Somehow, I think the title of the article is a little overblown. I grew up in Central America, and having had Amoebic Dysentery twice as a child, I know something about bad water. :)
Part of the problem is getting the water clean, but another big part of the problem is getting it to the people that are using it. Growing up, I lived in a city of 1.5 million people that had a water treatment program. The problem was water delivery. We lived in a heavy seismic zone, and the water pipes were plastic and the sewage pipes were clay. So, there were a number of cracks in both, and seepage went from the sewage systems to the delivery systems. So, water treatment was needed at the kitchen faucet not at the village center.
Another issue is that people need to realize that the water makes them sick. In many rural villages, you don't really think about water making people sick. They just think that getting really bad cases of diarrhea is part of life, and they think that people just die young. They don't correlate bad water with dying. They really need education systems for that.
Also, systems are needed that are a lot cheaper than $1000-2000. In many countries people make about $1 a day. It's going to take a lot of people that realize that the water is making them sick before they buy something that expensive.
You're right that it will take a lot of education, but the point is that at $1000-$2000 range it is financially viable to add these to each village. If the average wage is $1 a day and a village has 100 people living in it, you just need to prevent 10 sick days per person (and I'm not even counting the people dying there) for the investment to pay-off. Apply some microlending to it and that's it.
Well I think the point is that it is small enough that you can place the purifier on the other end of the pipe (in the home) and so what contaminates the water on its way there isn't as much a problem. But then again like you said, even at $1000 it's more than an individual living there will afford. Maybe they will institute some sort of program where people can donate purifiers to villages?
Whether the Slingshot is a holy grail in providing clean water to the poor in the world's developing countries, its possible future impact is larger than its own achievements. The press it gathers will attract more attention from engineers, funding providers, and the general population. The more smart people we have working on this problem, the more likely we are to achieve a feasible solution and solve one of the greatest problems facing the world's poor. I applaud Dean Kamen for his work to-date and for putting the clean water problem in the spotlight.
Sure... but where does the waste go? How do you clean this 'magical' machine? How do you dispose of the potentially highly toxic substances that were in the water?
The question of waste byproducts is a good one, and I haven't seen it addressed anywhere.
Calling the machine 'magical' (with scare-quotes) is disingenuous though. Any revolutionary technology could be described that way. As the saying goes, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Solving the water problem will enrich the lives of more people than we can fathom. If Kamen's device does what he says it will do, he deserves to go down in history with Eli Whitney, Thomas Edison, and John Browning.
If you can get this at a production cost in the $1000-$2000 range as the site says, then the impact of this thing will be much, much larger than the Segway.
Still, I think the guy should be applauded. There are still really important issues that need to be addressed, and he is working on them.
Yeah, I know. But most of the problems that poorer nations face are not related with complete lack of water, but with the lack of drinkable water. The droughts you mentioned are oftentimes the same.
I really don't think there is a lack of water. Just lack of drinkable water. Unless you are in the middle of Sahara, you should be able to find all kinds of water sources.
That's why the article refers to the Stirling engines as a potentially partner - you chuck your cow dung or whatever into the Stirling to generate the heat needed to distill the water
The numbers in the article suggest the stirling engine needs 1kW of energy input. There is no need to use expensive photovoltaic panels. 1kW is about 1 square meter of mirrors in a solar concentrator on a sunny day at many latitudes. Solar concentrators and stirling engines pair nicely, though there may be issues at that small scale. Nothing more mirrors won't fix though.
The Segway kinda sucked, but still, you gotta be a real genius to think up and design something that sucks in just that kind of way. I'm glad he's working on something so fundamental. We need more like this. Even if Segway is a little lame.
In fact this is particularly well suited too Dean, because even if the design is lamer then segway polo if the science and engineering are right, it's a worldchanger.
Part of the problem is getting the water clean, but another big part of the problem is getting it to the people that are using it. Growing up, I lived in a city of 1.5 million people that had a water treatment program. The problem was water delivery. We lived in a heavy seismic zone, and the water pipes were plastic and the sewage pipes were clay. So, there were a number of cracks in both, and seepage went from the sewage systems to the delivery systems. So, water treatment was needed at the kitchen faucet not at the village center.
Another issue is that people need to realize that the water makes them sick. In many rural villages, you don't really think about water making people sick. They just think that getting really bad cases of diarrhea is part of life, and they think that people just die young. They don't correlate bad water with dying. They really need education systems for that.
Also, systems are needed that are a lot cheaper than $1000-2000. In many countries people make about $1 a day. It's going to take a lot of people that realize that the water is making them sick before they buy something that expensive.