Low Cost PCB's Low Cost Components

Author Topic: EEVblog #881 - Fontus Self Filling Water Bottle BUSTED!  (Read 30850 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rocketguy

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 4
Re: EEVblog #881 - Fontus Self Filling Water Bottle BUSTED!
« Reply #125 on: April 19, 2017, 10:44:38 AM »
Well, I was completely ready to call BS on this, based on this episode but then I realized that this might be new approaches being explored by, you know, actual scientists.  Since I work at Berkeley I'm a bit more confident this is credible.  But figured it would be interesting to see Dave's take on this.  Seems that using a condensation "catalyst" metal organic framework reduces the power requirement significantly. 

And it's not a kickstarter.  So there's that. 

http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/04/13/device-pulls-water-from-dry-air-powered-only-by-the-sun/
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 5339
  • Country: au
Re: EEVblog #881 - Fontus Self Filling Water Bottle BUSTED!
« Reply #126 on: April 19, 2017, 10:55:23 AM »
I'm a bit sceptical about a catalyst overcoming a basic issue of thermodynamics.

The only way I could see a catalyst being effective is if it were to take hydrogen out of the atmosphere (whether free H2 or from organics like methane) and combine with O2.  That would give you water from "dry air" ... but I would not expect production to be at all significant - assuming such a process was practical.
 
The following users thanked this post: Kilrah

Offline BradC

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1037
  • Country: au
Re: EEVblog #881 - Fontus Self Filling Water Bottle BUSTED!
« Reply #127 on: April 19, 2017, 11:53:40 AM »
Seems that using a condensation "catalyst" metal organic framework reduces the power requirement significantly. 

The MOF isn't a "catalyst". It's behaving very much like a low energy desiccant, where water molecules readily adhere in the matrix while it's all nice and cool. During the day the matrix is heated above ambient and the water is driven off, condensing on a plate that *is* at ambient (notice the heat pipes and fin unit at the bottom designed to keep the condenser plate at ambient). There's no "issue of thermodynamics" being "overcome". The key is the MOF being able to absorb and release water with low temperature / humidity gradients. You could do exactly the same thing with Silica Gel, but you'd need far more of it and much greater temperature gradients.

The "new discovery" that makes it practical (such as it is), is in the MOF. The rest of it is fairly basic and simple engineering. No physical laws are being bent or broken.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24348
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: EEVblog #881 - Fontus Self Filling Water Bottle BUSTED!
« Reply #128 on: April 19, 2017, 01:31:55 PM »
Well, I was completely ready to call BS on this, based on this episode but then I realized that this might be new approaches being explored by, you know, actual scientists.  Since I work at Berkeley I'm a bit more confident this is credible.  But figured it would be interesting to see Dave's take on this.  Seems that using a condensation "catalyst" metal organic framework reduces the power requirement significantly. 

I have zero knowledge in this area.
 
The following users thanked this post: mtdoc, josecamoessilva

Offline josecamoessilva

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 64
  • Country: us
Re: EEVblog #881 - Fontus Self Filling Water Bottle BUSTED!
« Reply #129 on: April 19, 2017, 03:07:52 PM »
Much as I hate to defend IHTFP and UC-Leningrad, a few points to keep in mind:

1. What MIT/UC-B have is a "proof of concept" or a "technology demonstration." They're not claiming to solve the water shortage with a few crowdsourcing drives. This is the science part, engineering hasn't really started yet.

2. To condense 3l/day you only need to dissipate 80W (enthalpy of vaporization = 2.3MJ/liter times 3 liters = 6.9 MJ / 24h*3600s = 80W sustained). This is a far cry from the 11 Gallons/day claimed by the Waterseer. (I computed the power requirements somewhere, I believe ~ 1kW sustained.)

(Edited twice: the Waterseer doesn't use a Peltier device which I wrote originally, I was thinking of another nonsensical device, here: https://twitter.com/josecamoessilva/status/845394633534275584 ; that nonsensical device would need 12kW of sustained power to operate. The bulb of the Waterseer has to dissipate around 1100W by my calculations here: https://twitter.com/josecamoessilva/status/833383393375186944 and that's just for the enthalpy of vaporization, not temperature change.)

