Talk:Daniel G. Nocera

Untitled
I am currently in the process of constructing this page. Professor Nocera recently published a major article in Science Magazine which is believed to have major implications for long term solar energy technologies which was widely featured in the media. Moreover, he is a well respected and well known member of the inorganic, bioinorganic, and physical chemistry communities.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html (The MIT News Office Story)

Science Magazine's Page about the Paper: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1162018

Associated Press: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hU4psa0yJEFrxFZFDs0EQZFqa5vQD92900P80

NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/us/01hydrogen.html

Nature: http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080731/full/news.2008.996.html


 * Okay, taking that into consideration, I took away the speedy deletion template and put an under construction tag on the page instead. That should help protect it while you expand, but no guarantees. Best of luck! Rising*From*Ashes (talk) 07:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I'm leaving your explanation of notability on this discussion page so that other concerned editors see it.

The big deal is the hydrogen, not the oxygen
User:Wefigureditout, I don't understand why the intro was switched from production of Hydrogen to the production of Oxygen. We have tons of Oxygen. It's the release of the Hydrogen on the Platinum plate that is the revolution in energy carrying capability (assuming the thermodynamic efficiency is high as is suggested). See commentary in Mak (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Mak Thorpe The intro was changed because Nocera's contribution involves no hydrogen production, only oxygen production. The problem of oxygen production is more difficult, thus, his result is very significant, however, in the publication in question, no experiments involving hydrogen evolution were ever done, and there is no mention of any novel H2 evolving materials. There has been a lot of mention of hydrogen in the media, as this is the actual fuel. In reality, although we have a lot of oxygen, it is essential to produce oxygen in order to maintain a truly sustainable solution.

With all due respect
Nocera is a significant and respected researcher but the discussion of his work is done in terms of pop pulp publication and not in the terms of an encyclopedia. This self healing catalyst is not an "entirely novel approach" and the immediately following statement contradicts this by saying that the approach builds on Nocera's background in condensed matter physics (which in this situation is just an absurdly fancy name for chemistry). Its been known since I think the 60's that Co3+ ions will produce O2; Nocera's trick was to get the system to turnover.

Nocera's page is not the appropriate location to discuss the intermittance issue many alternative energy sources suffer.

The original research in line reference 5 "If the electrolysis now is 70% efficient, gas storage is 90% efficient, and fuel cell efficiency is 40% (see Fuel_cell#In_practice), round trip efficiency is 0.7 × 0.9 × 0.4 = 25%." is flawed. First its original research and second where did 70% come from?

Next "Critics of the scheme point out..." this isn't Nocera's "scheme". This "scheme" has been kicked around in a hundred different forms since before the term "hydrogen economy" was coined. Nocera's most recent contribution to this scheme is an electrocatalyst at the anode, no more (this is however a significant accomplishment). So again this is not the place to discuss alternative energy in general.

I'm going to edit this page down to size. It would be appreciated if someone could expand the material that actually relates to the catalyst. I'll do this if I get time.--OMCV (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal Life
"Dan Nocera had a lonely childhood with few friends." This takes too much creative liberty with the statements made in the article cited and is unprofessional to say in this manner. Moreover, it doesn't contribute to the content of the article in a meaningful way. I would recommend deleting it. Thoughts? --Quantumtunnels (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Daniel G. Nocera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070703221942/http://etd.caltech.edu/etd/available/etd-02012005-160716/ to http://etd.caltech.edu/etd/available/etd-02012005-160716/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Daniel G. Nocera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160419002000/http://www.eni.com/en_IT/media/press-releases/2008/07/2008-07-07eni-solar.shtml to http://www.eni.com/en_IT/media/press-releases/2008/07/2008-07-07eni-solar.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160418051210/http://www.eni.com/attachments/innovazione-tecnologia/eni-award/la-commissione-scientifica/eng_DanielNoceraCV.pdf to http://www.eni.com/attachments/innovazione-tecnologia/eni-award/la-commissione-scientifica/eng_DanielNoceraCV.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)