[HN Gopher] Will any crap we put into graphene increase its elec...
___________________________________________________________________
Will any crap we put into graphene increase its electrocatalytic
effect? (2020)
Author : stereoabuse
Score : 131 points
Date : 2024-04-01 08:17 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (pubs.acs.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (pubs.acs.org)
| due-rr wrote:
| Love the title!
| amelius wrote:
| I don't. Science already has a credibility problem, and click-
| baity titles only make it worse.
| lanternfish wrote:
| On the other hand, the sanitized titles of scientific
| discourse can mask uncredibility and obscure the actual core
| thrust of a piece.
| blegr wrote:
| As opposed to inscrutable two-line titles full of the field's
| buzzwords on top of papers that you have to parse for hours
| to realize the idea and results could have been written in
| one sentence?
|
| Maybe I've read too many applied machine learning papers. As
| long as the funny title isn't dishonest, I'm all for it.
| blegr wrote:
| Actually, "clickbait" doesn't really apply here, the paper
| supports the title.
| SAI_Peregrinus wrote:
| They tested bird crap, but not other sorts if crap. And
| which birds? Does species matter?
| nottorp wrote:
| That is actually a humorous title.
|
| 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!".
| mindcrime wrote:
| That or "STOP putting THIS into Graphene now!!!"
| luqtas wrote:
| plzzz like & subscribe *-*
| mort96 wrote:
| Has the word click-bait lost all its meaning now
| gorjusborg wrote:
| No. It now means 'content that offends my refined
| sensibilities'.
|
| (But I'm with you, words matter, and I loved your comment).
| atoav wrote:
| And there we got the problem, a papers title not _sounding_
| serious doesn 't mean it isn't -- and more importantly: the
| opposite is true as well.
|
| 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.
| xandrius wrote:
| Cannot be clickbaity if the title precisely explains what the
| paper is about.
|
| 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).
| amelius wrote:
| Do you think this paper would be on HN if it had a regular
| kind of title?
|
| At this point, there are more comments about the title than
| about its contents.
| passwordoops wrote:
| Yes it would have. And the problem with science
| dissemination isn't click-baity titles, it's a
| combination of poorly executed science (hence the
| reproducibility and retraction crisis in many field), the
| abject, shameless hyperbole spewed by PR departments, and
| a lack of genuine scientific education
| naasking wrote:
| Would feces-doped graphene have gathered attention on HN?
| I dare say "yes"!
| araes wrote:
| The title appears to work in the context of ACS Nano. Has
| 200+ citations, and cited by several other 200+ papers.
| Maybe double the average ACS Nano citations of 87 (Exaly
| says 1.5 million citations on 17,200 papers
| https://exaly.com/journal/12906/acs-nano) If other authors
| found it click baity, they found it click bait in a way
| that deserved inclusion in their own work above the norm of
| ACS Nano.
| Maken wrote:
| If the paper is accurate, it's actilly making fun of all the
| serious-sounding papers adding whatever to graphene and
| publishing it as noteworthy results. After reading way more
| papers that I wish I had to, I can say I would prefer if all
| paper titles were this accessible and honest.
| meltea wrote:
| Czechs trying to be funny...
| stavros wrote:
| Funniness check passed!
| Terr_ wrote:
| > We demonstrate in the following text the meaninglessness of the
| never-ending co-doping of graphene. We decided to follow the
| hyperbole of ever multiplying dopants; however, instead of using
| expensive and toxic chemicals such as ammonia, fluorine,
| chlorine, boranes, etc., we took a page from the pre-Haber-Bosch
| era and sought natural materials for the fertilization of
| graphene and used guano as a dopant.
|
| 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.
| jon_richards wrote:
| Reminds me of the salmon study
| https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/scicurious-brain/ign...
|
| > 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.
| joatmon-snoo wrote:
| That's a fabulous one. Thanks for sharing.
| perihelions wrote:
| - _"...societal impact not only in clean energy production and a
| cleaner environment but also on rural economies as guano once
| again becomes a valuable and highly sought-after product. "_
|
| 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.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano_Islands_Act
| throwup238 wrote:
| Are there any unclaimed islands left?