3. Seriously people, supporting membership of the AAAS, including digital access to the journal Science, costs $65/yr. That's like the cost of a pack of cigarettes in California now, with all the taxes. The Science News article is here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/new-solar-powered-device-can-pull-water-straight-desert-air

and the actual paper is here (I'm a member of the AAAS, full member at that so $125 not $65, but if you're not and are too cheap to pony up the $65, most public libraries offer online access free to their patrons, which join free of charge):

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2017/04/12/science.aam8743

4. Of course MIT & UC of the Berks plus publication in Science (peer-reviewed by scientists) isn't a guarantee that the system works as described. BUT it's a pretty big push in the direction of "probably true."

5. The project also underwent peer review at both universities (for annual reviews and funding rounds) and this is peer review by knowledgeable people who really want to trash the research (because of the "your research group's cancelled grant is my research group's new post-doc hire" rule of academic budgeting). Again, no guarantees, but surviving those rounds pushes the confidence farther into the "probably true" area.

Pasta la vista,
JCS
« Last Edit: April 19, 2017, 03:55:24 PM by josecamoessilva »
 
The following users thanked this post: mtdoc

Offline RGB255_0_0

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 773
  • Country: gb
Re: EEVblog #881 - Fontus Self Filling Water Bottle BUSTED!
« Reply #130 on: April 19, 2017, 05:34:40 PM »
TF has said this is his next debunk video.

There could be a lot of back and forth to come.
Your toaster just set fire to an African child over TCP.
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6677
Re: EEVblog #881 - Fontus Self Filling Water Bottle BUSTED!
« Reply #131 on: April 19, 2017, 08:17:35 PM »
I'm a bit sceptical about a catalyst overcoming a basic issue of thermodynamics.

It's not a catalyst - there's no chemical reaction taking place.

The way I read it, this is all about shape and structure. It gives water a place to condense. The sunlight unsticks the atoms from the lattice or something. There's not a lot of real info to work with.
 

Offline Hensingler

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 144
  • Country: gb
Re: EEVblog #881 - Fontus Self Filling Water Bottle BUSTED!
« Reply #132 on: April 20, 2017, 03:04:01 AM »
(notice the heat pipes and fin unit at the bottom designed to keep the condenser plate at ambient). There's no "issue of thermodynamics" being "overcome".

At 0:58 in the video included in the berkeley release you might notice the large red and black wires connected what is obviously a peltier device.

There are issues of thermodynamics which they overcame with a lot of electricity which to be "powered only by sun" requires a large solar panel they didn't bother mentioning (or likely even use). In the other renewable energy forum thread I already pointed out the ridiculous amount of night time desert air needing pass over 1kg of his MOF to extract the claimed 2.8l of water.

I'm sure his MOF thing works and might be useful but the reporting and claims of it being enabling technology for personal desert water supplies or household local water generation are just BS.
 
The following users thanked this post: Kilrah

Offline Kilrah

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1489
  • Country: ch
Re: EEVblog #881 - Fontus Self Filling Water Bottle BUSTED!
« Reply #133 on: April 20, 2017, 05:28:21 AM »
Yup there's quite obviously a peltier element to actually condense the water that they carefully omitted. Their thing may "attract" more water vapor but it still has to be condensed, which... is the showstopper for such applications.
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2769
  • Country: us
Re: EEVblog #881 - Fontus Self Filling Water Bottle BUSTED!
« Reply #134 on: April 20, 2017, 05:44:56 AM »
TF has said this is his next debunk video.

There could be a lot of back and forth to come.
 

TF lost all credibility for me a while back.

The problem with these youtube "debunk" type videos is they become a thing in themselves.  While there's plenty of real scams out there - the youtube views that come from legitimate debunking of solar roadways and batterizer type hyped products becomes too enticing I believe and leads some (like TF) into trying to do "debunking" in areas that they have no real expertise. 

