For those that are wondering, this appears to be a great example of a "Fake Science" that was recently posted. And In invite people to read the entire article. https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-develop-new-dirt-powered-fuel-cell-that-runs-forever/ Now I did read the entire article, and was struck that nowhere anywhere in it did they actually discuss how much power it provided. I then decided to look online, and already found multiple videos and other articles all praising this world changing technological development. One of them even praising the invention of this in "2204". And yet, amazingly none of them seem to either notice or care that one of the most important things that should be taken into consideration is how much power it actually produces is never mentioned. This is the kind of thing that always causes me to shake my head in despair. It produces power, big whoop-de-doo. I can produce power by sticking pieces of metal into a potatoe. That does not mean that a potatoe is a viable energy solution. Even though one can in theory power their home entirely with potatoes. It would simply take about a ton of them to power a home for an hour. And of course that is a negative return, because it would take far more resources to produce that ton of potatoes than the power they produce. People really need to stop taking the word of press releases as gospel, and asking the serious questions to determine if what they are claiming is at all real. And when some of the things that are the most critical in determining if this is viable at all are outright excluded, I can only in the end dismiss it.
If you read the entire article, you'll see the bit saying that the underlying technology was first demonstrated in 1911, that they openly state that it is intended to remain a source of very low power (though still sufficient for many potential uses) and that there is a link to their paper at the end which does include all the technical details, including output and sufficient information for others to repeat the process themselves (not my area of expertise but looks pretty comprehensive and realistic to me). It's an open question as to whether it can be developed in to a viable product (as they admit too) but calling it "fake science" strikes me as grossly unjustified and without any factual basis.
That is not what makes it "fake science". In most cases what is actually claimed is in itself not "fake", but the claims of usefulness of it by others is what is fake. Kinda like the "Gravity Batteries" that I have discussed in the past. Yes, they are real. Raising and lowering huge blocks of mass will indeed store power. But is it efficient enough make it a viable solution? Something like $200 million has been wasted chasing that, and it is still no more viable as an energy storage solution than it was 2 decades ago. The same with solar roadways. A huge money sink that hundreds of millions of dollars have been sunk into, that have produced nothing. And never will produce anything, because it is an incredibly stupid idea. Here is the thing of what real "fake science" is. It is not something that is absolutely not true at all, it is mostly the over-hyping of something into claiming it is something that it is not at all. Flat Earth is not "fake science", it is absolute denial of reality. Making power from a potatoe is not "fake science", it is an absolute fact. But if I was to claim you can someday power your house from potatoes, that is indeed fake science (you just have to give me enough money first so I can make it a reality). I do not even blame Northwestern University for this, as they are simply publishing the results of their research. But the "fake science" comes in from all of those that occlude the actual facts, results and data and instead sensationalize it and try to claim it is some kind of solution. Like diamonds from the air or water from the air. Both 100% scientifically possible, but grabbed onto by hucksters and scam artists who use the theoretical possibility and claim if you give them enough money they will make it a reality and solve all the problems of the world.
I'd suggest it's misleading to call that "fake science" then, especially if you're not going to describe exactly what claims are definitively incorrect. As it happens, I still don't think you've proven your point in this case, since the article (and certainly the paper) is quite clear about the scope of the potential uses and is fairly clear about it being ongoing proof of concept work. The media will commonly spin things up to some extent but they do that with pretty much anything, science based or not. It seems like the phrase "fake journalism" would be closer to what you're talking about, though even that feels over simplistic. Erm, yes. Hydroelectric gravity storage has been in use for decades around the world. It's clearly not (and has never been presented as) a general solution but works perfectly well in places with the right geography and infrastructure.
