A magazine like Popular Science should be held to a higher standard than today’s “Fake news” marketing re-hashing websites, which is why it’s very disappointing to see them print an article on the thoroughly busted Indiegogo WaterSeer without any kind of basic fact checking or questioning of it’s practicality.
P.S. The article author was contacted for comment but did not reply.
UPDATE: Popular Science ran another article not quite retracting their previous article, but acknowledging the issues.
Forum: http://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblab-31-popular-science-fail!-(water-seer)/
Fontus VIDEO: https://youtu.be/BhnoSREmWVY
Thunderf00t VIDEO: https://youtu.be/LVsqIjAeeXw
EEVblog Main Web Site: http://www.eevblog.com
The 2nd EEVblog Channel: http://www.youtube.com/EEVblog2
Support the EEVblog through Patreon!
http://www.patreon.com/eevblog
EEVblog Amazon Store (Dave gets a cut):
http://astore.amazon.com/eevblogstore-20
T-Shirts: http://teespring.com/stores/eevblog
Video Rating: / 5
Waterseer is a bunch of hooey. UC Berkeley got duped like the National peace Corps Association. The Collider study was all a sham.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Eg3tqSOpms
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10k-DPcLrHU How does this work, IDK whats going on here but heres someone making water from thin air.
You are naive to believe that "Popular Science" cares about scientific integrity. Instead of foolishly expecting a retraction from them, you ought to retract your naivety instead and realize that Popular Science caters to leftist junk science/fake news.
"Popular Science" – the name alone gives it away lmao
Home Depot Releases New Bluetooth Cordless Hose
http://www.theonion.com/graphic/home-depot-releases-new-bluetooth-cordless-hose-56446
Another thing no one seems to think about with this, distilled water over a long period of time, IE months is deadly to humans. We need minerals and electrolytes most of which we get from our water.
Many survival books mention you can distil water for the short term but you only do it until you can find a river or ground source of water.
You would strip your body of minerals and electrolytes, both of which are required to make muscles move until your heart, a muscle stops moving.
"Fake news" is another synonym of disinformation, and apparently many "news" outlets embraced it (I bet long time ago).
People tend to use less and less their frontal lobe these days, they avoid to make any effort to understand anything.
The assistant editor Sarah Fecht, of that magazine is a woman obviously. She does not a great job of breaking the steretotype that women and science do not go together.
Do you think this is innocent stupidity, on the part of the promoters? Or is it a scam?
I like how there are 13 arrows showing how a fan is pumping air down a shaft. Like that's the real advanced science here, air moving in a tube, you need some visual aid to help you comprehend it. But absolutely no explanation as to where the air is going to go from there.
What would be impressive is if they debunked it and attempted to hypothesize the realities of making it work in out current knowledge of science and what it would take to achieve the fantasy they are hoping for. Since we can't assume that it will never be possible, sure the end result may look bigger or have a completely different design but if the desire is to achieve a machine that is that efficient at gathering water the only thing that stops it from coming to light is proper ingenuity.
The issue these dummies ran into was a one track mind, they pushed something that sounded nice, but their execution showed it wasn't going to work, rather than actually go back and run the numbers and realize the fault of their promises, they kept doubling down until they ran into the mess which they are in now, which is sad because with the amount of money they spent trying to make this failed idea, they could of used it to just at least started the infrastructure of drinking sources that while sure maybe they wouldn't help all the people they would want it to help, they could at least help some people.
Well that's cool. Sarah Fecht actually placed an article that it would not work so well as they claimed. http://www.popsci.com/this-device-may-pull-water-out-thin-air-but-not-as-well-as-we-hoped So that gives them a little credibility back.
Okay, not exactly your point, but the video states it gathers up to 27 liters a day, not 37. That would change your equation for energy consumption, though it would still need a lot I guess.
I wouldn't be surprised if they claimed it was an April Fools joke, except that it was 2 months too early.
More than likely, they will do nothing and move on.
Why spend your time and energy on this obvious frauds. If people are so uniformed that they believe these marketing scams so be it.
I unsubscribed from popular science because of this. I don't pay for their magazine because I want to read bs.
what if the water condesning system had like a vacuum layer like thermos flasks? would that save the dissipation problem?
here in uk, one of the most wet place in the world, a dehumidifier would burn out so much electricity just to extract 2 liters of water in 24 hours a whooping 8kw a day.
They're obviously more about the popular than they are about the science. Wateseer is about as popular as it is bullshit, hence why it made the issue because they care more about the popular than they do about the science.
why not get a peltier cooler and a solar panel or something simialr? would that not make this slightly more viable
It's sad because all the money wasted on these "innovations" could be used to just buy pallets of bottled water and shipped to these impoverished countries