French gvt is abusing of global warming to overtax any cent you earn. They decided to higher the gas price by 10 / 20% to save the planet whereas they spread ads to buy new cars every day lol As they stop taxing billionaires to "attract" business, they need to get the money from the population, plus the president changed the constitution to enforce laws waith no debate and the result is what you can see on TV everyday: When RATM meets with 1984 Fun fact: the first hip hop band in french history (80's) came back last july after 20 years to sing "what do you wait to burn the place". used to be a ghetto track until... retired went to burn the place three months later lol
Did you see this: https://www.offgridenergyindependence.com/articles/16167/3d-printed-brick-generates-electricity ??? WOW!!! If....
For those of you who read the article, a Schwartz-D minimal structure is a way to achieve maximum surface area in the smallest space. (The Schwartz-P surface achieves this, but the Schwartz-D is easier to 'grow' or 3D print. ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarz_minimal_surface So here's me playing the Devil's Advocate. If the electrolyte is fairly benign (and eco-friendly) It can be a win-win for everybody. Houses can be "reclaimed", with the electrolyte assemblies being "salvaged" and reused. That would create industry (Demo contractors would have to be trained, but they could easily augment their incomes by reselling the electro-bricks as scrap for recycle) -HOWEVER- If the tech is rushed to market (Like asbestos and lead products were) The ecological catastrophy would be astounding. Entire towns could become toxic wastelands. e.g. Picher Oklahoma (et.al.) https://chronicles.roadtrippers.com/history-of-picher-oklahoma/ We need to learn from past mistakes and try our best not to repeat them. It's still a good find.
I would think a brick that passes temp easily would have a very poor rating for energy efficiency. Meaning that it would cost extra to heat or cool a house with bricks designed to pass temperature through it. You would have to weigh the cost of heating or cooling your home against the cost of the wall producing energy. Also, people on third world countries without electricity would do much better to use candles than expensive bricks that are not yet ready for prime time... not only that but many in third world countries do not have normal heating and cooling methods to use these types of bricks to make them work effectively. It is a nice thought for those types of bricks not I do not see a practical use as of yet, because it would cost more to use than what you could get out of them
@Joe C: Like most conventional building materials, local building codes would determine what would work and what would not. Since the cold tends to impede all chemical reactions, I'm sure you'd have to use them in a warmer climate. And since it seems to be a peltier effect, the effect is enhanced by a greater temperature differential between the 'cathode' and 'anode' (@Yen: Please feel to jump in. )
Hello and a happy new Year 2019. I have taken a break during holidays.... There are several thermoelectric effects. (Actually only 3 certain effects are originally described as thermoelectric effects) Seebeck, Peltier and Thomson. But they here are talking about thermogalvanic bricks only. My basics on this are a bit rusty, but I think the difference of electrode potential can be reasoned by the Nernst equation since it contains T for temperature. There's also the Seebeck effect which is contrary to Peltier effect. Both have nothing to do with electrochemical (and by that thermogalvanic) processes. Peltier describes how to generate different temperatures (for either cooling or heating) by using electricity whereas Seebeck describes how different temperatures at 2 different soldering joints of 2 different metals create a Voltage. There is thermoelectric sensitivities (series) for the Seebeck effect, whereas galvanic effects are based on electrochemical series and especially at thermogalvanic effects on the relation of electrode potential to temperature. Thermogalvanic elements are not new. Their efficiency is very low since there are lots of side effects. (depends on several factors such as solvent) One should not expect more than 1 milli Watt per square meter. I'll check new sources ASAP. And will refresh my basics....maybe it's not perfectly right what I have posted..
I have researched a bit. It's a complex matter and it seems there is only the simple sketch available from KCL (King's college London). https://3dprintingindustry.com/news...-of-kcl-electricity-generating-bricks-146205/ I could not find scientific details and data about the brick/output/operating range etc... and the sketch is quite poor. IMHO there is unexplained euphoria. -They do not say how the temperature difference should be permanently realized (Inside/outside the building?!) -They do no say what are the used materials and what's their costs. Usually Platinum is frequently used as electrode material since it has good attributes. I have found out that they also define a Seebeck coefficient for thermogalvanic matters whereas the original Seebeck effect itself has nothing to do with electrochemical processes, as mentioned. The coefficient's unit is mV/K (millivolt per kelvin) I have found a patent of a themrogalvanic cell from General Electric from 1957 as said they are not new. https://patents.google.com/patent/US2882329 It seems to save costs they can use Platinum coated plastics or conductive plastics. And I frequently have found the redox pair (ferri/ferrocyanide ([Fe(CN)6]⁴⁻/ [Fe(CN)6]³⁻) --- (II) / (III) the valence of iron ion-pair.) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5735355/ To categorize the Power conversion efficiency (PCE) of such thermogalvanic cells well... They are talking about PCE of 0.031% for instance: http://jes.ecsdl.org/content/142/11/3652.abstract Here I have found some improvements at output and some values: https://www.researchgate.net/public...eebeck_coefficient_for_low-grade_heat_harvest They have achieved a Seebeck coefficient of 4.2 mV K⁻¹ means a voltage of 4.2 mV per kelvin. Here is another article. It concludes a power density of 20 x 10^-6 Watts per square centimeter maximum depending on the distance of the electrodes. This would mean 200 mW / square meter in the mean time, though (not only one to expect as I thought). But requires a certain (relatively big) distance of electrodes and is strongly dependent on that. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.829.413&rep=rep1&type=pdf IMHO You could probably use such bricks to drive a few LEDs for reading at night or yeah to slowly charge your mobile at night. But not for cooking / heating /cooling or other energy consuming works. BTW: ferri/ferrocyanide is not that poisonous as it might sound. Their potassium salts are known as yellow and red purisate of potash... Some general basics about thermogalvanic potentials http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1017.7920&rep=rep1&type=pdf I had to learn that stuff in the mid 90s, but since I never heard about again and the efficiency / yield is poor I forgot the details.
