I am glad some one is working on this and other things.

20 years ago they said it is IMPOSSIBLE to put a camera in something the size of a cell phone, I am glad some one ignored that and figured it out, I like my camera in my cell phone.

We are explorers and inventors. Please do not stop, I like going forward. Lets put our minds to good use, how can we do it, not why it can’t be done.

Remember you don’t have to be a scientist to invent something new, lets go for it.

Dane

I am glad some one is working on this and other things.

20 years ago they said it is IMPOSSIBLE to put a camera in something the size of a cell phone, I am glad some one ignored that and figured it out, I like my camera in my cell phone.

We are explorers and inventors. Please do not stop, I like going forward. Lets put our minds to good use, how can we do it, not why it can’t be done.

Remember you don’t have to be a scientist to invent something new, lets go for it.

Dane

Thank you for your comments. First, responding to David’s comments:

This happens fairly often on blog posts–people do not read carefully enough; they pick up on one or two things (that they see as wrong or simplified) and go for the critique, seldom rereading the original piece that brought on the critique.

If the amount of “thermodynamic ignorance” in my statement is “staggering”, and if my information comes from Science Magazine (describing the work of Dr. Nocera), then, unless my summarizing and interpretation of that information was totally wrong (and it wasn’t), then you are essentially saying that Dr. Nocera is staggeringly ignorant (thermodynamically speaking), and by extension, Science Magazine also, by publishing the (admittedly brief) article.

Secondly, it’s funny, I know of few other topics in Science that elicit so much confusion and argument as does Entropy and applications of thermodynamics (“heat death of the universe” etc.).

We should always bear in mind that entropy (heat death/loss of free energy) dominates for (closed) systems at equilibrium. Since there is nearly always another system external to the “framed” system from which to draw energy, we can, in theory, keep the system far from equilibrium, and “keep it going”, “defying” entropic forces (for a time). Even the cosmos can be viewed this way (as is, in fact, with some new “brane” based, cosmogenesis theories).

This is true for evolving, biological systems especially, which (according to the Second Law) should not be able to exist, yet do (as they maintain a constant energy flow keeping them away from equilibrium; they “export” entropy). And yes, I realize that I am discussing biological systems, and this is a physical system (but they are not that dissimilar, hence my use of enzymes and ATP as an analogy).

I admit that my nuclear argument was extreme (I was tired).

And while it has been awhile since physics class (admittedly, I was more interested in “wet” biology), I think you go over board in your critique (Are you a physicist? They tend to be the most arrogant when it comes to stating an opinion). In any event, it is helpful, before launching into an “entropy” ” attack, to define exactly the system that you are applying the Second Law to. This particular system is not closed (hence the perpetual motion argument is not even in the offering here), and since two of these systemic inputs are electricity (supplied externally; possibly by solar power condensers) and seawater (an “endless” resource)…and since at no point does the article assert that the fuel cell is “getting something for nothing”, vis avis hydrolysis…then, I’m not sure what the point is of your critique…except to assert some superior knowledge regarding physics (which is true as far as it goes, which is not far)…and that’s ok, too (but perhaps you should study up on your biology, which offers a more complex definition of the role of entropy in far-from-equilibrium systems, which fuel cell tech. seeks to emulate, in a sense)).

..just remember, there’s a forest beyond the trees.

Bruce: you said:

‘Suggesting that somehow the catalyst needs a “periodic jolt” of energy is not accurate. A perfect catalyst will not alter the fact that it requires energy to split water. It always, and everywhere, requires energy to split water.’

> Yes, I understand your point, and thanks for the clarification, but again, I do not anywhere say that the catalyst needs the jolt, but rather “the system”, meaning the total system. And this jolt comes from some external (to the system) source. This is clearly stated in the article.

I would love for your to explain what this “activation” energy actually is, or where it comes from (and where it goes). I don’t doubt your description, I just think that this is one of those explanatory words that needs its own explanation (definition).

Lastly, thanks HT Schmerdtz, for the cogent support.

Thank you for your comments. First, responding to David’s comments:

This happens fairly often on blog posts–people do not read carefully enough; they pick up on one or two things (that they see as wrong or simplified) and go for the critique, seldom rereading the original piece that brought on the critique.

If the amount of “thermodynamic ignorance” in my statement is “staggering”, and if my information comes from Science Magazine (describing the work of Dr. Nocera), then, unless my summarizing and interpretation of that information was totally wrong (and it wasn’t), then you are essentially saying that Dr. Nocera is staggeringly ignorant (thermodynamically speaking), and by extension, Science Magazine also, by publishing the (admittedly brief) article.

Secondly, it’s funny, I know of few other topics in Science that elicit so much confusion and argument as does Entropy and applications of thermodynamics (“heat death of the universe” etc.).

