domoto and C. L. Tien, J. Heat Transf. 92, 399 (1970)

1970
[26]

R. F. Boehm and C. L. Tien, J. Heat Transf. 92, 405 (1970)

1970
[27]

R. S. DiMatteo, Masters thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (June 1996)

1996
[28]

M. D. Whale, Masters thesis, Massachusetts Institute of 6 Technology (June 1996)

1996
[29]

Pan, Opt

J. Pan, Opt. Lett. 25, 369 (2000)

2000
[30]

Whale and E

M.D. Whale and E. G. Cravalho, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 17, 130 (2002)

2002
[31]

S. M. Rytov, Y. A. Kravtsov, and V. I. Tatarskii, Principles of Statistical Radiophysics, Vol. 3 (Springer, New York, 1989)

1989
[32]

R. S. DiMatteo, P. Greiﬀ, S. L. Finberg, K. A. Young- Waithe, H. K. Choy, M. M. Masaki, and C. G. Fonstad, Appl. Phys. Lett. 79, 1894 (2001)

2001
[33]

Ben-Abdallah and K

P. Ben-Abdallah and K. Joulain, Phys. Rev. B(R) 82, 121419 (2010)

2010
[34]

Biehs, E

S.-A. Biehs, E. Rousseau, and J.-J. Greﬀet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 234301 (2010)

2010
[35]

Biehs, P

S.-A. Biehs, P. Ben-Abdallah, and F. S. S. Rosa, Nanoscale Radiative Heat Transfer and Its Applications, Infrared Radiation, Vasyl Morozhenko (Ed.), ISBN: 978- 953-51-0060-7, InTech (2012)

2012
[36]

Volokitin and B.N.J

A.I. Volokitin and B.N.J. Persson, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 1291 (2007)

2007
[37]

Pendry, J

J. Pendry, J. Phys. 11, 6621 (1999)

1999
[38]

O. D. Miller, S. G. Johnson, and A. W. Rodriguez, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 204302 (2015)

2015
[39]

H. Shim, L. Fan, S. G. Johnson, and O. D. Miller, Phys. Rev. X 9, 011043 (2019)

2019
[40]

W. Jin, R. Messina, A. W. Rodriguez, Opt. Exp. 25, 14746 (2017)

2017
[41]

E. G. Cravalho, G. A. Domoto, C. L. Tien, Progr. Aeron. Astro. 21, 531 (1968)

1968
[42]

C.M Hargreaves, Phys. Lett. A 30, 491 (1969)

1969
[43]

G. A. Domoto and R. F. Boehm and C. L. Tien, J. Heat Transf. 92, 412 (1970)

1970
[44]

Ottens, V

R. Ottens, V. Quetschke, S. Wise, A. Alemi, R. Lundock, G. Mueller, D. H. Reitze, D. B. Tanner, B. F. Whiting, preprint arXiv:1103.2389 (2011)

2011 arXiv
[45]

L. Hu, A. Narayanaswamy, X. Chen, and G. Chen, Appl. Phys. Lett. 92, 133106 (2008)

2008
[46]

Kralik and P

T. Kralik and P. Hanzelka and M. Zobac and V. Musilova and T. Fort and M. Horak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 224302 (2012)

2012
[47]

St-Gelais, B

R. St-Gelais, B. Guha, L. Zhu, S. Fan, and M. Lipson, Nano Lett. 14, 6971 (2014)

2014
[48]

B. Song, Y. Ganjeh, S. Sadat, D. Thompson, A. Fiorino, V. Fern´ andez-Hurtado, J. Feist, F. J. Garcia-Vidal, J. C. Cuevas, P. Reddy, E. Meyhofer, Nat. Nanotech. 10, 253 (2015)

2015
[49]

M. Lim, S. S. Lee, and B. J. Lee, Phys. Rev. B91, 195136 (2015)

2015
[50]

K. Ito, A. Miura, H. Iizuka, and H. Tosiyoshi, Appl. Phys. Lett. 106, 083504 (2015)

2015
[51]

J. I. Watjen, B. Zhao, Z. M. Zhang, Appl. Phys. Lett. 109, 203112 (2016)

2016
[52]

B. Song, D. Thompson, A. Fiorino, Y. Ganjeh, P. Reddy, E. Meyhofer, Nat. Nanotech. 11, 509 (2016)

2016
[53]

M. P. Bernardi, D. Milovich & M. Francoeur, Nat. Comm. 7, 12900 (2016)

2016
[54]

S. Lang, G. Sharma, S. Molesky, P. U. Kr¨ anzien, T. Jalas, Z. Jacob, A. Yu. Petrov, and M. Eich, Sci. Rep. 7, 13916 (2017)

2017
[55]

Ghashami, H

M. Ghashami, H. Geng, T. Kim, N. Iacopino, S. K. Cho, and K. Park, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 175901 (2018)

2018
[56]

M. Lim, J. Song, S. S. Lee, B. J. Lee, Nat. Comm. 9, 4302 (2018)

2018
[57]

