Re: [Phys-l] MIT breakthrough in practical water electrolysis

[Roger Haar <haar@physics.arizona.edu>]

Hi,

	In many ways the interjection of "solar energy" is a red herring in 
this news brief and in the article in "Science".  As I understand 
straight normal electrolysis, H and O are generated.  These after 
leaving the electrodes they may form H2 and O2, releasing a fair 
fraction of the energy needed in the electrolysis.  The group form MIT 
have improved the efficiency of electrolysis by forming H2 and O2 
directly at the electrode which does require less energy than forming H 
and O.  Additionally, the setup is simpler than the previous systems and 
works with a less expensive, less picky and less toxic brew.

Thanks
 Roger Haar


*****************************************************************************
ludwik kowalski wrote:
> 1) On Aug 5, 2008, at 8:39 AM, Bob Sciamanda wrote:
>
> Check out this URL and the current issue of Science:
>
> http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html
>
>
> 2) At a private forum for CMNS researchers I wrote:
>
> The current issue of Science has an item on water electrolysis:
>
> http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html
>
> I would like to know what our electrochemists think about this
> breakthrough. A friend made me aware of this item, on a list for
> physics teachers this morning.
>
> 3) Here is an interesting reply (quoting with permission):
>
> "It is not possible to reduce the basic energy required to decompose
> water. This is fixed by the thermodynamic properties and use of
> electrolysis does not change this fact. Only the efficiency of the
> process can be improved, i.e. the amount of energy that is wasted in
> making heat. Some of this heat energy is created at the electrodes by
> the over potential. Apparently, the MIT claim attempts to reduce the
> over potential, hence improve the efficiency. The issue is whether this
> reduction is sufficient to make the method practical in view of other
> losses and costs. As usual, information given to the public is
> exaggerated and distorted to gain advantage for the people making
> the claim.
>
> The big question is what is the most efficient way to store energy. A
> number of methods are competing for this application. At this time,
> it is not clear that electrolysis with hydrogen generation has an
> advantage even in view of the MIT work."
>
>
> 4) In 2007, the author of that reply, E. Storms, wrote an interesting  
> book
>
> "Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: A Comprehensive Compilation  
> of Evidence and Explanations about Cold Fusion." I think that this  
> serious book is worth reading. Please recommend it to  a person in  
> charge of your school library. There is a special offer for it on  
> Amazon:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Science-Energy-Nuclear-Reaction-Comprehensive/dp/9812706208
>
> 5) Contrary to what many think, most CMNS researchers are highly  
> knowledgeable and their methodology of validation is not different  
> from that used in recognized fields of science. The 14th International  
> Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF14) starts next week in Washington D.C.
>
> http://www.iccf-14.org/
>
> I do not know why the "conference agenda" link, on the left margin, is  
> still empty. Perhaps it has something to do visa difficulties  
> encountered by some foreign contributors. But I do know that the  
> conference is worth attending, especially by people who do not have to  
> travel very far. The topic of my presentation will be "Nuclear or not  
> nuclear: how to decide?"
>
> Ludwik Kowalski, a retired physics teacher
> 5 Horizon Road, Apt. 2702, Fort Lee, NJ, 07024, USA
> Also an amateur journalist at http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l