ztravis

actually...(1.0-2.0)+((((3.0+4.0)x(5.0-(6.0/7.0)))x8.0)x9.0) == 2087

I would guess they actually did this first (determine the area directly) so that they could judge how large to make their sample word. Their results look very nice and, notably, are scaled appropriately to a single ballpoint pen's worth of ink.

or maybe not. might have just turned out well!

In general, there isn't that much stock on the market (millions/billions of dollars worth) that an outside investor can get his hands on. So, if Buffet had bought dexter using cash, the investors couldn't have just turned around and used that cash to purchase Berkshire stock.

I've come across this line of reasoning before (in reference to the study with math problems/telling kids they're smart versus hard working) but I'm not sure if I believe this is particular to being designated as smart. In fact, I would imagine that telling students that they're not in the 'smart' range, or having peers designated as smart while they are not, is more damaging to academic motivation/leads to more fears and emotional distress. I think both are just manifestations of an underlying fear of being judged, regardless of the expectations - fears of not living up to high expectations, or confirming low ones, or in general moving from a comfortable position of uncertainty in one's skill/intelligence (leaving open the possibility of it being unexpectedly high) to a better defined and therefore less appealing position.

(you might argue that labeling a child as 'not smart' or at least not singling out a child as 'smart' might motivate them to prove the evaluation wrong - but I think those cases are by far the exception rather than the rule)

Now, the label of 'hard working' is on a very different scale from intelligence; I can understand how calling kids 'smart' rather than 'hard working' could decrease their performance. Nevertheless, over the course of our academic lives I think we all get a sense of how we fit in, intelligence-wise, even if we aren't explicitly labeled, from grades, peer performance, parent/teacher expectations and evaluations... the smart ones fear being 'found out' as dumb or tarnishing their reputations, the 'dumb' ones fear (even more, I would imagine) the criticism or negative evaluation of their work they expect to be forthcoming, the average ones fear being confirmed as merely average...

"Also it's the same anywhere else in the Middle East. "

The Gulf (oil-rich) countries are not the entire middle east. Things are very different in the Levant, North Africa, Yemen, Persia,...

Not that what you say is not true in Saudi Arabia or the UAE but it's an important distinction to make... these are cultural and economic problems particular to certain countries, not to the Middle East as a whole, or to all arab countries.

A roommate of a personal friend was allowed to keep ~$600 in profits from trades using this 'fake' buying power after making a large stock purchase. Perhaps hearsay, but I'm inclined to believe that this really happened.

To be honest, I don't know why it's called artificial photosynthesis versus photovoltaics - perhaps it is because this research looks to the actual chemical systems involved in photosynthesis as models for man-made systems (as opposed to trying to develop light-converting systems ab initio). In any case, "artificial photosynthesis" is commonly used to refer to research both on hydrolysis via solar energy and carbon fixation into organic compounds, both of which are fundamental to photosynthesis as a whole.

I was wrong about the chlorine production, actually - it only occurs at high concentrations of salt. Otherwise (or with different solutes), you can produce oxygen. Still, I believe that this reaction is not efficient enough to be feasible as an energy source. Overall, you do want the hydrogen, but you also need an oxidant to, for example, run a fuel cell. I think there are hydrogen-chlorine fuel cells, but I imagine it would be easier and more practical to run a hydrogen-oxygen cell instead to avoid using chlorine gas/producing HCl. In any case, it boils down to developing catalysts to improve the rate and efficiency of this electrolysis (by lowering overpotentials).

I agree with you that your paragraph makes a lot more sense than the parent article. It's annoying how these press releases make things seem much more revolutionary than they really are.

You are correct about your first point - the connection with photosynthesis is shaky at best. This research describes a new electrocatalyst for the production of oxygen. The source of electrical energy for driving this production could be solar cells, but that would be just one potential use.

The paper does focus on photosynthesis, however, because the Nocera's lab works on "artificial photosynthesis," a field largely devoted to understanding the electrochemical processes of photosynthesis and mimicking them in man-made systems. For the most part, "artificial photosynthesis" focuses not on carbon fixation but on the transformation of light to electrochemical energy (via electron/proton transfer). This is the process that Nocera's research is replicating, and likely why he focuses on using solar cells as the source of energy, to parallel a plant's use of solar energy as a route to energy storage/O2 production.

Finally, I think some of your scientific analysis needs correction:

Electrolysis (in its simplest form) doesn't require any solute - it can be performed, very slowly, in pure water. Adding salt (say, NaCl), as you mention, speeds up the rate greatly. However, in doing so, the reaction changes - you'll evolve hydrogen as before, but at the anode you'll evolve chlorine gas, not oxygen. You can't use electrolysis alone to produce oxygen gas or as a route to storing energy. One alternative to this is to use an electrocatalyst, but currently, (as the article mentions), the only available catalysts require expensive metals or very basic environments (or both). This article is on the discovery of a new catalyst that will allow for the production of oxygen via catalyzed electrolysis at neutral pH and with a cheap, abundant catalyst (cobalt).

Also, if we're looking at the same quote: "storing energy for use when the sun doesn't shine," the article is talking about humans storing energy, not plants. Even so, plants do store energy for when the sun doesn't shine. They metabolize hydrocarbons into ATP via mitochondria, just like we do - so glucose and other products of photosynthesis are indeed forms of stored energy.

I think a lot of the confusion stems from the fact that we're reading a popular article and not the actual research - these articles tend to pick up on terms like artificial photosynthesis, energy production, and solar energy and run with them.