4 ms·

This is the trouble with most academic research which focuses on trying to maximize one aspect of the problem while a useful commercial application needs to sim

This is the trouble with most academic research which focuses on trying to maximize one aspect of the problem while a useful commercial application needs to simultaneously optimize multiple conflicting aspects. A similar stream of useless papers also are published in energy storage (beyond Li-ion batteries) which are not likely to be ever commercialized.

rdiddly 5y ago
Remember science is still just science; it's not necessarily for commercializing.
- Kaibeezy 5y ago
  The researcher himself is directly quoted saying things like “revolutionising water disinfection technologies around the world”. If that’s not backed up by it being feasible or valuable commercially, then the criticism is spot on.
  - azinman2 5y ago
    I think the point is the science can be useful in that endeavor by demonstrating a new approach one can take. That’s not to say it’s all that would be required. It’s unreasonable and incorrect to expect a full commercial solution to come directly out of a set of lab experiments.
    - mannykannot 5y ago
      I do not understand why this could be regarded as a relevant response to the post you are replying to. You say "it’s unreasonable and incorrect to expect a full commercial solution to come directly out of a set of lab experiments", but the post you are replying to did little else but point out that this is essentially what the article is claiming. If you do not think the article was making such a claim, then that is a point you could have disputed, but so far have not.
      - azinman2 5y ago
        That’s not what the article says. It says the new method “shows the POTENTIAL for revolutionising water disinfection technologies around the world” (emphasis mine). It’s talking about a method of creating disinfectants at the source rather than using chemicals. How to scale this up, deal with degrading catalysts, handle electrical demand, etc are all beyond the scope of an academic lab inventing a new method. They just demonstrated the potential.
        mannykannot 5y ago
        If you read the entire thread from the top, you will see that you are making a point that has already been acknowledged by everyone contributing to it. Bringing it up again merely loops the discussion back to a point where it has been before. The fact that they are making bold claims about potential applications is sufficient to justify Kaibeezy's reply to riddly.
  - rdiddly 5y ago
    Yeah the researcher is already pretty far into the commercial realm with that kind of statement. I'm just saying, the point of science is to find out stuff or increase certainty about stuff. So even an experiment that finds another way to disinfect water that doesn't work, has scientific value because now we know that doesn't work.
TaylorAlexander 5y ago
I don't see the problem. Isolating one variable per experiment is helpful to ensure you are appropriately testing your thesis. It makes sense to me that not all science is immediately commercializable and that many of the papers never directly contribute to commercial application. It seems to me that commercialization is a distinct step in the process of discovery and production, which must often come after the initial process of scientific exploration.
- wanderingmind 5y ago
  Unfortunately scientific research at this point is not trying to solve difficult problems but just do a small step change improvement that can be published. Most of the kinetics and thermodynamics of these catalyst behaviors have been well understood for decades. The logical next step in scientific exploration would have been to untangle and understand the interactions of the different processes of interest and how they impact one another. Instead most of the research in these areas are to use fancy tools to create patterns like nanostructures that can never be done at scale and create a contest to show delta improvement in the reactivity while providing minimal fundamental insights to either understanding, explaining or solving the problem.

rdiddly 5y ago

Remember science is still just science; it's not necessarily for commercializing.

Kaibeezy 5y ago
The researcher himself is directly quoted saying things like “revolutionising water disinfection technologies around the world”. If that’s not backed up by it being feasible or valuable commercially, then the criticism is spot on.
- azinman2 5y ago
  I think the point is the science can be useful in that endeavor by demonstrating a new approach one can take. That’s not to say it’s all that would be required. It’s unreasonable and incorrect to expect a full commercial solution to come directly out of a set of lab experiments.
  - mannykannot 5y ago
    I do not understand why this could be regarded as a relevant response to the post you are replying to. You say "it’s unreasonable and incorrect to expect a full commercial solution to come directly out of a set of lab experiments", but the post you are replying to did little else but point out that this is essentially what the article is claiming. If you do not think the article was making such a claim, then that is a point you could have disputed, but so far have not.
    - azinman2 5y ago
      That’s not what the article says. It says the new method “shows the POTENTIAL for revolutionising water disinfection technologies around the world” (emphasis mine). It’s talking about a method of creating disinfectants at the source rather than using chemicals. How to scale this up, deal with degrading catalysts, handle electrical demand, etc are all beyond the scope of an academic lab inventing a new method. They just demonstrated the potential.
      - mannykannot 5y ago
        If you read the entire thread from the top, you will see that you are making a point that has already been acknowledged by everyone contributing to it. Bringing it up again merely loops the discussion back to a point where it has been before. The fact that they are making bold claims about potential applications is sufficient to justify Kaibeezy's reply to riddly.
- rdiddly 5y ago
  Yeah the researcher is already pretty far into the commercial realm with that kind of statement. I'm just saying, the point of science is to find out stuff or increase certainty about stuff. So even an experiment that finds another way to disinfect water that doesn't work, has scientific value because now we know that doesn't work.

TaylorAlexander 5y ago

I don't see the problem. Isolating one variable per experiment is helpful to ensure you are appropriately testing your thesis. It makes sense to me that not all science is immediately commercializable and that many of the papers never directly contribute to commercial application. It seems to me that commercialization is a distinct step in the process of discovery and production, which must often come after the initial process of scientific exploration.

wanderingmind 5y ago
Unfortunately scientific research at this point is not trying to solve difficult problems but just do a small step change improvement that can be published. Most of the kinetics and thermodynamics of these catalyst behaviors have been well understood for decades. The logical next step in scientific exploration would have been to untangle and understand the interactions of the different processes of interest and how they impact one another. Instead most of the research in these areas are to use fancy tools to create patterns like nanostructures that can never be done at scale and create a contest to show delta improvement in the reactivity while providing minimal fundamental insights to either understanding, explaining or solving the problem.