Well actually he did. He claims that the energy required is considerable and that because he is using natural forces (gravity, earth spin etc) he would need little to no energy input. However, it seems to be that he assumes the ice balls will not melt plus I think there are a number of other issues with his calculations.
Reads like another perpetual motion machine to me ;-)
Nothing is as simple as it seems, putting the temperature concern aside, frozen pure water may offer some benefits, but the problem is that water in its natural form, contains a level of mineral content, that generates all kinds of deposits with time, has anyone had to replace home plumbing, or had to clean up the shower head?, and noticed the mineral deposits built with time.
Good intentions but many other methods are been explored, from filtering salt water to better filtration mechanisms at a more local level.
Enough rain falls every day to supply the worlds need of water for a year. If people are too stupid to live where rain does not fall, I think we are better off without them in the gene pool.
There are many ways to conserve and reuse water. The key is to adapt your use to your supply. If you exceed what you have, then you are not paying attention.
Just my opinion.
Clearly, EREBUS has asserted that we would be better off without half the population of California. While it is true that a lot of them seem to have stayed out in the sun way too long, that is a socially and politically incorrect assertion. OH WELL!
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.