Will any crap we put into graphene increase its electrocatalytic effect? (2020)
pubs.acs.org
pubs.acs.org
If they don't report the lifetime, it's usually because the lifetime is crap, and all they have is a laboratory curiousity - which might, with futher diligent effort (and please, another research grant!), become industrially useful... maybe.
The rest of the paper is poking fun at all of the referenced papers that just have inconsistent electrochemical experimental setups that produce apparently increased electrocatalytic effects.
What a wonderfully bat-shit paper.
> In summary, we demonstrated that bird dropping-treated graphenes indeed make graphene more electrocatalytic than nondoped graphene.
Oh, never mind, just bird-shit, dang.
> the salmon was shown images of people in social situations, either socially inclusive situations or socially exclusive situations. The salmon was asked to respond, saying how the person in the situation must be feeling. The salmon, as far as I can tell from the paper, did not comply with instructions.
Apropos of nothing, the Guano Islands Act of 1856 is still, apparently, standing US law [0]. This research is an exciting opportunity for any who'd like to serve as mercenary privateers under the flag of the United States, while advancing science.
Sadly this wouldn’t apply to new islands since it takes a long time for bats to establish themselves.
Also, check out the super secret spy base on the west side of the island, loosely hidden by google maps treachery. What’s happening there?? [2]
[1] http://christophersetterlund.blogspot.com/2020/05/in-their-f...
Specifically, 1600 years at current rate.
(I have a personal bugbear about people worrying about sea level rise)
There's "everything is always underwater" rise, whichbis 1600 years off. Then there's "average highwater mark during a storm at high tide", which will exceed those 6m a lot sooner and is the point at which the island ceases to become at all inhabitable.
"You think you can come here and disrespect me, by stealing MY shit?"
> New Atlantis was a micronation formed by Leicester Hemingway, the brother of Ernest Hemingway. The "island", a 240 sq ft (22 m²) bamboo raft off the coast of Jamaica, was established as a constitutional republic on July 4, 1964.
I am reminded of the "you can develop photos with a banana and a spoon" (not really) stories, which underline the fundamentals of what photographic development is: a chemistry story which is not about the substances as much as about how base and acids combine. The photoreactive chemicals are highly specific, but the process of fixing them, and binding visible molecules to them or not, is more general.
Maybe the role of "contaminants" in graphine is similar? Not what it is, but what it DOES.
Maybe I’ve read too many applied machine learning papers. As long as the funny title isn’t dishonest, I’m all for it.
Note that the title accurately describes what the article is about. As opposed to clickbait. Clickbait would have been "You would never believe what we put into graphene!".
(But I'm with you, words matter, and I loved your comment).
The credibility problems science has is because instead of replicating the contents of a paper people have seveloped and over-reliance on other peripheral metrics like which papers it has been published in, p-values and such. Relying on the seriousness of titles is just another of those distractions.
The problem with science dissemination is not that it's too accessible but rather the polar opposite: even experts find reading some (many? Most?) papers truly dreadful because of the terse and dryness but one does it for the knowledge; on the other hand everyone else absolutely needs to rely on "science popularisers" to even half-understand half of what a paper is about. And that's the problem: the general scientific understanding is as good as the scientific rigor of the most understandable/entertaining science populariser out there.
To clarify: if person A is extremely diligent and precise but not too enjoyable to watch, they will get X views and maybe a limited (but positive) impact, on the other hand person B is not very diligent, cuts corners or even outright lies but is very easy and fun to watch, they reach N more people than person A, having an absolute huge (albeit negative) impact.
If the authors had a way to write both for experts and, somehow, have control on how that knowledge is available to the rest, the delta between the two methods of dissemination would be minimal (or at least controlled).
At this point, there are more comments about the title than about its contents.