Popular Science has been a "ragazine" since the 1980s. They were great back in the 1970s, but yeah, they started to publish borderline stuff later to get more subscriptions and then in the 2000s, more clicks for advertisers
Nice one Thomas. I was kind of suspecting that may have been the case. And was wondering if/when I would see a post like yours. But then isn't that the way things have gone in general. Unless one is actually interested in science oneself you are screwed, the scientific literacy of most people is just absolutely woeful. Our schools and educational establishments have moved over to feelings and emotion, as opposed to actual understanding. It really is worrying.
As polarizing as Thunderf00t can be he is usually spot on when it comes to science. His video on the waterseer is certainly worth a watch and I understand both Tf00ts and Dave's frustration with these kinds of scams. These people put together a video how you can save the poor people by this simple device and hits many people right in the emotions and it makes them want to open up their wallet so they can be a part of saving someone. If you really want to be a hero then donate some money directly to one of the many companies who set up and install water lines and drill water wells. Never donate to a third party company. These are usually the ones who take a donation in exchange for an item like a t-shirt or a mug saying you helped save the world in some way. I asked one of these third party water companies if gave them $20 how much of that actually got donated to a water company that needs it. The official answer was only $1.80 ended up as a donation and the rest was kept to pay for a custom mug and operating cost. needless to say they didn't get my money but people were lining up to give away their dollars to get a mug that said they helped saved someone.
More people with physics, thermodynamics and engineering backgrounds need to stand up against this sort of BS before it overwhelms the world. The ammoutn of money invested in Waterseer SolarFreekingRoadways and some other crap would make a few science institutes glee.
Not saying you could get 37L/day, but choosing a bowl is the worst goddamn possible shape, as it highest volume to surface area ratio. They're designing a heatsink, increase the damn surface area. Also, putting a trap, not unlike the trap in your toilet, would boost performance.
I have an idea! Use a refrigeration loop to cool air, causing water to condense. Use that water to power a small hydroelectric turbine, and use that to power the refrigeration compressor! Simple!
You should get into the indiegogo business you will get at least half a million dls with that idea, you will get Thunderf00t and maybe Dave to make a video showing why its not possible and to top it off you will also see how their videos really don't prevent people from giving you money literal win win.
Lol. I wonder if anyone would be foolish enough to think that the water produced would be sufficient to actually power a compressor. You never know these days... Hey, if the media likes it, it must work!
Ahah! That's the perfect solution for the turbine not creating enough torque to turn the compressor! With the batterizer, a mere drop of water will be able to power enough compressors to cool the earth and stop global warming!
If they need the marketing hype to survive (or pay for their lifestyles) I wonder how likely they are to print a retraction. My money is on silence in the next issue.
better use of $330K would be to send over large water filters and set up gravity fed towers from local material. the water often isn't the problem, its the *clean* water.
thechosendude fuel less survival lighter. Not an "electric" lighter, a "Fuelless" lighter. its green, duesnt burn fossil fuels, comes with a tourch, and will save you in case of an emergency. Think of all the lives that are lost due to people not having a lighter when they most needed it! IT COULD HAPPEN TO YOUR KIDS! ps: my commision is 20%, you can send it to sales@schamhers.com.ng
They published it because they knew that it was a popular news even it was just bs. Now you know that it's a very bad "science" magazine that care more about number os readers that science.
Come on Dave, PopSci is anything but a "reputable science magazine". I've got a library of these magazines going back to the 1940s and there is so much bunkum in them that it's laughable. PopSci is anything but "reputable" -- and it's even worse these days when it's all about getting clicks. Check out all the "outbrain" type links on their pages :-(
I did see Thunderf00t's video earlier. I do agree with him on this. I am a gardener and I know that soil is an insulator and a poor conductor of heat. With heat pump systems you need lots and lots of metal tubing DEEP in the ground spread out in a long rectangle for this effect. And that is better if there is good amount of moisture in the soil to begin with! I am in an area that at times with our low relative humidity that there is NO condensation on the side of a glass with iced drinks inside.
Starphot, your no-condensation on the side of a glass is exactly one of the things these people 'forgot' to mention (and hard to imagine for people in humid environments). When you go to the website of the waterseer and have a look at their testbed (where the student design were tested), you as a gardener will have no problem judging the moisture-content of the soil by looking at the grass growing there. Is this arid soil?
Dave: I think thing both you and Thunderfoot missed a glaring error in the ad: It says "because the ground is *always* cooler than the surrounding air". Even if you completely ignore the energy dumped into the ground, shouldn't the ground temperature be at or lightly above the *average* temperature of the air? So, at night and in cold weather, the device would work as a humidifier - loosing water.
That's the first time I've seen somebody link a video of ANOTHER UA-camr in the last seconds of the video. Massive respect for providing the cross links instead of just promoting your own content like do many others. Even the fact that the videos are related and not just the funniest ones, trying to get people to subscribe etc. Yeah, just massive respect for staying true :)
I see plenty of UA-camrs in our space doing this, and there is no reason not to. Good content should be linked and promoted. Even channels that are technically "competing" for the same audience space always have differences that make them appealing in their own way to particular people. It's not like someone will see the other channel and emmediately unsub and "switch". Even if they did, that's how the system works, no point hiding from it. One of the biggest joys I get is knowing that I influenced other channels to start up and make content.
Simple Fix: If the problem is the ground being so warm that it causes the water to evaporate in the condensation chamber, then move your device indoors. There is no need to bury it in your home, because your indoor temp will be cooler than the outdoor temp, but you can still bury it indoors if you wanted to. Extend the top portion of the device so that it is outside of your home still sucking in the hot air. The water will then condense in the chamber without evaporating. This is an easy fix at no real cost other than the tubing or piping needed to extend the top portion of the device to extend outside of your home. This device does not need to be an outdoor device, it just needs to suck in hot air from the outside. This will work great in desert climates. The indoor temperature of your home replaces the cooling effect of the ground. You will however will need a fan to suck in the air, because the turbine relies on the wind to turn it, and that may not be reliable or powerful enough.
Popular Science doesn't care. They gave "No Man's Sky" a Best of What's New award. That was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. I won't be renewing.
No mans sky is just a game - every one can have their own opinion. This on the other hand is wasting money to not solve a real problem while discrediting organizations (granted: it is their fault to approve the use of their name) and science as a whole. There is an escalation here.
I feel your pain, Dave. As an Olde School engineer, similar to you it seems, I am both saddened and dismayed with where the skill of Critical Thinking is headed...
I have doubts on the "clean water" part. Sealing moisture in something like that underground, in the dark, with no easy way to get at it to clean it, sounds like an open invitation for bacteria/mold to grow. So even if it DID work, it'd only be clean for a time.
I love this coverage, Thunderf00t's and Lindybeige's. What I've learnt from Lindy is that if we add a Spandau, and a katana with some fire arrows then we should solve all the problems.
