text:
Talk:Saint Blaise

Corrected links
Have added internal link to St. Blaise's Well and made a small improvement to the references.Shadygrove2007 (talk) 10:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

st.Blaze
is the pateron sant of theroewt ilnes

St. Blazey
The village of St. Blazey in the parish of St. Blaise in Cornwall, UK is named after St. Blaise.

Deletion of a fictional character with the first name Blaise
Where do we stop? And what about the many hundreds of historical people whose first name was Blaise (to start with Blaise Pascal)? The business about St. Blaise being associated with erotic asphyxiation is patent nonsense.... The article should probably be renamed St. Blaise, and any other legitimate Blaise stuff, like the software package, get its own page. — Bill 19:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard this business about erotic asphyxiation either. Blaise 22:11, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

 * It's been lying around here for a while, but I checked it out and I think you're both right. I can't find muchg evidence of currency for this usage outside WP.  Whether it's a hoax or just very espteric knowledge I don't know, but since three of us have failed to verify it, I've removed it. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Move
There was some other uses that should go on a Disabiguation page, leaving this for the Saint Blaise. Trying to clear off some Cruft. Dominick (TALK) 17:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Please vote

 * Move Dominick (TALK) 17:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Move obviously. Dabs take precedence. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion
I fixed some cut and paste moves that had separated the page content of the main article from its edit history. I really don't care that much about whether the main article is at Blaise or Saint Blaise. But I think the disambiguation page should be at Saint Blaise (disambiguation) (the few items pertaining to the unmodified "Blaise" can be clarified with an inline comment). older≠wiser 12:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

 * What happened is a bunch of "Blaise", plain Blaise entries popped up. They were on the Saint-Blaise page as a disambiguation. The Blaise (disambiguation) would handle all those, and the plain Blaise entries. Dominick (TALK) 13:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

 * So are you suggesting one or two disambiguation pages? That is, having both Saint Blaise (disambiguation) and Blaise (disamiguation) or moving Saint Blaise (disambiguation) to Blaise (disambiguation)?  I'd be OK with the former (though, I'm not sure it's necessary). I don't agree with the latter, as most of the items on the page explicitly refer to Saint Blaise--the unmodified Blaise items almost seem an afterthought. older≠wiser 15:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Surely one dab page is enough? And I see there is only one: Blaise now redirects to Saint Blaise (disambiguation), and I've fixed a couple of others too. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I've moved Saint Blaise (disambiguation) to Blaise (disambiguation). I hope that was what you wanted... — Nightstallion (?) 09:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * No, most of the terms on the page are uses of Saint Blaise. The uses of Blaise are almost superfluous, as they do not even have articles. older≠wiser 13:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Blaise software
The link for the Blaise software products leads to a page that doesn't mention them (Statistics Netherlands). This link shows that Statistics Netherlands does indeed produce this software, so we just need somebody who knows something about it to step in and -- Ngio 11:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) add some text there (if the Blaise software is a salient part of what Stats Netherlands does), or
 * 2) make a page about this software and fix the link here (if Blaise software is important in its own right, but not a major part of what Statistics Netherlands is known for), or
 * 3) remove the link on this disambiguation page (I doubt this is the solution)

Wool-carding combs
"The similarity of these instruments of torture to wool combs led to his adoption as patron of wool combers..." But the carding combs were carding combs, not "instruments of torture" that looked like carding combs. This is so spendidly simple-minded that editing it out will raise complaints and baa baa baa...- What I, and doubtless a handful of others, really want to know, did an iconic image of Blasius bearing an item discerned as a carding-comb give rise to the etiological detail in the first place? Was Blasius a flock-protector whose emblem was transformed into an "instrument of torture"? There must be some modern publication along these lines... -Wetman (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

 * It's loose phraseology. Wool cards and wool combs are different tools designed to untangle fleece so it can be spun. Combs do a better job of straightening the staple, and so are used for worsted rather than fluffier wools. A wool card uses short wires to drag the fibres into alignment, a comb thicker and longer rods, which are normally very sharp indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.67.184 (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Marijuana in Providence, RI
The unattestable insertion, apparently by User:60.230.44.225, seems to have been an undergraduate prank. Out.--Wetman (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Aitias paragraph
What's the deal with this paragraph, the last one in the lead? I'm not able to follow it very well. Anyone know about it to clean it up a bit? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Here is the only thing I could find online that might be useful. If no-one else makes suggestions, I'll modify per this: http://www.speedylook.com/Blaise_of_Rosefish.html. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Naupactus
To what is the sentence about the Greek Orthodox and Naupactus referring in the lead? Anyone object to its removal? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Turkish Name
Any reason to arbitrarily include Turkish name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.127.253.44 (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Same question for Italian, and Armenian (etc.) If Blaise was born in the 3rd century in Roman Cappadocia, he would have lived in a Greek-speaking environment. It turns out that Sebaste became part of the Armeniac Theme in the 7th century, but this is centuries later, and provides about as much motivation for treating Blaise as "Armenian" as for treating him as "Turkish". His Acts are in Greek. Perhaps there is some evidence of a particularly early tradition of veneration in the Armenian church, but if there is, the article as it stands is unaware of it. --dab (𒁳) 10:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Sebastia is in Lesser Armenia, one of the 15 traditional provinces of historical Armenia, and is part of Armenian homeland. Consult Robert Hewsen's "Atlas of Armenia." Hablabar (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, why are all these forms of the name given? This is English wiki and it looks cluttered. I suggest removing Greek, Latin, Albanian, Croatian, Hungarian, and Spanish. Leave the Armenian as possibly what he was originally called. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * so, any disagreement about removing the unnecessary names? Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

the blessing
"In many places on the day of his feast the blessing of St. Blaise is given: two candles are consecrated." The wiki article Blessing of the Throats says "The blessing may be given by touching the throat of each person with two candles blessed on the feast of the Presentation of the Lord (February 2)." Does a wiki article constitute sufficient support to change our current article? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for mentioning this, the candles were blessed just the day before, or in places, where the blessing of St. Blaise is already given at the evening of Candlemas, in the Mass before.--Turris Davidica (talk) 11:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Good edit. I didn't notice it last year! Another question. I have never seen it done with lit candles. The main article mentions that this is done "in Germany and other places" but the reference is inaccessible. I suggest that the word "burning" be omitted here, and addressed if necessary in the main article on the blessing. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is done in Germany this way; actually, I never saw, apart from some photographies from other countries, such a blessing done with unlit candles. HTH, --Turris Davidica (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Saint Blaise. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120219134152/http://www.cosca.edu.ph/?q=node/93 to http://www.cosca.edu.ph/?q=node/93

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Blasius of Caesarea
There is a link to Blasius of Caesarea, with whom St Blaise is apparently sometimes confused, but that link redirects back to here; I suspect that the article originally linked has been merged into this one. Any ideas? Philculmer (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Collin de Plancy
Hello, dear Macrakis. Maybe you agree to leave the text of Jean Plancy in the article, but at the same time hide it in any way.

