Researchers from the University of Southern Denmark say they’ve invented a crystal that pulls oxygen out of the air and even water. Apparently, just a spoonful of the stuff can suck up all the oxygen in a room.
The crystal is a salt made from cobalt, and it appears to be capable of holding oxygen at a concentration that is 160 times higher than the air we breathe. The paper notes that "an excess" of the substance would bind up to 99 percent of the oxygen in a room.
But what’s more remarkable is that the crystal can later release the oxygen by gently heating the material or subjecting it to low-oxygen conditions. In the press release, study author Christine McKenzie likens it to the hemoglobin in our blood, which uses iron to bind and release oxygen in the human body.
Could be useful for a variety of things from medical purposes to space exploration.
http://www.sdu.dk/en/Om_SDU/Fakulteterne/Naturvidenskab/Nyheder/2014_09_30_iltsluger
The abstract is available at the journal Chemical Science.
[Editor's Note: The linked stories state a "spoonful" could absorb all of a room's oxygen; the original researcher's press release states it would take a bucket-full (10 liters).]
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Thursday October 02 2014, @05:59PM
Sounds like a WMD.
:)
--
subicular junctures
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Thursday October 02 2014, @06:02PM
I didn't read the editor's note. A bucket-full is many magnitudes larger than a spoon full.
676 tablespoons full in a 10 L bucket.
subicular junctures
(Score: 2) by arashi no garou on Thursday October 02 2014, @06:54PM
many magnitudes...676
So, two magnitudes is "many"? Or did you forget what "magnitudes" means?
But I get you on the misleading summary (sans Editor's Note).
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Thursday October 02 2014, @07:33PM
In truth, I wrote the first part, then Googled the conversion, then wrote the second part, and didn't rewrite the first...but you are right..it is only 676 times bigger, no 1000 times bigger.
subicular junctures
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mcgrew on Thursday October 02 2014, @06:54PM
They're measuring with tiny buckets!
That's the problem, journalists refuse to use real measures. How big a room? My bathroom? Carnegie Hall? NASA's Vehicle Assembly Building? What sized spoon, a 10 CC measuring spoon or a ladle?
What the hell is wrong with liters and grams? "Spoonful" (big spoon!), "roomful", and "Bucket full" are completely meaningless.
Sometimes I think you need to take an IQ test to be a journalist; any score over 80 disqualifies you.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bob_super on Thursday October 02 2014, @07:09PM
You're supposed to talk simple to the simple people "golf-ball-sized hail" and "Volkswagen-sized-meteor".
"Relate to the dumb fucks" is pretty much the motto of most journalists. Even the one who can't figure out units in the first place.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Tork on Thursday October 02 2014, @07:30PM
"Relate to the dumb fucks" is pretty much the motto of most journalists."
Actually I think it's "communicate clearly". Not everybody has a picture of Slave Leia on their wall.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday October 02 2014, @08:37PM
Yes, i should have said "most _TV_ journalists".
There are still quite a few decent print journalists out there.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tathra on Thursday October 02 2014, @10:53PM
SI units of measurements is about as clear as you can get. i don't really have a problem with odd units of measurement like "olympic swimming pools" or "library of congresses" because it can help people to visualize the amount, but it should only be used as a supplement after giving the amount (or close approximation) in a standardized unit of measure.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday October 02 2014, @11:36PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday October 03 2014, @12:12AM
if their target audience is fluent in mandarin and they're writing to a chinese/taiwanese/singaporean audience, then yes. if the goal is, like you said, to "communicate clearly" then they should communicate clearly, regardless of what language in which they're writing. thats a pretty obvious false equivalence, btw; intentionally using logical fallacies is the same as saying "i cant defend my premise".
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday October 03 2014, @12:46AM
if their target audience is fluent in mandarin and they're writing to a chinese/taiwanese/singaporean audience, then yes. if the goal is, like you said, to "communicate clearly" then they should communicate clearly, regardless of what language in which they're writing.
We don't actually disagree on this point. I was commenting on your absolutist solution that would almost certainly result in needlessly lengthening any given article. If it's clearly written it doesn't suddenly stop being clearly written just because exact measurements weren't provided. In fact there are times where you don't actually want to give specific figures, like in the case of development that's going on.
thats a pretty obvious false equivalence, btw;
Only if you're motivated to hastily dismiss a point.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Thursday October 02 2014, @08:35PM
Or we could say the journalist try to mass communicate with their intellectual peers.
(Score: 2) by AnonTechie on Thursday October 02 2014, @08:42PM
Interesting study which is related to your comment:
From ISIS to Unemployment: What Do Americans Know?
