Hello. Is this NSF guy (or the writer of the article) a total nut case, or did I get out of bed on the wrong side:
"The simplicity of this process is amazing," Luis Echegoyen, director of the National Science Foundation's chemistry division, said in a statement. "Using common and affordable elements, and a glass of water, these chemists may have given us a future way to efficiently obtain oxygen by splitting water." END of quote, and candidate for most shortsighted comment of the week by an educated scientist. Or else, the worst science journalism of the century. Hello ... Luis is there anybody in there? It's little wonder that the NSF doesn't understand LENR- they do not even understand the difference between Redox half-cell reactions, and why two half-cells do not imply a workable whole-cell - not to mention: what really constitutes a breakthrough. ... we already possess an efficient way to get oxygen, and you're breathing with it now. What about the hydrogen, Luis? Let me answer that. This is NO breakthrough, as it turns out. At least in the two silly news stories I read just now. It is rather ho-hum in fact. Producing solar hydrogen without added current still requires platinum or paladium on the cathode, which we can never afford - and we can already do everything stated at decent efficiency with added current, and they cannot promise very more efficiency not lower cost, so where is the beef, really? - but less we forget ... the scientists involved in this say they expect that need for platinum to be overcome by **ongoing research.** Just as Ballard and half a dozen Canadian high flying fuel cell scam artists have been say for the past decade. Is MIT really this hard-up for a news story, or what am I missing? Jones