I understand well your desire not to overload the article. But in my opinion, the geography associated with the cult of relics is interesting here. It is directly related to the article.Wlbw68 (talk) 09:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

 * Wlbw68, the quoted material is related to the article, yes. And the geography associated with the cult of relics in general and the cult of St. Blaise in particular could be interesting if it were analytical. For example, if it turned out that relics of St. Blaise were concentrated in cities with major textile industries, or cities whose cathedrals had been rebuilt in the 16th century, or whatever, that is an interesting insight... but one that we will have to find in the literature.
 * But just a listing of cities with relics of St. Blaise is not particularly helpful to the reader. Moreover, Plancy's list is surely incomplete. Most of the listings are in France, Italy, and the Low Countries, with only a handful in Iberia or Germany, and none in the British Isles, Austria-Hungary, Russia, etc. Such an unrepresentative sample makes it useless for insights into the geography of the cult of relics; it is just a collection of facts without context.
 * It is generally a bad idea to use quotations as a substitute for exposition in WP's own voice. (Yes, I just added that section to the essay...)
 * What's more, the full text of Plancy is now just one click away.
 * Plancy's point that there are more relics than is physically possible is, I believe, well summarized in the current text, and the direct quotation makes Plancy's sarcastic attitude clear. --Macrakis (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Macrakis, the full text of Plancy is now just one click away. Yes it is, but this text is in French, not English. I think you will not argue with that. You will not argue that all readers of English Wikipedia know French. You can remove the text under «ref». Are you against it? Wlbw68 (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's true, not all readers of the English wikipedia can read French, though those who are only interested in relics in France might well be able to, and that is Plancy's focus.
 * Anyway, all the other arguments still hold. If this information is appropriate for WP (which I believe it is not), we don't need to keep Plancy's words, but can summarize them.
 * Not sure what you mean by "You can remove the text under «ref»." --Macrakis (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have summarized Plancy's list in the footnote. I still think it is a bad idea to include it, but at least there, it doesn't interfere with the flow of the article. --Macrakis (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear Macrakis. I think your very short list can be included in the article. The reason for this is as follows: where relics appeared, there began the annual celebration in honor of the saint. There a church was built in honor of the saint or annual religious processions were organized. For example, take the first city from the list − Maratea. Do you have any objections? Wlbw68 (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do object. As I said above, Wikipedia isn't a random collection of facts. Plancy is listing the relics to make a point: that it is impossible that those are all genuine relics. We have a nice quotation from him making exactly that point, and don't need to list this very biased (Francocentric) list of relics. I would hate to have every article about a saint in Wikipedia attempt to have a list of the saint's relics. It would be much better to link to some definitive source (which Plancy, by the way, is not). On the other hand, I think it would be useful to be able to find all the major churches dedicated to a given saint (as Maratea is to Blaise). --Macrakis (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Macrakis. I assume that you is either Greek or of Greek origin. And I suppose that you is a supporter of national Greek traditions. I think this is the main obstacle to making this edit. Sorry if I made a mistake and offended you. As for the large number of relics in France, in addition to their own relics, English relics were sent to France. These relics were brought from England during the time of Cromwell. You can read about it here (p. 157). Unfortunately for you the text is in Russian. But there is a link to a source in French: L. Dubech, P. d'Espezel "Histoire de Paris" p. 153. The presence of a large number of duplicate relics says only that it is impossible to separate the real ones from fake ones. Calvin wrote about this back in the 15th century. Wlbw68 (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

 * I am indeed of Greek origin, but I'm not sure which national Greek traditions you're referring to -- maybe stubborness? :-)
 * You did not offend me in any way. I simply think that this information is unnecessary. There are also relics in Germany, Austria, etc. I'm familiar with Calvin's comments on relics. --Macrakis (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggested that you treat the history of Greece with care, including Orthodoxy, including relics. This topic is a delicate one for many Orthodox. In Russian Wikipedia, there is terrible abuse in such topics, these topics do not allow editing neutrally and scientifically, and mercilessly ban and block those who try to do this.Wlbw68 (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ? Not sure of the relevance of this comment to this article. --Macrakis (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Still, I do not understand. Why don't you want every article about a saint in Wikipedia to have a list of the saint's relics? What is the reason? This is directly related to the saint. There are no obstacles in ideology as in Russian Wikipedia.Wlbw68 (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about what's going on on the Russian Wikipedia or for that matter the Greek Wikipedia in relation to relics, and I don't know why you keep bring this up -- I have never mentioned them.
 * My primary objection to lists of relics is that they don't mean anything to the reader unless they are analyzed somehow. Is there a geographic pattern? Are there trade routes for relics? etc. cf. WP:IINFO:
 * To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources.
 * Without that sort of analysis (found of course in a WP:RS), I consider it to be cruft: "excessive or needless information". As WP:NOTEVERYTHING says:
 * Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.
 * Do we have any hope of getting a list of all relics for a given saint? Having visited the treasuries of many churches, each of which has many reliquaries, it seems highly unlikely.
 * For that matter, do we have reliable sources about the status of relics? Do we list only those which have been approved by bishops, as required by canon law (cf. Catholic Encyclopedia on this topic)? Where do we find that information? Do we flag those which have been pronounced inauthentic?
 * Not even the Catholic Encyclopedia bothers to list relics. For St. Blaise, it says simply "Numberless churches and altars were dedicated to him and many localities (Taranto, Ragusa, the Abbey of St. Blasius in the Black Forest, etc.) claimed to possess some of his relics."
 * There are lots of facts in the world. WP does not and should not try to list them all. --Macrakis (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There is censorship on Russian Wikipedia. The ideology of the Russian Orthodox Church is the de facto official state ideology. And therefore, the state controls the Russian Wikipedia in articles related to Orthodoxy. I really do not want this to be on the English Wikipedia.
 * We really cannot list all the places where the relics of any saint are. But we can indicate places referring to independent sources. These are Calvin or Plancy.
 * Catholic or Orthodox encyclopedias are extremely unreliable and affiliated sources. Why? - These books are written for a certain category of persons, for Catholics or Orthodox. Therefore, the authors will not include negative information for Catholicism or Orthodoxy in books. If you write in the encyclopedia that several skulls are attributed to the saint, then you can lose part of your flock.
 * Wikipedia should be written objectively, neutrally and scientifically. Canon law of any denomination is an affiliated opinion and is not related to Wikipedia. As for the relics, the point here is very bad.
 * Duplicate relics have existed for centuries. They were prayed before and worshiped. After the Reformation of the 16th century, Catholics attempted to restore order in relics. Catholics declared part of the relics authentic without the slightest evidence through special letters. Other relics were left without a certain status. It’s impossible to restore order in old relics. There are no criteria by which this could be done.
 * Does the Relics section need such articles? - Of course. The presence of a large relic very often gave the name to a church or monastery. In honor of the relic, national holidays and traditions were established. In honor of the saints (where the relic was) children were called. Such relics were objects of mass pilgrimage in the Middle Ages. In Wikipedia, it is necessary to state the facts about the presence of relics on the map of Europe, this is a valuable history of mankind.Wlbw68 (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you keep talking about the Russian Wikipedia. Whatever is happening there, no church is controlling or censoring the English Wikipedia.
 * Canon law is an encyclopedic topic. Reporting on it in an WP:NPOV way is completely appropriate. That means that we say what it says, but we don't adopt it as WP's position. This is just the same as in politics. We report, for example, that the People's Republic of China does not consider the Republic of China (Taiwan) to be an independent country. The PRC's position is worth reporting on. That doesn't mean that WP adopts it as its own position.
 * I certainly agree that if a churches or monastery is dedicated to a saint and has a relic of that saint, that is worth reporting on. On the other hand, the fact that the parish church of St. Bartholemew in Nowheresville claims to have a toenail clipping of St. Anthony along with 20 other assorted relics is not particularly encyclopedic, either in its own article, or in the article about St. Anthony. --Macrakis (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against Canon law. Moreover, I myself wrote an article on this topic Canons of the Orthodox Church. Question about another. When was common canon law adopted in the Catholic Church or when did codification take place? - In 1500. You well understand that at the beginning of the 16th century it was impossible to distinguish real relics from fake relics. But if there are papal bulls regarding relics in which this separation occurred, then of course they should be mentioned in the article.
 * When I wrote about the list of relics, of course I meant large parts. Such as bodies, heads, arms and legs. Nails, hair, fingers and other trifles in reliquaries do not count. Large parts are just described on your list. Therefore, I think that it should be placed in the section of the article.Wlbw68 (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're converging here. Perhaps we should ask for an outside opinion. --Macrakis (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Question about this text:
 * «Plancy's incomplete list: Body: Maratea, Rome, Brindisi, Ragusa, Volterra, Antwerp, Mechelen, Lisbon, Palermo. Large bones: Mende, Melun, Paris (2), Luxembourg, Maubeuge, Cambrai, Tournai, Ghent, Brages, Utrecht, Cologne (15+); Head: Naples, Saint-Maximin (Provence), Montpellier, Orbetello; Jaw: Douai, Ventimiglia, Bourbon-l'Archambault; Arms: Rome, Milan, Capua, Paris, Compostela, Dilighem in Brabant, Basse-Fontaine (Champagne), Marseille»
 * Who do you think can become an independent intermediary? Wlbw68 (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have asked for a third opinion. --Macrakis (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not know what it is.Wlbw68 (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion
Howdy hello! I'm CaptainEek, and saw this request for a third opinion. I believe I have interacted with Wlbw68 before, but it was in a mainly clerical role, so I hope you will accept me as a neutral third opinion. If not, you are welcome to ask for another opinion. As I see it, the dispute here is the treatment of relics. I've read through this, and have a few thoughts. For one: Plancy is a pretty poor source, having been written in 1822(!). Are there no more modern treatments of the subject? Secondly, I think the relics ought be discussed. But they need not be listed out one at a time. I like the single sentence summary that currently exists, attributed to Plancy. Not sure if a quote from Plancy is needed, I think it could summarized to the effect of Plancy concludes that not all of the relics can be genuine, due to their sheer number. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

