Duplicating MIT's artificial photosynthesis breakthrough

[Flark]

Could this be duplicated by anyone with basic electronics knowledge
and the right metals?

From the article:

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and
it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to
work. It's so easy to implement," he said.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

 

[Sevenhundred Elves]

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 06:45:35 -0500, "Jon Slaughter"
<Jon_Slaughter@Hotmail.com> wrote:

"Flark" <flarkino@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:50bf58e6-8c66-463a-b849-e814529616bd@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Could this be duplicated by anyone with basic electronics knowledge
and the right metals?

From the article:

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and
it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to
work. It's so easy to implement," he said.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

Get some salt water and put an electrical current generated by your solar
cells. Capture the O2 and H then use at night by burning the hydrogen in
oxygen to run your steam engine.

The article in the URL given is no good. The author is one of those
journalists who think *everything* is _amazing_. I found a slightly
better description of Dr. Nocera's catalyst here:

http://www.forbes.com/energy/2008/07/30/nocera-solar-power-biz-energy-cz_jf_0731solar.html

S.

 

[Martin Brown]

Flark wrote:

Could this be duplicated by anyone with basic electronics knowledge
and the right metals?

Not only that but it could be "duplicated" by the original discoverers
of electrolysis of water over 250 years ago - shortly after the first
primitive batteries were invented by Volta.

Reported to the UK Royal Society around 1800 by William Nicholson and
Anthony Carlisle. Humphrey Davy went on to isolate all sorts of metals
from molten salts by electrolysis in later experiments.

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2003/August/electrolysis.asp

Electrolysis of water (with a condutive salt added - usually sodium
sulphate) to make hydrogen and oxygen is a classical high school
experiment.

The MIT hyped up press release and subsequent reporting of it in the
media is pathetic. They should report what they have done and how much
of an improvement it is over state of the art (if any).

A true stable man made photosynthetic catalyst would be very impressive
but this is just an improvement in electrolytic cell efficiency.

A couple of carbon rods, some wire and a battery is all you need.

From the article:

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and
it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to
work. It's so easy to implement," he said.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

There may be a breakthrough here in that one electrode can now be made
much cheaper and with higher efficiency. But it is impossible from the
press release to be anything other than totally underwhelmed.

Regards,
Martin Brown
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

 

[Martin Brown]

Flark wrote:

Could this be duplicated by anyone with basic electronics knowledge
and the right metals?

Not only that but it could be "duplicated" by the original discoverers
of electrolysis of water over 250 years ago - shortly after the first
primitive batteries were invented by Volta.

Reported to the UK Royal Society around 1800 by William Nicholson and
Anthony Carlisle. Humphrey Davy went on to isolate all sorts of metals
from molten salts by electrolysis in later experiments.

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2003/August/electrolysis.asp

Electrolysis of water (with a condutive salt added - usually sodium
sulphate) to make hydrogen and oxygen is a classical high school
experiment.

The MIT hyped up press release and subsequent reporting of it in the
media is pathetic. They should report what they have done and how much
of an improvement it is over state of the art (if any).

A true stable man made photosynthetic catalyst would be *very*
impressive (Nobel Prize winning) but this is just an improvement in
electrolytic cell efficiency.

A couple of carbon rods, some wire and a battery is all you need.

From the article:

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and
it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to
work. It's so easy to implement," he said.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

There may be a breakthrough here in that one electrode can now be made
much cheaper and with higher efficiency. But it is impossible from the
press release to be anything other than totally underwhelmed.

Regards,
Martin Brown

PS Apologies if this appears twice - news servers playing up

 

[Les Cargill]

Flark wrote:

Could this be duplicated by anyone with basic electronics knowledge
and the right metals?

From the article:

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and
it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to
work. It's so easy to implement," he said.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

It's an electrolysis technology - modelled after photosynthesis. *Lousy*
article.

--
Les Cargill

 

[The Trucker]

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:18:33 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

Flark wrote:
Could this be duplicated by anyone with basic electronics knowledge
and the right metals?

From the article:

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and
it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to
work. It's so easy to implement," he said.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

It's an electrolysis technology - modelled after photosynthesis. *Lousy*
article.

Looks like a better hydrolysis by changing the metal electrodes to me.
But it really doesn't give enough info to see how it is supposed to work,
and platinum is very expensive stuff. A hydrogen boost rig for my car
would be very expensive indeed.

