4 ms·

The previous artificial leaf and the current one are different things.

by stretchwithme 16y ago

mhb 16y ago
But 45 hours and one day aren't that different.
- prawn 16y ago
  Well, different but I agree, not different enough to call one highly unstable and the other stable.
  - deadbadger 16y ago
    Certainly not when you're trying to judge energy payback horizons for a device incorporating silicon, nickel and cobalt, all of which come with significant costs of production. What if the degradation isn't linear, as seems very likely? Obviously it's a significant improvement, but 45 hours' operation tells us virtually nothing about the device's likely practicality. The real problem here is that, as usual, we're forced to speculate about what should be straightforward facts, because the story in the OP is based on a dumbed-down press release relating to a talk we can't see, describing research we can't freely access (http://web.mit.edu/chemistry/dgn/www/pubs/publications_2011.shtml http://web.mit.edu/chemistry/dgn/www/pubs/publications_2011....), and as a result contains almost no actual information. So it's grandiose claims "we could power the third world!" without any means of assessing whether they're even plausible. None of this is to say the new cell isn't really interesting, of course. But it's just so typical of science churnalism.
- MaysonL 16y ago
  Being at ~100% after 45 hours and at 0% after 24 hours are quite different.
  - mhb 16y ago
    Since you're intent on belaboring the point, it doesn't claim that one is at ~100% and the other was at 0%. More significantly, if the assertion is that one is more stable, don't you think it would be more compelling to demonstrate its operation for, say, a month? Or did they build this one leaf 45 hours before issuing a press release?
    - jedsmith 16y ago
      "Lifespan" implies that at the end of the period, the old leaf died. There would be no other reason to use the word. The submitted article also mentions 45 hours without a drop in activity, implying 100% at the end of 45 hours for the new leaf without any kind of assertion about a lifespan for the new leaf. The linked ACS release doesn't discuss this, either. Grant him the point. Truthfully, you're splitting hairs, and it really isn't worth arguing about, especially since this entire thing seems dubious without proof.

The previous artificial leaf and the current one are different things.

mhb 16y ago

But 45 hours and one day aren't that different.

prawn 16y ago
Well, different but I agree, not different enough to call one highly unstable and the other stable.
- deadbadger 16y ago
  Certainly not when you're trying to judge energy payback horizons for a device incorporating silicon, nickel and cobalt, all of which come with significant costs of production. What if the degradation isn't linear, as seems very likely? Obviously it's a significant improvement, but 45 hours' operation tells us virtually nothing about the device's likely practicality. The real problem here is that, as usual, we're forced to speculate about what should be straightforward facts, because the story in the OP is based on a dumbed-down press release relating to a talk we can't see, describing research we can't freely access (http://web.mit.edu/chemistry/dgn/www/pubs/publications_2011.shtml http://web.mit.edu/chemistry/dgn/www/pubs/publications_2011....), and as a result contains almost no actual information. So it's grandiose claims "we could power the third world!" without any means of assessing whether they're even plausible. None of this is to say the new cell isn't really interesting, of course. But it's just so typical of science churnalism.
MaysonL 16y ago
Being at ~100% after 45 hours and at 0% after 24 hours are quite different.
- mhb 16y ago
  Since you're intent on belaboring the point, it doesn't claim that one is at ~100% and the other was at 0%. More significantly, if the assertion is that one is more stable, don't you think it would be more compelling to demonstrate its operation for, say, a month? Or did they build this one leaf 45 hours before issuing a press release?
  - jedsmith 16y ago
    "Lifespan" implies that at the end of the period, the old leaf died. There would be no other reason to use the word. The submitted article also mentions 45 hours without a drop in activity, implying 100% at the end of 45 hours for the new leaf without any kind of assertion about a lifespan for the new leaf. The linked ACS release doesn't discuss this, either. Grant him the point. Truthfully, you're splitting hairs, and it really isn't worth arguing about, especially since this entire thing seems dubious without proof.