CNU's oxygen emitting robotic plants: deforestation solved
By Thomas Ricker 
posted October 16th 2008 6:51AM
posted October 16th 2008 6:51AM
[Via Hallyu Technology]
posted October 16th 2008 6:51AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
(pictured above holding a human child puppet) .. How satirical.
Yea, sometimes I wish, engadget was doing journalism.
Typical case of a "Engadget-WTF" news.
Ticking, I think thoses are the best!
Oh, Ricker. If you ever find yourself hunting for work in the UK, hit up the Register team. You'd get on very well.
Similar to the deep-sea fish that have a worm-like thingy on a stalk or a light that dangles in front of its mouth, the human child puppet is there to lure the unsuspecting human victims closer to the "plant" so it can do its hypnotic dance and epileptic light show to stun its prey before striking with that barbed spear-point in the center of the flower. You did notice the phrase "meat-eating buds", didn't you?
I for one welcome our human child puppet brandishing, oxygen-producing, blinking and dancing robotic plant overlords.
All it needs now is a garter belt for the dollar bills the other plants will give it when it does it's sweet dance.
Doesn't need one, it has a NFC reader for payments from your Visa card. Just wave it in front of the petals.
Or text it a payment from your cell phone account.
Or send a child with a bar-code shirt into its clutches like in the picture.
I love you Engadget. You make me smile
Wait.......WTF?
Is this for real? Does it really emit oxygen like a plant? Or does it just get oxygen from a canister?
According to the source article, yes: http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200810/200810160007.html
The oxygen and aromas must come from a canister, otherwise this would actually be noteworthy technology.
Well then that is all rubbish cause how can you make oxygen more easily than through a tree.
If it did the same then yeah fantastic but just emitiing oxygen thats just been put into a can is a bit stupid?
ISN'T IT?
And using electricity in the process. This thing probably has a negative carbon footprint. Fail.
what the hell did you expect it to do? turn water to wine? defy thermodynamics? make your dinner? save the planet?
@ lowdef - No nothing as stupid as that but if its saying its saying something silly like deforestation problem solved. Then actually contradict itself by not actually making oxygen but emitting it then its rubbish.
Besides that - if it made wine then i'd buy one straight away!!!
This thing would be a solution for deforestation if it could replicate photosynthesis and as far as I'm aware of, that's nearly impossible to do. The human child puppet however...
I love how 'Doomsday Machine' in the article links to a posts about LHC.
Well, what else would it be? A Hello Kitty vibrator?
Just one thing, deforestation don't affect the prodution of the oxygen, the forests is an air-cond....All the plants consume the same oxygen they produce....
Amazonia is not the lung of the world!!
All I can say is that I'm glad you weren't my science teacher.
Plants consume Carbon Dioxide, CO2 not Oxygen, O2.
friend, they consumes oxygen too..
okay lets explain...
on the photosynthesis the plant consume CO2 and drop(dont know the word) the oxygen...BUT in the respiration the plant consume oxygen and drop CO2....
So what, there's an oxygen fairy, and that's how come we can breath?
@Poyta
Are you honestly telling me that you think the rate of respiration cancels out photosynthesis completely?
Has it not occurred to you that the rate of photosynthesis in ideal conditions (and rainforests certainly have this benefit) can be up to 10 times greater/more efficient than the rate of respiration?
Am I wasting my time in giving to much to a (at least mentally) 6 year old to take in?
not completely, but the excess(of O2) is insignificant..
the algea produce the most of our oxygen....
@ POYTA
I honnestly cannot believe i'm reading what you are saying.
Tree's, algea and other plant life yes, consume oxygen and consume carbon dioxide.
Now i'm sure that any sane person will say that carbon dioxide does not work very well with humans which is true as carbon dioxide makes the body react badly and can lead to death.
plants are helping us survive even though you say they don't oxygenate the world as you are so putting.
im just saying that the forest do not produce much oxygen, is not enought...the algea for example, produce much more, i dont know the stats but its something like that: forest produce 15% of our oxygen...algea 75% and others 10%....
pS; i dont know the stats is just a suppose.
During the day, plants absorb C02 and emit Oxygen. The process is reversed at night but not as effectively...hence plants over time grow and store the C02 in their tissue. That net amount gained of CO2 isn't released back until the tissue decomposes or is burnt.
I
High-oxygen environments are highly corrosive, so if they were the only things left and just emitted oxygen, they'd wreck themselves.
@Poyta:
The other 10% is consumed by me as I take a deep breath to scream out loud HOW THE FLIPPING FUCK DID YOU FINISH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL!
"deforestation solved"
Since no-one wants to pay the bill for replanting trees worldwide, you think they'll buy several billion robots instead ?
Trees are not the worlds biggest source of oxygen, Algae is !
ohh thank god!! someone is beside me!!!
YOU RIGHT!
it is NOT a fact that the ocean produces the majority of the atmospheric oxygen. the whole topic is still widely debated and estimates range from 1/3 to a little over 1/2, still making forests pretty damn important for oxygen production. aside from oxygen production, forests also consume far more CO2 than aquatic plants, and are far more important to the CO2/O2 balance, not to mention the millions of other species that we rely on that rely on the forests as a habitat to survive.