I'd love to see someone with the land and the climate to do a debunking on this. Dave's already worked out the dissipation of one of these, so they'd just need to bury a heater element with a thermocouple attached a couple of feet under the ground, then bury thermocouples at regular distances from the heater, e.g. 1/2, 1, 2, 3 feet. Then with the heater turned off just wait for the its temperature to stabilise to see if it drops below the dew point, and if it does, switch it on and see how long it takes before the surrounding soil is above the dew point. I know we've got the climate for it here in some parts of northern/central Australia, but I don't know of any practical-minded UA-camrs in those parts. Cody'sLab has the land, and possibly the climate in summer, but he is a pretty busy guy so I dunno if it's the kind of project he'd be too keen on. Also his family run the ranch off generator, and 1000W is a lot of energy when you're off grid, so I don't know if they'd be too keen on using that much power just to debunk an obviously bogus idea.
DJ Scottdog - Even better, build a wind turbine whose turbine blades are covered in solar cells, that way you can generate electricity on sunny or windy days (or both)! :) Even better, since the solar cells will get warm on a sunny day, incorporate a Stirling engine to run off the temperature difference between the solar panels, and the ground. Okay, enough scientific sarcasm here...
DJ Scottdog where do people need water? Yes, in areas with little water. Usually, these areas also have air with low humidity. Meaning you can't get much water out of it...
Ruudsosalsa in the Canary Islands they use a combination of windbreaks and volcanic ash/rock to draw water out of morning dew and slow evaporation. There have been stories of survivors living on condensate from morning dew in the Sahara (I say survive... more like simply wet their whistle but it has been reported on). Now 37 litres, that's completely bullshit. Supporting 3rd world countries, totally bullshit and all day long? Even more bullshit but it is easy to see how idiots could be fooled into thinking this would work. You would be better off pissing into a bottle, standing it in the sun, running some pipe to a shaded area and collecting the distilled condensate.
They had a choice, they could choose to be rich and live in a big city in the western world, or they could choose to live in a place with little water.... /sarcasm What kind of a question is that? Do you think these people can just move?
Popular Science as much about science as History Channel is about history. Popular Science should be debunking this stuff. Perhaps that would make them an actual popular science publication that can supplement where the education system falls short. I am sure there is a way of making science exciting and truthful without resorting to sensationalism.
I love how Aussies and New Zealanders are so frank and natural with their language, it really makes a difference to some of the stuck up and pc discussions (especially living here in the UK). you tell it how it is and don't beat about bush, you sir have my respect. Yet another great video.
I Always thought about mosquitos being able to lay eggs and hatch down in the water tank. And anyway- algae and bacteria would settle and start cozy colonies down in that tank instantly
Don't spend time working out what is practical and possible and then design a product to implement it. No, no: just design a cool-looking device, get people to stake money on it, and then try to delay the inevitable exposure of failure as long as possible.
I greatly doubt that. I think they just trawled the web for water related content, saw the WaterSeer and thought that looks exciting and innovative so just wrote some drivel about it.
I would bet that the waterseer developers sent this over to the magazine promoting it then some intern who knows nothing about science probably put this into the magazine and the editor thought it looked cool.
Popular Science hasn't been an actual science magazine for at least 20 years. Popular Mechanics is only slightly better but still horrible. I can't believe they have any subscribers except for medical offices to let their clients read something while waiting.
So many bull@hit devices and scams out there. What's incredible are the number of easily duped people willing to hand over hard earned money to the wrong people. Have money to blow? Then support UA-cam channels that help others(or save people money), like Dave and I.
It's unfortunate you quoted the same fundamental physics mistake you made in the other video - the latent heat of vaporization is the energy *given out* when water is condensed from the air (the heat previously needed to evaporate it).
There are some other reasons for things like this. Something which is not going to work in advance is advertised, then it is sponsored in whatever way, the cheap materials are used for makeshift something, and the majority of the excessive money is stolen - even with expensive materials it wasn't supposed to work anyways. So the expenses include advertisement to get maximum investments, cheap materials to make something, and the rest is safely stolen, or converted to profit, if one has to put it in some more civilized way (lie).
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.
I am a software developer and I have worked in scientific environments - medical and genetic and I am no longer surprised by how unscientific scientists can be. My experience is that scientists are highly political in their nature and while there are a few who are brutally honest in their approach - many are not. The problem is that we equate science with scientists - scientists are trained in the scientific method, which does not mean that they necessarily make use of that training when it does not serve them or their career.
What you are messing is that they must have the mindset, altho such thing might differ from person to the other. I doubt that a 50 years old professor would suddenly jump in the wagon anyways. Those who are extremely passionate about their work can tend to be multidisciplinary and apply their mindset to everything else. I'm speaking of personal experience, I worked with time-frequency research scientists (cesium/atomic clocks, cryogenic applications, sapphire, ulta-high stability clocks..). I would also tend to generalize that to mathematicians too. You might argue that these aren't necessary physicists but are trained in ways of thought, especially those in the field of mathematical logic, and applied maths in the fields of physics (semiconductor engineering, finite-element analysis, aerodynamics..)
Gordon Chin Ever since Lindy's video, I've thought. Could the waterseer work, if we had a Spandau that shot fire arrows? Maybe a Katana to slice the cool air in half and make it settle.
Gordon Chin. I will construct such a thing and test it. I will probably conclude it doesn't work as advertised (in a arid region). Their rebuttal will be that I didn't build it correctly and that's why it didn't work. Nothing gained by my trouble. They did let design-students (not engineering-) design and build prototypes of these water-vapour catchers and test them. They did so in the vicinity of San Francisco (claiming it is an arid region). The photo's of these tests show a type of grass (growing in the background) that sports broad leaves (good for evaporation) and is dark green. This means that the area, where they tested this, wasn't arid but very moist. They also tested it for a short time and extrapolated the results to a 24h period. These con-people use half-truths to gain a little bit of credibility so they can con the uninformed.
I imagine no one replied with this: water.usgs.gov/edu/drinkseawater.html (it's an inflatable, floating water still that should provide enough water to keep someone alive, given enough sunlight). Or you could use a hand-operated reverse osmosis pump - you do need to work the pump though, while the still does its own thing. Kevin Costner in Waterworld drank his own piss for nothing :)
Apart from the thermodynamics issue (which of course is the main issue) - are people not completely grossed out by the concept?? It's a water tank buried underground, filled with all the stuff that precipitate out of air. Water will be the main component, but also every type of volatile compound in the air, airborne microbes, pollen, fungus spores, moss spores, seeds, dirt, smoke, air pollution, etc. And you can't even dig it out easily to clean it.
7:02 looking at that PM WaterSeer illustration something immediately popped out at me.. The the "humid" air being fan pushed down the shaft in the ground doesn't seem to have an exit return path to all that air pressure build up. [EDIT] Just watched Thunderf00t's video and it looks like there is an exhaust tube 1/3 the size of the main air input shaft.
Good to see you pick up on it as well. Apparently it needs repetition that this thing violates thermodynamics, and no amount of good intentions or endorsement can cure that. "You can't fool nature", as Richard Feynman so succinctly put it. Lindybeige also debunked the WaterSeer, although physics is not usually his main topic.
