Re: MIT researchers split water to store solar energy - catalyst--made of a cobalt phosphate

On Aug 3, 7:12 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
hhc...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

So how did it it get onto onto a mit.edu site ?

The question is, did it really?

None of the links posted here are links any computer in the mit.edu
domain.

Still realize that mit.edu is the domain name for student accunts, it
is entirely that some student may have posted it as a prank. Obviously
the MIT domain name is common to many thousand campus computer,
including official MIT sites, special interest sites, and student
sites.

Traditionally, MIT student pranks originateed at tmrc (Tech Model
Railway Club), although trmc members tend to play this little bit of
history down. (Rumor has it that this is where the "blue box" and
"phone phreaking" is said to have originated.  Their website is:

http://tmrc.mit.edu/

Another very "interesting" MIT site is this little gem that originated
as a ftp server known as r...@xxxxxxx, which is or was one of the
primary Internet archives.  Now it has be reborn as:

http://rtfm.mit.edu/

Rumor has it that rtfm responds again "interestingly" to a number of
undocumented keystroke sequences known only to a trusted few, which in
turn are said to lead to some equally interesting things, not that I
would know this to be a fact.   Then there is the MIT AI lab, which is
a curious place in itself. They have all sorts of on line sites, all
part of mit.edu.

So, graham, it would be quite easy for a prankish MIT student to place
a nonsense article on any number of mit.edu websites, and never be
detected in doing so.

Still, I have yet to see any citation linking this silly story to any
mit.edu domain, although it would be rather trivial to do so, at least
for most MIT students.

One caution, the sites themselves are many and varied, but I would
caution that it would likely likely not be a really great idea for an
amateur hacker to play with them in excess, and certainly not to
attempt to do anything malicious to any of them, because you could
quickly get in over your head and the next moring learn that you have
no Internet access, no email account any longer, and quite likely your
telephone would no longer function!  Fair warning!  :-)

Ok. I found the URL.http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html
I await your comment with interest.

Graham- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks Graham. This is legitimate, and traces to MIT. Note the full
article>

http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/spotlights/fuel-cell.html

Note also that it has absolutely nothing do do with electrolysis, but
focused on improvement of efficiency of fuel cells that to date were
notoriously inefficient.

It obviously nothing to do with the original cited claim, that appears
to have originated from some wacked out envirnonmental website"

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10002704-54.html?hhTest=1&part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

It was absolutely nothing to do with the splitting of water to store
solar energy, as the headling proclaims. The scientifically
disadvantage appear to often confuse their facts.

Curiously, very similar techniques are now being researcged in an
effort to improve the efficiency and energy storage capacity of
rechargeable batteries.

Still, Graham, here is the issue here in the US. Both NiCad and NMH
batteries are capable today doing the job for short range communtes
after a day of solar rcharging. This means that with existing solar
cell technogy, if you leave the car sit in the sun for 8 or ten hours,
you may or may not have sufficient electrical energy to drive home.
When and if you do make it home, which can be problematical, you will
have to plug it into your home mains to recharge your batteries, which
in the US cost more that an equivalent source of fuel, even at $4.00/
gallon. Here in the US we are charged for our "peak demand" plus our
kilowatt consumption. So solar powered electric cars are not even an
option. Add to that, most hybrid cars today do not employ fuel cells,
and the electric motor is driven from a storage battery.

Now to this scene you have to add in the factor of price. Today,
hybrids will get you the most bang or the buck (or in your case the
Pound Sterling), but hybrid cars are so costly here that you would
likely have to drive one for more than 100,000 miles to break even on
your investment. Initial cost plus maintenance cost for a hybrid is a
'bitch'. Their limited performance is a secondary issue, although not
insignificant.

Trust me, I really yearn for the day when I can charge the batterry in
my car overnight, and drive 30-miles each way and return in near total
confidence that the automobile will return me safely home, while
running both my car radio and my air conditioning system. (Ask
someone in Texas this week about the importance of these little
features.) Unlike the UK, it gets both very hot and very cold here in
the US. If this were not important to us, we would be all operating
motorcyles!

Actually Graham, fuel cells are of only limited interest to me, and
this is what the MIT post reflected on. They are not of any practical
consequence, except to the US Space Program who cares very much about
these toys. For practical every day applications, no thinking person
even gives a damn. Fuel cells will never run our earth movers,
tunneling machines, nor our trains and automobiles. Hydrogen does not
now, or ever will, play any significant role in the energy
infrasctructure! The reason for this should be obvious to anyone
educated.

Nice rant huh?

Harry C.













.

Relevant Pages