The latest Pew Research Center News IQ quiz measures the public’s awareness of key facts in the news: from questions about conflicts around the world to the current minimum wage and the chair of the Federal Reserve. (Before reading this report, take the quiz yourself by clicking here. http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/the-news-iq-quiz/ [pewresearch.org] )
The survey finds that a large majority (73%) is able to correctly identify the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour (from a list of other amounts ranging from $5.25 to $12.50).
http://www.people-press.org/2014/10/02/from-isis-to-unemployment-what-do-americans-know/ [people-press.org]
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
(Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Thursday October 02 2014, @10:52PM
> They're measuring with tiny buckets!
Damn you again Metric System!
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday October 02 2014, @06:26PM
Weapon of Mass Drowning?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday October 02 2014, @06:37PM
Or a new super hero.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bob_super on Thursday October 02 2014, @07:05PM
Extract of police report:
"the swat team breached the room without breaking down the door, two officers immediately subdued the suspect while the others proceeded to tape down all the cracks and a couple bullet holes from the firefight. Officer J then brought in the crystals and spread them evenly on the floor, using the approved gloves and rake per section 12 of the manual. As soon as Officer H gave the go-ahead on the quick-set caulk, the team fell back to the staging area , but was delayed by the trimming of the under-door rubber mat.
The camera clearly demonstrates that the suspect acted very confused, before collapsing as expected. He died before the oxygen-tank equipped team could reach him, as the floor mat was blocking the door.
To improve survivability of the suspects, We now recommend improvements to the protocol in the form of covering the whole house with a tent (similar to termite exterminators) rather than the "tape and caulk" procedure."
(Score: 2, Insightful) by J053 on Thursday October 02 2014, @07:33PM
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Saturday October 04 2014, @02:35AM
Is it just me, or did OJ just enter the room as well?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 02 2014, @06:01PM
Why the sic on spoonful? It was spelled correctly.
(Score: 4, Funny) by maxwell demon on Thursday October 02 2014, @06:28PM
No, "bucket" was terribly misspelled. Not a single character was correct, and even the world-length was wrong!
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by MrGuy on Thursday October 02 2014, @06:29PM
I suspect it's related to the editor's note - TFA's headline reads "1 spoonful," but the press release TFA cites as their source claims much more (a bucket full) would be needed.
So, the quantity of "1 spoonful" is being as noted as "hey, that's what they wrote."
IANAE, and I'd agree I generally see [sic] denote a misspelling. Don't know if there's a "better" way to denote a factual error in the original [as opposed to a typographical one].
(Score: 4, Informative) by mcgrew on Thursday October 02 2014, @06:58PM
Wikipedia agrees with you.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday October 03 2014, @06:53PM
Well, that's just sic! If only we had a spoonful of sugar to make the oxygen go away.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hubie on Friday October 03 2014, @06:51PM
I've seen really odd uses of sic on this site. Even within the context of this example, it isn't used appropriately. "Spoonful" is used throughout the whole linked article. If it was the case that the title said spoonful, but the rest of the article said "bucketful", then I would agree, but there is no confusion of transcription in what the article is saying. The article might contradict the press release from one of the authors, but that is a contradiction of facts between the articles, not something that one might confuse as a mistaken transcription, especially when it is repeated multiple times within the article.
A while back there was a submission where the submitter sprinkled sics all over the place because they took one part of the Wiki definition to heart and they were slapping it on any statement they found surprising, and even slapped it on a statement where they felt the person in the article was making a logically fallacious argument. These go WAY beyond trying to help the reader understand that a simple transcription error wasn't made.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Saturday October 04 2014, @01:31AM
I'd say in this case it's justified. If there are conflicting facts right in the summary, it's helpful to immediately point out which is erroneous.
(Score: 2) by hubie on Saturday October 04 2014, @10:41PM
I disagree. One article says one thing, another says another. Why do we assume one is right and the other isn't? Perhaps the research author's press release was mis-typed. Perhaps "a bucketful" is not quite right either because one can calculate that it really should be 8.7 liters and not 10. Do you put sic on the research author's press release too? You should only add it when a reader might think an author (reporter, etc.) mis-typed or poorly edited something, and there is some particular reason to quote the person verbatim (this is often done in politics to make someone appear uneducated).
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday October 02 2014, @06:07PM
But what’s more remarkable is that the crystal can later release the oxygen by gently heating the material or subjecting it to low-oxygen conditions.
So self limiting then?
In its quest to gobble up "99%" of the oxygen wouldn't it naturally encounter "low-oxygen conditions", or does that kick in around 99.5%?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Funny) by KilroySmith on Thursday October 02 2014, @06:15PM
Dead man found asphyxiated in motel room, but no obvious reason is found...except for the bucket of sand in the corner.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by g2 In The Desert on Thursday October 02 2014, @06:25PM
Like the room you just sucked all the oxygen out of?