We should always bear in mind that entropy (heat death/loss of free energy) dominates for (closed) systems at equilibrium. Since there is nearly always another system external to the “framed” system from which to draw energy, we can, in theory, keep the system far from equilibrium, and “keep it going”, “defying” entropic forces (for a time). Even the cosmos can be viewed this way (as is, in fact, with some new “brane” based, cosmogenesis theories).

This is true for evolving, biological systems especially, which (according to the Second Law) should not be able to exist, yet do (as they maintain a constant energy flow keeping them away from equilibrium; they “export” entropy). And yes, I realize that I am discussing biological systems, and this is a physical system (but they are not that dissimilar, hence my use of enzymes and ATP as an analogy).

I admit that my nuclear argument was extreme (I was tired).

And while it has been awhile since physics class (admittedly, I was more interested in “wet” biology), I think you go over board in your critique (Are you a physicist? They tend to be the most arrogant when it comes to stating an opinion). In any event, it is helpful, before launching into an “entropy” ” attack, to define exactly the system that you are applying the Second Law to. This particular system is not closed (hence the perpetual motion argument is not even in the offering here), and since two of these systemic inputs are electricity (supplied externally; possibly by solar power condensers) and seawater (an “endless” resource)…and since at no point does the article assert that the fuel cell is “getting something for nothing”, vis avis hydrolysis…then, I’m not sure what the point is of your critique…except to assert some superior knowledge regarding physics (which is true as far as it goes, which is not far)…and that’s ok, too (but perhaps you should study up on your biology, which offers a more complex definition of the role of entropy in far-from-equilibrium systems, which fuel cell tech. seeks to emulate, in a sense)).

..just remember, there’s a forest beyond the trees.

Bruce: you said:

‘Suggesting that somehow the catalyst needs a “periodic jolt” of energy is not accurate. A perfect catalyst will not alter the fact that it requires energy to split water. It always, and everywhere, requires energy to split water.’

> Yes, I understand your point, and thanks for the clarification, but again, I do not anywhere say that the catalyst needs the jolt, but rather “the system”, meaning the total system. And this jolt comes from some external (to the system) source. This is clearly stated in the article.

I would love for your to explain what this “activation” energy actually is, or where it comes from (and where it goes). I don’t doubt your description, I just think that this is one of those explanatory words that needs its own explanation (definition).

Lastly, thanks HT Schmerdtz, for the cogent support.

When H becomes a working gas that transported and used in the same way as natural gas, then storage is no longer a problem; you use it when and where needed. When the US or other developed nation makes the switch to H as the mainstream gaseous fuel, then the infrastructure is the storage system and individual, even residential H producers can utilize things like net metering. When users need either transportation fuel or electrons, they use the H system. Try that with natural gas!

H is the perfect medium to add to a world where distributed generation and use deprives multinationals and hostile countries of their monopoly power. It also deprives governments of freedom-limiting central energy planning. If a system of coastal wave, interior wind and solar, biofuels and other technologies provide the electrons, then the main focus of energy policy becomes practical storage and use. I understand that it takes time to adjust our mental model, but dismissing these new ideas makes me think that Michael’s critics are driven by their own self interests.

When H becomes a working gas that transported and used in the same way as natural gas, then storage is no longer a problem; you use it when and where needed. When the US or other developed nation makes the switch to H as the mainstream gaseous fuel, then the infrastructure is the storage system and individual, even residential H producers can utilize things like net metering. When users need either transportation fuel or electrons, they use the H system. Try that with natural gas!

H is the perfect medium to add to a world where distributed generation and use deprives multinationals and hostile countries of their monopoly power. It also deprives governments of freedom-limiting central energy planning. If a system of coastal wave, interior wind and solar, biofuels and other technologies provide the electrons, then the main focus of energy policy becomes practical storage and use. I understand that it takes time to adjust our mental model, but dismissing these new ideas makes me think that Michael’s critics are driven by their own self interests.

“That is the point of a catalyst. A catalyst gets a reaction started without itself being changed in the process (or very little compared to the primary reaction agents). A tiny amount of a catalyst is sufficient to get an energetic reaction going. In organic chemistry, enzymes play this catalytic role (by grabbing valence electrons). But the amount of energy used to make an enzyme is far less than the amount of energy released when that enzyme breaks up, say, an ATP molecule (of course, ATP has to be manufactured, and in this example, is congruent to the water molecule). Remember that the catalytic system generates molecular forms of H and O (H2 and O2) which have more total energy that just H and O. And since (in the idealized example) the source of this H and O is seawater, there is a nearly endless supply (the total system is not closed, or at equilibrium); there is constant input of material, and a periodic energy input”

The total amount of chemical and thermodynamic ignorance exhibited in just that one paragraph is staggering.