 * Captain Eek . Not only Plancy comes to this conclusion. Here comes the more global question: the authenticity of any relics. If with Catholic relics it is more or less clear, Calvin, Plancy, Lalanne wrote about it. How are things with the Orthodox Greeks? And here we observe the following picture, Kapterev describes it:
 * "in Greece, relics and all shrines in many cases were the property of private individuals, passed by inheritance, and a private person could therefore dispose of the shrine at its discretion, as well as any other private property ...
 * the relics became among the Greeks themselves a moving value that could be freely bought, sold, mortgaged, given to the creditor for a time to secure the debt .. "(«The nature of relations between Russia and the Orthodox East in the 16th and 17th centuries»/ pp. 73-75) Wlbw68 (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

 * Hello, dear Captain Eek . There is a newer source about the relics of Blaise. This is a book of Ludovic Lalanne. It is called "Curiosities of Traditions, Customs and Legends". It was published in 1847. In this book, Blaise: Body - 4, Head - 3, Arms - 8. You are unlikely to find a book in English on this topic. In the 16th century, under Cromwell, England was cleared of relics. I wrote about this earlier. Large relics were no brought to the United States. The USA was an English colony. The United States had more Protestants than Catholics. Protestants after the Reformation and Calvin's book refused to honor relics in the 16th century. English-speaking people all know this well. In the 20th century, atheism began to spread rapidly throughout the world, thanks to the policies of the USSR (atheism in the USSR was the official ideology). Maybe that’s why the subject of relics has become irrelevant for researchers. Regarding books in English about duplicate relics, I could be wrong.Wlbw68 (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think including Lalannes book as a citation would improve the relic section, although if only to back up the current wording. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Wlbw68, There are many of relics in the US, even some individual collections with over a thousand, though I don't know how many are "large". There are also relics in England, despite Cromwell.  There is still academic work on relics.
 * Thanks. It is interesting. Although there are mainly Catholic saints of the second millennium. What academic work on relics are you talking about?Wlbw68 (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A more interesting question is about relics of saints of the first millennium. Calvin proposed an inventory of relics. Has there been an inventory of relics in the Catholic Church?Wlbw68 (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But all that is irrelevant to the question at hand: how much do we want to say about the relics of St. Blaise in this article? --Macrakis (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)Wlbw68 (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am of the opinion that 2-4 sentences are sufficient. The relics section could also become a subsection of another part. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was agreeing with you. --Macrakis (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

 * Wlbw68, please don't try to intersperse commentary. It quickly becomes unreadable.
 * Also, please try to use correct indentation systematically. Indent one more level than the comment you're replying to. Note in particular that each time you start a new line, you must re-insert the colons indicating indentation . I have tried to correct some of the indentation above. Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Source link for Plancy
Macrakis. I have a question for you. Why did you replace the link of Plancy's book from commons to an incomprehensible link? Wlbw68 (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I replaced with . The first is the Wikimedia mirror of the Google Books text; the second is the Google Books text -- I am surprised you're having trouble reading it.
 * I thought the Google copy was better because the Wikimedia mirror is not really suited for online reading. It doesn't support page scrolling, text search, or text scaling, and the images are of lower quality. The Google Books version allows continuous scrolling, and supports text search. Perhaps the archive.org version would be better. --Macrakis (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Macrakis. I did not know all these details. I asked you because I was afraid that your link might disappear for some reason. I believed that the link to «Commons» is the most reliable. Your link will not disappear anywhere? Sorry, I am very poorly versed in these technical issues.Wlbw68 (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "incomprehensible" link? If you click on it, does it or does it not give a useful result? --Macrakis (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Now the result will be. But I do not know whether this result will be in a year or two. Can your link become empty? Link to «Commons» will always give a result.Wlbw68 (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's the Web. It is always possible that Google will shut down Google Books some day. I suppose we could include the Commons link as an alternative, though it's much less satisfactory as a reading experience. --Macrakis (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Saint Blaise


text:
Inglish

Inglish may refer to:

 * an alternative spelling of English
 * pih:Inglish, the Norfuk & Pitkern word for the English language
 * Regularized Inglish, a revised English spelling system
 * Ulster English (Ulster Scots: Ulstèr Inglish), a variety of English spoken in parts of Ireland and Northern Ireland
 * Claudelle Inglish, a 1961 American movie
 * Fort Inglish, the original name of Bonham, Texas
 * Inglish (Aurangabad), a village in Aurangabad district, Bihar, India
 * Io no spik inglish, the Italian name of the comedy film I Don't Speak English
 * Republic v. Inglish, a court case in the Republic of Texas
 * a computer parser used in text-adventure computer games, including the 1982 game The Hobbit

People with the surname

 * Bailey Inglish, Texas pioneer and founder of Bonham, Texas
 * Chuck Inglish (born 1984), American rapper
 * Doug Inglish, American photographer

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Inglish


text:
Moon Treaty

The Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, better known as the Moon Treaty or Moon Agreement, is a multilateral treaty that turns jurisdiction of all celestial bodies (including the orbits around such bodies) over to the participant countries. Thus, all activities would conform to international law, including the United Nations Charter.

It has not been ratified by any state that engages in self-launched human spaceflight (e.g. the United States, Russia (or its predecessor the Soviet Union), or the People's Republic of China) since its creation on December 18, 1979, and thus it has little to no relevancy in international law. , 17 states are parties to the treaty.

Objective
It was noted that since the 1967 Outer Space Treaty was signed, technologies and society evolved, requiring a redefinition of the rights and responsibilities of citizens and governments alike in the use and development of outer space. The primary stated objective of the 1979 Moon Treaty is "to provide the necessary legal principles for governing the behavior of states, international organizations, and individuals who explore celestial bodies other than Earth, as well as administration of the resources that exploration may yield." It proposed to do so by having the state parties produce an "international regime" that would establish the appropriate procedures (Article 11.5).

Provisions
The Moon Treaty proposes to establish an "international regime" or "framework of laws" that apply to the Moon and to other celestial bodies within the Solar System, including orbits around or other trajectories to or around them.

