You really don't know enough about competing technologies to make any claims what so ever here, but keep doing it if it makes you feel good.
'
Not even an attempt to argue the point. Nice.
Please, explain the concept of the space pen. And by explain, I don't mean, "You don't know about the space pen? It's so self-evident!" like you did with the deus ex argument, which you were also completely wrong about. Once again, I'm asking you to explain the story, because you don't seem to grasp how ironic it is that you keep mentioning it.
I never said anything about "superiority" here. I never said an old product can't be good. And that was my point with this technology. It won't change very much because this technology doesn't need advanced R&D to do what it needs to. I've been saying space pen a few times here because you seem to be implying that "more advanced is better" -- I'm assuming you know what the space pen is a reference to, since you seem to be pretending you know this entire field better than someone who studies it.
You don't seem to have read the argument. I'm not saying an old product can't be good, either. I'm saying a better product will undoubtedly be created. My comparison was between the SCAR and the M4/M16. While they essentially do the same thing, the former is superior to the latter 2. They did not reinvent the wheel with the SCAR. They simply made a better weapon.
What is needed? Why do we need to take the water out of the air, when it could just as easily be taken from dirty water sources cleaned with competitive, better developed, and overall more financially viable technologies? That's what I mean with the 50 cal. It has changed virtually nothing in a hundred years. Why? Because it does what it needs to, and it does it well. You seem to be implying that the world is in a constant race to improve everything. It isn't.Necessity is the mother of invention. And necessity has already developed better technologies for cleansing water than having to suck it out of the air. I say better, because in principle, it takes more energy per liter of cleansed liquid to do this than to clean it with UV light or hell, using a Titanium Dioxide container that requires nothing but sunlight and costs virtually nothing in upkeep and creation.
And in arid environments where there aren't pools of water to be cleansed? In areas where water isn't immediately available or forthcoming? That isn't even really the point, because the technologies you're pushing already exist, and yet don't seem to have found their way to those who'd benefit most. In war torn countries occupied by, say, the US, however, we'd be bringing these units with us, and guess who'd benefit from it as much as us? That's right, the civilian populace. They'd have access to the same tech we do because we provide humanitarian assistance after carpet bombing everyone into oblivion. So while necessity may have created "better" technologies, it hasn't really provided anyone with the means or inclination to make sure it was available to everyone who needs it, while this tech would be available simply because we're carrying it around.
As for the .50 cal, the weapon hasn't needed to change because the ammunition has. If it weren't for the various types of ammunition available to the .50 cal, it'd be an utterly useless weapon against a modern military.
As for me proving you wrong, I think you're onfusing me with you. I pointed out that this technology could be used for space exploration, and you use some bull**** arguments to say it won't be. That's you trying to prove me wrong, when you have virtually no knowledge of the subject in the first place. Then you try to turn the tables on me with rhetoric. You like to argue, that's fine, but don't pretend there's any other reason you're bickering with me here.
My bull**** argument stated an Nth generation or derivative of this particular product would be used. This isn't debatable. As it exists now, it'll probably go through a dozen more variations before it actually hits the market. Keep in mind we're arguing because you stated we'd never use this tech in the environments I mentioned. The fact that the technology you cite exists, and still isn't doing a whole lot of good on the ground suggests its better on paper, but not where it matters most.
And finally, the space pen reference is to you thinking that the future will be "more advanced". That's not true. Good scientists always choose the simplest solution to a problem (as simple as possible, but no simpler). An example of bad science is making a "space pen" when all that was needed was a pencil. In the same way, it's stupid to try and replace the already very good technologies we've developed with some fancy thing that is really only suited for "sealed living areas" and the military. Yes, it's cool technology. No, it probably won't be very useful for poor villages.
Really? Because NASA used pencils before they invested in the space pen, which was eventually used by the Russians. It was cheap, it was effective and it didn't clog up instruments or potentially cause harm to astronauts because the tip didn't break off as was the case with pencils. You're citing a myth that's been debunked a dozen times over to make a point. I can't take whatever point you're attempting to make seriously when its foundation is false.
If you want to bicker with me about this more, I'll be happy to send and receive PMs, but since you enjoy making a spectacle, and constantly try to put me down with rhetoric in any discussion where I disagree with you, I'm not continuing the discussion in this thread. At least not until you can show me some reasoning that explains why we would use this ridiculously complicated technology to replace already existing, excellent technology that is cheap.
I don't understand how someone who uses nothing but rhetoric can have the gall to cast the blame on another.
edit:
Forced double post as edit isn't working:
The concept of the pencil vs. the space pen is, in essence, quite applicable to this particular scenario as the "more complicated" technology is preferable to the "simplest solution".