[HN Gopher] Tiny particles power chemical reactions - Massachuse...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Tiny particles power chemical reactions - Massachusetts Institute
       of Technology
        
       Author : mardiyah
       Score  : 48 points
       Date   : 2021-06-08 12:19 UTC (10 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (news.mit.edu)
 (TXT) w3m dump (news.mit.edu)
        
       | imchillyb wrote:
       | Ah. Good ol' carbon nanotubes...
       | 
       | The only application CNTs fail -completely- at, is leaving the
       | laboratory.
       | 
       | Unlike those pesky CNTs, I'll just see my way out now.
        
         | lumost wrote:
         | This is a valid criticism. There are several threads in science
         | that are seemingly funded indefinitely despite modest to
         | negligible progress and other threads that are utterly starved
         | for funding.
         | 
         | Is there a bias at funding agencies that research in "carbon
         | nanotubules" gets picked over "X research" year after year?
        
           | pfdietz wrote:
           | One long running research area that I'm reminded of is
           | artificial photosynthesis. Let's make a combination PV cell
           | and electrolytic cell, because optimizing both together is
           | going to be totally easier than doing it separately. /s
        
             | lumost wrote:
             | From the perspective of a career minded professor sitting
             | on a funding committee it's a good way to guarantee a
             | growing set of citations. As long as people still research
             | X the first papers in X will garner citations.
        
               | jalk wrote:
               | Oh like masers and lasers you mean ;-)
        
       | malwrar wrote:
       | This seems neat but I'm also a mere computer person and vaguely
       | knowledgeable in electrochemistry. A few questions for anyone who
       | knows more about this subject:
       | 
       | I'm wondering where the electrons being yanked out of the
       | particles come from, and how they end up flowing back into the
       | nanotubes particles. Do they come from the carbon? Are they
       | somehow stored in the tube structure? Also, how exactly do the
       | electrons end up getting pulled back into the structure if
       | they're yanked out in the first place. Wouldn't the system tend
       | towards some equilibrium, rather than what I'm intuiting as an
       | oscillation of charge?
       | 
       | Also, how exactly does this give an advantage to nanomachines
       | over a traditional battery? Do we just not know how to build them
       | small enough, and therefore this is neat because we can (crudely
       | worded, forgive me I'm not an expert) hook these particles up to
       | nanomachines so they can generate power with the whole chassis
       | suspended inside the solvent? Maybe it's just easier to
       | manufacture than e.g. batteries?
        
         | rpmuller wrote:
         | This seems like a cross between a standard battery and a flow
         | battery. A standard battery has an anode, separator, and
         | cathode connected to each other, and counter-ions (eg Li+) flow
         | from the anode to the cathode, allowing a wire connecting the
         | anode and cathode to generate a potential, since the counter-
         | ions "want" to be in the cathode more than in the anode. Many
         | standard batteries can be recharged by reversing the voltage
         | and making the electrons flow in the opposite direction.
         | 
         | A flow battery uses a solvent for the anode and the cathode,
         | which are then flowed through a tube containing a separator,
         | across which the same voltage can be extracted. Flow batteries
         | are recharged by taking the spent fuel out of the battery and
         | re-oxidizing/reducing it, after which it can be reused in the
         | flow battery.
         | 
         | The way I'm reading this is that its the anode (CNTs) and
         | separator (teflon) of a flow battery, with a reducible organic
         | solvent molecule (CH3CN) serving the purpose of the cathode. I
         | don't see anything playing the analogous role of the
         | counterions, but perhaps this configuration doesn't need it
         | because the distance traveled by the electrons is atomic-scale.
         | 
         | So, the electrons come from the pi-shell of the CNTs, and flow
         | into the pi-system of the CN group, where they can do some
         | chemistry. The electrons don't flow back, since the band they
         | flow into is lower than the band they come from (Fig 1b of the
         | Nat Com paper). My reading of the paper is that the particles
         | would be recharged by taking them out of the solvent and
         | exposing them to a current.
         | 
         | The advantage of this system over a traditional battery is that
         | you can provide electrons at a higher potential to nanomachines
         | that could then use that energy to do some work, without
         | needing to be wired up to something. I'm thinking here of a
         | molecule that "walks" along a fiber or something, and the
         | higher enegy electron could cause a conformational change in
         | the molecule to move it down the fiber.
         | 
         | There's a nice analogy here to the way that biological systems
         | use chemical species like NADH to fuel chemistry via redox
         | reactions.
         | 
         | Just the best guess I can make at this point, please reply if
         | I've missed something.
        