The Moon Treaty lays several provisions outlined in 21 articles. In Article 11, the treaty makes a declaration that the Moon should be used for the benefit of all states and all peoples of the international community. It reiterates that lunar resources are "not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means." It also expresses a desire to prevent the Moon from becoming a source of international conflict, so that the resources should be used exclusively for peaceful purposes. To those ends, the treaty lays several provisions, and some of these are paraphrased below:
 * Bans any military use of celestial bodies, including weapon testing, nuclear weapons in orbit, or military bases. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. (Article 3.4)
 * Provides a framework of laws to establish an international cooperation regime, including appropriate procedures, to govern the responsible exploitation of natural resources of the Moon. (Article 11.5)
 * Bans altering the environmental balance of celestial bodies and requires that states take measures to prevent accidental contamination of the environments of celestial bodies, including Earth. (Article 7.1)
 * The orderly and safe use of the natural lunar resources with an equitable sharing by all state parties in the benefits derived from those resources. (Article 11.7)
 * The placement of personnel or equipment on or below the surface shall not create a right of ownership. (Article 11)
 * There shall be freedom of scientific research and exploration and use on the Moon by any party without discrimination of any kind. (Article 6) Samples obtained during research activities, are hoped to be made available to all countries and scientific communities for research. (Article 6.2)
 * Any areas or regions reported to have a special scientific interest, shall be designated as international scientific preserves. (Article 7.3)
 * Shall promptly inform the United Nations and the public of any phenomena which could endanger human life or health, as well as of any indication of extraterrestrial life. (Article 5.3)
 * State parties shall ensure that non-governmental entities under their jurisdiction shall engage in activities on the Moon only under the authority and continuing supervision of the appropriate state party. (Article 14)
 * All parties shall inform the United Nations as well as the public, of their activities concerned with the exploration and use of the Moon. (Article 5)
 * Any state party to this agreement may propose amendments to the agreement. (Article 17)
 * Any state party to this agreement may give notice of its withdrawal by written notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. It will take effect one year from the date of this notification. (Article 20)

When compared with the Outer Space Treaty, it reiterates most provisions, and adds two new concepts in order to address the exploitation of natural resources in outer space: to apply the concept of 'common heritage of mankind' to outer space activities, and to have the participating countries produce a regime that lays the appropriate procedures for orderly mining. Multiple conferences produced no consensus on these two items.

History
After the 1967 non-armament Outer Space Treaty was signed, it was followed in 1968 with the United Nations convened UNISPACE, the United Nations Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. It was the first of a series of UN-sponsored conferences intended to create an international framework of laws to guide humanity's use of outer space resources.

After ten more years of negotiations, the Moon Treaty was created in 1979 as a framework of laws to develop a regime of detailed procedures, and as such, it remained imprecise: its Article 11.5 states that the exploitation of the natural shall be governed by an international regime that would establish the appropriate procedures. In order to define this regime or laws, a series of UN-sponsored conferences took place, but brought no consensus. The continuing disagreement is based mainly over the meaning of "Common Heritage of Mankind" and on the rights of each country to the natural resources of the Moon.

Ratification
The treaty was finalized in 1979 and, after satisfying the condition requiring 5 ratifying states, it entered into force for the ratifying parties in 1984. , 18 states are parties to the treaty, seven of which ratified the agreement and the rest acceded. Four additional states have signed but not ratified the treaty. The L5 Society and others successfully opposed signing of the treaty by the United States.

National considerations
In the United States on July 29 and 31, 1980, the Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space, which was a part of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation held hearings on the Moon Treaty. S. Neil Hosenball was one of the supporters of the treaty, and he attempted to compare the Moon Treaty to mining rights within the United States. Hosenball was unsuccessful in his attempt to convince the committee that the United States should ratify the Moon Treaty. The opposition, led by Leigh Ratiner of the L-5 Society, stated that the Moon Treaty was opposed to free enterprise and private property rights. Ratiner provided a potential solution to the Moon Treaty, and suggested that there should be legal claims to the Moon and "there should be a system to register such claims. By the way, I'm not speaking of claims to territory...I don't think it's necessary for us to deal with the issue of whether one can make a claim to the land itself, as long as one has the exclusive right to use it."

The last effort culminated in June 2018 after eight years of negotiations, when the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) held a high-level meeting that tried to produce a consensus on a framework of laws for the sustainable development of outer space, but it also failed to do so when S. Neil Hosenball, who is the NASA General Counsel and chief US negotiator for the Moon Treaty, decided that negotiation of the rules of the international regime should be delayed until the feasibility of exploitation of lunar resources has been established.

However since rights to economic benefits are claimed to be necessary to ensure investment in private missions to the Moon, private companies in the US have been seeking clearer national regulatory conditions and guidelines prompting the US government to do so, which subsequently legalized space mining in 2015 by introducing the US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015.

Similar national legislations legalizing extraterrestrial appropriation of resources are now being replicated by other nations, including Luxembourg, Japan, China, India and Russia. While the "national" treaty explicitly allows commercial mining, other experts argue that these new national laws are inconsistent with the Moon Treaty and customary international law.

Implementation agreement
The controversy on claims and on mining rights for profit have dominated the discussion around the laws governing the Moon.

Experts though have affirmed that the Moon Treaty does allow commercial mining, since it allows extraction after the international regulatory regime, that the Moon Treaty asks for, is put into place. Therefore it is concluded, that the Moon Treaty is incomplete and lacks an "implementation agreement" answering the unresolved issues, particularly regarding resource extraction.

Legal status
While the treaty reiterates the prohibition of sovereignty of "any part" of space, the current imprecision of the agreement, being called unfinished, generated various interpretations, this being cited as the main reason it was not signed by most countries. The treaty proposes that the exploitation of resources shall be governed by an international regime (Article 11.5), but there has been no consensus establishing these laws.

The agreement has been described without fruition and possibly a failure if it remains ratified by few countries, particularly those active in space. Only two countries (France and India) with independent spaceflight capabilities have signed (but not ratified) the treaty.

Echoing legal experts S. Neil Hosenball, who is the NASA General Counsel and chief US negotiator for the Moon Treaty, decided in 2018 that negotiation of the rules of this international regime should be delayed until the feasibility of exploitation of lunar resources has been established. An expert in space law and economics summarized that the treaty would need to offer adequate provisions against any one company acquiring a monopoly position in the world minerals market, while avoiding "the socialization of the Moon."

In 2020 the Artemis Accords were signed, while not mentioning the treaty, they are nevertheless challenging the treaty. At the time of the signing of the accords U.S. President Donald Trump additionally released an executive order called "Encouraging International Support for the Recovery and Use of Space Resources." The order emphasizes that "the United States does not view outer space as a 'global commons" and calls the Moon Agreement "a failed attempt at constraining free enterprise."

With Australia signing and ratifying both the Moon Treaty as well as the Artemis Accords, there has been a discussion if they can be harmonized. In this light an Implementation Agreement for the Moon Treaty has been advocated for, as a way to compensate for the shortcomings of the Moon Treaty and to harmonize it with other laws, allowing it to be more widely accepted.

title: Moon Treaty


text:
User:Ibroadfo

Iain D Broadfoot is a Geek living in Paisley, Scotland.

title: User:Ibroadfo


text:
East European Academy of Applied Sciences in Białystok

East European Academy of Applied Sciences in Białystok (Wschodnioeuropejska Akademia Nauk Stosowanych w Białymstoku) is a non-government higher education institute in Białystok. It is the oldest of its type in Podlaskie Voivodeship and one of the oldest non-public universities in Poland.

History
The East European Institute of Economy in Białystok (Wschodnioeuropejski Instytut Gospodarki w Białymstoku) applied to the Ministry of National Education to establish the University of Finance and Management in Białystok, which on August 17, 1993 was entered into the Register of Non-State Universities under item 23. About 800 students were admitted to the first year of full-time and extramural studies. The first rector was prof. dr hab. Jozef Szabłowski. In 1993, the university purchased facilities after the liquidated Clothing Works. M. Nowotki "Bielpo" at Ciepla Street.

In 1996, on the initiative of Rector Józef Szabłowski, a university choir was established, whose founder and first conductor was Agnieszka Duda-Bienie. Since September 26, 1996, the Scientific Publishing House has been operating at WSFiZ.

