Alrighty then. "a current of up to 1 volt". Any science or engineering journalist, even at MIT News level, could get that wrong, but not all of them. They should have better fact-checking.
Neat application though. Obviously, don't expect to buy one next week. But what's interesting here is that you'd think that electrochemical cells, which are going to scale by volume (cube law) as they get smaller, would not be as effective in these micro-scale applications as the energy harvesting/wireless energy schemes people seem to like work on, which mostly scale by aperture/area (square law). They treat that in passing, basically, the problem with solar is sometime's it's dark, but it's not very edifying.
The text says “a current with a potential of up to 1 volt.” The key word is potential, i.e. electrical potential whose SI unit is the volt. That must be the amount of potential that this particular chemical reaction can create. Since the current probably depends on the amounts of the chemicals involved, the article doesn’t state that.
they are written by people who want to entice the knowledgeable to read the article, and the less so to gawk at it. Surely this accomplished both tasks
Neat application though. Obviously, don't expect to buy one next week. But what's interesting here is that you'd think that electrochemical cells, which are going to scale by volume (cube law) as they get smaller, would not be as effective in these micro-scale applications as the energy harvesting/wireless energy schemes people seem to like work on, which mostly scale by aperture/area (square law). They treat that in passing, basically, the problem with solar is sometime's it's dark, but it's not very edifying.