This might be a concern. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/p-toluenesulfonic_acid#section=Safety-and-Hazards Also, if it's exposed to acid (H2SO4, but I wonder how HCL works...) it breaks down to Toluene (which has it's own problems: See here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1567945/) As I said in my original post: We need to make sure that we do not repeat mistakes that we've already made. These mistakes have already cost us dearly in terms of the environment.
PTSA itself is used as acidic catalyst at organic synthesis. It comes with all the attributes of a strong organic acid. Its strength is comparable to H2SO4 itself.... AFAIK it can decompose to its parents Toluene and sulfuric acid at higher temperatures. PTSA contains a little amount of H2SO4 per se. But from a pure chemical point of view it can be considered as a stable substance. It's rather sensitive to oxidizing and basic agents. The mentioned PEDOT-Tos (tosylates are either salts or esters of (P)TSA) is a completely different substance, though. Maybe if burnt there is PTSA created and by that toluene, yes, but nobody should actually burn any electrochemical cell... What would be IMHO more interesting is their (PEDOT-Tos TGCs) recyclability and their lifetime. I'd consider PEDOT-Tos as harmful to the environment as ion exchange resins, for instance. At any case hazardous waste after lifetime. PEDOT itself is used as electrode material at capacitors...
I wanted to get more info about PEDOT-Tos and how easy it would be to separate the tosylate from PEDOT. There can be ion exchange at PEDOT at extreme pH values. One can consider PEDOT-Tos as an ion exchanger that loses its tosylate as PTSA when treated with HCl (gets substituted by Chloride ion then) or when treated with NaOH (gets substituted by Hydroxide ion then and there's sodium tosylate). Also the synthesis parameters relative to quality..... a complex matter https://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2015/TC/C5TC01952D#!divAbstract ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To get a final simplified but real impression. At such TGCs we have: -Conductive polymer as electrodes that carries tosylate which can be exchanged by other ions. -ferri/ferrocyanide as redox-couple -some harmless additional electrolytes such as KCl. -aqueous solvent -casing (more plastics) If we realize that as bricks...we would have to see and treat our walls as batteries. And by that when tearing down the building you would produce special waste, the same way you produce with batteries. TGCs could get real usage in the future, but the idea to realize them as a part of a solid building itself is rather bad. It would follow a bad ideology like we can see at mobile phones and tablets. We tie electrochemical cells to the items we use. And by that we have to treat the entire device / item as special waste after end of lifetime. I have to agree with MJ. We'd do a great mistake. Electrochemical cells must be replaceable / removable as smallest 'unit' as possible. And there should be recycling.
That comment surprises me gorski. Because it requires chemists to create the batteries/solar cells....ect. In order to replace the fossil fuels that you condemn
Surprises you? Who created endocrine disruptors and didn't test it, long term etc. etc.? (Just to pick a single example...)
I'd rather say a bit strange and weird. But they can have good parties. Mine also. I have remained to it and made it being my profession. I would have been stupid studying something different where I had to made huge efforts to learn, LOL. It's the pharmacologists They were not created as endocrine disruptors. When you try to take influence on nature by forcing her into a particular direction she re-acts.... I mean why do we (humans) need pesticides and pharmaceuticals etc at all? The next re-action of her will be the reaction on excessive use of antibiotics (MRSA, MDRGN bacteria, super bugs).. Besides of that to have clear evidence one would need volunteers..who would like to play guinea pig to test potential endocrine disruptors? After facts are clear it's the politicians who do not change laws in time. Well, but that's another topic. I am a good one.
We're already feeling the sting of this. I'm really afraid to go into the hospital for any surgery, because hospitals are having a difficult time sterilizing and removing things like MRSA. It affects plants as well as animals. You can't sterilize a salad to protect people from e. coli. But that has nothing to do with Climate Change and everything to do with the way food animals are raised and the way vegetables are grown. @gorski: Soy is a phyto-estrogen. So it has the same effect as endocrine disruptors, only it takes place over the span of many years. That one was nature's handi-work.
Yes. All depends on the perspective. From the perspective of soy its phyto-estrogen is there for survival and natural species conservation! Species of plants who produce estrogens take benefit from the fertility reducing action on natural enemies. It's an ecological secondary effect. All the endocrine disruptors come from different branches of organic substances. What once had benefit from the perspective of humans turned into the opposite... Yes it's a sort of signifier. A healthy organism is usually immune to staphylococcus aureus. Around 30% of humans carry it on their skin and nothing happens (no symptoms). But at special situations like surgery the organism can be weakened and an infection can occur. And if you have got the Methicillin resistant version then it means that it cannot be killed by Methicillin and by that by most of antibiotics. I expect a real human issue in the future, though. I mean where a simple infection of bacteria at home would kill the organism since none of the antibiotics does work anymore. And it'll affect millions of people.
I don't do soy - I do Viagra! Chemists are also great, of course (see above! ) but in this and umpteen other cases it is obvious these guys are seriously dangerous, when not legislated upon and inspected and kept under tight leash, given the enormous power they now wield (the whole of Science nowadays)!!!