3 ms·

Alrighty then. "a current of up to 1 volt". Any science or engineering journalist, even at MIT News level, could get that wrong, but not all of them. They sho

Alrighty then. "a current of up to 1 volt". Any science or engineering journalist, even at MIT News level, could get that wrong, but not all of them. They should have better fact-checking. Neat application though. Obviously, don't expect to buy one next week. But what's interesting here is that you'd think that electrochemical cells, which are going to scale by volume (cube law) as they get smaller, would not be as effective in these micro-scale applications as the energy harvesting/wireless energy schemes people seem to like work on, which mostly scale by aperture/area (square law). They treat that in passing, basically, the problem with solar is sometime's it's dark, but it's not very edifying.

cushychicken 2y ago
That was the first thing I saw too and my eyes immediately glazed over. No reason to read the rest of this fucker! XD
adoyle 2y ago
The text says “a current with a potential of up to 1 volt.” The key word is potential, i.e. electrical potential whose SI unit is the volt. That must be the amount of potential that this particular chemical reaction can create. Since the current probably depends on the amounts of the chemicals involved, the article doesn’t state that.
- mlyle 2y ago
  The text now says that, yes, but the original did not according to archive.org.
  - buescher 2y ago
    It's an elegant fix that adds nothing.
nikisweeting 2y ago
It's an article about new battery tech with no mention of power density, energy density, or even the word "watt". Instant tab close.
- DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
  It's the university's press release for a paper published in a scientific journal: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scirobotics.ade4642 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scirobotics.ade4642. Scientific press releases are usually poorly written, by people who don't necessarily understand the science. Look at the paper if you want details.
  - DiscourseFan 2y ago
    >are usually poorly written they are written by people who want to entice the knowledgeable to read the article, and the less so to gawk at it. Surely this accomplished both tasks

cushychicken 2y ago

That was the first thing I saw too and my eyes immediately glazed over. No reason to read the rest of this fucker! XD

adoyle 2y ago

The text says “a current with a potential of up to 1 volt.” The key word is potential, i.e. electrical potential whose SI unit is the volt. That must be the amount of potential that this particular chemical reaction can create. Since the current probably depends on the amounts of the chemicals involved, the article doesn’t state that.

mlyle 2y ago
The text now says that, yes, but the original did not according to archive.org.
- buescher 2y ago
  It's an elegant fix that adds nothing.

nikisweeting 2y ago

It's an article about new battery tech with no mention of power density, energy density, or even the word "watt". Instant tab close.

DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
It's the university's press release for a paper published in a scientific journal: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scirobotics.ade4642 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scirobotics.ade4642. Scientific press releases are usually poorly written, by people who don't necessarily understand the science. Look at the paper if you want details.
- DiscourseFan 2y ago
  >are usually poorly written they are written by people who want to entice the knowledgeable to read the article, and the less so to gawk at it. Surely this accomplished both tasks