I was expecting the windmill on the top to drive a generator, that ran a tiny dehumidifier. However, there is the concept of geothermal and ground heating, the earlier I actually use to heat my house and warm water. With the correct stuff, it can be put into reverse and provide cool air during the summer. That said, I do not have the numbers in my head to validate this contraption.
It just occurred to me that the Waterseer, if built, would just be a dark damp hole in the ground that's open to the air. How long under those conditions would it be before the collection bell filled with fungus? It seems like their claim of 'clean' drinking water is untenable. It would also clog the spout. And the whole design depends on digging a large hole meters deeps, this isn't a trial task in the places that the Waterseer is intended to be used and presents itself as a maintenance nightmare. Even if the Waterseer didn't violate physics and serve almost no purpose it's still an engineering FAIL.
The biggest fault in the concept is, that the dehumidifier will work that 1.85 litres per kW*h only at high humidity level. It does not work in desert conditions.
Yes, the energy numbers are just for cooling the water vapor below the dew point and ignores that you also have to cool down the air it comes in. But it's irrelevant, because you can show it won't work thermodynamically even when just taking the latent heat of condensation into account.
Hi Dave. This thing can actually work. It would work anywhere in Hungary almost all around the year except when temperature is below freezing point. My family does own a wine cellar. The top is about 5 meters underground and the hight is 3 meters so the deepest point is 8 meters underground. Water is an issue. If we leave the door open water condensate in large quantity. This is almost exactly the same as the machine you reviewed. The technology is definitely viable. They should make the container depth adjustable. In Africa you might have to dig deeper. They might have to make the container larger. Earth can conduct a lot of energy. There are houses here what are heated using earth energy and heating a house requires a lot of energy.
yes because Hungary is not a fucking desert... the question is not if water can condense, it's at what cost can you condense water in remote places. This design is retarded, it's better to invest in purification solutions rather then pseudo science. There's been some really clever designs before, I remember one where they basically just put up a low cost net on top of a mountains, it would condense the fog/clouds that would evaporate from the sea and water the crops by letting the water fall down pipes... no need to a fancy pumping solution. Low cost, easy implementation with local hardware, no real need for machining special parts. Their problem was that you can't use sea water to water crops, and it would rarely rain so they would catch the early dew and clouds, like the local cactus would (mimicking the moss on the cactus with nets) This piece of shit? if you watch their original video you'll get an idea why it will never work "we gathered a team of designers...."
They need like 100 m2 soil for an average size house to draw 0-6 cel. air into the heat exchanger. However they transfer way more energy as this design requires. Like in the 10KW range.
The cost of this type of solution is very very cheap. 100% plastic. I am not saying that this solution will actually work however it is possible to design one what works. And it wont work everywhere you need a minimum humidity level and a maximum soil temperature and if you really want to use wind to drive it than you need wind too.
I stopped taking Popular Science seriously (although I still am a subscriber to their magazine) when they removed the online comment section. You can't get any more anti science than shutting down debate, especially when so many of their arguments revolve around speculative science such as climate change. This annoys me to no end.
k1mgy I don't mean that, the hot air is pumped by wind, and makes peltier hotter, so to lessen the heat to soil that would be cooler it would produce energy. Also if wind is strong and soil hot it could power peltier to make the water colder... Just thinking if maybe they could improve their design with peltier to make it more efficient, not proposing perpetual machine.
You want to buy a commercial wind turbine and combine it with a commercial dehumidifier. To further improve efficiency, we could replace the dehumidifier with a desalination plant and for not so windy days we add an alternate power source like solar and see: That already exists and is fare away from the WaterSeer. The core idea of the WaterSeer is that it is simpler and cheaper then existing products. By adding things like a generator/dynamo to generate current to power a peltier, the concept gets so complex, that it becomes indifferent to already existing commercial solutions.
Note: I'm not finished with the vid "Water, water, everywhere... / Nor any drop to drink." FINDING water is almost never an issue, even in arid deserts. Now, unlike TV shows and movies, drinking out of an oasis is usually a poor idea, given that most of them are festering with animal refuse. Water purification is a main issue with this. Now, purification is generally somewhat easy, solar stills and sand filters can accomplish modest water filtration. But what is the biggest issue? Not water or water purification, but mainly war and conflict. That's really it. Generally speaking, it takes a moderately scarce resource, and makes it extremely scarce (for those on the losing side).
I like this comment someone said on this subject: "More studies is required for extracting moist from air. It's dangerous long term affect on the environment. I am certain it will affect the air the entire planet depends on." Yeah LOL :)
I agree, the Waterseer just looks phony to me. Why? Because it's such a simple device, that it shouldn't be hard to build a working prototype. I estimate that it would take me just a couple of weekends, and maybe $200US for parts from Home Depot. So why haven't they built one? Instead, it looks like they put way more effort into making their fancy videos. That just looks bad. But then again, it could be just the student mentality. A few years ago I was asked to judge some senior-year design projects for electronic engineering undergrads at my local university and I was very disappointed that the students all put so much effort into fancy PowerPoint presentations (some with embedded videos!) but so little effort actually designing their projects. I tried to suggest they do the OPPOSITE next time, and I was never asked to return. So sad.
The reason why they have not promoted "their" prototypes is, because they do not look as fancy nor to the perform as claimed: scet.berkeley.edu/waterseer-collider-winners-announced/ So, the fancy animations and surreal claims are worth then a real prototypes, when it comes to collecting money.
Popular Science only has science in their name since a few decade. And stuff like the Waterseer is exactly what the subscribers are looking for to read about. Anything but science...
+Horsecock English orthography in general sucks. In this case, it's because it comes from French (from Latin "corpus"), which drops a lot of word-final s sounds. Interestingly, in middle French and old French, it was actually spelled cors, according to wiktionary. They just decided to add the p back later in spelling.
Indiegogo should definitely be vetting these campaigns more carefully. The site's become a haven for scammers. Another aspect of scamming is where a wealthy corporation sets-up a campaign aimed at indirectly promoting its own products, whilst (falsely) claiming to be a private venture. A university department seeking funding for a 'climate change' related boot camp, for example, and for which they are charging fees at the same time as asking for donations. Whatever your views on the environment I would think you have to agree that this kind of misrepresentation of a corporation as a private startup, sucks. They would no doubt claim that 'saving the planet' justifies their actions... but does it? I would have thought Indiegogo would have pulled this one for deception, but no, it's still running.
This makes me very sad. I have loved Popular Science Magazine for most of my life. But I am first and foremost a scientist and therefore I will no long purchase or read anything related to Popular Science. If they publish a retraction and take corrective action for the employee(s) involved I would definitely consider my previous statements. I am pretty sure they will publish a retraction because of this video, but they will bury it and protect their brand and so I suspect I will sadly never be able to have anything to do with Popular Science for the rest of my life. I'm not happy about this. Not at all.
That would be such a shame, the loss of such a science bible which can reach so many people... It's right in the name "POPULAR" I'm dying inside a little on this one TBH.
So sad to see a publication that inspired me as a child publish this crap about the WaterSeer. Well, we have Dave and Phil now, so I guess I should be grateful for that.