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend

 

[Les Cargill]

The Trucker wrote:

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:18:33 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

Flark wrote:
Could this be duplicated by anyone with basic electronics knowledge
and the right metals?

From the article:

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and
it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to
work. It's so easy to implement," he said.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html
It's an electrolysis technology - modelled after photosynthesis. *Lousy*
article.

Looks like a better hydrolysis by changing the metal electrodes to me.

Fair enough - good correction.

But it really doesn't give enough info to see how it is supposed to work,
and platinum is very expensive stuff. A hydrogen boost rig for my car
would be very expensive indeed.

I don't know enough p-chem* to say why platinum is always the
preferred catalyst - but there have to be about a hundred million
catalytic converters rotting in landfills somewhere.... platinum,
palladium, that series of metals...

*I think it's just got a *whole* lot of electrons available,
but I forget...

But who knows? Maybe it's a first step in a chain. Seems like we
get very little but abstreuse scienc eporjects from MIT these days...

--
Les Cargill

 

[Les Cargill]

z wrote:

On Aug 1, 7:32 am, Flark <flark...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Could this be duplicated by anyone with basic electronics knowledge
and the right metals?

From the article:

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and
it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to
work. It's so easy to implement," he said.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

these articles all seem to focus on generating hydrogen separately
from water, and generating oxygen separately; rather than generating
them simultaneously. if that's what he's doing, it really is
earthshaking....

I think that's just an artifact of how poorly written the article is.
If you remove oxygen from H20, what's left is hydrogen.... granted,
removal of one hydrogen atom produces peroxide...

--
Les Cargill

 

[J.A. Legris]

On Aug 1, 7:32 am, Flark <flark...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Could this be duplicated by anyone with basic electronics knowledge
and the right metals?

From the article:

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and
it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to
work. It's so easy to implement," he said.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

Possibly, but it's not as simple as the article makes it appear.
Here's an article with some background info:

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/43/15729.full.pdf+html

--
Joe

 

[Martin Griffith]

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 11:40:41 -0700 (PDT), in sci.electronics.design
"J.A. Legris" <jalegris@sympatico.ca> wrote:

On Aug 1, 7:32 am, Flark <flark...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Could this be duplicated by anyone with basic electronics knowledge
and the right metals?

From the article:

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and
it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to
work. It's so easy to implement," he said.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

Possibly, but it's not as simple as the article makes it appear.
Here's an article with some background info:

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/43/15729.full.pdf+html

This seems a lot simpler, ( I wonder what they aren't telling the
investors)
http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/algae-based-biofuels-in-plain--003362.php
direct company link
http://www.valcent.net/s/Ecotech.asp?ReportID=182039


martin

 

[Bill Ward]

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:40:48 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

The Trucker wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:18:33 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

Flark wrote:
Could this be duplicated by anyone with basic electronics knowledge
and the right metals?

From the article:

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and
it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to
work. It's so easy to implement," he said.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html
It's an electrolysis technology - modelled after photosynthesis.
*Lousy* article.

Looks like a better hydrolysis by changing the metal electrodes to me.

Fair enough - good correction.

But it really doesn't give enough info to see how it is supposed to
work, and platinum is very expensive stuff. A hydrogen boost rig for my
car would be very expensive indeed.


I don't know enough p-chem* to say why platinum is always the preferred
catalyst - but there have to be about a hundred million catalytic
converters rotting in landfills somewhere.... platinum, palladium, that
series of metals...

I wouldn't worry about that. There's a strong incentive to recycle
precious metals at $100/unit or so. A friend had one stolen off his
pickup the other day. Word now is to weld the converter on rather than
depend on a removable clamp.

*I think it's just got a *whole* lot of electrons available, but I
forget...

But who knows? Maybe it's a first step in a chain. Seems like we get
very little but abstreuse scienc eporjects from MIT these days...

 

[z]

On Aug 1, 7:32 am, Flark <flark...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Could this be duplicated by anyone with basic electronics knowledge
and the right metals?

From the article:

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and
it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to
work. It's so easy to implement," he said.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

these articles all seem to focus on generating hydrogen separately
from water, and generating oxygen separately; rather than generating
them simultaneously. if that's what he's doing, it really is
earthshaking....

