User talk:Tapan89/Membraneless Fuel Cells

= Feedback =

I would like to start by pointing at the article Solid oxide fuel cells. It is very different from your article, not at all in a bad way, just as inspiration to a different approach.

Section by section review
The article begins with:

'' Fuel cells are devices whereby stored chemical energy is converted into electrical energy through a series of reactions. ''

I think it could be nice with something more to the point:

''Membraneless Fuel Cells converts stored chemical energy into electrical energy without the use of a conducting membrane as with other types of fuel cells. In Laminar Flow Fuel Cells (LFFC) this is archived by exploiting the phenomenon of non-mixing laminar flows, the interface between the two flows works as a proton conductor. The interface allows for high diffusivity and eliminates the need for costly membranes.''

(I think it is somewhat unclear if this technology only works with a H+ particle, or if any can be used?)

In the current article there is a talk about the various efficiencies, I think this can be dangerous as this can easily become outdated compared to the more "mainstream" fuel cell articles (lets face it, this is somewhat of a niche). So i would recommend leaving that entire part out.

I think your point with:

Laminar Flow Fuel Cells (LFFC) take advantage of micro and nano-scale laws in an effort to and overcome the challenges associated with macro fuel cells.

Is really good, but right now i do not see how to best fit it in (?).

Overview
Maybe a

Would be appropriate?

Also i do not like the part:

''However, since these methods of hydrogen production are often energy intensive, it is often more energy efficient to use the chemicals directly in the fuel cell. Direct Methanol Fuel Cells (DMFC's), for example, use methanol as the reactant instead of first using reformation to produce hydrogen. Although DMFC's are not very efficient (~25%)[2] ''

I am pretty sure that nothing can compete with modern gas reforming plants when it comes to efficiency, maybe the current generation of SOFC but regardless the reader could get the impression that current DMFC can compete with reforming and then feeding it to a fuel cell. It is my impression that the DMFC technology at it's current stage mainly aims at reducing space consumption while allowing the use of liquid fuels...

How about:

''However, since these methods of hydrogen production can be both energy intensive and space consuming, it is often more convenient to use the chemicals directly in the fuel cell. Direct Methanol Fuel Cells (DMFC's), for example, use methanol as the reactant instead of first using reformation to produce hydrogen. Although DMFC's are not very efficient (~25%)[2] ''

Laminar flow
'' In laminar flow, two fluids will not exhibit mixing which means laminar flow is limited. ''

That sentence does not make a lot of sense to me. Maybe you mean to say that because of the difference in properties the flow will eventually mix?

Diffusion
The protons need to be compatible with both the fuel and oxidizing agent.

Are you referring to some nano-scale effect in the interface between the two fluids, or how should that sentence be understood? I think a reader with limited understanding of the subject would read this as if this proton have been given some kinda "unique" properties.

Also:

''In DMFC's for example, a thicker membrane increases the diffusion length while the concentration is often limited due to crossover. Thus, the diffusion flux is limited''

Could maybe be rephrased to:

''In DMFC's for example, the thickness of the membrane determines the diffusion length while the concentration is often limited due to crossover. Thus, the diffusion flux is limited''

Other comments
The potential uses are nice, maybe that could somehow be mentioned in the start of the article?

Nice potential todo:

I think some to the point talk on how the current technology exactly works could be nice. From all the comparisons I was pretty convinced that methanol is mainly used and did not know what the oxidizer was. Also it is unclear what the state of the fuel and oxidizer? Is it liquid or gaseous?

Finally I think the concept of mixed flow needs to be elaborated, I understand it after reading parts of the IEEE article.

Also it would be nice to see an image of what is going on.

Larkuur (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)