The club must have some standards, then

The only unintended thing about it was probably that it’s accidentally more transparent, because of what dumpster fire is security of this thing

why don’t you type it up in latex and claim your obviously deserved publication in PRL? is it because you can’t drop a single DOI across 50 paragraphs?

there are dozens of us, dozens!! (closer to third of dozen)

wdym worked? i don’t think i’ll ever retire

that’s energy density, maybe you can only discharge it only over 20h without damaging it or something (probably not but there are so many places where things fail). power density was not reported there

it’s nice to find someone who gets it in the wild. i’ll give you an example: 90% of clinical trials fail, and it creates a predicament: some news site grabs a headline from university press release, which is informed by a paper. paper says that maybe there is some effect in cell line, if you use some new compound, against some kind of cancer. sometimes it grabs more attention if it’s a compound from common plant because of folk medicine connection. press release: university w made a compound y that kills cancer z. article: university w makes a drug for cancer z. clickbait youtube video: underdog researcher DESTROYS ALL CANCER. naturally, years pass, compound goes through extra testing and in most of cases, fails, many times even before it ever touches humans. sometimes it doesn’t work, sometimes you need quarter of body mass of it to see effect, sometimes it wipes out liver, sometimes it does something else entirely. then clueless people looks back at these headlines, and ask, where is cure for cancer z, or sometimes even where is cure for all cancer. the stupid and embarrassing reality is that it never existed, because it was at best toy compound and maybe someone develops something out of it, but mostly it won’t. some people take it as a sign of conspiracy that suppresses inconvenient TRUTH and there is a cure, but you can get it only from a BOLD RESEARCHER THAT THREADS WHERE NO ONE ELSE DARES. then we get clinics ran by scammers and a lot of dead people

that said, there’s already a lot of things, mostly moving things, that can be electrified with current technology. it would be a nice thing to have something better, but it’s not like it’s strictly necessary to have it

Only if power density is good enough

I understand that these things are perhaps less flammable because no electrolyte that burns, but also there’s a question about efficiency, manufacturability, overheating, charge depletion in time and across cycles etc. Maybe it’s not even any good

For comparison, li-ion 18650-size 3500mAh cells are 260Wh/kg, that is almost +50% capacity per gram but only +15% capacity per volume

there’s no problem with getting nitrogen or argon, maybe they need it for their biological things specifically

-80 freezers will be necessary in the future but some new refrigerant will be needed for them, there’s no way R23 or R116 will be approved forever (gwp 10k+). i guess that will have to be ethane/ethylene + propane cascade? if so that would be blast from the past because ethylene was used as an intermediate refrigerant in first oxygen liquefaction

not because of that, making BTX takes heat and that means burning something else for heat. TEL is cheaper

only recently with maritime fuels and these are still used iirc. the big deal was removal of sulfur dioxide from coal powerplant exhaust by scrubbing it with chalk suspension (which also gives a lot of cheap gypsum) removal of sulfur from gasoline and diesel is technically easier but also there’s a technical reason because sulfur poisons catalysts used to turn shitty gasoline into slightly better gasoline

i’ve noticed biologists keeping CO2 cylinders connected to something near their -80C freezers, that’s why i assumed it works for this kind of temperatures

this kind of bromine is fine because it doesn’t reach ozone layer, it’s not much worse than regular chlorine bleach

propane/butane/isobutane (gwp much lower than 0.1) is weaker ghg than methane because it decomposes faster, and i thought that for large installations the best choice, by far, is ammonia (0 gwp). you don’t have to circulate ammonia around, there’s glycol loop for that. carbon dioxide is really good if you need -80C, at common AC/freezer/whatever temperatures it loses efficiency and has way too high pressure. (wouldn’t high pressure systems also leak, even more than regular ones?)

there’s also Ikon A, ancient (patent-free) refrigerant mix that is R-152a and CF3I aka R-13I1 that also has gwp around 20-30 but also it’s not flammable, in fact it’s a pretty good fire suppressant because of iodine content. it would comply with all restrictions but it’s expensive tho

worst offenders are perfluorinated gases. CF4 is 5300x as bad as CO2 and lasts 50000 years, SF6 is 17500x as bad and lasts 3200 years. some of the oldest refrigerants were also rather bad, R12 is 10800x worse and lasts 100 years. phasing them out was accidentally a good choice for two reasons

we probably don’t have to worry about clathrates too hard, permafrost is a different thing. i’m not a biologist, but i can tell you that in regular soil in many places there are bacteria that both produce and consume methane (and also hydrogen). i don’t know how well this topic is studied

i don’t think it’s gonna come from persian gulf for some time

i mean, it does happen often but then barely anyone hears about it and it doesn’t make a good story

mr white, you have a cancer. treatment starts next week - breaking bad canada

e: and the most common scenario where it happens is preventive maintenance, which is something so boring that i forgot about it completely first time around

wdym

i think i’m qualified as a chemist

as far as ozone goes, CFCs are bad, HCFCs are less bad but still bad, bromine is even worse, iodine would be worse than bromine but also it’s expensive and the only compound that would be slightly useful would be CF3I which decomposes very quickly. so we can actually maybe see it used in the future, because it’s basically fine

as far as GHG potential goes, the thing that is important are C-F bonds, these bonds do the IR absorption, and how fast that thing decomposes. if you introduce weak bonds decomposition is faster, a lot. C-F bonds are very strong, C-Cl a bit less but we don’t want to do that. C-H are okayish, any double bond is also weak. so this is why CFCs and PFCs are very bad, because they last very long. HFCs are a maybe, not good enough so some are getting phased out now, with less fluorine these get flammable too. and HFOs degrade fast, so they’re basically fine but also are expensive

the more C-F bonds and the less C-H bonds we have the less flammable thing gets, but also more stable, and by the time things get flammable it just makes more sense to switch to hydrocarbons. there are some very niche mixes that would comply with GHG requirements and are nonflammable but very few people actually need it and maybe they’ll get waivers anyway