Hi, Yes, here we go again with another completely impractical product on IndieGoGo that's fleeced people out of their money. It's the water see designed to extract moisture from the air and produce clean drinking water. It's raised three hundred and twenty nine thousand dollars on IndieGoGo And it's not new, but something has recently come up which I thought I'd talk about. and I don't want this to turn into a debunking video because Thunderfoot has already completely busted this wide open in many areas which I can't really add much value to.

But so I'll Lincoln Thunderfoot steampunky video down below. It's very comprehensive. 31 minutes comprehensive, thank you very much. But one of the main reasons why it won't work is for what I've done before in the font is our self filling water bottle.

It's essentially the same thing. it comes down to latent heat and actually extracting moisture from the air dehumidifiers and things like that and the energy required to do that. So I'll link in my video where I do back-of-the-envelope our calculations for that yes, and I actually mailed it to them and it's basically the same thing here. We've got a vein on the top here which sucks in the the warm humid air down the shaft.

so it's a completely wind power down the shaft here, down into the cooler into a big bowl which has buried that six foot down into the cooler surrounding soil. And the theory goes that hey, because it's cooler, it's the water will are condensed and then you know, pull the moisture out of the air, it'll be dehumidified and then you've got this little hand pump here which then this little animated person here just pumps the fresh clean drinking water out. Let's now get into the fresh clean part of it. But anyway, pumps the water out and Bob's your uncle right? know.

One of the main problems of course is that you have to expend energy. Energy has to be expended to extract moisture from the air and it takes a lot of energy to do this. so one of them. There's a lot of issues with this which we won't get into, but one of the main ones is that it basically heats up the surrounding soil around here.

It must, and when it does, it will basically just stop working. So you might you know, extract a little bit of water from this thing. you know, over you know, an hour or something like that, but then it'll just heat up too much and the soil won't be able to dissipate the amount of power required and the system. It'll just stop working.

It's basic thermodynamics at play here and it's just. it is physically incapable of doing what they claim and they want to make it out that this is gonna, you know, save all the third world with you know, clean drinking water which is an admirable you know thing to strive for for sure. But you know, hey, we're gonna save the world and we're gonna give them all fresh, clean drinking water and sorry, know the basic laws of thermodynamics and engineering say it ain't gonna work. But hey, if you just want to quickly look at some basic back-of-the-envelope calculations just like I did for the fountas self full in water bowl, you're talking about latent heat equation and the gas to liquid phase changing.

Just the amount of energy required to do that. We won't get into the dew point in the whole you know thing, but you know back-of-the-envelope stuff. they claim over here: 37 liters of water per day. That's 37 kilograms a day, and it basically requires 2,300 kilojoules per kilogram.

Or you know, roughly of that order, which is 85,000 kilojoules just to produce that 37 litres of water. That they're claiming that 85,000 kilojoules is 20 3600 watt hours. and over the span of 24 hours, that's a thousand. What's continuous that is going to be dissipated must be dissipated in this bulb down here, into the surrounding soil.

that's a radiant bar heater continuously for 24 hours and well come on. In a dry, arid region where there's no water I Don't think we're gonna have very good heat sinking around this bulb. It's just gonna dry up and it's not go to work. This is ridiculous.

And of course that's why they only have fancy animations and they don't actually have any real prototypes. What they've done is they've actually got some students to work on this thing. I Get no, this is getting into a debunking video. Anyway, they've got some students from University UC Berkeley the National Peace corpse to make it sound.

You know, really good. They're basically had some students working on some design contest for these sorts of things, but they don't have a real functioning prototype producing that 37 liters a day. There's a reason for it is because it's bloody well not gonna work and those sorts of ballpark calculations are backed up. When you go look at our dehumidifiers, you look at some of the most efficient dehumidifiers on the market like this Fridge Air one, for example, and you look at their data for this.

You know, they extract 1.8 5 litres of water from the air for every kilowatt hour of energy use. So basically that's a 44 litres odd water per day. And if you do that and look at the calculations for these things, it requires a thousand Watts continuous. So it's basically the same as in the amount of energy that must be dissipated to actually do this.

So there's nothing new here at all. The the science of these things is very basic. it's very well understood, and of course it's going to depend on the environment that you're in. Environments that have, you know, our dry, arid environments with very little rain aren't going to have a lot of wind and a high humidity to drive this thing.