I think the "debunk video product" runs the danger of becoming as much a scam as some of the physical product scams that the early debunk videos took on - sucking in viewers (or buyers) with impressive sounding technical jargon.   But I guess anything to get the youtube views.. ::)
« Last Edit: April 20, 2017, 05:54:51 AM by mtdoc »
 
The following users thanked this post: thm_w, rs20, josecamoessilva, Kilrah

Online rs20

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1920
  • Country: au
Re: EEVblog #881 - Fontus Self Filling Water Bottle BUSTED!
« Reply #135 on: April 20, 2017, 09:26:21 PM »
Yup there's quite obviously a peltier element to actually condense the water that they carefully omitted. Their thing may "attract" more water vapor but it still has to be condensed, which... is the showstopper for such applications.

Not necessarily, the claim seems to be that solar insolation heats the material up and drives off the water vapour, which is then condensed by the ambient temperature of the radiator. Black thing in sun is hotter than black thing in shade --> heat gradient.
 

Offline josecamoessilva

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 64
  • Country: us
Re: EEVblog #881 - Fontus Self Filling Water Bottle BUSTED!
« Reply #136 on: April 21, 2017, 01:09:01 AM »
Quoting myself from another thread:

What's shown on the videos and photos is not a prototype; in some it's the experimental rig they used to measure the properties of 1.8 g of MOF, in some others it's a proof-of-concept device with 1.3 g (that's grams, not kg) of MOF, with a lot of additional instrumentation attached.

Because they wanted to test different temperatures in the experiment, they attached a Peltier effect cooler to the system, just like a plane model inside a wind tunnel has a mount that can change the model's angle of attack and that doesn't mean that real planes need mounts. Given that it shows in some photos, some might assume that Peltier cooling is part of the device (it's not, the paper is very clear on that; the solar energy is used for heating the MOF and releasing the moisture).
 

Offline Hensingler

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 144
  • Country: gb
Re: EEVblog #881 - Fontus Self Filling Water Bottle BUSTED!
« Reply #137 on: April 21, 2017, 03:32:23 AM »
Quoting myself from another thread:

What's shown on the videos and photos is not a prototype; in some it's the experimental rig they used to measure the properties of 1.8 g of MOF, in some others it's a proof-of-concept device with 1.3 g (that's grams, not kg) of MOF, with a lot of additional instrumentation attached.

Because they wanted to test different temperatures in the experiment, they attached a Peltier effect cooler to the system, just like a plane model inside a wind tunnel has a mount that can change the model's angle of attack and that doesn't mean that real planes need mounts. Given that it shows in some photos, some might assume that Peltier cooling is part of the device (it's not, the paper is very clear on that; the solar energy is used for heating the MOF and releasing the moisture).

And quoting the berkeley article
Quote
Device pulls water from dry air, powered only by the sun

BS. Dry air does not contain any water to pull.

Quote
with the demonstration this week of a water harvester that uses only ambient sunlight to pull liters of water out of the air each day in conditions as low as 20 percent humidity

So it is a water harvester not even a prototype and it pulls liters of water a day - BS on BS.

Quote
The prototype, under conditions of 20-30 percent humidity, was able to pull 2.8 liters (3 quarts) of water from the air over a 12-hour period, using one kilogram (2.2 pounds) of MOF.

More BS there is no such device. The article states the MOF can only hold water 20% of its weight so if it did exist they would have to do 14 solar powered accumulate/release cycles in those 12 hours - BS.

Thanks for letting us know the paywalled publication doesn't support the BS claims in the Science and Berkeley news articles. 
« Last Edit: April 21, 2017, 03:33:59 AM by Hensingler »
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2769
  • Country: us
Re: EEVblog #881 - Fontus Self Filling Water Bottle BUSTED!
« Reply #138 on: April 21, 2017, 06:07:09 AM »
(Mods- can this series of posts be moved to one of the threads discussing this Science research article - none of this is about the Fonus)

And quoting the berkeley article
Quote
Device pulls water from dry air, powered only by the sun

BS. Dry air does not contain any water to pull.

Yes -from the Berkeley News - which is not even an actual publication - just something put out by UCBerkeley's Office of Communications and Public Affairs (i.e. non-science people). Neither the Science news report nor the the original research journal article BTW) says that.  In any case, so what? Most people would call air with 20% humidity "dry air ". What's your criteria, 0% humidity?

