[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Sean Schuff

I saw a news piece come across my email about 2 weeks ago about this very thing. I'm always an optimist so my hope (although not scientifically founded) is that this is a plausible energy alternative.

After reading the debate here about the feasibility of such an idea I am reminded of a quote I have hanging in my office. It says "Every original idea is first ridiculed, then vigorously attacked, and finally taken for granted.
- Arthur Schopenhauer" Consider your reaction if this were an interview with a denim-clad man espousing the virtues of an invention that simultaneously produces electricity and potable water.

Art's analysis above wasn't aimed at ridiculing or attacking, or even debunking, the claims in the documentary. He was just showing, with simple calculations that don't require a deep understanding of the underlying science, that the actual benefit claimed is only an incremental improvement over commercially available technology. Clearly the idea presented is not original, nor do the results demonstrate that anything has been "perfected".

I hope no one here is interested in ridiculing or attacking ideas. Art should be commended for his clear analysis of the overstatements made in the documentary.

And as to the comparison with Dean Kamen's developments -- please! Dean certainly has a reputation for advocating technologies that need some work to attain commercial success, but he would not claim to have "perfected" a process if in fact he'd only improved it marginally.

I await the future with baited breath...

Sean

That's bated (short for abated, or shallow) breath. Don't hold your breath for this idea.