 

[James Arthur]

Bob Eld wrote:

"J.A. Legris" <jalegris@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:c5139024-56f5-4a89-8b1a-477b047ece29@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 1, 7:32 am, Flark <flark...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Could this be duplicated by anyone with basic electronics knowledge
and the right metals?

From the article:

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and
it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to
work. It's so easy to implement," he said.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

Possibly, but it's not as simple as the article makes it appear.
Here's an article with some background info:

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/43/15729.full.pdf+html

--
Joe

I read this article and now am totally confused. Does the Nocera invention
allow sunlight to work directly on water, a reverse solar fuel cell if you
will, or does it require external electric current? The PDF above implies
the former but is not clear. All other articles talk of solar cells or other
electricity sources. I never saw such a pile of poorly written articles
obfuscating an invention.

It's not clear to me what we have, how it proposed to be implemented or what
additional devices or equipment will be required for operation.

The article is in today's issue of Science, available only
for a fee.

The transcript here's the best description I've found...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5889/710b/DC1

....but still no mention of efficiency or other performance
data. Which reeks. If it ain't efficient, it ain't a
breakthrough. If it is, that's what they should be touting.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Democracy Highlander]

Flark wrote:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

This is quite a strange article. Photolysis it is well known for decades
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photodissociation

Looks like what they did was to improve the efficiency of it, aka reduced
the amount of space you need to cover with panels to produce a certain
amount of hydrogen. The question is how much they improved. If it is more
efficient (either as used space or as invested money) than using a classic
photovoltaic panel to electrolyze the water, then it is a nice and useful
progress progress.

But the article seems a bit too extravagant, since the biggest problem for
solar energy is hydrogen storage not production.
The problem with the hydrogen from solar energy is not to get it out (anyone
can do it in his own backyard with a glass jar and 2 pencil leads connected
to a commercial solar panel), but how to store it safe to be used during
the cold and dark winter nights. For short term (overnight) storage of
power, today's batteries are close to be good enough.
The problem is that when you need most energy (winter with long nights) the
sun is the dimmest in the year and is more cloudy too. And energy storage
in batteries for 6 months it is ridiculous. Will never work.

Hydrogen is the answer but it is dangerous. Having any family home with a
huge hydrogen tank in his backyard within city limits it is a total
civilization annihilation event waiting to happen. So, the bigger problem
to be solved is energy storage.


--
The world of the future will be fully democratic or will not be at all.

Democracy Highlander

P.S.:
When I say "democratic", I use the word democratic coming from democracy not
from Democratic party. I am not connected in any way with Democratic party
and if they fail to do as promised and cut corporate corruption I have no
problem to turn on them and blog against them too.

 

[The Trucker]

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 22:54:37 +0200, Martin Griffith wrote:

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 11:40:41 -0700 (PDT), in sci.electronics.design
"J.A. Legris" <jalegris@sympatico.ca> wrote:

On Aug 1, 7:32 am, Flark <flark...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Could this be duplicated by anyone with basic electronics knowledge
and the right metals?

From the article:

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and
it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to
work. It's so easy to implement," he said.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

Possibly, but it's not as simple as the article makes it appear.
Here's an article with some background info:

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/43/15729.full.pdf+html

This seems a lot simpler, ( I wonder what they aren't telling the
investors)
http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/algae-based-biofuels-in-plain--003362.php

"Algae, even in a regular, horizontal, open pond system, can produce up
to 20,000 gallons of oil per year"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is that the this would make you think that there is 20,000
gallons of diesel fuel equivalent. There isn't. I am a strong proponent
of algae biofuels, but I wish these people would stop all the hype and
tell it like it is, From a pond system you can get 1500 gallons and from
a bag system you can probably get 3000 gallons of real diesel. At this
point everyone runs away screaming it will take too much land. But it
won't. The land and the water are free and plastic bags just don't cost a
lot of dough. So how much for the solar collectors and the pumps and
tanks? Algae farming is much more cost effective than any standard
agricultural fuel production and that is what we should be looking at. We
should be asking how much can we afford to pay the people that run the
farm while amortizing the cost of the pumps and the bags and the hangers
and solar collectors and motors. And you can only do a 3 year
amortization on the bags and a ten year amortization on the rest.

There will be no greenhouse because that costs too much. The farms should
be located surrounding the Sea of Cortes for the amount of sunlight, the
saltwater, and the free land, no freezes, and no bad storms. AT last,
NAFTA may pay off.