This could work probably when the lower tank is placed into a deep underground water layer, as an additional source of water due to the energy difference between the surface the the said layer - and it would be rather expensive to build such stations, it would include some research and most likely locating the deep underground water layers. But to work efficiently, it has to work with great temperature difference enough to condense the water - keep in mind that generally in desert regions it is not uncommon to see a great temperature difference between daytime and nighttime, which is enough in certain regions for some minor water condensing, very minor to be able to give some returns to huge investments in such stations.
I don't think Popular Science is a reputable magazine anymore. The last issue i got when I was subscribed was around 40% ads and was absolutely unbearable to read because of the ads,
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.
Popular Science Magazine is in trouble. It went bi-monthly and sacked 3 editors about a year ago (including its Editor-in-Chief Cliff Ransom, replacing him with Joe Brown from Gizmodo in August). Clearly they were losing readers and have decided to go more 'pop' and less 'science'. Don't hold your breath for a retraction.
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.
What is "this" meaning the core of the idea? By adding a peltier element and solar panels you might as well use a commercial dehumidifier, which of course work. When crunching the numbers you realize that there are more effective ways to supply people with water then dehumidifiers.
sarowie I'm sure there are, but I was just trying to think of a cheap way to make this relatively cheap source of drinkable water still work. My bad if I jumped into a touchy subject.
On the google thing, Yeah it may show for your account, but possibly not them, it does show in a private tab, typed as "waterseer", but i do not see the debunking stuff when i google "water seer"
I'd be interested in seeing someone conduct an experiment to see how quickly the soil temperature would rise to (at least within a few degrees of) the air temperature. I don't have any idea how well soil/rocks conduct heat, but I imagine that if it insulated well enough to keep the -6' temperature significantly lower than the surface temperature, it doesn't seem likely that it would transfer the heat quickly enough to keep the resovoir cooled.
Tested it... mine are pretty similar it's true.. but my results showed more favourable articles about waterseer... wonder what that says about me... I did get the thunderf00t vid in the first page though.
Ah, too bad I really don't like that Thunderf00t guy. He's free to say whatever he thinks, but I don't agree with a lot of his approach. Or content. I like you - Dave - because you don't typically get distracted by things that I don't agree with. I'm here for resistors and transistors... and pixie smoke!
I'm remembering a similar idea where they used netting to condense dew from the morning air, but this was large scale and only enough for a few people. Seen various solar stills on survival shows like Bear Grylls but they only ever get a mouthful in 24 hrs if they're lucky!
Since when has popular science been a serious scientific magazine. It is always been Lots of hype and junk science. Remember they are the ones who published that we were going to be Living on the moon and Mars, and have flying cars. And expressways with 120 mile an hour speed limits by now. Some of their articles were interesting, But you have always had to be skeptical about some of the information they give. this is not a serious scientific magazine. It's a magazine to get kids interested in science. It has more in common with the sun, and the Inquirer, then a legitimate scientific magazine. if the article appeared in scientific America, I would totally agree with your assessment of the magazine. But it's Popular science, no I don't read it. I would not pay attention to any article that they present without a lot of Investigation first. as far as your assessment of the product in question, I totally agree with you. It takes one BTU to change 1 pound of water 1°F. It takes 144 BTUs to change the state of that liquid. It is totally impractical and unreliable, And given that it will probably be used in arid climates with little humidity, it will probably be useless. it will probably pump a lot of air into the ground, which will heat up the ground, but give little if any water.
The WaterSeer works somewhat better if you submerge the condensation bulb in a fast-flowing cold aquifer. Performance can be augmented by urinating in the top.
Oh FFS, UA-cam is deleting comments I am making on my own video!
bummer
And more than once! Grrrr. I think I'm done posting on the comments here, they simply aren't sticking. Many of my comments vanish on a refresh.
Welcome to the world of censorship! It's a bitch, innit...
Don't you have a 'UA-cam Guy' you can complain too ?
Next Video....eevblab #31 youtube comments can ...........
It is the youtube heros at work!
Even in the internet age the adage of " a fool and his money are soon parted" still stands true.
Nigel Rhodes
It is actually more relevant, but you should not feel sorry for the morons who fell for this mountain of horseshit.
Popular Science has been a "ragazine" since the 1980s. They were great back in the 1970s, but yeah, they started to publish borderline stuff later to get more subscriptions and then in the 2000s, more clicks for advertisers
Thomas Zubin
#FakeNews
I remember dumping them back then for the very reason you stated. I got tired of the bunk articles they would publish.
Nice one Thomas. I was kind of suspecting that may have been the case. And was wondering if/when I would see a post like yours.
But then isn't that the way things have gone in general.
Unless one is actually interested in science oneself you are screwed, the scientific literacy of most people is just absolutely woeful. Our schools and educational establishments have moved over to feelings and emotion, as opposed to actual understanding. It really is worrying.
At this point they are basically Buzzfeed? :P
Yup, indeed. I was about to post a similar remark. They're basically IFLS/Futurism before it was cool.
As polarizing as Thunderf00t can be he is usually spot on when it comes to science. His video on the waterseer is certainly worth a watch and I understand both Tf00ts and Dave's frustration with these kinds of scams. These people put together a video how you can save the poor people by this simple device and hits many people right in the emotions and it makes them want to open up their wallet so they can be a part of saving someone.
If you really want to be a hero then donate some money directly to one of the many companies who set up and install water lines and drill water wells. Never donate to a third party company. These are usually the ones who take a donation in exchange for an item like a t-shirt or a mug saying you helped save the world in some way. I asked one of these third party water companies if gave them $20 how much of that actually got donated to a water company that needs it. The official answer was only $1.80 ended up as a donation and the rest was kept to pay for a custom mug and operating cost. needless to say they didn't get my money but people were lining up to give away their dollars to get a mug that said they helped saved someone.
More people with physics, thermodynamics and engineering backgrounds need to stand up against this sort of BS before it overwhelms the world. The ammoutn of money invested in Waterseer SolarFreekingRoadways and some other crap would make a few science institutes glee.
Not saying you could get 37L/day, but choosing a bowl is the worst goddamn possible shape, as it highest volume to surface area ratio.
They're designing a heatsink, increase the damn surface area. Also, putting a trap, not unlike the trap in your toilet, would boost performance.
Yup, but even if you increased the surface area it's going to perform very poorly for condensation.
EEVblog I agree. I could maybe see .37L/day in a humid environment with the right condenser design.
yeah, 37l/day maybe if heavy rainfall will drop into this bowl... well that's a humidity!
Why isn't there a system utilizing hydroscopic materials yet? That would be more reasonable right?
I have an idea! Use a refrigeration loop to cool air, causing water to condense. Use that water to power a small hydroelectric turbine, and use that to power the refrigeration compressor! Simple!
Indiegogo, hurry!
You should get into the indiegogo business you will get at least half a million dls with that idea, you will get Thunderf00t and maybe Dave to make a video showing why its not possible and to top it off you will also see how their videos really don't prevent people from giving you money literal win win.
Lol. I wonder if anyone would be foolish enough to think that the water produced would be sufficient to actually power a compressor. You never know these days... Hey, if the media likes it, it must work!
