joeontapabout 1 year ago
I dont want to be the one that gets really critical on this, but this article clearly represents some of the challenges related to the marketing and vetting of development and alternative energy innovation.
This idea dosent not generate more electricity that it uses. Its clear that the "electrolytic cell" requires electricity Also, there are two steps that require "pushing" of gas, which would require energy. Basically, this device dosent generate electricity but would require electricity in order to operate. No question that it can generate hydrogen that can then be burned, but if the whole "water to hydrogen back to water" thing was net positive with respect to energy, we would already have these things in our homes. This idea is not dissimilar to the whole ethanol fiasco. It looks good at first, but after a few minutes of critical thought, you realize that you are actually using energy, not making it.
Also, don't mean to be overly skeptical but highly doubt that teenagers created this. This is probably an attempt to increase the exposure to an idea that really isn't that great. And, it worked. It dosent look like anyone, including the author here, was willing or able to rigorously vet this information. The lack of writers with substantive technical experience is allowing for articles like this to be commonly published. The real challenge is how to get sources like Good/Fast Company, etc to publish real ideas that stand up to critical thinking and not just repackage the ones they saw on Twitter.