Comments on: Daily Mail Sucked In By Science Hoax http://www.busboom.org/posts/2009/189-dailymail-sucked-in-by-science-hoax Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:58:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Eric Busboom http://www.busboom.org/posts/2009/189-dailymail-sucked-in-by-science-hoax/comment-page-1#comment-8 Eric Busboom Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:58:19 +0000 http://www.busboom.org/?p=189#comment-8 Thanks for the comment, Ben. You are right, the JJAP paper shows 0.2% efficiency, but the <em>Polymer Bulletin</em> paper reports 2.7%, both for polyacetylene, not melanin. I really don't know much organic chemistry, but it does sound like you are right: most melanins are more complex than just polyacetylene, although some <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin#Physical_properties_and_technological_applications" rel="nofollow">simple fungal melanins are pure polyacetylene</a>. The message I intended from the papers I linked to was that in the best case, with a lot of chemistry to prepare the melanin and engineering to construct the cell, a hair-based solar cell is very unlikely to get more than 3% efficiency, which makes the endeavor pointless. Thanks for the comment, Ben. You are right, the JJAP paper shows 0.2% efficiency, but the Polymer Bulletin paper reports 2.7%, both for polyacetylene, not melanin.

I really don’t know much organic chemistry, but it does sound like you are right: most melanins are more complex than just polyacetylene, although some simple fungal melanins are pure polyacetylene.

The message I intended from the papers I linked to was that in the best case, with a lot of chemistry to prepare the melanin and engineering to construct the cell, a hair-based solar cell is very unlikely to get more than 3% efficiency, which makes the endeavor pointless.

]]> By: Ben Langley http://www.busboom.org/posts/2009/189-dailymail-sucked-in-by-science-hoax/comment-page-1#comment-7 Ben Langley Fri, 11 Sep 2009 03:45:39 +0000 http://www.busboom.org/?p=189#comment-7 The JJAP paper you cite is for poly(acetylene), a synthetic conductive polymer which bears only minute similarity to melanin, which is a complex polymer formed from many different monomers, most containing nitrogen, which poly(acetylene) does not. Also, they show a conversion efficiency of 0.2% not 2.7%. The JJAP paper you cite is for poly(acetylene), a synthetic conductive polymer which bears only minute similarity to melanin, which is a complex polymer formed from many different monomers, most containing nitrogen, which poly(acetylene) does not. Also, they show a conversion efficiency of 0.2% not 2.7%.

]]>