5 ms·
The article does not say much, and I would urge magazine editors that report these things to hire journalists with at least some knowledge of physics. Articles
by hristov 3y ago
The article does not say much, and I would urge magazine editors that report these things to hire journalists with at least some knowledge of physics. Articles like this should say at least what kind of energy (in watts) has been achieved experimentally in what type of device so that we know how close to being realistic the device is and whether it is in the range where it's energy generation may actually be just an error of the measuring instruments.
Also, the article should have some kind of explanation as to where the energy actually comes from. Saying it comes from humidity is not saying much. In order for the thing to get energy out it has to change the environment it is in somehow. How does the device change the humidity in order to get the energy out? Solar panels for example flat out absorb photons and get energy from them. Wind turbines slow down the movement of the air around them and get energy from that.
How does this thing change the humidity? Does it rely on change of potential energy of water droplets as they drop through the holes. If that is the case, it is doubtful it would get much power out for reasonably sized device. Or is it something to do with electrostatic charges around water droplets? This would be much more interesting. But if that is the case, it would not be a very good idea to stack multiple layers of the thing to make a high power device. If one layer strips the energy from the water droplets, then the next layer would have much less energy to strip.
Regardless, these are the sort of things one should talk about if one wants to make a better article on this subject.
- reaperducer 3y agoI would urge magazine editors that report these things to hire journalists with at least some knowledge of physics. Place an ad for a COBOL developer and an ad for a journalist with knowledge of physics, and see which one you fill first. 90% of journalists are generalists. That's just how journalism school works, since the reporters don't know where they'll end up working. Most of the remainder are people who were experts or have degrees in a particular field, and ended up becoming journalists. That said, the second group are often the best at their job. I know journalists who were in the psychiatry, IT, health, and other fields before they started reporting. They all excel at their craft.
- pkulak 3y agoI think your job as a journalist should be to interview experts, not be one.
- sigstoat 3y agothere’s a difference between being an expert and knowing what sorts of questions will sniff out bullshit.
- dylan604 3y agoi think you just described a good journalist vs a not good journalist. one way that typically makes a good journalist (other than natural talent) is time working with experienced editors. since we've pretty much eliminated the editorial role at most publications (i use that word loosely), that avenue is pretty much no longer available.
- dylan604 3y agohow do you validate the interviewee's level of expert, especially when the interviewer is not one themself?
- kasey_junk 3y agoYou cross reference their answers with answers from others in their field. This is in fact something you learn in journalism school.
- dylan604 3y agoIn the days of single source anonymous attribution sources, I think what's accepted in practice varies greatly from the book learning in journo school
- ajsnigrutin 3y agoAsk a reputable college professor from a reputable college. If a MIT professor confirms it, gives a comment about what is this useful for, etc, there's at least a 90% chance the answer will be correct and on point. It's a stupid example, but the easiest person to find.
- oh_sigh 3y agoWatts measures power, not energy.