Quote
Quote
The prototype, under conditions of 20-30 percent humidity, was able to pull 2.8 liters (3 quarts) of water from the air over a 12-hour period, using one kilogram (2.2 pounds) of MOF.

More BS there is no such device. The article states the MOF can only hold water 20% of its weight so if it did exist they would have to do 14 solar powered accumulate/release cycles in those 12 hours - BS.

Again you're taking that from the Berkeley News ::)

Congratulations, you've successfully critiqued the "journalism" put out by a university public relations office.

Quote
Thanks for letting us know the paywalled publication doesn't support the BS claims in the Science and Berkeley news articles.

So instead of spending your time (and ours) on journalism criticism, why not either spend the $40 required (special rate) to access the actual research article? (and get an annual subscription to Science).   Or if that's not an option for you, your local library likely has a copy you can access for free.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2017, 11:25:34 AM by mtdoc »
 

Online wilfred

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4401
  • Country: au
Re: EEVblog #881 - Fontus Self Filling Water Bottle BUSTED!
« Reply #139 on: April 21, 2017, 09:29:34 AM »

BS. Dry air does not contain any water to pull.

When speaking of dry air in relation to the atmosphere it is commonly understood to be air that feels dry to the skin. Dry desert air is not normally understood to be air with 0% moisture. We're talking about dry desert air where 20% to say 40% relative humidity would be understood to be dry air.

Personally, I think the energetic insistence on dry air as air that contains no moisture at all is nonsensical in the context of a discussion about extracting moisture from air. So much so that my initial inference was that you were trolling the discussion.
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2769
  • Country: us
Re: EEVblog #881 - Fontus Self Filling Water Bottle BUSTED!
« Reply #140 on: April 21, 2017, 11:30:05 AM »
When speaking of dry air in relation to the atmosphere it is commonly understood to be air that feels dry to the skin. Dry desert air is not normally understood to be air with 0% moisture.

Does air with 0% humidity even exist outside of a laboratory?  I don't think so. Therefore the term "dry air" is always relative.

Quote
Personally, I think the energetic insistence on dry air as air that contains no moisture at all is nonsensical in the context of a discussion about extracting moisture from air.

Good point.

Quote
So much so that my initial inference was that you were trolling the discussion.
  You may be on to something..
 

Offline BradC

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1037
  • Country: au
Re: EEVblog #881 - Fontus Self Filling Water Bottle BUSTED!
« Reply #141 on: April 21, 2017, 11:42:56 AM »
So much so that my initial inference was that you were trolling the discussion.
  You may be on to something..

In these circumstances I generally apply Hanlon's razor.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24348
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: EEVblog #881 - Fontus Self Filling Water Bottle BUSTED!
« Reply #142 on: April 21, 2017, 01:22:53 PM »
TF has said this is his next debunk video.
There could be a lot of back and forth to come.
 

TF lost all credibility for me a while back.
The problem with these youtube "debunk" type videos is they become a thing in themselves.  While there's plenty of real scams out there - the youtube views that come from legitimate debunking of solar roadways and batterizer type hyped products becomes too enticing I believe and leads some (like TF) into trying to do "debunking" in areas that they have no real expertise. 
I think the "debunk video product" runs the danger of becoming as much a scam as some of the physical product scams that the early debunk videos took on - sucking in viewers (or buyers) with impressive sounding technical jargon.   But I guess anything to get the youtube views.. ::)

Maybe, I don't know, he possibly enjoys doing them perhaps?

How would a "debunking product" become a scam if it's correct?

You may not like them, or think he's making too many of them etc, but that's no valid reason to disparage the worth of them.
 

Offline josecamoessilva

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 64
  • Country: us
Re: EEVblog #881 - Fontus Self Filling Water Bottle BUSTED!
« Reply #143 on: April 21, 2017, 02:01:29 PM »
How would a "debunking product" become a scam if it's correct?

You may not like them, or think he's making too many of them etc, but that's no valid reason to disparage the worth of them.

