Slashdot Mirror

I was at AIChE 2005 (Chemical Engineering stuff if you don't bother to click the link), and followed the fuel-cell topical. These cells did make a few appearances (also last year in Austin already).

The cell is being researched by professor Richard Masel and his group. It has a relatively low power density, but that's enough for mobile electronics (no, it will not be usable on cars). The reason Masel's group is the only one working on these is that previous results discredited formic acid as a fuel, but Masel's group found out that they were using the wrong catalyst: platinum was being used (as in any other fuel cell), but for formic acid the correct one was actually palladium. Apparently, formic acid has much less problems in membrane permeation than methanol (that is, it does not burn without you using it), and has already passed tests of over 2500 consecutive hours of power production without failure.

Masel actually complained a bit that this very press release had been delayed one week, last week he could have had the press release at the same time of the conference, and could have mentioned the name of Motorola explicitly.

Another curious fact is that probably everybody of you reading has eaten some formic acid (it's in various foods), even if the high concentration at which it is used in fuel cells makes it unsuitable for a snack (it is actually going to be "burn" the skin).

For those interested, here are some abstracts: Present Status of Formic Acid Fuel Cells, High Performing Air Breathing Passive Direct Formic Acid Fuel Cell (Dfafc), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (Mri) Microscopy of Operating Direct Formic Acid Fuel Cell (Dfafc), Formic Acid Electro-Oxidation by Pd: Particle Size Effects. Proceedings are however not free for the taking, and one has to buy the CD (135 $). No guarantee they contain anything more than the abstracts for the given papers, however.

I was at AIChE 2005 (Chemical Engineering stuff if you don't bother to click the link), and followed the fuel-cell topical. These cells did make a few appearances (also last year in Austin already).

The cell is being researched by professor Richard Masel and his group. It has a relatively low power density, but that's enough for mobile electronics (no, it will not be usable on cars). The reason Masel's group is the only one working on these is that previous results discredited formic acid as a fuel, but Masel's group found out that they were using the wrong catalyst: platinum was being used (as in any other fuel cell), but for formic acid the correct one was actually palladium. Apparently, formic acid has much less problems in membrane permeation than methanol (that is, it does not burn without you using it), and has already passed tests of over 2500 consecutive hours of power production without failure.

Masel actually complained a bit that this very press release had been delayed one week, last week he could have had the press release at the same time of the conference, and could have mentioned the name of Motorola explicitly.

Another curious fact is that probably everybody of you reading has eaten some formic acid (it's in various foods), even if the high concentration at which it is used in fuel cells makes it unsuitable for a snack (it is actually going to be "burn" the skin).

For those interested, here are some abstracts: Present Status of Formic Acid Fuel Cells, High Performing Air Breathing Passive Direct Formic Acid Fuel Cell (Dfafc), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (Mri) Microscopy of Operating Direct Formic Acid Fuel Cell (Dfafc), Formic Acid Electro-Oxidation by Pd: Particle Size Effects. Proceedings are however not free for the taking, and one has to buy the CD (135 $). No guarantee they contain anything more than the abstracts for the given papers, however.

I was at AIChE 2005 (Chemical Engineering stuff if you don't bother to click the link), and followed the fuel-cell topical. These cells did make a few appearances (also last year in Austin already).

The cell is being researched by professor Richard Masel and his group. It has a relatively low power density, but that's enough for mobile electronics (no, it will not be usable on cars). The reason Masel's group is the only one working on these is that previous results discredited formic acid as a fuel, but Masel's group found out that they were using the wrong catalyst: platinum was being used (as in any other fuel cell), but for formic acid the correct one was actually palladium. Apparently, formic acid has much less problems in membrane permeation than methanol (that is, it does not burn without you using it), and has already passed tests of over 2500 consecutive hours of power production without failure.

Masel actually complained a bit that this very press release had been delayed one week, last week he could have had the press release at the same time of the conference, and could have mentioned the name of Motorola explicitly.

Another curious fact is that probably everybody of you reading has eaten some formic acid (it's in various foods), even if the high concentration at which it is used in fuel cells makes it unsuitable for a snack (it is actually going to be "burn" the skin).

For those interested, here are some abstracts: Present Status of Formic Acid Fuel Cells, High Performing Air Breathing Passive Direct Formic Acid Fuel Cell (Dfafc), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (Mri) Microscopy of Operating Direct Formic Acid Fuel Cell (Dfafc), Formic Acid Electro-Oxidation by Pd: Particle Size Effects. Proceedings are however not free for the taking, and one has to buy the CD (135 $). No guarantee they contain anything more than the abstracts for the given papers, however.