           | malwrar wrote:
           | Thanks for this reply, makes sense to me now and now I have
           | more things to Google! Any idea how they'd extract the
           | particles from the solvent to recharge? I'll try reading the
           | paper as well.
        
             | rpmuller wrote:
             | Filter paper? I'm only somewhat joking here, since I
             | imagine the particles are micron-sized.
        
           | rpmuller wrote:
           | Correction: I meant "NADPH" instead of "NADH". It's been 25
           | years since I've done any biochem, and obviously my skills
           | have rusted (haha, electrochemistry joke).
           | 
           | The Z-scheme in photosynthesis is exactly the type of way I
           | could see this being used: put a high energy electron into
           | one state, and generate a cascade of subsequent chemical
           | reactions as the electron relaxes into a lower energy state:
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis#Z_scheme
        
       | steve76 wrote:
       | > Tiny particles power chemical reactions
       | 
       | Yes. I'm sure they do.
       | 
       | > Those electrons can be drawn out by submerging the particles in
       | a solvent that is hungry for electrons.
       | 
       | When I hear particle, I don't think of a little grain of matter.
       | I think of anything that's discrete. If it moves a thermometer or
       | a voltmeter, it's a particle, even if it's just a flash of
       | brightness from something else.
       | 
       | After reading the article, I immediately thought of a pipeline
       | that's fully packed, not pumping oil, because of a cyber attack.
       | Start lining the pipes in teflon. Look at parrafin oxidation.
       | Inject a recipe into miles and miles of 40" pipe. And hook up
       | cables to it. It turns into a giant battery, like how heat pumps
       | have electric heaters on the outside unit when the temperature
       | gets too cold. The petroleum oxidizes in the pipe, and at least
       | you have some return on value. Probably will cost too much and
       | not produce enough power, but better than just sitting there.
       | Perhaps you can add really high pressure, and get good enough at
       | some hot spots the reaction goes down to quantum chemistry, the
       | entire thing is effectively plasma or quark matter for brief
       | periods.
        
       | thereisnospork wrote:
       | My takeaways from the Nature article:
       | 
       | The underlying driving enthalpy seems to be the solvent
       | adsorption exotherm. By extension once full wetted the particles
       | stop producing voltage, but can be dried and rewetted.
       | 
       | As with typical electrochemistry both an oxidation and reduction
       | are performed simultaneously: Oxidation on the PTFE side and
       | reduction on the CNT side. Essentially each particle is its own
       | little electrochemical cell, deriving its working potential from
       | the solvent-surface interaction.
        
       | refurb wrote:
       | I was educated and worked as an organic chemist and did some
       | organic electrochemistry and I have no freaking clue what this is
       | about based on the press release. The attempt at putting it in
       | plain English appears to have completely butchered any
       | understanding of the science.
       | 
       | It appears that by coating carbon nanotubes with telfon on one
       | side (after ground into a film), they can create a potential
       | gradient with an oxidizing solvent on one side? But so many
       | pieces are missing - where do the electrons come from? What's on
       | the Teflon side of the membrane? An electron donor?
        
       | SKCarr wrote:
       | Here's the link to the Nat. Comm. paper since I couldn't find it
       | in the press release:
       | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23038-7
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-06-08 23:03 UTC)