Comments on: Slurp Up Buddy

By: Aaron W

Aaron W — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 05:29:05 +0000

Poor design, many errors. One of the biggest problems with unclean water is the microbes. A “filter” cannot just get rid of these. There is just too much design to be practical for these people who are literally starving. Over there what gets the job done is rugged, and works.

By: critic

critic — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 17:36:22 +0000

PPL, it is start.
how many of you considering to even think about drinking same quality of water those kids are drinking everyday.
only if you do, then you will appreciate at least of their idea.
again, its start. instead of criticise them, we should encourage them to improve better.

think, when you are washing with good drinking water, these kids are barely able to drink any water.

put your situation in the africa where you are forced to drink same quality as these kids. even 10% better then what they has, its better than nothing.

be thankful and support.

By: Rafael

Rafael — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 02:41:26 +0000

I have a way to make this work, I would like to know if you let me use your design?

By: Rafael

Rafael — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 02:41:26 +0000

I have a way to make this work, I would like to know if you let me use your design?

By: FAIL x 3

FAIL x 3 — Sun, 22 May 2011 00:00:49 +0000

If it is purely design, it fails because the it's too shallow; it don't allow pouring of the water; it needs too much of the *magical* nanoceramic filter which is obviously going to cost *mega* dollars to fabricate; it has not handles to manipulate and not contaminate the *clean* water…

If it is an actual invention, it fails because the science does not back up the *magical* properties it claims.

If it is a way to procure investments from rich fools, it should fail too. But it might not. Herein lies the tragedy.

By: FAIL x 3

FAIL x 3 — Sun, 22 May 2011 00:00:49 +0000

If it is an actual invention, it fails because the science does not back up the *magical* properties it claims.

If it is a way to procure investments from rich fools, it should fail too. But it might not. Herein lies the tragedy.

By: David

David — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 15:41:58 +0000

NEVER EVER LET THIS PERSON DESIGN ANYTHING EVER AGAIN.

By: SUe

SUe — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 10:02:45 +0000

I agree this design is bad. The intention might be laudable and usually i try to let it be since designers have the right to do as they want. But this time as has been already pointed out the practicability, price and cost effectiveness and the physics and technology is all lacking. And dont somebody tell me that an engineer will come round and fix the technology> laws of physics can be directly changed or broken or bent (this is not the matrix) for any filtration to occur at a useful rate through your nano-ceramic membranes you would need a high level of pressure, because the way i see it the pores would have to be extremely small to be able to filter out pesticides molecules or atoms of heavy metals les be realist these would be better removed using some type of adsorption on a static phase and it would never fir in a thin wafer like shown in the above design. Like i said laudable approach but a lack of sufficient consideration for possible (logical) technological development.

By: REPLIED

REPLIED — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 12:45:38 +0000

sorry, but this is so bad and non-functional that it deserves the previously gotten comment-punishment. Maybe it should rather have been the whip!
If nobody ever tells them that they suck, and that this is beyond stupidity they will never know. and please, do not let it be an inspiration for other designers!!! please!
this showed up again after a long time … god this is bad! … i had forgotten.

By: REPLIED

REPLIED — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 12:45:38 +0000