Just toss in a solar roadway and a batterizer and you'd have it all figured! Best of ALL worlds!
Ahah! That's the perfect solution for the turbine not creating enough torque to turn the compressor! With the batterizer, a mere drop of water will be able to power enough compressors to cool the earth and stop global warming!
If they need the marketing hype to survive (or pay for their lifestyles) I wonder how likely they are to print a retraction. My money is on silence in the next issue.
Yep, my money is on that too, but happy to be surprised. I did contact the author before doing the video and she did not reply.
They claim "up to" 37 litres a day so that could include zero litres. ;)
better use of $330K would be to send over large water filters and set up gravity fed towers from local material. the water often isn't the problem, its the *clean* water.
Popular Science hasn't been an actual science magazine for at least 20 years.
It's getting more and more tempting to get in on all these crowd funding scams. Any suggestions?
Put all your money into the video and moody background music.
thechosendude
fuel less survival lighter. Not an "electric" lighter, a "Fuelless" lighter.
its green, duesnt burn fossil fuels, comes with a tourch, and will save you in case of an emergency.
Think of all the lives that are lost due to people not having a lighter when they most needed it! IT COULD HAPPEN TO YOUR KIDS!
ps: my commision is 20%, you can send it to sales@schamhers.com.ng
Water powered car, I designed one when I was 11. I'll sell it for 75% of any money made?
Build a BS detector that flags bogus crowd funding scams. I'd buy that.
@Csab 26, show me the water powered car that was around in 2002. And why aren't they around now then?
They published it because they knew that it was a popular news even it was just bs.
Now you know that it's a very bad "science" magazine that care more about number os readers that science.
Come on Dave, PopSci is anything but a "reputable science magazine". I've got a library of these magazines going back to the 1940s and there is so much bunkum in them that it's laughable. PopSci is anything but "reputable" -- and it's even worse these days when it's all about getting clicks. Check out all the "outbrain" type links on their pages :-(
I did see Thunderf00t's video earlier. I do agree with him on this. I am a gardener and I know that soil is an insulator and a poor conductor of heat. With heat pump systems you need lots and lots of metal tubing DEEP in the ground spread out in a long rectangle for this effect. And that is better if there is good amount of moisture in the soil to begin with! I am in an area that at times with our low relative humidity that there is NO condensation on the side of a glass with iced drinks inside.
From all the data I've seen on it, yep soil is generally a very poor thermal conductor.
Starphot, your no-condensation on the side of a glass is exactly one of the things these people 'forgot' to mention (and hard to imagine for people in humid environments).
When you go to the website of the waterseer and have a look at their testbed (where the student design were tested), you as a gardener will have no problem judging the moisture-content of the soil by looking at the grass growing there. Is this arid soil?
Dave: I think thing both you and Thunderfoot missed a glaring error in the ad: It says "because the ground is *always* cooler than the surrounding air". Even if you completely ignore the energy dumped into the ground, shouldn't the ground temperature be at or lightly above the *average* temperature of the air? So, at night and in cold weather, the device would work as a humidifier - loosing water.
Hi Dave!
This is the reason I quit reading Popular Science back in the '70's
That's the first time I've seen somebody link a video of ANOTHER UA-camr in the last seconds of the video. Massive respect for providing the cross links instead of just promoting your own content like do many others. Even the fact that the videos are related and not just the funniest ones, trying to get people to subscribe etc. Yeah, just massive respect for staying true :)
I see plenty of UA-camrs in our space doing this, and there is no reason not to. Good content should be linked and promoted. Even channels that are technically "competing" for the same audience space always have differences that make them appealing in their own way to particular people. It's not like someone will see the other channel and emmediately unsub and "switch". Even if they did, that's how the system works, no point hiding from it.
One of the biggest joys I get is knowing that I influenced other channels to start up and make content.
I'm going to do a startup, Automated Drone delivery of bottle water to Africa tribes, just need $1,000,000 to get the research started! lol
Simple Fix: If the problem is the ground being so warm that it causes the water to evaporate in the condensation chamber, then move your device indoors. There is no need to bury it in your home, because your indoor temp will be cooler than the outdoor temp, but you can still bury it indoors if you wanted to. Extend the top portion of the device so that it is outside of your home still sucking in the hot air. The water will then condense in the chamber without evaporating. This is an easy fix at no real cost other than the tubing or piping needed to extend the top portion of the device to extend outside of your home. This device does not need to be an outdoor device, it just needs to suck in hot air from the outside. This will work great in desert climates. The indoor temperature of your home replaces the cooling effect of the ground. You will however will need a fan to suck in the air, because the turbine relies on the wind to turn it, and that may not be reliable or powerful enough.
Popular Science doesn't care. They gave "No Man's Sky" a Best of What's New award. That was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. I won't be renewing.
Wow I cancled my subscription 15 years ago because that magazine was a joke back then.
No mans sky is just a game - every one can have their own opinion. This on the other hand is wasting money to not solve a real problem while discrediting organizations (granted: it is their fault to approve the use of their name) and science as a whole. There is an escalation here.
I feel your pain, Dave. As an Olde School engineer, similar to you it seems, I am both saddened and dismayed with where the skill of Critical Thinking is headed...
I have doubts on the "clean water" part. Sealing moisture in something like that underground, in the dark, with no easy way to get at it to clean it, sounds like an open invitation for bacteria/mold to grow. So even if it DID work, it'd only be clean for a time.
Yep. One of several downsides to this.
I love this coverage, Thunderf00t's and Lindybeige's. What I've learnt from Lindy is that if we add a Spandau, and a katana with some fire arrows then we should solve all the problems.
Air goes in but does not come out.
The Workbench - until it pops. Basic rubber balloon principles! :)
Tide goes in, tide goes out.
You can't explain that.
Checkmate atheists.
Central tube is hollow and is supposed to evacuate the now dry air.
Maybe God would allow the WaterSeer to be a real success???
Well Dave, a 12 minute debunk is a definite improvement over the multi-part epic sagas you've done in the past.
I'd love to see someone with the land and the climate to do a debunking on this. Dave's already worked out the dissipation of one of these, so they'd just need to bury a heater element with a thermocouple attached a couple of feet under the ground, then bury thermocouples at regular distances from the heater, e.g. 1/2, 1, 2, 3 feet. Then with the heater turned off just wait for the its temperature to stabilise to see if it drops below the dew point, and if it does, switch it on and see how long it takes before the surrounding soil is above the dew point.
I know we've got the climate for it here in some parts of northern/central Australia, but I don't know of any practical-minded UA-camrs in those parts. Cody'sLab has the land, and possibly the climate in summer, but he is a pretty busy guy so I dunno if it's the kind of project he'd be too keen on. Also his family run the ranch off generator, and 1000W is a lot of energy when you're off grid, so I don't know if they'd be too keen on using that much power just to debunk an obviously bogus idea.
Just build a solar powered dehumidifier , sorted
DJ Scottdog - Even better, build a wind turbine whose turbine blades are covered in solar cells, that way you can generate electricity on sunny or windy days (or both)! :) Even better, since the solar cells will get warm on a sunny day, incorporate a Stirling engine to run off the temperature difference between the solar panels, and the ground. Okay, enough scientific sarcasm here...