I am not Mr. Business. I have no idea whether 3000 gallons per year of
real stuff is profitable of not. But if what I have specified doesn't
work then it is not workable. And BTW -- Corn and all the rest of the ag
stuff sucks. IT seems to me that 10 years is the life of this deal
because in 10 years we will have better options. Those cement ponds cost
to much for a 10 year life. Bag it.

direct company link
http://www.valcent.net/s/Ecotech.asp?ReportID=182039

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend

 

[Eeyore]

Flark wrote:

Could this be duplicated by anyone with basic electronics knowledge
and the right metals?

From the article:

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and
it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to
work. It's so easy to implement," he said.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

It's ELECTROLYSIS.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Martin Brown wrote:

Flark wrote:

Could this be duplicated by anyone with basic electronics knowledge
and the right metals?

Not only that but it could be "duplicated" by the original discoverers
of electrolysis of water over 250 years ago - shortly after the first
primitive batteries were invented by Volta.

Reported to the UK Royal Society around 1800 by William Nicholson and
Anthony Carlisle. Humphrey Davy went on to isolate all sorts of metals
from molten salts by electrolysis in later experiments.

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2003/August/electrolysis.asp

Electrolysis of water (with a condutive salt added - usually sodium
sulphate) to make hydrogen and oxygen is a classical high school
experiment.

The MIT hyped up press release and subsequent reporting of it in the
media is pathetic. They should report what they have done and how much
of an improvement it is over state of the art (if any).

A true stable man made photosynthetic catalyst would be *very*
impressive (Nobel Prize winning) but this is just an improvement in
electrolytic cell efficiency.

A couple of carbon rods, some wire and a battery is all you need.

From the article:

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and
it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to
work. It's so easy to implement," he said.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

There may be a breakthrough here in that one electrode can now be made
much cheaper and with higher efficiency. But it is impossible from the
press release to be anything other than totally underwhelmed.

Not to mention all the usual problems associated with the storage of
hydrogen (and if you don't klnow what they are you shouldn't be posting
about it).

And from MIT of all places ! Science is going down the drain.

Graham

 

[The Trucker]

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:19:15 -0700, Bob Eld wrote:

"James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:BlLkk.33$mP.15@trnddc03...
Bob Eld wrote:
"J.A. Legris" <jalegris@sympatico.ca> wrote in message

news:c5139024-56f5-4a89-8b1a-477b047ece29@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 1, 7:32 am, Flark <flark...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Could this be duplicated by anyone with basic electronics knowledge
and the right metals?

From the article:

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and
it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to
work. It's so easy to implement," he said.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

Possibly, but it's not as simple as the article makes it appear.
Here's an article with some background info:

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/43/15729.full.pdf+html

--
Joe

I read this article and now am totally confused. Does the Nocera
invention
allow sunlight to work directly on water, a reverse solar fuel cell if
you
will, or does it require external electric current? The PDF above
implies
the former but is not clear. All other articles talk of solar cells or
other
electricity sources. I never saw such a pile of poorly written articles
obfuscating an invention.

It's not clear to me what we have, how it proposed to be implemented or
what
additional devices or equipment will be required for operation.

The article is in today's issue of Science, available only
for a fee.

The transcript here's the best description I've found...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5889/710b/DC1

...but still no mention of efficiency or other performance
data. Which reeks. If it ain't efficient, it ain't a
breakthrough. If it is, that's what they should be touting.

Cheers,
James Arthur

OK on page two or three we find this:
"So is the idea then to couple this to a photovoltaic and also couple it to
a hydrogenproducing catalyst?

Interviewee - Daniel Nocera

Right. So here's how you would think about it. You take water plus these
catalysts and

light from the photovoltaic and you make hydrogen and oxygen."

Is this gibberish clear to your? Now I ask , since when does a photovoltaic
produce light? And that light goes to their catalysts? What? Did he say
that?

I'm sorry but this makes zero sense.

I think they mean that it takes electricity from the photovoltaic, to
produce the oxygen with their catalysts. Hydrogen is produced elsewhere,
which I also don't understand.

In any case why is this not electrolysis? and their device an electrolyser?

It seems that even the so called science guys don't know what to ask or how
to make it clear.