But it is not just "journalism", but it goes far beyond that. And sadly, even "science journals" are not above doing that. Like those last year claiming that "Pangea Ultima" will likely cause humans to go extinct. Idiots! That is roughly 250 million years in the future. There is a damned good chance that by that time, not only humans but even mammals may well be extinct. Having long before evolved into something completely different. And to put it in reverse perspective, during the last Pangea about 250 mya, the most advanced life on the planet was frogs. Which were just leaving the water to evolve to something that did not have to live at least part of their lives in the water. Myself, I have absolutely no expectations that "humans" will exist in another 5 million years, let alone 250 million years. One can only believe in that if one also rejects evolution. I am actually a huge supporter of that technology, as it gives multiple solutions at once. Not only producing power, but impounding water for consumption and irrigation as well as increasing the containment capability for flood control. But it does not use solid blocks of matter, but fluids. Or more specifically, water. However, moving huge blocks of concrete is a stupendously stupid way of trying to do the same thing. Pumped storage hydro is common not because it is efficient, but because it solves several issues at once. But for decades they have been trying to replace the water with anything from gravel to cement blocks, and that is not efficient for many reasons. Primarily because there is simply no other use for the mass used. With water, you can do a huge number of other things with it. It is essence is a form of recycling, as the water is used in that manner over and over again before finally released to the consumer or to the ocean. Yet, the "fake science" promoters still love the idea. And yes, it is not new. The same company that has been trying to do it for the last few years has tried and failed in the past. This is all the work of Aaron Fyke, who in 2009 founded a company trying to do it with gravel. And after years of failure finally shut down, only to return with the same idea using concrete blocks and cranes.
That's still journalism and with a brief search, I didn't find any serious scientific publications with reporting that was inaccurate or alarmist (though it looks like some mainstream media inevitably did). Certainly nothing you could legitimately call "fake" anything. I'd suggest you need much more specific examples to launch such a significant and wide-spread accusation. I will have to submit to what is presumably your scientific and engineering expertise on the topic. In general though, you do seems to be making very broad attacks without much solid basis. Pretty much every scientific and engineering success has been proceeded by loads of failed attempts, many of which nobody ever finds out about. There are certainly some very real examples of people scamming around things that aren't viable (yet or ever) or ones who are unrealistically overconfident in their ability to achieve success, especially in the internet era, but again, I'd suggest that you need to have some actual basis for making specific accusations and just throwing out terms like "fake science" is overly simplistic, often factually flawed and, if anything, counter-productive.
Yet, you're commenting on the JOURNALISM, not on the science - or the engineering. And, the scientists in this case had a definite reason for looking for a solution to a known problem. It's really more like they are engineers. After all, it's a practical application of known principles published in a journal of computing machinery. Any idea that the solution is fake is just nonsense. I think this is a prevalent problem in the methods of humans in evaluating science. People just don't read the underlying paper which some journalist interpreted.
The gravity battery sounds similar to something that really is useful, and that is storing power by pumping water into an artificial reservoir at higher elevation, and then allowing that water to flow through a hydroelectric plant to access that stored potential energy. Basically the same concept. Media people aren't often scientists. It's understandable they don't fully get the implications all the time, particularly since sensationalizing is exactly what sells their product.
I agree. Absolutely. But, the reality seems to be that a lot of media is basically entertainment. And, there aren't many general media outlets that have reporters or writers that understand science or engineering. Like with other media, it falls on us to do some verification.
I love listening to liberals with degrees in ""Medieval Art History", "Women's Studies", and "Music" talk about science. It's hysterical.
No idea who you're talking about. Are you saying journalists tends to have those degrees? And since when did conservatives care about what actual experts have to say? Conservatives tend to discount experts and think they're conspiring with the government.
