[ta75757]

I wrote a bunch of crap below, but the point is this: do you think an average non scientific reader would come to the conclusion that the device extracts energy from salt water? If the answer is yes, then the site is misleading, because it does not. The rest is just quibbling over the definition of the word "power". Most people on this thread seem to disagree with you on that, and unfortunately words mean what the majority thinks they mean. (I'm not being sarcastic when I say 'unfortunately', it's annoying when words become corrupted through misuse, although I don't think that that's not what is happening here.)

-----

    There are no false claims in this web site.

You asked for misleading, which is what I provided.

    They explain that salt + water added to the lamp will 
    create power, which it will, because that's the only 
    thing the machine lacks in order to produce power.

By that analogy, a properly fueled car is "powered by" its ignition key, since that is the only thing the machine lacks in order to produce power. I disagree.

    If you have a car, and I said "this car is powered by 
    gasoline", would this be a misleading, false claim 
    about the product? Would I be a liar?

    According to you and the parent commenter, Yes, because 
    the car requires a battery and spark plugs to ignite 
    the gasoline along with oxygen.

You have a point about the oxygen, but not about the other components. The car is powered by the gasoline and the oxygen, since those two chemicals react to release energy. It is not powered by the spark plugs, etc. They are necessary for the car to work, but they are not a source of energy, so they do not power the car.

You could arguably say "the car is powered by its engine" with a slightly different meaning of the word power. To use that sense of the word power with respect to the lamp, I would say "the lamp is powered by its battery" - there isn't really a term that separates the source of energy in the battery from the device that converts it to the form we want.

    Technically speaking, gasoline, oxygen, vacuum, a 
    battery, spark plugs, a fuel pump, fuel injectors, an 
    ECU, sensors, pistons, valves, and a whole lot more 
    shit are needed to "power" the car. Without all those 
    things there is no "power" created. What generates the 
    power directly is spark igniting a precise mixture of 
    gas and oxygen, which then applies force to mechanical 
    parts. But a lot more things are involved in making 
    that happen, and maintenance is required on most of it. 
    All of which the average car user has no effing clue 
    about.

If we're talking to average users, I would say the two correct statements are "the car is powered by gasoline (and oxygen)" or "the car is powered by the engine".

    You do not need to know any of that in order to 'power' 
    a car. And I am not a liar for telling you a car is 
    'powered' by gasoline. I simply didn't explain the 
    design of the internal combustion engine to you.

No, but saying the salt water powers the lamp is more like saying the car is powered by the motor oil, or the spark plugs, or the carburetor. The salt water is neither a source of energy (gasoline), nor a (complete) mechanism that turns one form of energy into another (an engine).

    The car comes with a battery, spark plugs and oxygen, 
    just like this lamp comes with an anode, and it needs 
    regular maintenance, just like the various parts of a 
    car. Just like gasoline for a car, water and salt are 
    the fuel for this lamp. The fuel is the only part you 
    need to understand to use it.

No. Fuel is a store of energy. Salt water is not a store of energy (unless you're extracting the deuterium from it and putting it in a hydrogen bomb). Gasoline is a fuel. Motor oil and spark plugs are not. Similarly, a metal anode is a fuel. Salt water is not, nor copper wires (when used for conducting electricity), nor the liquid container it all goes in.

    They explain several times that the anode has to be 
    replaced every six months [based on average use]. They 
    have omitted nothing. There is no deception. Just 
    simple language explaining only what you need to know 
    to use it.

They make the anode sound like just a random thing you happen to have to replace for maintenance (like spark plugs) while the salt water provides the energy. This is exactly the opposite of what happens. The anode is where the energy comes from. The salt water is the incidental maintenance. This is what people are complaining about.

    The product's users are not chemists or engineers. 
    They're tribal villagers in the Philippines, for 
    christ's sake. Anyone who speaks english and is 
    intelligent enough to pay for the project will read the 
    whole thing, just like all of us did, and realize how 
    it works, just like all of us did, and be satisfied.

The target audience of this website are journalists and investors, not tribal villagers. Journalists and investors don't just need to know how to use the product. They need to know what is novel about it or what value it provides over other existing solutions. The website makes it sound like the novelty is extracting energy from salt water. This claim is preposterous, which is why all the commenters are complaining.

[peterwwillis]

> The website makes it sound like the novelty is extracting energy from salt water.

This is your interpretation. There exists no statement which says that this is a novel product. In fact, there is a direct quote where it says this is based on a well known scientific principle, and that this is basically a battery.

> This claim is preposterous, which is why all the commenters are complaining.

You have just taken a "this sounds like" and turned it into "a claim"; you have just invented through assumptions and insinuations a problem which does not exist. The idea that these people are being deceptive is in your head.

You based all this perceived deceit on the technical definition of the word 'power', or the phrase 'to power', and their lack of a complete, one-sentence description of the operation of the chemical reaction which creates energy in the device. In the end, they do get across fully the idea of how the device works and the implications thereof. But you ignore that so you can continue to paint them as bad guys.

This is a textbook example of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD). And it's an incredibly long troll. I'm signing off.

[ta75757]

    This is your interpretation.

Mine, and pretty much everyone else's on the thread. If everyone interprets what you say a particular way, maybe that's what it appears to mean? And if that's not what you meant, maybe you said it wrong?

    There exists no statement which says that this is a novel 
    product. In fact, there is a direct quote where it says 
    this is based on a well known scientific principle, and 
    that this is basically a battery.

This is Michael Moore logic. This is the idea that if you say something which is technically correct, but is obviously misinterpreted by many readers to mean something else, you didn't lie, because there is an alternative technical interpretation which is correct. I don't live by Michael Moore logic.

    You have just taken a "this sounds like" and turned it 
    into "a claim"; you have just invented through 
    assumptions and insinuations a problem which does not 
    exist. The idea that these people are being deceptive 
    is in your head.

Oh, come on. I was using the word claim to refer to the concept I had just described in a previous sentence. Sadly I don't know a word that means, "the idea either intentionally or naively, but either way incorrectly, implied by someone".

    You based all this perceived deceit on the technical 
    definition of the word 'power', or the phrase 'to 
    power',

No, I based it on the colloquial definition, of "to give energy to", or to "make go". Motor oil and spark plugs don't power a car, in colloquial language. Similarly, salt water does not power this lamp.

    and their lack of a complete, one-sentence description 
    of the operation of the chemical reaction which creates 
    energy in the device.

When you're selling a battery, and you refuse to call what you're selling a battery, it makes the reader rightfully suspicious. And the (paraphrased) sentence "based on the science of batteries" implies it is different than a battery, because to a casual reader, the only reason to say "based on the science of X" is that it is not the same thing as X, otherwise you would just say, "this is an X".

    In the end, they do get across fully the idea of how 
    the device works and the implications thereof. 

No, they really really don't. They just don't. I repeat: how many non-scientific readers do you think would conclude, "wow, this thing creates energy from salt water?". I would say most. An that statement is false.

    This is a textbook example of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD).

No, the website is a textbook example of misdirection. Similar examples: http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html or if you prefer XKCD: http://xkcd.com/1481/

    And it's an incredibly long troll.

And you, sir, are a nincompoop.