DJ Scottdog where do people need water? Yes, in areas with little water. Usually, these areas also have air with low humidity. Meaning you can't get much water out of it...
Ruudsosalsa in the Canary Islands they use a combination of windbreaks and volcanic ash/rock to draw water out of morning dew and slow evaporation.
There have been stories of survivors living on condensate from morning dew in the Sahara (I say survive... more like simply wet their whistle but it has been reported on).
Now 37 litres, that's completely bullshit. Supporting 3rd world countries, totally bullshit and all day long? Even more bullshit but it is easy to see how idiots could be fooled into thinking this would work.
You would be better off pissing into a bottle, standing it in the sun, running some pipe to a shaded area and collecting the distilled condensate.
Ruudsosalsa
Which begs the question. Why the fuck would they live there?
They had a choice, they could choose to be rich and live in a big city in the western world, or they could choose to live in a place with little water.... /sarcasm
What kind of a question is that? Do you think these people can just move?
Reading all the salt in the comments about thunderfoot debunking third wave feminism.
Priceless.
Popular Science as much about science as History Channel is about history. Popular Science should be debunking this stuff. Perhaps that would make them an actual popular science publication that can supplement where the education system falls short. I am sure there is a way of making science exciting and truthful without resorting to sensationalism.
Serious question, how do thermal cooling/heating systems for residential use work and don't heat up the surrounding soil?
I love how Aussies and New Zealanders are so frank and natural with their language, it really makes a difference to some of the stuck up and pc discussions (especially living here in the UK). you tell it how it is and don't beat about bush, you sir have my respect. Yet another great video.
I Always thought about mosquitos being able to lay eggs and hatch down in the water tank. And anyway- algae and bacteria would settle and start cozy colonies down in that tank instantly
Have you ever seen a mosquito in the desert.... HAHAHA
Don't spend time working out what is practical and possible and then design a product to implement it. No, no: just design a cool-looking device, get people to stake money on it, and then try to delay the inevitable exposure of failure as long as possible.
What if you drill a metal pin 30m into the ground and attach it to the bowl of water, would that solve the heat dissipation problem?
I would say it was sponsored content for the magazine. Crowd funding was spent to get this done.
I greatly doubt that. I think they just trawled the web for water related content, saw the WaterSeer and thought that looks exciting and innovative so just wrote some drivel about it.
Sad to see a great publication taking to that low level either way.
Possibly someone did push to get the article though, more advertising is always good for "funding" systems (the WaterSeer, or the University)
I would bet that the waterseer developers sent this over to the magazine promoting it then some intern who knows nothing about science probably put this into the magazine and the editor thought it looked cool.
how do i even send something to mailbag? i have an interesting piece with a small backstory about recall and repair...
hi Dave, what about the night time air circulation ? it getts pretti cold in night out there in a desert. so ground may work as thermal accumulator
Popular Science hasn't been an actual science magazine for at least 20 years. Popular Mechanics is only slightly better but still horrible. I can't believe they have any subscribers except for medical offices to let their clients read something while waiting.
So many bull@hit devices and scams out there. What's incredible are the number of easily duped people willing to hand over hard earned money to the wrong people. Have money to blow? Then support UA-cam channels that help others(or save people money), like Dave and I.
Sheesh, give em a break! The obvious answer is to get the 1000W energy needed to make this work from Solar Roadways!
;')
It's unfortunate you quoted the same fundamental physics mistake you made in the other video - the latent heat of vaporization is the energy *given out* when water is condensed from the air (the heat previously needed to evaporate it).
If someone uses the term "up to *Result*" slap them and walk away. Good life lesson.
There are some other reasons for things like this. Something which is not going to work in advance is advertised, then it is sponsored in whatever way, the cheap materials are used for makeshift something, and the majority of the excessive money is stolen - even with expensive materials it wasn't supposed to work anyways. So the expenses include advertisement to get maximum investments, cheap materials to make something, and the rest is safely stolen, or converted to profit, if one has to put it in some more civilized way (lie).
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.
If I buy one do I get I need to learn the binary language of the moisture vaporators or do I need a a protocol/astromech droid?
Well, now I feel happy I gave up on "Popular Science" magazine a long time ago :D
I am a software developer and I have worked in scientific environments - medical and genetic and I am no longer surprised by how unscientific scientists can be.
My experience is that scientists are highly political in their nature and while there are a few who are brutally honest in their approach - many are not.
The problem is that we equate science with scientists - scientists are trained in the scientific method, which does not mean that they necessarily make use of that training when it does not serve them or their career.
What you are messing is that they must have the mindset, altho such thing might differ from person to the other.
I doubt that a 50 years old professor would suddenly jump in the wagon anyways. Those who are extremely passionate about their work can tend to be multidisciplinary and apply their mindset to everything else.
I'm speaking of personal experience, I worked with time-frequency research scientists (cesium/atomic clocks, cryogenic applications, sapphire, ulta-high stability clocks..).
I would also tend to generalize that to mathematicians too. You might argue that these aren't necessary physicists but are trained in ways of thought, especially those in the field of mathematical logic, and applied maths in the fields of physics (semiconductor engineering, finite-element analysis, aerodynamics..)
Lindybeige did a pretty good debunking video on this but what I would like to see is someone actually construct one of these things and test it out.
Gordon Chin Ever since Lindy's video, I've thought. Could the waterseer work, if we had a Spandau that shot fire arrows? Maybe a Katana to slice the cool air in half and make it settle.
There is no need to test it out. Physics tells you that this thing will never work in the areas it's intended to run in.
superdau Of course. But if it's tested out, then the morons who donated will realise their stupidity...
Gordon Chin. I will construct such a thing and test it. I will probably conclude it doesn't work as advertised (in a arid region). Their rebuttal will be that I didn't build it correctly and that's why it didn't work. Nothing gained by my trouble.
They did let design-students (not engineering-) design and build prototypes of these water-vapour catchers and test them. They did so in the vicinity of San Francisco (claiming it is an arid region). The photo's of these tests show a type of grass (growing in the background) that sports broad leaves (good for evaporation) and is dark green. This means that the area, where they tested this, wasn't arid but very moist.
They also tested it for a short time and extrapolated the results to a 24h period.
These con-people use half-truths to gain a little bit of credibility so they can con the uninformed.
As I commented in Thunderf00t's video, It may be worth investigating for use on a boat for emergency water.
I imagine no one replied with this: water.usgs.gov/edu/drinkseawater.html (it's an inflatable, floating water still that should provide enough water to keep someone alive, given enough sunlight). Or you could use a hand-operated reverse osmosis pump - you do need to work the pump though, while the still does its own thing.
Kevin Costner in Waterworld drank his own piss for nothing :)
Apart from the thermodynamics issue (which of course is the main issue) - are people not completely grossed out by the concept?? It's a water tank buried underground, filled with all the stuff that precipitate out of air. Water will be the main component, but also every type of volatile compound in the air, airborne microbes, pollen, fungus spores, moss spores, seeds, dirt, smoke, air pollution, etc. And you can't even dig it out easily to clean it.
