Publications

Maunz, Peter L.; Blume-Kohout, Robin J.; Blain, Matthew G.; Benito, Francisco B.; Berry, Christopher W.; Clark, Craig R.; Clark, Susan M.; Colombo, Anthony P.; Dagel, Amber L.; Fortier, Kevin M.; Haltli, Raymond A.; Heller, Edwin J.; Lobser, Daniel L.; Mizrahi, Jonathan M.; Nielsen, Erik N.; Resnick, Paul J.; Rembetski, John F.; Rudinger, Kenneth M.; Scrymgeour, David S.; Sterk, Jonathan D.; Tabakov, Boyan T.; Tigges, Chris P.; Van Der Wall, Jay W.; Stick, Daniel L.

Abstract not provided.

Creighton, J.R.; Baucom, Kevin C.; Coltrin, Michael E.; Figiel, J.J.; Cross, Karen C.; Koleske, Daniel K.; Pawlowski, Roger P.; Heller, Edwin J.; Bogart, Katherine B.; Coker, Eric N.

Our ability to field useful, nano-enabled microsystems that capitalize on recent advances in sensor technology is severely limited by the energy density of available power sources. The catalytic nanodiode (reported by Somorjai's group at Berkeley in 2005) was potentially an alternative revolutionary source of micropower. Their first reports claimed that a sizable fraction of the chemical energy may be harvested via hot electrons (a 'chemicurrent') that are created by the catalytic chemical reaction. We fabricated and tested Pt/GaN nanodiodes, which eventually produced currents up to several microamps. Our best reaction yields (electrons/CO{sub 2}) were on the order of 10{sup -3}; well below the 75% values first reported by Somorjai (we note they have also been unable to reproduce their early results). Over the course of this Project we have determined that the whole concept of 'chemicurrent', in fact, may be an illusion. Our results conclusively demonstrate that the current measured from our nanodiodes is derived from a thermoelectric voltage; we have found no credible evidence for true chemicurrent. Unfortunately this means that the catalytic nanodiode has no future as a micropower source.