In 1997, by virtue of a resolution of the Senate, two faculties were created: Finance and IT and Management and Marketing.

In 2010, the University had 4 faculties and offered 7 fields of study. On December 30, 2022, in accordance with the decision of the Minister of Education and Science, the University of Finance and Management in Białystok changed its name to East European Academy of Applied Sciences in Białystok (WANS).

Staff

 * Professors: 75
 * Habilitated doctors: 68
 * Lecturers: 47
 * Teachers (total): 200

Diplomas and degrees
Master's degree courses in: Management and Marketing, Finance and Banking, and Regional Studies. In addition, 13 Bachelor programmes.


text:
Proton-exchange membrane fuel cell

Proton-exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFC), also known as polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cells, are a type of fuel cell being developed mainly for transport applications, as well as for stationary fuel-cell applications and portable fuel-cell applications. Their distinguishing features include lower temperature/pressure ranges (50 to 100 °C) and a special proton-conducting polymer electrolyte membrane. PEMFCs generate electricity and operate on the opposite principle to PEM electrolysis, which consumes electricity. They are a leading candidate to replace the aging alkaline fuel-cell technology, which was used in the Space Shuttle.

Science
PEMFCs are built out of membrane electrode assemblies (MEA) which include the electrodes, electrolyte, catalyst, and gas diffusion layers. An ink of catalyst, carbon, and electrode are sprayed or painted onto the solid electrolyte and carbon paper is hot pressed on either side to protect the inside of the cell and also act as electrodes. The pivotal part of the cell is the triple phase boundary (TPB) where the electrolyte, catalyst, and reactants mix and thus where the cell reactions actually occur. Importantly, the membrane must not be electrically conductive so the half reactions do not mix. Operating temperatures above 100 °C are desired so the water byproduct becomes steam and water management becomes less critical in cell design.

Reactions
A proton exchange membrane fuel cell transforms the chemical energy liberated during the electrochemical reaction of hydrogen and oxygen to electrical energy, as opposed to the direct combustion of hydrogen and oxygen gases to produce thermal energy.

A stream of hydrogen is delivered to the anode side of the MEA. At the anode side it is catalytically split into protons and electrons. This oxidation half-cell reaction or hydrogen oxidation reaction (HOR) is represented by:

At the anode:

The newly formed protons permeate through the polymer electrolyte membrane to the cathode side. The electrons travel along an external load circuit to the cathode side of the MEA, thus creating the current output of the fuel cell. Meanwhile, a stream of oxygen is delivered to the cathode side of the MEA. At the cathode side oxygen molecules react with the protons permeating through the polymer electrolyte membrane and the electrons arriving through the external circuit to form water molecules. This reduction half-cell reaction or oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) is represented by:

At the cathode:

Overall reaction: The reversible reaction is expressed in the equation and shows the reincorporation of the hydrogen protons and electrons together with the oxygen molecule and the formation of one water molecule. The potentials in each case are given with respect to the standard hydrogen electrode.

Polymer electrolyte membrane
To function, the membrane must conduct hydrogen ions (protons) but not electrons as this would in effect "short circuit" the fuel cell. The membrane must also not allow either gas to pass to the other side of the cell, a problem known as gas crossover. Finally, the membrane must be resistant to the reducing environment at the cathode as well as the harsh oxidative environment at the anode.

Splitting of the hydrogen molecule is relatively easy by using a platinum catalyst. Unfortunately however, splitting the oxygen molecule is more difficult, and this causes significant electric losses. An appropriate catalyst material for this process has not been discovered, and platinum is the best option.

Strengths
1. Easy sealing

PEMFCs have a thin, polymeric membrane as the electrolyte. This membrane is located in between the anode and cathode catalysts and allows the passage of protons to pass to the cathode while restricting the passage of electrons. Compared to liquid electrolytes, a polymeric membrane has a much lower chance of leakage [2]. The proton-exchange membrane is commonly made of materials such as perfluorosulfonic acid (PFSA, sold commercially as Nafion and Aquivion), which minimize gas crossover and short circuiting of the fuel cell. A disadvantage of fluor containing polymers is the fact that during production (and disposal) PFAS products are formed. PFAS, the so-called forever chemicals, are highly toxic. Newer polymers such as the recently patented SPX3 (POLYMERS COMPRISING SULFONATED 2,6-DIPHENYL-1,4-PHENYLENE OXIDE REPEATING UNITS -US 11434329 B2) are fluor free and therefore do not carry the PFAS risk.

2. Low Operating Temperature

Under extreme sub-freezing conditions, the water produced by fuel cells can freeze in porous layers and flow channels. This freezing water can block gas and fuel transport as well as cover catalyst reaction sites, resulting in a loss of output power and a start-up failure of the fuel cell.

However, the low operating temperature of a PEM fuel cell allows it to reach a suitable temperature with less heating compared to other types of fuel cells. With this approach, PEM fuel cells have been shown to be capable of cold start processes from −20°C.

3. Light mass and high power density (transport applications)

PEM fuel cells have been shown to be capable of high power densities up to 39.7 kW/kg, compared to 2.5 kW/kg for solid oxide fuel cells. Due to this high power density, much research is being done on potential applications in transportation as well as wearable technology.

Weaknesses
Fuel Cells based on PEM still have many issues:

1. Water management

Water management is crucial to performance: if water is evaporated too slowly, it will flood the membrane and the accumulation of water inside of field flow plate will impede the flow of oxygen into the fuel cell, but if water evaporates too fast, the membrane will dry and the resistance across it increases. Both cases will cause damage to stability and power output. Water management is a very difficult subject in PEM systems, primarily because water in the membrane is attracted toward the cathode of the cell through polarization.

A wide variety of solutions for managing the water exist including integration of an electroosmotic pump.

Another innovative method to resolve the water recirculation problem is the 3D fine mesh flow field design used in the Toyota Mirai, 2014. Conventional design of FC stack recirculates water from the air outlet to the air inlet through a humidifier with a straight channel and porous metal flow fields[54].The flow field is a structure made up of a rib and channels. However, the rib partially covers the gas diffusion layer (GDL) and the resultant gas-transport distance is longer than the inter-channel distance. Furthermore, the contact pressure between the GDL and the rib also compresses the GDL, making its thickness non-uniform across the rib and channel[55]. The large width and non-uniform thickness of the rib will increase potential for water vapor to accumulate and the oxygen will be compromised. As a result, oxygen will be impeded to diffuse into catalyst layer, leading to nonuniform power generation in the FC.

This new design enabled the first FC stack functions without a humidifying system meanwhile overcoming water recirculation issues and achieving high power output stability[54]. The 3D micro lattice allows more pathways for gas flow; therefore, it promotes airflow toward membrane electrode and gas diffusion layer assembly (MEGA) and promotes O2 diffusion to the catalyst layer. Unlike conventional flow fields, the 3D micro-lattices in the complex field, which act as baffles and induce frequent micro-scale interfacial flux between the GDL and flow-fields[53]. Due to this repeating micro-scale convective flow, oxygen transport to catalyst layer (CL) and liquid water removal from GDL is significantly enhanced. The generated water is quickly drawn out through the flow field, preventing accumulation within the pores. As a result, the power generation from this flow field is uniform across the cross-section and self-humidification is enabled.

2. Vulnerability of the Catalyst

The platinum catalyst on the membrane is easily poisoned by carbon monoxide, which is often present in product gases formed by methane reforming (no more than one part per million is usually acceptable). This generally necessitates the use of the water gas shift reaction to eliminate CO from product gases and form more hydrogen. Additionally, the membrane is sensitive to the presences of metal ions, which may impair proton conduction mechanisms and can be introduced by corrosion of metallic bipolar plates, metallic components in the fuel cell system or from contaminants in the fuel/oxidant.