I was at AIChE 2005 (Chemical Engineering stuff if you don't bother to click the link), and followed the fuel-cell topical. These cells did make a few appearances (also last year in Austin already).

The cell is being researched by professor Richard Masel and his group. It has a relatively low power density, but that's enough for mobile electronics (no, it will not be usable on cars). The reason Masel's group is the only one working on these is that previous results discredited formic acid as a fuel, but Masel's group found out that they were using the wrong catalyst: platinum was being used (as in any other fuel cell), but for formic acid the correct one was actually palladium. Apparently, formic acid has much less problems in membrane permeation than methanol (that is, it does not burn without you using it), and has already passed tests of over 2500 consecutive hours of power production without failure.

Masel actually complained a bit that this very press release had been delayed one week, last week he could have had the press release at the same time of the conference, and could have mentioned the name of Motorola explicitly.

Another curious fact is that probably everybody of you reading has eaten some formic acid (it's in various foods), even if the high concentration at which it is used in fuel cells makes it unsuitable for a snack (it is actually going to be "burn" the skin).

For those interested, here are some abstracts: Present Status of Formic Acid Fuel Cells, High Performing Air Breathing Passive Direct Formic Acid Fuel Cell (Dfafc), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (Mri) Microscopy of Operating Direct Formic Acid Fuel Cell (Dfafc), Formic Acid Electro-Oxidation by Pd: Particle Size Effects. Proceedings are however not free for the taking, and one has to buy the CD (135 $). No guarantee they contain anything more than the abstracts for the given papers, however.

At the 98th Annual Meeting of the Cordilleran Section of the Geological Society of America (May 13-15, 2002), in Corvallis, Oregon, there were several papers on this bulge in the "Hazards and Risks from Cascade Volcanoes" session. Apparently it was discovered in April 2001; the GSA even sent out a press release about the bulge in May 2002.

At the 98th Annual Meeting of the Cordilleran Section of the Geological Society of America (May 13-15, 2002), in Corvallis, Oregon, there were several papers on this bulge in the "Hazards and Risks from Cascade Volcanoes" session. Apparently it was discovered in April 2001; the GSA even sent out a press release about the bulge in May 2002.

At the 98th Annual Meeting of the Cordilleran Section of the Geological Society of America (May 13-15, 2002), in Corvallis, Oregon, there were several papers on this bulge in the "Hazards and Risks from Cascade Volcanoes" session. Apparently it was discovered in April 2001; the GSA even sent out a press release about the bulge in May 2002.

The abstract of the research paper says that this 'new' bacteria, Carnobacterium pleistocenium, has a 99.8% similarity to Carnobacterium alterfunditum, as determined by gene sequence. I don't have access to this journal, so perhaps someone can fill in the details (how do these frozen bacteria differ from their modern day relatives and/or descendants?).

Phylochronology is a new field that proposes studying molecular evolution on both spatial and temporal scales, using the tools of aDNA and paleontology. Here, however, we have living samples with which to make a comparison. Thus, there's the potential to compare not just nucleotide sequence, but differences in morphology, development, and evolvability.

Where earthquakes the triggers which caused the avalanches on Pompeii before the final burial?

Again, the definition does not fit. I addressed that. Burrying waste is not a technological advance. The only advance that could come from that would be improved long-term storage containers, or maybe a faster fork lift to move them. I'm all for advances in power generation methods in nuclear reactors, use of fuel more efficiently, etc. But I am against sticking radioactive waste, that will be around for quite a while, in an area that shows geologic signs of a past water table which was higher than the yucca mountain site. That's not luddism, that's rationality. Nuclear power will be needed as a bridge to future technologies, no doubt about that...but climates change. Green belts shift. What happens if the greenbelt shifts south from oregon, idaho, and wyoming down towards nevada? It's happened before, and with the half life of waste to be stored in yucca mountain, it's fairly probable that it will happen again.