I really don't want to wade into this swamp, but the problem is that some of them are incorrect and (this is the bad part) TF not only never corrects or acknowledges the problem, he also repeats the errors in subsequent videos.

For example, regarding the Hyperloop

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSPi1JFx4_-Gz0Fm0qq2KUz4c22UbZCco

http://sitacuisses.blogspot.com/2016/07/product-prototype-technology-idea.html

(BTW, I don't like the Hyperloop as proposed: it's a railroad trying to solve a problem that air travel has already solved with additional flexibility. SF-LA would be idiotic. Might be useful in the Boston-NYC-DC corridor given the weather, but even so not competitive with air shuttles.)

TF announced that the MOF was a scam "because thermodynamics" but as I calculated above, we're talking about dissipating 80W, which is totally feasible.

Cheers,
JCS
 
The following users thanked this post: Geonerd

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2769
  • Country: us
Re: EEVblog #881 - Fontus Self Filling Water Bottle BUSTED!
« Reply #144 on: April 21, 2017, 03:16:15 PM »
How would a "debunking product" become a scam if it's correct?

Because if the author is not an expert in that particular field, does not present any of their own data, and simply does a lot of sensationalistic hand waving, video graphics and use of technical jargon then it is a product being sold under false pretenses.  Just because it might sound "correct" does not mean it is.  (Your Solar Roadways and Batterizer debunk videos were not like that BTW).

Yes, the Hyperloop video is a prime example. His debunking videos have been debunked by both experts in the relevant field (which he is not) and others (e.g. Jose's blog post re: the process of idea --> product) . He never adequately addressed those criticisms (yes, I know he made more of the same type of sensationalistic videos in response). 

That doesn't mean that the Hyperloop will become reality(I doubt it will) - just that TFs videos on the subject were senstionalistic, ill-informed and IMO little better than the videos by the Solar Roadways proponents. But in his case, the videos are the product he's selling.
 

Yes, a swamp indeed.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24348
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: EEVblog #881 - Fontus Self Filling Water Bottle BUSTED!
« Reply #145 on: April 21, 2017, 03:38:01 PM »
How would a "debunking product" become a scam if it's correct?

Because if the author is not an expert in that particular field, does not present any of their own data, and simply does a lot of sensationalistic hand waving, video graphics and use of technical jargon then it is a product being sold under false pretenses.  Just because it might sound "correct" does not mean it is.  (Your Solar Roadways and Batterizer debunk videos were not like that BTW).

Err, yeah, that's called making mistakes. People make mistakes in videos all the time.

Quote
Yes, the Hyperloop video is a prime example. His debunking videos have been debunked by both experts in the relevant field (which he is not) and others (e.g. Jose's blog post re: the process of idea --> product) . He never adequately addressed those criticisms (yes, I know he made more of the same type of sensationalistic videos in response). 
That doesn't mean that the Hyperloop will become reality(I doubt it will) - just that TFs videos on the subject were senstionalistic, ill-informed and IMO little better than the videos by the Solar Roadways proponents. But in his case, the videos are the product he's selling.

OK, so I looked at the blog post:
http://sitacuisses.blogspot.com.au/2016/07/product-prototype-technology-idea.html
I have not read it all yet, so bare that in mind.
But right off the bat I see a problem here.

TF is attacking the hype and viability of a product idea.
Hyperloop is not saying "Hey, this sounds cool, lets do some research and see where it goes, it might work, it might not, it might have some interesting spin-off's" etc. No, they are selling and marketing the crap out of the completely viable product idea.

Now, you can argue TF got some technical things wrong in the video (I don't know, I haven't double checked), but most of the concerns and showstopper seemed completely founded to me, and that's what he's trying to do, debunk the viability of the product idea. In that he's 100% right.
Would you prefer to live in a world where no one questions product/idea marketing like this? I doubt you would, in which case who else is stepping up to the plate to do it? I think the TF haters should cut him some slack.

You and others are attacking him for not being 100% correct, or this or that detail, or what he didn't say etc. Are you not thankful that someone is saying something? That someone is having a go?
Does he have to be either the pinnacle of debunking greatness or GTFO?
That what these arguments seem like to me.