PEM systems that use reformed methanol were proposed, as in Daimler Chrysler Necar 5; reforming methanol, i.e. making it react to obtain hydrogen, is however a very complicated process, that also requires purification from the carbon monoxide the reaction produces. A platinum-ruthenium catalyst is necessary as some carbon monoxide will unavoidably reach the membrane. The level should not exceed 10 parts per million. Furthermore, the start-up times of such a reformer reactor are of about half an hour. Alternatively, methanol, and some other biofuels can be fed to a PEM fuel cell directly without being reformed, thus making a direct methanol fuel cell (DMFC). These devices operate with limited success.

3. Limitation of Operating Temperature

The most commonly used membrane is Nafion by Chemours, which relies on liquid water humidification of the membrane to transport protons. This implies that it is not feasible to use temperatures above 80 to 90 °C, since the membrane would dry. Other, more recent membrane types, based on polybenzimidazole (PBI) or phosphoric acid, can reach up to 220 °C without using any water management (see also High Temperature Proton Exchange Membrane fuel cell, HT-PEMFC): higher temperature allow for better efficiencies, power densities, ease of cooling (because of larger allowable temperature differences), reduced sensitivity to carbon monoxide poisoning and better controllability (because of absence of water management issues in the membrane); however, these recent types are not as common. PBI can be doped with phosphoric or sulfuric acid and the conductivity scales with amount of doping and temperature. At high temperatures, it is difficult to keep Nafion hydrated, but this acid doped material does not use water as a medium for proton conduction. It also exhibits better mechanical properties, higher strength, than Nafion and is cheaper. However, acid leaching is a considerable issue and processing, mixing with catalyst to form ink, has proved tricky. Aromatic polymers, such as PEEK, are far cheaper than Teflon (PTFE and backbone of Nafion) and their polar character leads to hydration that is less temperature dependent than Nafion. However, PEEK is far less ionically conductive than Nafion and thus is a less favorable electrolyte choice. Recently, protic ionic liquids and protic organic ionic plastic crystals have been shown as promising alternative electrolyte materials for high temperature (100–200 °C) PEMFCs.

Electrodes
An electrode typically consists of carbon support, Pt particles, Nafion ionomer, and/or Teflon binder. The carbon support functions as an electrical conductor; the Pt particles are reaction sites; the ionomer provides paths for proton conduction, and the Teflon binder increases the hydrophobicity of the electrode to minimize potential flooding. In order to enable the electrochemical reactions at the electrodes, protons, electrons and the reactant gases (hydrogen or oxygen) must gain access to the surface of the catalyst in the electrodes, while the product water, which can be in either liquid or gaseous phase, or both phases, must be able to permeate from the catalyst to the gas outlet. These properties are typically realized by porous composites of polymer electrolyte binder (ionomer) and catalyst nanoparticles supported on carbon particles. Typically platinum is used as the catalyst for the electrochemical reactions at the anode and cathode, while nanoparticles realize high surface to weight ratios (as further described below) reducing the amount of the costly platinum. The polymer electrolyte binder provides the ionic conductivity, while the carbon support of the catalyst improves the electric conductivity and enables low platinum metal loading. The electric conductivity in the composite electrodes is typically more than 40 times higher as the proton conductivity.

Gas diffusion layer
The GDL electrically connects the catalyst and current collector. It must be porous, electrically conductive, and thin. The reactants must be able to reach the catalyst, but conductivity and porosity can act as opposing forces. Optimally, the GDL should be composed of about one third Nafion or 15% PTFE. The carbon particles used in the GDL can be larger than those employed in the catalyst because surface area is not the most important variable in this layer. GDL should be around 15–35 μm thick to balance needed porosity with mechanical strength. Often, an intermediate porous layer is added between the GDL and catalyst layer to ease the transitions between the large pores in the GDL and small porosity in the catalyst layer. Since a primary function of the GDL is to help remove water, a product, flooding can occur when water effectively blocks the GDL. This limits the reactants ability to access the catalyst and significantly decreases performance. Teflon can be coated onto the GDL to limit the possibility of flooding. Several microscopic variables are analyzed in the GDLS such as: porosity, tortuosity and permeability. These variables have incidence over the behavior of the fuel cells.

Efficiency
The maximal theoretical efficiency applying the Gibbs free energy equation ΔG = −237.13 kJ/mol and using the heating value of Hydrogen (ΔH = −285.84 kJ/mol) is 83% at 298 K.
 * $$\eta = \frac{\Delta G}{\Delta H} = 1 - \frac{T\Delta S}{\Delta H}$$

The practical efficiency of a PEMs is in the range of 50–60%. Main factors that create losses are:
 * Activation losses
 * Ohmic losses
 * Mass transport losses

Bipolar plates
The external electrodes, often referred to as bipolar plates or backplates, serve to distribute fuel and oxygen uniformly to the catalysts, to remove water, to collect and transmit electric current. Thus, they need to be in close contact with the catalyst. Because the plates are in contact with both PEM and catalyst layers, the backplate needs to be structurally tough and leakage-resistant in case of structural failure due to fuel cell vibration and temperature cycling. As fuel cells operate in wide ranges of temperatures and in highly reductive/oxidative environments, plates must have high surface tolerances over wide ranges of temperatures and should be chemically stable. Since the backplate accounts for more than three-quarters of the fuel cell mass, the material must also be lightweight to maximize the energy density.

Materials that fulfill all of these requirements are often very expensive. Gold has been shown to fulfill these criteria well, but is only used for small production volumes due to its high cost. Titanium nitride (TiN) is a cheaper material that is used in fuel cell backplates due to its high chemical stability, electrical conductivity, and corrosion resistance. However, defects in the TiN coating can easily lead to corrosion of the underlying material, most commonly steel.

To perform their main function of distributing gas and fuel, these plates often have straight, parallel channels across its surface. However, this simple approach has led to issues such as uneven pressure distribution, water droplets blocking gas flow, and output power oscillations. Innovative approaches, such as nature-inspired fractal models and computer simulations are being explored to optimize the function of these bipolar plates.

Metal-organic frameworks
Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) are a relatively new class of porous, highly crystalline materials that consist of metal nodes connected by organic linkers. Due to the simplicity of manipulating or substituting the metal centers and ligands, there are a virtually limitless number of possible combinations, which is attractive from a design standpoint. MOFs exhibit many unique properties due to their tunable pore sizes, thermal stability, high volume capacities, large surface areas, and desirable electrochemical characteristics. Among their many diverse uses, MOFs are promising candidates for clean energy applications such as hydrogen storage, gas separations, supercapacitors, Li-ion batteries, solar cells, and fuel cells. Within the field of fuel cell research, MOFs are being studied as potential electrolyte materials and electrode catalysts that could someday replace traditional polymer membranes and Pt catalysts, respectively.

As electrolyte materials, the inclusion of MOFs seems at first counter-intuitive. Fuel cell membranes generally have low porosity to prevent fuel crossover and loss of voltage between the anode and cathode. Additionally, membranes tend to have low crystallinity because the transport of ions is more favorable in disordered materials. On the other hand, pores can be filled with additional ion carriers that ultimately enhance the ionic conductivity of the system and high crystallinity makes the design process less complex.

The general requirements of a good electrolyte for PEMFCs are: high proton conductivity (>10−2 S/cm for practical applications) to enable proton transport between electrodes, good chemical and thermal stability under fuel cell operating conditions (environmental humidity, variable temperatures, resistance to poisonous species, etc.), low cost, ability to be processed into thin-films, and overall compatibility with other cell components. While polymeric materials are currently the preferred choice of proton-conducting membrane, they require humidification for adequate performance and can sometimes physically degrade due to hydrations effects, thereby causing losses of efficiency. As mentioned, Nafion is also limited by a dehydration temperature of < 100 °C, which can lead to slower reaction kinetics, poor cost efficiency, and CO poisoning of Pt electrode catalysts. Conversely, MOFs have shown encouraging proton conductivities in both low and high temperature regimes as well as over a wide range of humidity conditions. Below 100 °C and under hydration, the presence of hydrogen bonding and solvent water molecules aid in proton transport, whereas anhydrous conditions are suitable for temperatures above 100 °C. MOFs also have the distinct advantage of exhibiting proton conductivity by the framework itself in addition to the inclusion of charge carries (i.e., water, acids, etc.) into their pores.