Did you write to Popular Science about this? Maybe send them a link to this video if you haven't already?
What's most troubling here is the university's involvement. Let's not send your kid there.
what if the water condesning system had like a vacuum layer like thermos flasks? would that save the dissipation problem?
7:02 looking at that PM WaterSeer illustration something immediately popped out at me.. The the "humid" air being fan pushed down the shaft in the ground doesn't seem to have an exit return path to all that air pressure build up.
[EDIT]
Just watched Thunderf00t's video and it looks like there is an exhaust tube 1/3 the size of the main air input shaft.
Ususally you would have the exhaust bigger for expansion purposes (which will very marginally help with the cooling)
Good to see you pick up on it as well. Apparently it needs repetition that this thing violates thermodynamics, and no amount of good intentions or endorsement can cure that. "You can't fool nature", as Richard Feynman so succinctly put it.
Lindybeige also debunked the WaterSeer, although physics is not usually his main topic.
I was expecting the windmill on the top to drive a generator, that ran a tiny dehumidifier.
However, there is the concept of geothermal and ground heating, the earlier I actually use to heat my house and warm water. With the correct stuff, it can be put into reverse and provide cool air during the summer. That said, I do not have the numbers in my head to validate this contraption.
I love how the fan blows the 'moist' air down, but it's got no way back out of the system once all that moisture has been removed!
Sorry, but you need to look a little bit more closely to the design. It does have an exhaust tube.
It just occurred to me that the Waterseer, if built, would just be a dark damp hole in the ground that's open to the air. How long under those conditions would it be before the collection bell filled with fungus?
It seems like their claim of 'clean' drinking water is untenable. It would also clog the spout. And the whole design depends on digging a large hole meters deeps, this isn't a trial task in the places that the Waterseer is intended to be used and presents itself as a maintenance nightmare. Even if the Waterseer didn't violate physics and serve almost no purpose it's still an engineering FAIL.
On a hot summer day, my AC can pull more water out of the air than this WaterSeer can.
The biggest fault in the concept is, that the dehumidifier will work that 1.85 litres per kW*h only at high humidity level. It does not work in desert conditions.
Yes, the energy numbers are just for cooling the water vapor below the dew point and ignores that you also have to cool down the air it comes in. But it's irrelevant, because you can show it won't work thermodynamically even when just taking the latent heat of condensation into account.
Hi Dave. This thing can actually work. It would work anywhere in Hungary almost all around the year except when temperature is below freezing point. My family does own a wine cellar. The top is about 5 meters underground and the hight is 3 meters so the deepest point is 8 meters underground. Water is an issue. If we leave the door open water condensate in large quantity. This is almost exactly the same as the machine you reviewed. The technology is definitely viable. They should make the container depth adjustable. In Africa you might have to dig deeper. They might have to make the container larger. Earth can conduct a lot of energy. There are houses here what are heated using earth energy and heating a house requires a lot of energy.
József Dörnyei You're aware that ground source systems are enormous compared to this and far from passive...
yes because Hungary is not a fucking desert... the question is not if water can condense, it's at what cost can you condense water in remote places.
This design is retarded, it's better to invest in purification solutions rather then pseudo science.
There's been some really clever designs before, I remember one where they basically just put up a low cost net on top of a mountains, it would condense the fog/clouds that would evaporate from the sea and water the crops by letting the water fall down pipes... no need to a fancy pumping solution.
Low cost, easy implementation with local hardware, no real need for machining special parts.
Their problem was that you can't use sea water to water crops, and it would rarely rain so they would catch the early dew and clouds, like the local cactus would (mimicking the moss on the cactus with nets)
This piece of shit? if you watch their original video you'll get an idea why it will never work "we gathered a team of designers...."
They need like 100 m2 soil for an average size house to draw 0-6 cel. air into the heat exchanger. However they transfer way more energy as this design requires. Like in the 10KW range.
The cost of this type of solution is very very cheap. 100% plastic. I am not saying that this solution will actually work however it is possible to design one what works. And it wont work everywhere you need a minimum humidity level and a maximum soil temperature and if you really want to use wind to drive it than you need wind too.
And how cool would your wine cellar be if you continuously blew fresh air into it?
"Recommended for you - Did Frieze Ruin Powerscaling? Dragon Ball"
Someone has great taste in entertainment :D.
*Imagine how much water they could've delivered with $329,379!*
This is exactly why I no longer subscribe to Popular Science. Many environmental articles like this violate the laws of physics.
I stopped taking Popular Science seriously (although I still am a subscriber to their magazine) when they removed the online comment section. You can't get any more anti science than shutting down debate, especially when so many of their arguments revolve around speculative science such as climate change. This annoys me to no end.
sorry if dumb, but to absorb the heat they could use peltier effect and use the current to power a fan or battery?
perpetual motion
k1mgy I don't mean that, the hot air is pumped by wind, and makes peltier hotter, so to lessen the heat to soil that would be cooler it would produce energy. Also if wind is strong and soil hot it could power peltier to make the water colder... Just thinking if maybe they could improve their design with peltier to make it more efficient, not proposing perpetual machine.
You want to buy a commercial wind turbine and combine it with a commercial dehumidifier. To further improve efficiency, we could replace the dehumidifier with a desalination plant and for not so windy days we add an alternate power source like solar and see: That already exists and is fare away from the WaterSeer. The core idea of the WaterSeer is that it is simpler and cheaper then existing products. By adding things like a generator/dynamo to generate current to power a peltier, the concept gets so complex, that it becomes indifferent to already existing commercial solutions.
Most of us DID hold PS to a higher standard, which is why I no longer buy it. Not for 20 years or so, in fact. PS and SA are now birdcage liners.
Note: I'm not finished with the vid
"Water, water, everywhere... / Nor any drop to drink."
FINDING water is almost never an issue, even in arid deserts. Now, unlike TV shows and movies, drinking out of an oasis is usually a poor idea, given that most of them are festering with animal refuse. Water purification is a main issue with this. Now, purification is generally somewhat easy, solar stills and sand filters can accomplish modest water filtration. But what is the biggest issue? Not water or water purification, but mainly war and conflict. That's really it. Generally speaking, it takes a moderately scarce resource, and makes it extremely scarce (for those on the losing side).
I like this comment someone said on this subject: "More studies is required for extracting moist from air. It's dangerous long term affect on the environment. I am certain it will affect the air the entire planet depends on." Yeah LOL :)
Popular science is fake news.
Also, talking 'bout that thunderfoot salt in the comments.
I agree, the Waterseer just looks phony to me. Why? Because it's such a simple device, that it shouldn't be hard to build a working prototype. I estimate that it would take me just a couple of weekends, and maybe $200US for parts from Home Depot. So why haven't they built one? Instead, it looks like they put way more effort into making their fancy videos. That just looks bad.