How has it gone from the person making the product/idea claim having to defend it, to the person doing the rightly questioning of the idea having to defend themselves? It's arse backwards.

If you take the approach in that article then Solar Roadways is a worthy idea to be pursuing.

BTW, IIRC I saw the official(?) response to TF's Hyperloop debunking, and IIRC they just waved their hands around and said "you don't understand" instead of actually proving the technical viability of their concept.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2017, 03:55:18 PM by EEVblog »
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2769
  • Country: us
Re: EEVblog #881 - Fontus Self Filling Water Bottle BUSTED!
« Reply #146 on: April 21, 2017, 04:16:44 PM »
Err, yeah, that's called making mistakes. People make mistakes in videos all the time.

And those who are honest acknowledge and correct them. But I'm not talking about making mistakes. I'm talking about selling a product with more hype than substance. Solar Roadways has done this and so has TF IMO.

Quote

Hyperloop is not saying "Hey, this sounds cool, lets do some research and see where it goes, it might work, it might not, it might have some interesting spin-off's" etc. No, they are selling and marketing the crap out of the completely viable product idea.

I'm not sure who you are referring to when you say Hyperloop.  Hyperloop is an idea. There are several privately funded companies currently trying to develop the technology. As far as I know none of them are selling a product yet or soliciting money from the general public.

And there are several (at least 24 that I'm aware of) university engineering department teams working on developing the technology. Are you accusing them of "selling and marketing the crap out of" something?

Quote
Would you prefer to live in a world where no one questions product/idea marketing like this?
Of course not. That's a straw man.  But serious criticisms of something like this involve either well researched and presented data or at least thoughtful, well reasoned questions and critiques by someone with the qualifications to do that in a believable way. They don't involve youtube videos with titles like "How the Hyperloop can kill you!" or with the word "BUSTED" or "KILLED" splashed across the screen in very large, bright, loud font.

And don't you think that the many engineers, private funders and 24 university engineering teams have questioned and continue to question the Hyperloop idea?

In the end it will be the real physical world that determines whether the companies and university engineering teams are successful and even then, if the technology does prove viable, it will be subject to the realities of politics and high finance. It's not an Indiegogo project.

« Last Edit: April 21, 2017, 04:39:08 PM by mtdoc »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24348
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: EEVblog #881 - Fontus Self Filling Water Bottle BUSTED!
« Reply #147 on: April 21, 2017, 04:40:12 PM »
And those who are honest acknowledge and correct them. But I'm not talking about making mistakes. I'm talking about selling a product with more hype than substance. Solar Roadways has done this and so has TF IMO.

Even if that's the case, TF gives lots of useful info and concepts in his videos that are worthwhile in their own right, as tools people can use to start critically evaluating things themselves.
Even the vibe of the videos provides a useful service in helping people think critically about stuff.
Once again, do you want to live in a world were no one is publicly questioning these things and encouraging people to critically thing about claims they see?
What's actually wrong with some debunking hand waving anyway? If it gets people thinking then it has value in itself.

Quote
I'm not sure who you are referring to when you say Hyperloop.  Hyperloop is an idea. There are several privately funded companies currently trying to develop the technology. As far as I know none of them are selling a product yet or soliciting money from the general public.

Have you even seen the marketing hype videos? They are ridiculous!

Quote
And there are several (at least 24 that I'm aware of) university engineering department teams working on developing the technology. Are you accusing them of "selling and marketing the crap out of" something?

Not unless they have made a public themselves video hyping it.
I don't know where you got the idea I was accusing engineering teams of anything.

Quote
And don't you think that the many engineers, private funders and 24 university engineering teams have questioned and continue to question the Hyperloop idea?

Why would funders and people enagaged in development of an idea want to question the entire concept?
They are no doubt just working on something fun, and usually some small aspect of it, more power to them.
I've worked at companies where if you dared criticised the direction the product concept idea then you were either fired or shunned. If you don't think that's not happening here as well then you are a fool.

Quote
In the end it will be the real physical world that determines whether the companies and university engineering teams are successful and even then, if the technology does prove viable, it will be subject to the realities of politics and high finance. It's not an Indiegogo project.