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday October 03 2014, @12:48PM
Anyone else think of this: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1060812.Gasping [goodreads.com] when they read TFA? Scary...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MrGuy on Thursday October 02 2014, @06:37PM
on this statement:
(emphasis mine).
Pulling the oxygen out of molecular water would be quite a trick, and probably a violation of the laws of thermodynamics (it would make hydrogen fuel cells a heck of a lot more viable...) I was all set to doubt the entire story based on claiming they could do this.
But that's actually not the claim. The claim is pulling out the dissolved oxygen in water (for example, lake or seawater), which has some potential application for divers. Less interesting, but more logical.
I guess that still makes the "or even water" sound weird to me - why would it be unusual for a crystal that absorbs atmospheric oxygen to also absorb liquid-dissolved oxygen?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 02 2014, @06:52PM
Many articles covering this news have mentioned how great this would be for scuba divers. This ignores the fact that pure oxygen is toxic in hyperbaric environments. So, to use it for diving would require some sort of compressed gas (like nitrogen) with oxygen in the powder (preloaded or absorbed from the water). Then a CO2 scrubber (rebreather stage) to recycle the nitrogen. Adding complexity and cost to a dive is not what most divers would be interested in.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mcgrew on Thursday October 02 2014, @07:13PM
Pulling the oxygen out of molecular water would be quite a trick, and probably a violation of the laws of thermodynamics
Fish do it. There is a lot of oxygen in water that is O and O2 and not bound together as H2O.
And now we know how those Jedi things they swim underwater with work! This would essentially be an artificial gill.
why would it be unusual for a crystal that absorbs atmospheric oxygen to also absorb liquid-dissolved oxygen?
Because the article author who thought that was unusual is a moron who uses spoonfuls and roomfuls as measures rather than real measurements like gram and milliliter. What else would you expect? Don't doubt the scientists (unless you are one in their field reading their paper), but no journalist I've ever read was trustworthy, and I've been reading for half a century.
Oh, and without reading the actual scientific paper I doubt it will suck ALL of the oxygen out of a room. Again, the article was written by a moron.
And clearly, as you say, it isn't separating oxygen bound into a molecule or it would take "all" of the CO2 out of the air as well, leaving mostly nitrogen (which it is already but not as much) and carbon. And yes, that would seem to violate some laws.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 5, Interesting) by EvilSS on Thursday October 02 2014, @07:31PM
Heh. I'm guessing you don't own a fishtank? I do, and when I saw that claim about pulling oxygen out of water I immediately thought of the dissolved O2, not the molecular oxygen in the water molecules itself. Fish people really do think differently :)
As for why it would be unusual, more than likely the uniqueness is that it works both while soaked in a solvent (water) and while dry. I imagine that the number of things can can extract oxygen under both conditions is pretty narrow compared to the ones that can do one or the other.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 03 2014, @09:52AM
I'm looking forward to improved SCUBA rebreathers. Expel the CO/2, suck in oxygen from the surrounding water.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday October 02 2014, @10:03PM
Pulling the oxygen out of molecular water would be quite a trick, and probably a violation of the laws of thermodynamics
They're talking about pulling the oxygen gas out of water, not the oxygen out of water atoms.
How do you think fish breathe?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday October 02 2014, @10:08PM
not the oxygen out of water atoms.
Edit: "not the oxygen atoms out of water molecules."
(Score: 3, Funny) by hemocyanin on Thursday October 02 2014, @07:27PM
Jeez, everyone forgets hemocyanin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemocyanin [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 02 2014, @10:51PM
Biological stuff tends to be weak and fragile. An inorganic crystal should tolerate at least a few hundred degrees celsius, and last for years. Much more useful in an industrial setting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 03 2014, @12:23PM
How do you absorb something without having the molecules in motion over the surfaces of the crystal?
The oxygen is then in motion to the crystal?
So there is a wind?
Just how fast does this remove oxygen?
Can this be used to stop fires?
(Score: 2) by TK on Friday October 03 2014, @02:28PM
I was wondering what time frames we're looking at here myself. I'm sure putting this in the middle of a flow path, or agitating it will increase the absorption speed. Otherwise, I'm imagining passive absorption will behave in much the same way as Newton's Law of Cooling, ie, the larger the difference, the faster the change, but as the change occurs, the rate of change decreases.
Fire suppression may be one of the better applications for this, if fast heating doesn't do the exact opposite. From TFS:
The fleas have smaller fleas, upon their backs to bite them, and those fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @03:20AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godzilla_(1954_film) [wikipedia.org]
First thing I thought of when I saw this article.
Who knows what other bits of science fact is lurking in assorted entertainment media spanning the globe of Planet Earth and waiting to be revealed as true (tenuously if need be like the Oxygen Destroyer)....