It's like Oh Anyway, I didn't want to debunk this. The thing. I wanted to talk about is you expect to see this sort of stuff. You know, slick videos and slick marketing material on everything else and a slick concept that Joe average can get behind you.

You expect to see this sort of Impractical crap just retweeted by the modern media you know you expect to see it on Gizmodo and other you know, and like just uncredible websites you just published. you know, fancy stuff like this with slick marketing material and they don't do an ounce of our vetting of this or you know, putting on their thinking cap or even you know, searching to see if anyone has any questions about this. they just you know. Oh, we got to get views or this will get us a lot of views.

We'll put this up and so you expect to see it where you don't expect to see. this is in a science magazine. a reputable science magazine like Popular Science And that's exactly what we see in the latest issue. And here it is in their latest March April 2017 edition an article on the Water Sea.

It basically just rehashing the same marketing crap that Water Seraph put out. They haven't put an ounce of thought or reason into this and this is in their print edition. It's not like they just whack this on, you know, their blog website or whatever it made it to print. Oh how embarrassing.

And there's not a single ounce of scientific questioning of the claims of something like this. they just they just didn't bother. Unbelievable. And this is not written by a nobody ever.

It's written by our Sara effect if I'm pronouncing that correctly. who's the Assistant Editor at Popular Science and she should know better. like she has a Bachelor of Science in biology and a master's degree in Science education and stuff like that. I mean, let alone the editor and whoever that's these sort of articles, they didn't think to even fact check this.

Are you kidding me? And hey, to be somewhat fair, I Can maybe understand why they may have missed this one because this issue is all about the state of water in our world. All the articles are about water, and there's like there's dozens and dozens of articles and stuff like that. So obviously they just went out trawling for anything to do with, you know, water, new technology for water, and stuff like that. So yeah, maybe okay.

they overlooked the fat checking on this one, but it still doesn't excuse it. And hey, this is not that hard. Let me google that for you type in water see Google search and these results would have been available when they were putting this package together. Look the water Sea Org IndieGoGo and what have we got? Number four on October 24th Under Foots busted video and what also we got is it They're talking about it on Reddit down here.

like it's not hard and short. You can go in and watch Thunder Foots video. He's a, you know, an accredited scientist, a respected scientist who's looked at the figures. but hey, science doesn't work on Authority right instantly they should have smelled.

Hmm yeah, there's something wrong with this. Okay, two seconds googling this. Okay, I'll investigate further. hey, we're we're popular science.

Let's go in and just fact check. Do some basic back-of-the-envelope stuff. you know, take five ten minutes to do this and they could have went now. Okay, this is likely no, we're just just not gonna bother putting it in the issue.

Okay, fine. Oh hey. it would be nice if publications like Popular Science actually did some debunking of you know, pseudoscience crap like this. That'd be nice.

And do they? I don't know. Sorry. I'm not a regular reader of our popular science, but hey, if they you know, at least don't put it in your print magazine. Simple Search would have raised questions about this thing that you could have easily done.

The four calculations of fact. check yourself. Unbelievable. And ironically in the very same issue in the editorial no less Editor Joe Brown says this: We did drink water as we brainstormed, reported designer wrote, copy edited, photographed, fact checked, and so on.

Yeah, well, you didn't fact check the water see air did you? So that is just completely embarrassing and they need to retract this in the next issue and say hey, look sorry we didn't we forgot to fact-check and all the fury and everything else we just you know it didn't have our thinking cap on for that one and sorry we shouldn't have published that and I it be nice as I said, if they published a debunking of stuff like this, that'd be terrific and what expect in a science you know, a popular science journal like popular Science and I'm being hard on them because like I expect more from a popular science journal. especially in you know, today's fake news environment that everyone's talking about and everyone's just published in a reposting and doing everything just to get the clicks and they're not. You know, who cares if it's true or not, It sounds great and it's gonna get the people in know these sort of publications need to be held to a higher standard, especially when it makes it to print. So anyway, I hope we see a retraction in a future issue.

It'll be interesting anyway. I Hope you enjoyed that. If you've got a comment on this and what they should do about it, leave it in the comments down below or on the Eevee blog forum linked in down below. Catch you next time you.