## 4 Results and Discussion
### Without Compressing
Therefore, the results obtained in the present study are of great value. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Ni**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**MF**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Oleic Acid**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**TiO: 2 g**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**NR-Latex**} & & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{**Visible Light**} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{**Ultraviolet Light**} \\ \cline{5-8}  & & & & & & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{**Voltage**} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{**Current**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Voltage**} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{**[mV]**} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{**[mV]**} \\  & & & & & & & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{**[mV]**} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{**[μA/cm\({}^{2}\)]**} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{**[μA/cm\({}^{2}\)]**} \\ \hline  & & & & & 6.31 & 0.000 & 13.0 & 0.000 \\ \hline  & & & & & 109 & 0.100 & 120 & 0.017 \\ \hline  & & & & & 103 & 0.138 & 157 & 0.759 \\ \hline  & & & & 127 & 0.080 & 179 & 0.320 \\ \hline  & & & & 109 & 0.317 & 200 & 1.18 \\ \hline  & & & & 0 & 136 & 0.594 & 268 & 2.25 \\ \hline  & & & & 78.1 & 0.125 & 166 & 0.438 \\ \hline  & & & & 98.8 & 0.173 & 198 & 0.317 \\ \hline  & & & & 0 & 0 & 105 & 0.691 & 215 & 3.30 \\ \hline  & & & & 78.7 & 0.133 & 140 & 0.333 \\ \hline  & & & & 122 & 0.162 & 236 & 0.541 \\ \hline  & & & & 150 & 0.799 & 276 & 5.10 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Photoelectricity by visible and ultraviolet lights for each components of Figure 3. The MCF rubber solar cell was made of types (A) and (B), without MK2 and KI + I\({}_{2}\). Each specimen denotes circle (\(\Circuit\)) and slash (/): the former indicated the use of the corresponding component, while the latter indicated no use. Figure 4: Current-potential curves of the MCF rubber solar cell of types (A) and (B) (these types denote in Section 2) without MK2 and KI + I\({}_{2}\) by turning ultraviolet light on, for each of the components of Figure 3: (**a**) for cases of NR-latex, NR-latex with oleic acid, NR-latex with MF; (**b**) for cases of NR-latex with Ni and MF, NR-latex with Ni, MF and TiO\({}_{2}\). “elec.”, electrolytic polymerization; “mag.”, with magnetic field at electrolytic polymerization; “no-”, without one. Each color indicates a component of types of (A) and (B) of the MCF rubber solar cell without MK2 and KI + I\({}_{2}\). On the other hand, as seen from all the results of the different components, the swelling of the curves was noticeable. It indicates that there was more photoinduced oxidation and reduction, which was previously denoted in Section 2. As a similar tendency can be seen with photocatalyst TiO\({}_{2}\)[24], the reaction previously denoted in Section 2 is validated. Next, Figure 5 shows the changes in voltage and electric current density when visible and ultraviolet light were turned on and off, designated by colored arrows in the figure for type (C) with MK2 and KI + I\({}_{2}\). By doping with the dye sensitizer MK2, the photoelectricity was generated naturally. The operation of TiO\({}_{2}\), dye, and iodide/tridoide (I\({}^{-}\)/I\({}_{3}\)\({}^{-}\)) was the same as in an ordinary solid-state dye-sensitized solar cell [10; 11]. There were no major differences in the photovoltaic effect in cases of both \"once polymerization\" and \"twice polymerization\". Finally, we compare photovoltaic characteristics between commercial solar cell and the MCF rubber solar cell. Ordinary solar cells are generally categorized three types: silicon, compound, and organic. The commercial silicon solar cell has mA-ordered photocurrent, however, organic thin film solar cell, which involves well-known perovskite-type solar cell [10] and dye-sensitized solar cell [11; 12], such as Gratzel-type solar cell [13], has scores of \(\mu\)A ordered photocurrent. Dry-type MCF rubber solar cell has \(\mu\)A-ordered photocurrent, in contrast, wet-type MCF rubber solar cell that was shown in the consecutive second report had scores of \(\mu\)A ordered photocurrent, which was the same ordered photocurrent of the ordinary organic thin film solar cell.