A low temperature example is work by Kitagawa, et al. who used a two-dimensional oxalate-bridged anionic layer framework as the host and introduced ammonium cations and adipic acid molecules into the pores to increase proton concentration. The result was one of the first instances of a MOF showing "superprotonic" conductivity (8 × 10−3 S/cm) at 25 °C and 98% relative humidity (RH). They later found that increasing the hydrophilic nature of the cations introduced into the pores could enhance proton conductivity even more. In this low temperature regime that is dependent on degree of hydration, it has also been shown that proton conductivity is heavily dependent on humidity levels.

A high temperature anhydrous example is PCMOF2, which consists of sodium ions coordinated to a trisulfonated benzene derivative. To improve performance and allow for higher operating temperatures, water can be replaced as the proton carrier by less volatile imidazole or triazole molecules within the pores. The maximum temperature achieved was 150 °C with an optimum conductivity of 5 × 10−4 S/cm, which is lower than other current electrolyte membranes. However, this model holds promise for its temperature regime, anhydrous conditions, and ability to control the quantity of guest molecules within the pores, all of which allowed for the tunability of proton conductivity. Additionally, the triazole-loaded PCMOF2 was incorporated into a H2/air membrane-electrode assembly and achieved an open circuit voltage of 1.18 V at 100 °C that was stable for 72 hours and managed to remain gas tight throughout testing. This was the first instance that proved MOFs could actually be implemented into functioning fuel cells, and the moderate potential difference showed that fuel crossover due to porosity was not an issue.

To date, the highest proton conductivity achieved for a MOF electrolyte is 4.2 × 10−2 S/cm at 25 °C under humid conditions (98% RH), which is competitive with Nafion. Some recent experiments have even successfully produced thin-film MOF membranes instead of the traditional bulk samples or single crystals, which is crucial for their industrial applicability. Once MOFs are able to consistently achieve sufficient conductivity levels, mechanical strength, water stability, and simple processing, they have the potential to play an important role in PEMFCs in the near future.

MOFs have also been targeted as potential replacements of platinum group metal (PGM) materials for electrode catalysts, although this research is still in the early stages of development. In PEMFCs, the oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) at the Pt cathode is significantly slower than the fuel oxidation reaction at the anode, and thus non-PGM and metal-free catalysts are being investigated as alternatives. The high volumetric density, large pore surface areas, and openness of metal-ion sites in MOFs make them ideal candidates for catalyst precursors. Despite promising catalytic abilities, the durability of these proposed MOF-based catalysts is currently less than desirable and the ORR mechanism in this context is still not completely understood.

Catalyst research
Much of the current research on catalysts for PEM fuel cells can be classified as having one of the following main objectives:

 * 1) to obtain higher catalytic activity than the standard carbon-supported platinum particle catalysts used in current PEM fuel cells
 * 2) to reduce the poisoning of PEM fuel cell catalysts by impurity gases
 * 3) to reduce the cost of the fuel cell due to use of platinum-based catalysts
 * 4) to enhance the ORR activity of platinum group metal-free electrocatalysts

Examples of these approaches are given in the following sections.

Increasing catalytic activity
As mentioned above, platinum is by far the most effective element used for PEM fuel cell catalysts, and nearly all current PEM fuel cells use platinum particles on porous carbon supports to catalyze both hydrogen oxidation and oxygen reduction. However, due to their high cost, current Pt/C catalysts are not feasible for commercialization. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that platinum-based catalysts will need to use roughly four times less platinum than is used in current PEM fuel cell designs in order to represent a realistic alternative to internal combustion engines. Consequently, one main goal of catalyst design for PEM fuel cells is to increase the catalytic activity of platinum by a factor of four so that only one-fourth as much of the precious metal is necessary to achieve similar performance.

One method of increasing the performance of platinum catalysts is to optimize the size and shape of the platinum particles. Decreasing the particles' size alone increases the total surface area of catalyst available to participate in reactions per volume of platinum used, but recent studies have demonstrated additional ways to make further improvements to catalytic performance. For example, one study reports that high-index facets of platinum nanoparticles (that is Miller indexes with large integers, such as Pt (730)) provide a greater density of reactive sites for oxygen reduction than typical platinum nanoparticles.

Since the most common and effective catalyst, platinum, is extremely expensive, alternative processing is necessary to maximize surface area and minimize loading. Deposition of nanosized Pt particles onto carbon powder (Pt/C) provides a large Pt surface area while the carbon allows for electrical connection between the catalyst and the rest of the cell. Platinum is so effective because it has high activity and bonds to the hydrogen just strongly enough to facilitate electron transfer but not inhibit the hydrogen from continuing to move around the cell. However, platinum is less active in the cathode oxygen reduction reaction. This necessitates the use of more platinum, increasing the cell's expense and thus feasibility. Many potential catalyst choices are ruled out because of the extreme acidity of the cell.

The most effective ways of achieving the nanoscale Pt on carbon powder, which is currently the best option, are through vacuum deposition, sputtering, and electrodeposition. The platinum particles are deposited onto carbon paper that is permeated with PTFE. However, there is an optimal thinness to this catalyst layer, which limits the lower cost limit. Below 4 nm, Pt will form islands on the paper, limiting its activity. Above this thickness, the Pt will coat the carbon and be an effective catalyst. To further complicate things, Nafion cannot be infiltrated beyond 10 um, so using more Pt than this is an unnecessary expense. Thus the amount and shape of the catalyst is limited by the constraints of other materials.

A second method of increasing the catalytic activity of platinum is to alloy it with other metals. For example, it was recently shown that the Pt3Ni(111) surface has a higher oxygen reduction activity than pure Pt(111) by a factor of ten. The authors attribute this dramatic performance increase to modifications to the electronic structure of the surface, reducing its tendency to bond to oxygen-containing ionic species present in PEM fuel cells and hence increasing the number of available sites for oxygen adsorption and reduction.

Further efficiencies can be realized using an Ultrasonic nozzle to apply the platinum catalyst to the electrolyte layer or to carbon paper under atmospheric conditions resulting in high efficiency spray. Studies have shown that due to the uniform size of the droplets created by this type of spray, due to the high transfer efficiency of the technology, due to the non-clogging nature of the nozzle and finally due to the fact that the ultrasonic energy de-agglomerates the suspension just before atomization, fuel cells MEA's manufactured this way have a greater homogeneity in the final MEA, and the gas flow through the cell is more uniform, maximizing the efficiency of the platinum in the MEA. Recent studies using inkjet printing to deposit the catalyst over the membrane have also shown high catalyst utilization due to the reduced thickness of the deposited catalyst layers.

Very recently, a new class of ORR electrocatalysts have been introduced in the case of Pt-M (M-Fe and Co) systems with an ordered intermetallic core encapsulated within a Pt-rich shell. These intermetallic core-shell (IMCS) nanocatalysts were found to exhibit an enhanced activity and most importantly, an extended durability compared to many previous designs. While the observed enhancement in the activities is ascribed to a strained lattice, the authors report that their findings on the degradation kinetics establish that the extended catalytic durability is attributable to a sustained atomic order.

Reducing poisoning
The other popular approach to improving catalyst performance is to reduce its sensitivity to impurities in the fuel source, especially carbon monoxide (CO). Presently, pure hydrogen gas is becoming economical to mass-produce by electrolysis. However, at the moment most hydrogen gas is produced by steam reforming light hydrocarbons, a process which produces a mixture of gases that also contains CO (1–3%), CO2 (19–25%), and N2 (25%). Even tens of parts per million of CO can poison a pure platinum catalyst, so increasing platinum's resistance to CO is an active area of research.

