Discover and share stories

of adventure, connection, and change making.

222 people think this is good

Discuss

  1. {{attachment.file.name}}
  1. {{fields.video_link.url}}

Ready to post! You’ve uploaded the maximum number of images.

Your video is ready to post!

Oops! Nice pic, but it’s just not our (file) type. Please try uploading a .jpg or .png image.

Well, this is embarrassing. Something went wrong when posting your comment. Care to try again?

That image is too large. Maximum size is 6MB.

Please enter a valid URL from YouTube or Vimeo.

Embedding has been disabled for this video.

{{c.errors.other}}

Posting comment...

  • Jack Baldwin

    Every so called energy creation idea has it's limitations. Wasn't it someone kinda smart, that once said. Energy can not be created or destroyed, only transformed. Moving forward from that logic, of course your going to lose some in the transformation.

  • Jack Baldwin

    Wouldn't alot of the pushing and pulling of the gas happen naturally in the closed system as the pressures change in the different stages. that energy is already there as you made a closed system then added to it. it's got to force the energy out of the system somewhere, when you provide it the outlet it will follow

  • joeontap

    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.

    • dkstan

      there are always skeptics to any and all ideas and you do not sound like a scientist but someone who only push what is common and not experimental. that's the problem with people today the comment with thought knowledge. experiment and find out if its possible, not become skeptical with ignorance

      • dkstan

        I had wish to say without thought or knowledge just on ignorant perception
        ...

    • axienjii

      I agree. Based on the admittedly limited amount of info in the article, there're so many glaring question marks in the concept that if you value critical thought and support generation of technology that has some tangible benefit, it's best to be sceptical. I think that the focus should be on encouraging the students who will continue to develop progressively better solutions.

      • axienjii

        Actually, I'll go further in my support of joeontap's comments: Considering the extent of Good's reach through its mailing list, I think that wholesale forwarding of less-than-rigorously-tested ideas borders on the irresponsible. At least, it makes the quality of Good's output seem very dubious.

        • Barri

          Men are skeptical, women are praising. We need a controlled experiment. Anybody?
          (Urine is good for so many things, I don't know why we call it waste. i.e. I've heard that the military advises soldiers et al to pee on their feet in the shower to keep athletes foot at bay.)

    • joeontap

      Start of the second paragraph, intended: This idea does not generate more electricity than it uses.

  • badwaitress

    Spectacular, ladies! Inspiring to see brilliance like this at such a young age. Well done!

    • dkstan

      You're right in encouragement not attempting to discredit we should bring back experimentation and stead of trying to discourage we should promote innovation, promotion of thinking out of the box. There are more innovated thinkers that are discouraged by individuals like joeontap who cannot think on his own only by the limited mindset that he thinks is the all in all

  • NoCamels

    Amazing idea!!!

  • Jack Baldwin

    Lets make sure enough people are watching, so these girls are rightfully honored for this amazing innovation.

  • nealcamp

    Given the opportunity, genius can appear anywhere!

  • 52mosquitos

    What brilliant young scientists these girls are. Fantastic job!

  • Ann Dahlberg

    This is soo cool, all my congratulations and respect! Hope you will reach far with it. / ann

  • Elizabeth Wingfield

    I love that the fuel is renewable, recyclable, readily available, is not affected by bad weater. Good job girls!

  • Alex Gorosh

    That's pretty remarkable. I wonder if there are any leftover bi-products. I also wonder when I'll be able to buy one.

    • Lisa Rau Cannon

      Guys luck out on this one! But phenomenal development by all means.