One does not need a degree in a specialty they cover, but at least having a working knowledge of the subject is a huge help. Along with critical thinking and a helpful dose of skepticism. I have no problem with a "journalist" working outside of their field. However, they should be skeptical and not simply act as either cheerleaders or accepting everything on a press release as gospel truth. They should be neutral ombudsmen, that are trying to serve the public interest by giving accurate information and not simply things they want to believe in. We have 10,000 people "reporting" all kinds of things, but one thing they almost all have in common is that they have little to no ability to examine what they report. And they tend to make everything sound as if it is an absolute fact, and it is going to solve every problem. Hell, a big mistake here is that you even seem to think a college degree is required. Neither Steve Jobs nor Bill Gates have college degrees, but I would trust their opinions a hell of a lot more than somebody with a degree in Musicology because they have real world experience. I would even take their opinion a hell of a lot more than somebody with a business degree, unless the actual topic is of a business itself and not the actual hardware. And yes, I saw a hell of a lot of that exact same thing about computer 25 years ago, as people that had absolutely no idea what they were talking about kept cheerleading about something awesome in the field, as those of us actually working in it just shook our heads in disbelief at how incredibly bad the reporting was. Saying it was the wave of the future, and that everybody just had to have it. Of course, nobody ever seemed to bother talking to us actually working with it. In fact, a hell of a lot of the "Dot Com Boom-Bust" era was exactly that. Endless hype with almost no actual consideration of the reporting if the claims were at all real or accurate. And a quarter of a century later, it is largely the same thing but for some reason aimed at "green energy". I do not want hype, I want accurate information. And the fact you seem to be putting this into some kind of political spin is really puzzling to me, as this should be about as politically neutral of a topic as there can be. Unless you want to believe the hype of such reporting based upon your own beliefs.
Yes, pumped storage is a very old technology. However, it also is not very efficient but works well because it fulfills multiple needs at once. These attempts to replicate it with solid mass largely fail because they fulfill no other needs at all, so it is largely reduced from a system that operates as a solution to multiple things at once to a one trick pony that only does one of them. And not very good at that. The primary reason that pumped storage works is that it is impounding water. Something that is used and stored for multiple reasons, and can be used in a great many ways. Many do not realize that most dams are actually built in the US for flood control. And because the dam is already going to be put there, they go ahead and add power generation to it. Others are built to impound water for drinking and irrigation. That is the beauty of using dams, they do a great many things, and often generating power is an afterthought. In fact, the largest dam closest to where I lived was completed in 1955 with no power plant at all. It has one now, but it was added three decades later. And we also in the area had several run-of-the river (also known as "flow-through") dams for power generation that had no reservoirs at all. And that flood control dam was one of three in the river within about 5 miles. That was the most upstream dam, then a bit farther downstream there was a diversion dam built in 1909 for irrigation. And just downstream from that was a run-of-the-river dam built as a mill pond, then had generators added to power construction of another dam that was over 20 miles upstream of the first large dam. That one also was built entirely for flood control, but had a power plant added about 50 years later. And if they ever decided to convert the Arrowrock-Lucky Peak dams into pumped storage, that would likely make it one of the largest such operations in the world. As together they can impound over 600,000 acre feet of water.
If a journalist is covering science, they need to have a background of understanding of science. I think you forget that the actual professional computer world laughed at Jobs and Gates. And, I think you would agree that the idea that Gates is an example of someone who doesn't have a college degree is crazy. Science is built on people who have studied for many years beyond a mere BS degree. One can doubt the education credentials of Einstein, etc., but no BS degree had a valid take on the work of these people at the time they published.
Thomas Edison was called a "dolt" by his 4th grade teacher. He never went to school again. In modern times, in the 2nd grade, Elon Musk's parents were called into the Principles office and were informed they thought he was retarded.
I had to condense a 93 page study into half a page of a newspaper as an OP ED. piece. I mean, I got it published but yeah there was a lot more i could have written about. My goal is to write a piece that is as simple as possible. For example, I never use Latin unless it's more succinct than its English translation, and i really never use Latin in OP ED pieces.
Conservatives use experts to add factual background and technical details. Liberals use "experts" who can add a left wing spin to whatever subject they want.
With the books I write I go all out. But my biggest compliment is when someone who has never been in science feels like they are a genius after reading one of my books
The v3 cells can produce upwards of 50 µW, which was good enough for tiny sensors. I usually read the original study cited at the bottom of an article in medicine or genetics. Otherwise, you can never figure it out thoroughly. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3631410