What's that got to do with the value of debunking videos?
If I didn't know any better I'd say you were advocating that debunkng videos are worthless unless 100% accurate and thorough on only pure scam related projects.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2017, 04:44:53 PM by EEVblog »
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2769
  • Country: us
Re: EEVblog #881 - Fontus Self Filling Water Bottle BUSTED!
« Reply #148 on: April 21, 2017, 05:20:22 PM »
Once again, do you want to live in a world were no one is publicly questioning these things and encouraging people to critically thing about claims they see?
Of course not. Straw man.

Quote
What's actually wrong with some debunking hand waving anyway? If it gets people thinking then it has value in itself.

The problem is these hyped debunking videos seem to me to be now doing the opposite. They are legitimizing uninformed, non-critical thinking - leading some people to assume something is bogus just because they don't like the sound of it, it seems implausible to them, it disagrees with their politics, or because their favorite youtube personality did a debunking video on it. (case in point the recent Science article kerfuffle here).

Unless the target of the debunking is chosen carefully, and it is done correctly (your Solar Roadways and Batterizer videos are good examples of this) then it is inherently anti-science IMO.

Quote

I don't know where you got the idea I was accusing engineering teams of anything.
They comprise a large percentage of Hyperloop engineers. You did not specify that you were attacking a specific company's or engineer's claims.  Instead, you seemed to be addressing the overall idea of the Hyperloop (as is TF in his videos).

Quote

Why would funders and people enagaged in development of an idea want to question the entire concept?
They are no doubt just working on something fun, and usually some small aspect of it, more power to them.
As far as the private investors risking their money, I doubt they are doing that just for fun and if they didn't question the projects they invest in they would be unsuccessful investors. As far as the engineers - I sure hope they think it is fun - but I think that's irrelevant to the point I was making. They are also asking technical questions and working on solving problems. That's what engineers do. It's implausable that only a youtube blogger like TF (and not the hundreds of engineers working on this) is going to ask the relevant questions or see the potential problems.

Quote
I've worked at companies where if you dared criticised the direction the product concept idea then you were either fired or shunned. If you don't think that's not happening here as well then you are a fool.
Huh? I don't see the relevance. That kind of thing happens everywhere.

Quote
If I didn't know any better I'd say you were advocating that debunkng videos are worthless unless 100% accurate and thorough?

As I've said, I think debunking of a crowdfunded Solar Roadways or Batterizer type scam done in an intelligent, thorough, non-hyped way by someone who has specific expertise relevant to the subject matter (i.e. your videos in those instances) has value and is worthwhile. The debunking meme has strayed from that.

The TF style Hyperloop type debunking videos (lots of hype, high on technical jargon but with relatively little actual science or engineering) attacking a complex multifaceted technological proposal or a peer reviewed research article, done by someone without specific expertise in that field are not only worthless but damaging to the general public's understanding of science and technology IMHO.  YMMV.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2017, 05:50:53 PM by mtdoc »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24348
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: EEVblog #881 - Fontus Self Filling Water Bottle BUSTED!
« Reply #149 on: April 21, 2017, 05:53:35 PM »
The TF style Hyperloop type debunking videos (lots of hype, high on technical jargon but with relatively little actual science or engineering) attacking a complex multifaceted technological proposal or a peer reviewed research article, done by someone without specific expertise in that field are not only worthless but damaging to the general public's understanding of science and technology IMHO.  YMMV.

You bet MMV.
How many people are talking the time, energy, risk and abuse to attempt to publicly debunk stuff as we see them on a regular basis?
Me , Thunderf00t, err, umm, I'm struggling now, help me out ....

You certainly don't seem to be encouraging debunking in general.
What value do you think it adds attacking TF like this?

Be critical for sure, correct mistakes etc, but you are basically advocating that TF should basically STFU.
Why?
Why not be more proactive in encouraging debunking and critical thinking instead of trying to shut it down when it doesn't meet your stringent criteria?
Do you not see the potential harm in this approach?
Do you not see the bigger picture here?
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf