That gives Cincy a TE rather than a slot receiver removing the man in man-to-man coverage. Here’s the first tunnel screen against Michigan last week and you can watch the tight end motion across and make the key block on the CB (Long) in man coverage on the screen target (Michigan’s in straight-up Cover 1, with Hudson following the TE across rather than switching with Kinnel). He’d rather David Long wind up the Viper: Even on the 7th time they see this, Don Brown is not going to give any quarter inside to win a DT spy. Michigan for its part refused to back off the pass rushers, or to change up their simple man assignments for this game. Like Maryland last year, Cincinnati came into this game with a plan to negate their offensive linemen and trust their athletes in space. I’ve listed them by increasing order of weirdness: 1. However in this game Cincy was doing some odd stuff with it. It’s mostly a counter versus an aggressive man defense because you’re punishing linemen from running upfield so far you can squeeze a ballcarrier and his convoy behind them. Typically covered linemen will seek to delay an insta-pass rush while uncovered OL release to cut off the second level. Did Fickell find a hole in Don Brown’s attack? Was it a certain player? Was Cincy just good at that?Ĭoincidentally I got this from Kyle Jones of 11W’s Cincinnati preview in 2014Ī tunnel screen is kind of the reverse of a bubble: you block outside-in with a slot guy and bring your receiver inside-out. This is not a new problem Maryland got 103 yards on four of them last year.
There was only one play that Michigan didn’t seem to have an answer for, despite Cincy running it SEVEN times: The tunnel screens.
#Screen tunnel full
Corresponding full device integration is currently ongoing.Re-watching Saturday’s game the damage didn’t look so bad-take away Cincy’s illegal picks and we’re down to quibbles about McCray’s position and Kinnel finally taking a bad angle that one time. Using realistic input parameters measured on test samples, we demonstrate by computer simulation that the proposed TOPCon tunnel-IBC cells favour IBC geometry with small pitches up to the technological limit. Finally, we demonstrate that both the electron-selective and hole-selective regions can be contacted by conventional high-temperature fire-through screen printing, hence being compatible with industrial solar cell processing. We also establish the required laser patterning and damage-removal processes. As a critical building block, we develop a working poly-Si(n +)/(SiO x)/poly-Si(p +)/SiO x tunnel junction with implied open-circuit voltage of 727 mV and a tunnel resistivity of 0.52 Ω cm 2. The cell architecture is realized by sequential laser patterning steps and hence no shadow masks are needed. By adopting a local poly-Si(n +)/poly-Si(p +)/SiO x tunnel junction, this cell architecture only requires full-area deposition of various thin-film layers and is compatible with conventional fire-through screen printing. In this work, we present a novel TOPCon tunnel-IBC solar cell architecture, minimizing the complexity of patterning and alignment. However, they usually require processes that are not amenable for industrial mass production and involve great process complexity associated with patterning and alignment.
Interdigitated back contact (IBC) solar cells featuring passivated contacts are promising candidates to achieve record-efficiency single-junction silicon-based solar cells.
0 kommentar(er)
