What's your thoughts on this.?

Interesting.

There are certainty areas of the world that don't get enough rainfall. If this device works it could help a lot of people.

But I was a little turned-off by the initial sales pitch early in the video where they were saying, we are running out of water --- that is not true. Instead they should say what they really mean --- that the distribution of fresh water is not always ideal and their device might be able to alleviate that problem.

-----------------------

It's pretty much the same thing I've said before about cloud seeding/rainfall enhancement techniques--they may do something, but the statistics just aren't there to really tell. The effect they're claiming is modest, only about 10%, at best. They've only done three trials, and according to their own spokesman, one trial is not enough to be convincing and even at three it sounds pretty iffy. I think it boils down to this:

1. It's fairly easy and (probably) relatively inexpensive, so it might be worth trying if you're desperate.

2. It may not be doing anything at all.

EDIT: Ok, 10% on average. Don't expect that 10 x 10% = 100%, though--it may that if you have 10 operating you'll only do marginally better than one. It's a favorable result, but I'm still unconvinced.

They should follow the program outlined in 3.3, but updated for 2013. They could run WRF models (they say MM5, but they're a bit dated) and try to use an appropriate microphysics scheme--perhaps custom--that will include the negative ions. Also, they need to install a network of GPS receivers that give continuous measurements of precipitable water.

Spam is against the rules here, but "whatever."