Here's a lesson in Soil Physics for you, to help you understand my skepticism:
Soil is a highly complex medium, with a net negative charge. Positive ions adhere to soil, negative ions break up soil (called flocculation, why sodic and saline soils suck for agriculture - the negative ions in the salt complexes destroy soil structure). Clay, part of a soil, tends to be quite negative - generally -90 to -20 mmol/kg. It has a pH dependent charge, gernally getting less negative as pH decreases, with a few clay types actually becoming positive as pH dips below 6. This is pretty rare. Right now engineers in yucca mountain are counting on the clay (Primarily smectite and clinoptilolite) to stop any potential nucleide leak. However, according to my chemistry text book, Plutonium-239 is one of the main waste isotopes from nuclear fission. The movement of nucleides through clay is still fairly unknown. Will it sorp? Will it floculate the clay? It only takes one hole in a clay layer to facilitate the free movement of water through it.

Lucky for us this this a pretty damn pressing question, and there are scientist working on it. Personally, I DO hope yucca mountain is a viable site, but I haven't found enough evidence to convince me of that yet.

As far as solar being prohibitively expensive - if it had as many government subsidies as nuclear power does, it most likely wouldn't. The cost per killowatt hour for nuclear fuel that i found is around 5 cents. The cost cited on the same site for solar power was 12 cents. I have to wonder if this cost is the actual or the subsidized cost. What subsidies, you ask? these . Googling for "Nuclear Subsidies" brought that up. I googled for Solar Subsidies and only found a page citing californian subsidies for home owners.

There is speculation that it's due to the Caspian Sea flood, which displaced quite a few people.

Note: that link is just the first one that Google gave me.

Here's another.

Or you could just Google for paleotemperature among other things.

For the faunal extinction, I have physical evidence: fossils. Pollen levels are no substitute for copious amounts of plant fossils (i.e., leaf impressions, large lignite seams associated with short, quick deposition of plant matter).

I don't understand why you think that there would be large lignite seams. If the deposition happened fast enough, at the most there might be a few traces left in some places. It's not like there would be long term plant deposits. In any case, there is some indications of short term ones.

On the issue of faunal extinction immediately following a floral extinction, that is my point. You have said that one necessarily leads to the other. Where is your evidence?

Given that most dinosaurs either relied upon flora for their survival, or relied upon eating other dinosaurs which relied upon flora (and this is fairly well established, I think), what exactly are you asking for?
I don't need to know that if, for example, the world suffered enormous, nationwide crop failures, that people would starve. The food chain is pretty well established.
Guess I'm not sure what you're asking for, here. Proof that destruction of a food source on a massive scale tends to eliminate those species who rely on that food source?

I have fossils of dinosaurs.

So do I. So what? I tend to rely on the observations of people who do this for a living - and whose articles (and opposing ones) I've read for more than twenty years. Plus some field geology -

I'm an hours drive from the Badlands of South Dakota, where one can directly observe the K/T boundary. What's your point? I've hiked there (I don't take fossils from there out of respect, thank you, but I do and have reported my finds)

You have:

1) Meteor
2)?????
3) Profit!!!

Now that was exactly what I meant by trollish responses.

Oh, you also have your stomping of feet regarding my not providing links. I have run several queries of GeoREF for your evidence of large, global floral extictions and have found none.

Well, here's a couple links (I mostly rely on my personal library, but what the hell)

FLORAL TURNOVER AND CLIMATIC CHANGES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CRETACEOUS/PALEOGENE (K/T) BOUNDARY, NORTH DAKOTA, USA;

This one is also worth reading. I have many more. What I don't have is the time, nor the inclination, to post them.

I did, however, run a GeoRef search myself, and you're right. Using "K/T global flora extinction" I found very little. I suspect this is more a problem with my search terms, however, as running a Google search I found a lot more articles (not necessarily peer reviewed, but most were based on PR research). So I consider it likely that my search WRT to GeoRef was poorly worded. You might try different ones (assuming you have time). I don't.

--

Anyway, I'm sorry about the troll comment. This is an issue that I've been reading about since I saw the original Alvarez papers, and I'm thoroughly convinced. Disagreement tends to push my buttons :) and I'm busy enough that I tend to give short shrift to the arguments - not that I want to, it's just the way life is.

This is really interesting to me, but, like I said before, let's move it to my journal, or elsewhere (and you might want to google usenet, BTW), if you'd like to continue. I'd love to have something interesting to blog about there, other than slashdot stuff. In any case, this discussion on slashdot about this subject is completely irrelevant, and I'm sure you have better things to do (like writing more papers :)

This whole discussion reminds me somewhat of the debates about plate tectonics in the '60s :)

This will be my last post in this thread. Thanks for the discussion, but it's inappropriate to continue it here.