Fiorino, D

A. Fiorino, D. Thompson, L. Zhu, B. Song, P. Reddy, and E. Meyhofer, Nano Lett. 18, 3711 (2018)

2018
[58]

Narayanaswamy and G

A. Narayanaswamy and G. Chen, Appl.Phys. Lett. 82, 3544 (2003)

2003
[59]

A. R. Forouhi and I. Bloomer, Phys. Rev. B 38, 1865 (1988)

1988
[60]

Bernardi, O

M.P. Bernardi, O. Dupr´ e, E. Blandre, P.-O. Chapuis, R. Vaillon, and M. Francoeur, Sci. Rep. 5, 11626 (2015)

2015
[61]

Messina and P

R. Messina and P. Ben-Abdallah, Sci. Rep. 3, 1383 (2012)

2012
[62]

Svetovoy and G

- V.B. Svetovoy and G. Palasantzas, Phys. Rev. Applied 2, 034006 (2014)

2014
[63]

K. Park, S. Basu, W. P. King, and Z. M. Zhang, JQSRT 109, 305 (2008)

2008
[64]

Basu and Z

S. Basu and Z. M. Zhang, Appl. Phys. Lett. 95, 133104 (2009)

2009
[65]

S. Basu, Z. M. Zhang, C. J. Fu, Int. J. En. Res. 33, 1203 (2009)

2009
[66]

K. Chen, P. Santhanam, and S. Fan, Apl. Phys. Lett. 107, 091106 (2015)

2015
[67]

Blandre, P.-O

E. Blandre, P.-O. Chapuis, and R. Vaillon, Sci. Rep. 7, 15860 (2017)

2017
[68]

DeSutter, R

J. DeSutter, R. Vaillon, and M. Francoeur, Phys. Rev. Applied 8, 014030 (2017)

2017
[69]

Vaillon, J.-P

R. Vaillon, J.-P. Perez, C. Lucchesi, D. Cakiroglu, P.- O. Chapuis, T. Taliercio, and E. Tournie, Opt. Exp. 27, 347515 (2019)

2019
[70]

M. S. Mirmoosa and C. R. Simovski, Phot. Nanostruct. Fundam. Appl. 13, 20 (2015)

2015
[71]

I. S. Nefedov and C. Simovski, Phys. Rev. B 84, 195459 (2011)

2011
[72]

C. R. Simovski, S. Maslovski, I. Nefedov, and S. Tretyakov, Opt. Exp. 21, 14988 (2013)

2013
[73]

M. S. Mirmoosa, S.-A. Biehs, and C. R. Simovski, Phys. Rev. Appl. 8, 054020 (2017)

2017
[74]

Biehs, M

S.-A. Biehs, M. Tschikin, and P. Ben-Abdallah, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 104301 (2012)

2012
[75]

Biehs, S

S.-A. Biehs, S. Lang, A. Yu. Petrov, M. Eich, and P. Ben-Abdallah, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 174301 (2015)

2015
[76]

Liu and S

B. Liu and S. Shen, Phys. Rev. B 87, 115403 (2013)

2013
[77]

S. Jin, M. Lim, S. S. Lee, and B. J. Lee, Opt. Exp. 24, A635 (2016)

2016
[78]

S. Lang, M. Tschikin, S.-A. Biehs, A. Yu. Petrov, and M. Eich, Appl. Phys. Lett. 104, 121903 (2014)

2014
[79]

Tschikin, S.-A

M. Tschikin, S.-A. Biehs, P. Ben-Abdallah, S. Lang, A. Yu. Petrov, and M. Eich, JQSRT 158, 17 (2015)

2015
[80]

Fiorino, L

A. Fiorino, L. Zhu, D. Thompson, R. Mittapally, P. Reddy, and E. Meyhofer, Nat. Nanotechn. 13, 806 (2018). 7

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Coutts, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review 3, 77-184 (1999)

T.J. Coutts, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review 3, 77-184 (1999)

work page 1999

[2] [2]

Lenert, D.M

A. Lenert, D.M. Bierman, Y. Nam, W.R. Chan, I. Celanovic, M. Soljacic, and E.N. Wang, Nat. Nanotech- nol. 9, 126 (2014)

work page 2014

[3] [3]

Shockley and H

W. Shockley and H. Queisser, J. Appl. Phys. 32, 510 (1961)

work page 1961

[4] [4]

Laroche, R

M. Laroche, R. Carminati, J.-J. Greﬀet, J. Appl. Phys. 100, 063704 (2006)

work page 2006

[5] [5]

Polder and M

D. Polder and M. van Hove, Phys. Rev. B 4, 3303 (1971)

work page 1971

[6] [6]

Planck, The theory of heat radiation, (Forgotten Books, Leipzig, 2010)

M. Planck, The theory of heat radiation, (Forgotten Books, Leipzig, 2010)

work page 2010

[7] [7]

O. Ilic, M. Jablan, J. D. Joannopoulos, I. Celanovic, M. Soljacic, Opt. Expr. 20, A366 (2012)

work page 2012

[8] [8]

Energy Information Administration, Househod Electric- ity Reports (2005)

work page 2005