But then again, it could be just the student mentality. A few years ago I was asked to judge some senior-year design projects for electronic engineering undergrads at my local university and I was very disappointed that the students all put so much effort into fancy PowerPoint presentations (some with embedded videos!) but so little effort actually designing their projects. I tried to suggest they do the OPPOSITE next time, and I was never asked to return. So sad.
That's sad. A real prototype is worth countless fancy animations.
The reason why they have not promoted "their" prototypes is, because they do not look as fancy nor to the perform as claimed:
scet.berkeley.edu/waterseer-collider-winners-announced/
So, the fancy animations and surreal claims are worth then a real prototypes, when it comes to collecting money.
I've got a brilliant idea about cab-mounted Wind Turbines power electrical trucks - think it will stick on IndoiGoGo?
Popular Science only has science in their name since a few decade. And stuff like the Waterseer is exactly what the subscribers are looking for to read about. Anything but science...
'Corps' is pronounced 'core', c'mon!
But why? That word sucks. "Yeah, just spell it like it sounds. Remember the silent 'p' and silent 's' at the end. "
+Horsecock English orthography in general sucks. In this case, it's because it comes from French (from Latin "corpus"), which drops a lot of word-final s sounds. Interestingly, in middle French and old French, it was actually spelled cors, according to wiktionary. They just decided to add the p back later in spelling.
Oh my god I saw this and was like LOL THEY FEATURED THIS. I'm so glad you did a video on it!
Solar frickin waterseer roadways!
The next big thing - coming to a kickstarter near you soon
Indiegogo should definitely be vetting these campaigns more carefully. The site's become a haven for scammers.
Another aspect of scamming is where a wealthy corporation sets-up a campaign aimed at indirectly promoting its own products, whilst (falsely) claiming to be a private venture. A university department seeking funding for a 'climate change' related boot camp, for example, and for which they are charging fees at the same time as asking for donations.
Whatever your views on the environment I would think you have to agree that this kind of misrepresentation of a corporation as a private startup, sucks. They would no doubt claim that 'saving the planet' justifies their actions... but does it?
I would have thought Indiegogo would have pulled this one for deception, but no, it's still running.
This makes me very sad. I have loved Popular Science Magazine for most of my life. But I am first and foremost a scientist and therefore I will no long purchase or read anything related to Popular Science. If they publish a retraction and take corrective action for the employee(s) involved I would definitely consider my previous statements. I am pretty sure they will publish a retraction because of this video, but they will bury it and protect their brand and so I suspect I will sadly never be able to have anything to do with Popular Science for the rest of my life. I'm not happy about this. Not at all.
My money is on them not saying word, but I'm happy to be wrong.
That would be such a shame, the loss of such a science bible which can reach so many people... It's right in the name "POPULAR" I'm dying inside a little on this one TBH.
So sad to see a publication that inspired me as a child publish this crap about the WaterSeer. Well, we have Dave and Phil now, so I guess I should be grateful for that.
They forgot to include the ice bath chamber that the lower collection tank sits in.
This could work probably when the lower tank is placed into a deep underground water layer, as an additional source of water due to the energy difference between the surface the the said layer - and it would be rather expensive to build such stations, it would include some research and most likely locating the deep underground water layers. But to work efficiently, it has to work with great temperature difference enough to condense the water - keep in mind that generally in desert regions it is not uncommon to see a great temperature difference between daytime and nighttime, which is enough in certain regions for some minor water condensing, very minor to be able to give some returns to huge investments in such stations.
I don't think Popular Science is a reputable magazine anymore. The last issue i got when I was subscribed was around 40% ads and was absolutely unbearable to read because of the ads,
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.
Popular Science Magazine is in trouble. It went bi-monthly and sacked 3 editors about a year ago (including its Editor-in-Chief Cliff Ransom, replacing him with Joe Brown from Gizmodo in August). Clearly they were losing readers and have decided to go more 'pop' and less 'science'. Don't hold your breath for a retraction.
I expect silence.
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.
Would this work if you added an array of peltiers and solar panels?
What is "this" meaning the core of the idea? By adding a peltier element and solar panels you might as well use a commercial dehumidifier, which of course work. When crunching the numbers you realize that there are more effective ways to supply people with water then dehumidifiers.
sarowie I'm sure there are, but I was just trying to think of a cheap way to make this relatively cheap source of drinkable water still work. My bad if I jumped into a touchy subject.
On the google thing, Yeah it may show for your account, but possibly not them, it does show in a private tab, typed as "waterseer", but i do not see the debunking stuff when i google "water seer"
While I have subscribed to PopSci on and off over the years I have always considered it POPULAR SCIENCE FICTION, that would be a more fitting title!
The words "popular" and "science" must not exist in the same sentence for any reason whatsoever!
I'd be interested in seeing someone conduct an experiment to see how quickly the soil temperature would rise to (at least within a few degrees of) the air temperature. I don't have any idea how well soil/rocks conduct heat, but I imagine that if it insulated well enough to keep the -6' temperature significantly lower than the surface temperature, it doesn't seem likely that it would transfer the heat quickly enough to keep the resovoir cooled.
Remember that your Google results are unique to you ;)
but great vid
Yes but not as unique as many people think. Try it yourself.
Tested it... mine are pretty similar it's true.. but my results showed more favourable articles about waterseer... wonder what that says about me... I did get the thunderf00t vid in the first page though.
Just use incognito mode to get less "optimized" results ;)
Yeah that's good. Also there is duckduckgo, but that isn't as slick as google.
the students that thought the water seer was a viable idea need to be failed and the prof who said go for it should be fired
What's hilarious is the waterseer people could simply build one and prove it works, but they don't.
Ah, too bad I really don't like that Thunderf00t guy. He's free to say whatever he thinks, but I don't agree with a lot of his approach. Or content. I like you - Dave - because you don't typically get distracted by things that I don't agree with. I'm here for resistors and transistors... and pixie smoke!
I'm remembering a similar idea where they used netting to condense dew from the morning air, but this was large scale and only enough for a few people.
Seen various solar stills on survival shows like Bear Grylls but they only ever get a mouthful in 24 hrs if they're lucky!
First word of Popular Science says it all :(
Since when has popular science been a serious scientific magazine. It is always been Lots of hype and junk science. Remember they are the ones who published that we were going to be Living on the moon and Mars, and have flying cars. And expressways with 120 mile an hour speed limits by now. Some of their articles were interesting, But you have always had to be skeptical about some of the information they give. this is not a serious scientific magazine. It's a magazine to get kids interested in science. It has more in common with the sun, and the Inquirer, then a legitimate scientific magazine. if the article appeared in scientific America, I would totally agree with your assessment of the magazine. But it's Popular science, no I don't read it. I would not pay attention to any article that they present without a lot of Investigation first.
as far as your assessment of the product in question, I totally agree with you. It takes one BTU to change 1 pound of water 1°F. It takes 144 BTUs to change the state of that liquid. It is totally impractical and unreliable, And given that it will probably be used in arid climates with little humidity, it will probably be useless. it will probably pump a lot of air into the ground, which will heat up the ground, but give little if any water.
The WaterSeer works somewhat better if you submerge the condensation bulb in a fast-flowing cold aquifer. Performance can be augmented by urinating in the top.