SB

So I blame jet airplane contrails.

Bleh, if you're going to use a source, at least make sure it supports your argument . . .

The link answers the question "What is the best temperature to brew coffee?" Not "What is the best temperature to serve coffee?"

According to this study most of the subjects liked their coffee at ~140F.

This review of coffee machines (scroll down to the end of the page and look at "2 Temperature") states "Also, to maintain your coffee at the ideal drinking temperature of 160 degrees, preheat your cup for about ten seconds using steam or hot water." (emphasis added)

So, while you may have a higher pain threshold than many, and like to risk burns, I think it's reasonbale to ask providers not to serve a product which "can cause third-degree burns (the worst kind) in two to seven seconds." (Quotation from the bottom of this article)

197F may be an optimal brewing temp, but it sure as hell isn't optimal for drinking.

I would love to see you take something more than a thin sip at 197 degrees.

But hey, you should get mod points for the link you provided. It's far more interesting than this link here about actual coffee drinking temperatures.

Because most basins do not happen to have deep flaws underneath which let carbon leak up?

All basins, pretty much by definition, contain faults down to the brittle/ductile transition at cf. 10-15km. In general, ductile rocks do not have the porosity or permability to allow 'carbon to leak up'. In modern areas of basin formation such as Greece or the Basin and Range province in the US, we do not observe 'carbon leaking up'.

The simple reasons why these basins are not prospective is that source rocks are either absent or have not been sufficiently heated to produce oil. Borehole and seismic data confirms this. Where oil is present, its composition ties it to highly specific source rocks, and it's location ties it back to migration pathways from areas where this source rock has been sufficiently heated to produce oil; the kinetic parameters of this are routinely measured in the lab, as is the generation of oil of the same composition as that found in the traps.

Because "most" basins leak?

No, because of the above.

Examples?

the enormous quantities of hydrocarbons in the Athabasca tar sands in Canada would have required vast amounts of source rocks for their generation in the conventional discussion, when in fact no source rocks have been found.

Yes they have

This consideration is irrelevant now that we know that a cold formation process assembled the Earth and that hydrocarbons could have been maintained, and could be here for the same reasons as they are on the other planetary bodies.

Unfortunately, TG is unaware that the mantle has been in vigourous convection for 4.5 billion years and has been entirely cycled through partial melting zones (and completely mixed). The progressive oxidation of the mantle was completed at around 2.5 billion years ago, after which CO2 instead of methane has been the dominant mantle carbon phase.

Suppose that in the depth range between 100 and 300 kilometers we have a patchwork in which the carbonaceous chondrite material comprises 20 percent on an average. In this material, carbon amounts to 5 percent.

...then the OBSERVED seismic properties of that layer would be *dramatically* different

[On the persian gulf] There is no feature that the geology or the topography of this entire large region has in common, and that would give any hint why it would all be oil and gas rich.

The persian gulf has pretty unique geology - a highly stable platform for a long period of geological time, widespread prolific source rocks, and a very simple structural style. This last feature is very important; a small number of large scale geological structures can trap far more oil than the large number of small structures more normally found. To say there is 'no feature that makes it oil rich' is simply wrong.

Ah, very good. I did actually realize that there are scientists who think there is more to evolution than the modern synthesis includes. There are plenty. There are few if any who believe in a young earth.

James Valentine is apparently one of the discoverers of HOX genes. He seems to have an idea called the "Cell-Type Hypothesis" which I can't find any information about. Not a creationist.

Google could find nothing about Stanley Awamril. But Stanley Awamrik is a researcher on the early history of life on earth. Not a creationist.

Philip Signor I found less about, but judging by this book he's not a creationist.

Peter Sadler published a paper with this incomprehensible abstract. References here and here (PDF) indicate that he is (drum roll) not a creationist.

I didn't research further. Really, is this the best you can come up with?

The main influence of the impact on Mexican oil deposits was the creation of large breccia deposits which act as an excellent reservoir rock. The oil originates from organic rich source rocks.

Cracks would not persist below 10 kilometers down due to the plasticity of the crust below such depths. And the carbon from the mantle is in the form of CO2, and has been for the last 2-3 billion years. Hence we find volcanic carbon dioxide.

CLATHRATES AND CARBON DIOXIDE ON A DRY COLD MARS

I can't believe it's not water (spaceviews.com)

1. rocket 2. camel 3. bring water