„If you don’t understand how that works, you’re not alone. I don’t either.„ I often ask myself do we need this type of journalism at all?

I like to know how things work, so I spent some time reading up on Stirling engines and then returned to the article. But it's not hard for me to imagine someone wanting to read about what the article covered: the invention of the unit, it's implications, etc without having to dig into the technical depths of its implementation.

I'm getting really tired of startups getting a pass on basic physics. Presumably because people are hungry for magic technological changes even though they aren't going to happen.

Self filling water bottles, solar roadways, hyperloop, Mars colonization; it's just infuriatingly easy to capture the imagination, and dollars, of hopelessly hopeful "futurists".

No it's not possible that you can convert heat into cold without creating more heat than you started with. This is obvious. Hypothetically, a value add could be less accidentally-created heat, but if that's the value proposition, I wish they would talk about that in sufficient detail to be convincing instead of impossible marketing twists.

I mean, if the Stirling engine based tech was that much better and is that old, why do we have compressor-based AC at all?

It's the same thing with the hyperloop. The damn idea is 100 years old. In a world of shinkansen, you'd think if hyperloop was feasible, it would already exist.

Whenever you read a Forbes article, check if it’s by a “contributor” if it is, that means they payed Forbes to publish the article. Generally anytime I see a contributor article I get ready for a good laugh

www.soundenergy.nl/theac-25

They should have thought harder on that name, it's one missing R away from the infamous Therac-25

I can't wait until they invent a magic machine to turn numbers into pictures!