|
| Sadly this wouldn't apply to new islands since it takes a long
| time for bats to establish themselves.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| My family actually claimed Howland island back in the early
| days of the guano act (they pivoted from clipper shipyards to
| guano shityards when international trade collapsed at the
| beginning of the civil war) [1]. I'd love to go there and,
| you know, live out my dreams, but WOW is transportation an
| issue. That place is FAR away.
|
| 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...
|
| [2] https://maps.app.goo.gl/Ly8W9M2fqdap7Mzc7?g_st=ic
| ttfkam wrote:
| Better hurry. At only 6m above sea level at its highest
| point, it may sink below the waves before long.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| True that. But the whole potential is leveraging that
| huge dormant volcano under the water.
| pfdietz wrote:
| Villain lair!
| concordDance wrote:
| > before long
|
| Specifically, 1600 years at current rate.
|
| (I have a personal bugbear about people worrying about
| sea level rise)
| dv_dt wrote:
| You can't ignore that the variance and the sea level
| increases with climate change, especially at only 6m
| above.
| thfuran wrote:
| And an island is, for practical purposes, gone well
| before its very highest point is below local mean sea
| level.
| margalabargala wrote:
| There are different sorts of rise to worry about.
|
| 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.
| rukuu001 wrote:
| Solid Neal Stephenson subplot material
| pfdietz wrote:
| I can imagine a SF story where the act is applied to an
| abandoned, but still bird infested, space colony.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| I now want a Star Wars story that involves a harvesting
| mynock guano from various astroids, perhaps with a crime
| lord.
|
| "You think you can come here and disrespect me, by stealing
| MY shit?"
| airstrike wrote:
| That was an interesting read only topped by the wild ride that
| was the linked article on "New Atlantis":
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atlantis_(micronation)
|
| _> 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._
| jshaqaw wrote:
| My grandfather somehow assisted Hemingway in setting up New
| Atlantis and the documents declaring him and my grandmother
| Sir and Lady hang proudly in my living room. As far as I know
| my family is the sole remaining royal line of New Atlantis.
| Hilarious that this keeps coming up.
| autoexecbat wrote:
| Say if you wanted to issue passports for New Atlantis, how
| do you go about doing that, is there some passport
| production machine that is purchasable off the shelf?
| whydoineedthis wrote:
| you could print a passport however you like, but that
| doesn't mean any other country will recognize it and
| allow you entry.
| jshaqaw wrote:
| I can't say this has topic has come up in any recent New
| Atlantean Royal Council meetings but we would welcome you
| to make a presentation on the matter.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| I guess they were trying for an IgNobel Prize? However, they
| don't report anything on the stability of the catalyst under
| reaction conditions, that is how many reaction cycles it goes
| through before losing catalytic effect.
|
| 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.
| VygmraMGVl wrote:
| There isn't any difference between the guano graphene and the
| non-guano graphene in terms of structure -- look at figures 1
| and 2. Figure 2A is clearly 4 of the same spectra because
| thermal exfoliation in the presence of guano doesn't create a
| materially different graphene than not in the presence of
| guano.
|
| 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.
| georgeburdell wrote:
| Related: graphene grown _from_ crap
|
| https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/nn202625c
| pfdietz wrote:
| The paper did not answer the question in the title, since it used
| only one kind of crap. A broader study is called for.
| araes wrote:
| Using @georgeburdell suggestion below of:
| https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/nn202625c we need an extensive
| study of crap grown on crap. 2x2, deuce on deuce. Bull, horse,
| chicken, swine, goat, sheep, sewer trout. Patty, nugget, loaf,
| steamer, log, and gravy configurations also need to be
| explored. Possibly also naturally sourced, like swimming pools,
| and the River Thames.
| naasking wrote:
| The age deucine has begun!
| MisterDizzy wrote:
| I adore that I live in a time where scientific articles have
| headlines with the word "crap".
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-04-01 23:01 UTC)