Isn't it incredible what the news people and science people will buy as
"scientific breakthrough"

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend

 

[James Arthur]

Bob Eld wrote:

"James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:BlLkk.33$mP.15@trnddc03...
Bob Eld wrote:
"J.A. Legris" <jalegris@sympatico.ca> wrote in message

news:c5139024-56f5-4a89-8b1a-477b047ece29@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 1, 7:32 am, Flark <flark...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Could this be duplicated by anyone with basic electronics knowledge
and the right metals?

From the article:

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and
it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to
work. It's so easy to implement," he said.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html
Possibly, but it's not as simple as the article makes it appear.
Here's an article with some background info:

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/43/15729.full.pdf+html

--
Joe

I read this article and now am totally confused. Does the Nocera
invention
allow sunlight to work directly on water, a reverse solar fuel cell if
you
will, or does it require external electric current? The PDF above
implies
the former but is not clear. All other articles talk of solar cells or
other
electricity sources. I never saw such a pile of poorly written articles
obfuscating an invention.

It's not clear to me what we have, how it proposed to be implemented or
what
additional devices or equipment will be required for operation.
The article is in today's issue of Science, available only
for a fee.

The transcript here's the best description I've found...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5889/710b/DC1

...but still no mention of efficiency or other performance
data. Which reeks. If it ain't efficient, it ain't a
breakthrough. If it is, that's what they should be touting.

Cheers,
James Arthur

OK on page two or three we find this:
"So is the idea then to couple this to a photovoltaic and also couple it to
a hydrogenproducing catalyst?

Interviewee - Daniel Nocera

Right. So here's how you would think about it. You take water plus these
catalysts and

light from the photovoltaic and you make hydrogen and oxygen."

Is this gibberish clear to your?

Sure. He misspoke. Or was misquoted. He meant apply PV output
to his electrolysis cell, and make gasses.

IOW, take an already inefficient source, toss away perhaps
2/3rds of that output to make something that you'll later
burn, tossing away yet another 50-60%.

12% x .5 x .5 = 3%. I'd be pleasantly surprised if the
thing's overall efficiency exceeded 2%.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 02:26:54 GMT, James Arthur
<bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote:

Bob Eld wrote:
"James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:BlLkk.33$mP.15@trnddc03...
Bob Eld wrote:
"J.A. Legris" <jalegris@sympatico.ca> wrote in message

news:c5139024-56f5-4a89-8b1a-477b047ece29@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 1, 7:32 am, Flark <flark...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Could this be duplicated by anyone with basic electronics knowledge
and the right metals?

From the article:

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and
it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to
work. It's so easy to implement," he said.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html
Possibly, but it's not as simple as the article makes it appear.
Here's an article with some background info:

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/43/15729.full.pdf+html

--
Joe

I read this article and now am totally confused. Does the Nocera
invention
allow sunlight to work directly on water, a reverse solar fuel cell if
you
will, or does it require external electric current? The PDF above
implies
the former but is not clear. All other articles talk of solar cells or
other
electricity sources. I never saw such a pile of poorly written articles
obfuscating an invention.

It's not clear to me what we have, how it proposed to be implemented or
what
additional devices or equipment will be required for operation.
The article is in today's issue of Science, available only
for a fee.

The transcript here's the best description I've found...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5889/710b/DC1

...but still no mention of efficiency or other performance
data. Which reeks. If it ain't efficient, it ain't a
breakthrough. If it is, that's what they should be touting.

Cheers,
James Arthur

OK on page two or three we find this:
"So is the idea then to couple this to a photovoltaic and also couple it to
a hydrogenproducing catalyst?

Interviewee - Daniel Nocera

Right. So here's how you would think about it. You take water plus these
catalysts and

light from the photovoltaic and you make hydrogen and oxygen."

Is this gibberish clear to your?


Sure. He misspoke. Or was misquoted. He meant apply PV output
to his electrolysis cell, and make gasses.

IOW, take an already inefficient source, toss away perhaps
2/3rds of that output to make something that you'll later
burn, tossing away yet another 50-60%.

12% x .5 x .5 = 3%. I'd be pleasantly surprised if the
thing's overall efficiency exceeded 2%.

Cheers,
James Arthur

Not only do thay ignore the hydrogen storage problem, they seem to
think you can hop on over to Ace Hardware and pick up a convenient
fuel cell system.

John