Here are some hard facts about H2O electrolysis. It is energetically UNFAVORABLE. That means that you must always put more energy in to achieve the electrolysis of H2O to H2 and O2 than you can ever recover when you recombine the two. The catalysts you speak of can reduce this inefficiency, but they can never eliminate it. The bottom line is that there is no chemical energy available to be obtained from splitting water, never has been and never will be

(unlike ATP, which happily supplies a nice “kick” when that 3rd phosphate splits off with or without a catalyst). I’ll refrain from ripping your “comparison” of nuclear fusion with the simple electrolysis of water (your exact words were “To use a slightly different example.” “slightly”, heh.)

Son, get yourself to the nearest junior college and enroll in a freshman chem course followed quickly with a stint in sophomore physics. Unless you are one of those who believe that learning how the natural world actually works somehow “stunts” the mind and leaves you unable to engage in “creative” thinking.

Sorry to be so harsh, but I am tired of seeing wishful thinking dressed up as real scientific fact.

“That is the point of a catalyst. A catalyst gets a reaction started without itself being changed in the process (or very little compared to the primary reaction agents). A tiny amount of a catalyst is sufficient to get an energetic reaction going. In organic chemistry, enzymes play this catalytic role (by grabbing valence electrons). But the amount of energy used to make an enzyme is far less than the amount of energy released when that enzyme breaks up, say, an ATP molecule (of course, ATP has to be manufactured, and in this example, is congruent to the water molecule). Remember that the catalytic system generates molecular forms of H and O (H2 and O2) which have more total energy that just H and O. And since (in the idealized example) the source of this H and O is seawater, there is a nearly endless supply (the total system is not closed, or at equilibrium); there is constant input of material, and a periodic energy input”

The total amount of chemical and thermodynamic ignorance exhibited in just that one paragraph is staggering.

Here are some hard facts about H2O electrolysis. It is energetically UNFAVORABLE. That means that you must always put more energy in to achieve the electrolysis of H2O to H2 and O2 than you can ever recover when you recombine the two. The catalysts you speak of can reduce this inefficiency, but they can never eliminate it. The bottom line is that there is no chemical energy available to be obtained from splitting water, never has been and never will be

(unlike ATP, which happily supplies a nice “kick” when that 3rd phosphate splits off with or without a catalyst). I’ll refrain from ripping your “comparison” of nuclear fusion with the simple electrolysis of water (your exact words were “To use a slightly different example.” “slightly”, heh.)

Son, get yourself to the nearest junior college and enroll in a freshman chem course followed quickly with a stint in sophomore physics. Unless you are one of those who believe that learning how the natural world actually works somehow “stunts” the mind and leaves you unable to engage in “creative” thinking.

Sorry to be so harsh, but I am tired of seeing wishful thinking dressed up as real scientific fact.

Your rebuttal seems a little muddled.

The thermodynamics are as Ed describes. Combining oxygen and hydrogen to produce water is ‘downhill’ so energy is released. That is to say, water is lower in energy than oxygen and hydrogen. To separate them, you have to add energy. At minimum, the amount of energy would be what you get by burning them.

The catalyst doesn’t alter the energy difference between the reactants and products. It lessens the ‘activation energy’ needed to get a reaction to proceed. The very best it can do is minimize this energy. At zero activation energy, you still have to put in energy to separate water.

Suggesting that somehow the catalyst needs a “periodic jolt” of energy is not accurate. A perfect catalyst will not alter the fact that it requires energy to split water. It always, and everywhere, requires energy to split water.

The activation barrier is there in the reverse reaction as well, despite the fact that ultimately the reaction will liberate energy. The stored hydrogen and oxygen won’t recombine at a meaningful rate without another catalyst. Generally this is Pt, or worse, an expensive alloy of Pt.

I think the work is interesting, but I am not sure what the hype is about.

Your rebuttal seems a little muddled.

The thermodynamics are as Ed describes. Combining oxygen and hydrogen to produce water is ‘downhill’ so energy is released. That is to say, water is lower in energy than oxygen and hydrogen. To separate them, you have to add energy. At minimum, the amount of energy would be what you get by burning them.

The catalyst doesn’t alter the energy difference between the reactants and products. It lessens the ‘activation energy’ needed to get a reaction to proceed. The very best it can do is minimize this energy. At zero activation energy, you still have to put in energy to separate water.

Suggesting that somehow the catalyst needs a “periodic jolt” of energy is not accurate. A perfect catalyst will not alter the fact that it requires energy to split water. It always, and everywhere, requires energy to split water.

The activation barrier is there in the reverse reaction as well, despite the fact that ultimately the reaction will liberate energy. The stored hydrogen and oxygen won’t recombine at a meaningful rate without another catalyst. Generally this is Pt, or worse, an expensive alloy of Pt.

I think the work is interesting, but I am not sure what the hype is about.