/end environmental rant
@ SOOP
Yeah did you not know that?
last comment was for the fairy comment btw
and one last statemet
Thing is how much electricity or energy does a tree need from the power grid?
well in my statistical analysis a tree planted needs about 14Kwh, what with all the lights placed on them and everything.... o wait your talking about in the wild.
0 electricity is needed
In my humble opinion, I think cows are the major source for oxygen. Correct me if I am wrong.
Don't you mean carbon dioxide?
Even so... I doubt all the cow farts in the world combined would outweigh the emission from vehicles or the coal industry.
Cow farts can be used for power and this power can be used to make oxygen.. how about we implant ourselves with some kinda nano-tech shit inside our ass so that we fart oxygen instead of H2S. lol. Who knows, the government would suggest (or impose) a new rule that a man should fart atleast 100 times a day for the sake of humanity.
I can't wait until they make an electric version of.. err, wait .
Why do humans need oxygen to live, yet needs anti-oxidants to remove the oxygen?
Could uur creator be from Microsoft?
our bodies also use oxygen to break down old tissue. a good example is when you cut yourself, some of the exposed tissues oxidize and killed and replaced by new tissue. there is a delicate balance between how much breakdown we need naturally and how much is too much. antioxidants are used to eliminate some of the excess oxygen molecules and oxygen radicals in our bodies, which can attach to good cells and cause mutations (similar to rust on iron, think of antioxidants as rust-proofing for our organs)
Awww, he's making a :3 face
Dr. Robotnik would be proud, I feel...
Erm, would it not be easier just to plant a deciduous tree?
@josh
I cannot believe i just read that. You have apparently never even taken a high school biology course. Oxygen is not used by the body to break stuff down old tissue. EVER. That is a complete lie.
Here is truth: elemental oxygen, O2 (what we breathe in), acts as a final electron acceptor in the last steps of cellular respiration. That is, when you eat food, the cells chemically manipulate it to create ATP, a usable form of chemical energy for cellular processes. Long story short, the food is used to provide some high-energy electron which travel down a cascade (the Electron Transport Chain). The release of their energy here is the main source of the energy used to make ATP. Oxygen the guy who hold on to the spent electrons, eventually forming water (it picks up H+ from the solution).
Antioxidants DO NOT attack elemental oxygen, O2. in fact they don't even necessarily attack oxygen radicals. They attack oxidizing agents. An oxidizing agent is one that would promote oxidation, which is merely a description of a electrochemical reaction. Essentially, it is these bullies that go around, unhappy with their unstable electron configuration. They are highly reactive because of this instability, as they try to steal electrons to make them more stable. They can damage very stable molecules because of this high reactivity. Oxygen radicals are very strong oxidizers, but are certainly NOT O2. Antioxidants are merely molecules with the ability to quench a radical without reforming another.
so josh, next time you are going to post something. try to not post things that are so clearly untrue. And yes, i am correct about all this. I am a senior molecular biology major at U of Pitt. i know what im talking about.
Go Panthers!
hey moron, why don't you actually read what i wrote instead of just calling me a liar...i did not mean the body uses the oxygen we inhale to purposely break down organs, i meant that oxygen in our bodies can break down cells/organs/etc (which i guess can be misconstrued as the body doesn't actively seek this, it just happens naturally, which is why i put the example of cutting yourself). that is 100% true, the cells react with oxygen radicals, oxidize, and die. our bodies continually go through this oxidation process, and antioxidants are used to keep it under control, the skin is the most common example, but any organ that becomes exposed to oxygen radicals goes through that process.
the reaction also happens in our blood, oxidation of fats in the blood is similar to rusting. when bad cholesterols become oxidized, they are more likely to build up and result in arteriosclerosis. antioxidants like vitamin e that contain tocopherols protect these fats from oxidation.
the air we breath is used in an entirely different process, i said also to infer that oxygen is used by the body for a positive, but also reacts with the body negatively. *use* might have been the wrong word, but what i said is true.
So, it's like the glow in the dark nose cover in Futurama that produces barrel upon barrel of toxic waste?
im now going to assume that english is not your first language, and cut you a little slack on 85% of your sentences making no sense. secondly, i can only read what you write, not what you "mean." therefore, if you use the "wrong word" to explain something, what i read is that you are explaining is a non-truth. Im talking about you saying "our bodies also use oxygen to break down old tissue." no they dont. old tissue dies through several different mechanisms, depending on the situation. Apoptosis and necrosis are the two biggies. use of oxygen is not. Another incorrect argument you are making is that "oxygen in our bodies can break down cells/organs/etc." Ill even give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are talking about oxygen radicals. still, they only attack on a molecular scale. They do not target an entire cell or organ. "the cells react with oxygen radicals, oxidize, and die" simply wrong. and entire cell cannot oxidize. an atom can be oxidized. That will destroy the molecule, but a whole cell? common now.
and yes, go panthers!!