For example, one study reported that cube-shaped platinum nanoparticles with (100) facets displayed a fourfold increase in oxygen reduction activity compared to randomly faceted platinum nanoparticles of similar size. The authors concluded that the (111) facets of the randomly shaped nanoparticles bonded more strongly to sulfate ions than the (100) facets, reducing the number of catalytic sites open to oxygen molecules. The nanocubes they synthesized, in contrast, had almost exclusively (100) facets, which are known to interact with sulfate more weakly. As a result, a greater fraction of the surface area of those particles was available for the reduction of oxygen, boosting the catalyst's oxygen reduction activity.

In addition, researchers have been investigating ways of reducing the CO content of hydrogen fuel before it enters a fuel cell as a possible way to avoid poisoning the catalysts. One recent study revealed that ruthenium-platinum core–shell nanoparticles are particularly effective at oxidizing CO to form CO2, a much less harmful fuel contaminant. The mechanism that produces this effect is conceptually similar to that described for Pt3Ni above: the ruthenium core of the particle alters the electronic structure of the platinum surface, rendering it better able to catalyze the oxidation of CO.

Lowering cost
The challenge for the viability of PEM fuel cells today still remains in their cost and stability. The high cost can in large part be attributed to the use of the precious metal of platinum in the catalyst layer of PEM cells. The electrocatalyst currently accounts for nearly half of the fuel cell stack cost. Although the Pt loading of PEM fuel cells has been reduced by two orders of magnitude over the past decade, further reduction is necessary to make the technology economically viable for commercialization. Whereas some research efforts aim to address this issue by improving the electrocatalytic activity of Pt-based catalysts, an alternative is to eliminate the use of Pt altogether by developing a non-platinum-group-metal (non-PGM) cathode catalyst whose performance rivals that of Pt-based technologies. The U.S. Department of Energy has been setting milestones for the development of fuel cells, targeting a durability of 5000 hours and a non-PGM catalyst ORR volumetric activity of 300 A cm−3.

Promising alternatives to Pt-based catalysts are Metal/Nitrogen/ Carbon-catalysts (M/N/C-catalysts). To achieve high power density, or output of power over surface area of the cell, a volumetric activity of at least 1/10 that of Pt-based catalysts must be met, along with good mass transport properties. While M/N/C-catalysts still demonstrate poorer volumetric activities than Pt-based catalysts, the reduced costs of such catalysts allows for greater loading to compensate. However, increasing the loading of M/N/C-catalysts also renders the catalytic layer thicker, impairing its mass transport properties. In other words, H2, O2, protons, and electrons have greater difficulty in migrating through the catalytic layer, decreasing the voltage output of the cell. While high microporosity of the M/N/C catalytic network results in high volumetric activity, improved mass transport properties are instead associated to macroporosity of the network. These M/N/C materials are synthesized using high temperature pyrolysis and other high temperature treatments of precursors containing the metal, nitrogen, and carbon.

Recently, researchers have developed a Fe/N/C catalyst derived from iron (II) acetate (FeAc), phenanthroline (Phen), and a metal-organic-framework (MOF) host. The MOF is a Zn(II) zeolitic imidazolate framework (ZIF) called ZIF-8, which demonstrates a high microporous surface area and high nitrogen content conducive to ORR activity. The power density of the FeAc/Phen/ZIF-8-catalyst was found to be 0.75 W cm−2 at 0.6 V. This value is a significant improvement over the maximal 0.37 W cm−2 power density of previous M/N/C-catalysts and is much closer to matching the typical value of 1.0–1.2 W cm−2 for Pt-based catalysts with a Pt loading of 0.3 mg cm−2. The catalyst also demonstrated a volumetric activity of 230 A·cm−3, the highest value for non-PGM catalysts to date, approaching the U.S. Department of Energy milestone.

While the power density achieved by the novel FeAc/Phen/ZIF-8-catalyst is promising, its durability remains inadequate for commercial application. It is reported that the best durability exhibited by this catalyst still had a 15% drop in current density over 100 hours in H2/air. Hence while the Fe-based non-PGM catalysts rival Pt-based catalysts in their electrocatalytic activity, there is still much work to be done in understanding their degradation mechanisms and improving their durability.

Applications
The major application of PEM fuel cells focuses on transportation primarily because of their potential impact on the environment, e.g. the control of emission of the green house gases (GHG). Other applications include distributed/stationary and portable power generation. Most major motor companies work solely on PEM fuel cells due to their high power density and excellent dynamic characteristics as compared with other types of fuel cells. Due to their light weight, PEMFCs are most suited for transportation applications. PEMFCs for buses, which use compressed hydrogen for fuel, can operate at up to 40% efficiency. Generally PEMFCs are implemented on buses over smaller cars because of the available volume to house the system and store the fuel. Technical issues for transportation involve incorporation of PEMs into current vehicle technology and updating energy systems. Full fuel cell vehicles are not advantageous if hydrogen is sourced from fossil fuels; however, they become beneficial when implemented as hybrids. There is potential for PEMFCs to be used for stationary power generation, where they provide 5 kW at 30% efficiency; however, they run into competition with other types of fuel cells, mainly SOFCs and MCFCs. Whereas PEMFCs generally require high purity hydrogen for operation, other fuel cell types can run on methane and are thus more flexible systems. Therefore, PEMFCs are best for small scale systems until economically scalable pure hydrogen is available. Furthermore, PEMFCs have the possibility of replacing batteries for portable electronics, though integration of the hydrogen supply is a technical challenge particularly without a convenient location to store it within the device.

History
Before the invention of PEM fuel cells, existing fuel cell types such as solid-oxide fuel cells were only applied in extreme conditions. Such fuel cells also required very expensive materials and could only be used for stationary applications due to their size. These issues were addressed by the PEM fuel cell. The PEM fuel cell was invented in the early 1960s by Willard Thomas Grubb and Leonard Niedrach of General Electric. Initially, sulfonated polystyrene membranes were used for electrolytes, but they were replaced in 1966 by Nafion ionomer, which proved to be superior in performance and durability to sulfonated polystyrene.

PEM fuel cells were used in the NASA Gemini series of spacecraft, but they were replaced by Alkaline fuel cells in the Apollo program and in the Space Shuttle. General Electric continued working on PEM cells and in the mid-1970s developed PEM water electrolysis technology for undersea life support, leading to the US Navy Oxygen Generating Plant. The British Royal Navy adopted this technology in early 1980s for their submarine fleet. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Los Alamos National Lab and Texas A&M University experimented with ways to reduce the amount of platinum required for PEM cells.

Parallel with Pratt and Whitney Aircraft, General Electric developed the first proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs) for the Gemini space missions in the early 1960s. The first mission to use PEMFCs was Gemini V. However, the Apollo space missions and subsequent Apollo-Soyuz, Skylab and Space Shuttle missions used fuel cells based on Bacon's design, developed by Pratt and Whitney Aircraft.

Extremely expensive materials were used and the fuel cells required very pure hydrogen and oxygen. Early fuel cells tended to require inconveniently high operating temperatures that were a problem in many applications. However, fuel cells were seen to be desirable due to the large amounts of fuel available (hydrogen and oxygen).

Despite their success in space programs, fuel cell systems were limited to space missions and other special applications, where high cost could be tolerated. It was not until the late 1980s and early 1990s that fuel cells became a real option for wider application base. Several pivotal innovations, such as low platinum catalyst loading and thin film electrodes, drove the cost of fuel cells down, making development of PEMFC systems more realistic. However, there is significant debate as to whether hydrogen fuel cells will be a realistic technology for use in automobiles or other vehicles. (See hydrogen economy.) A large part of PEMFC production is for the Toyota Mirai. The US Department of Energy estimates a 2016 price at $53/kW if 500,000 units per year were made.

title: Proton-exchange membrane fuel cell