Morus Zero - Ultra-fast countertop tumble dryer for any home

[EEVblog]

Oh boy, here we go...

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/morus/morus-zero-ultra-fast-countertop-tumble-dryer-for

[ogden]

Oh boy, here we go...

What 

This one could be plausible indeed. After all they did show working prototype @CES. Only question: is it really more efficient than common heat pump tumble dryer (as they say?). Industry (chem/food/medical) widely uses vacuum drying. Industrial equipment manufacturers even say that it is most energy efficient drying tech.

P.s. I can save few bucks for Dave to buy/review/measure_efficiency/debunk that thing. Supposedly many can. You could consider some PayPal donation piggybank for such kind of performances

[PlainName]

Industry (chem/food/medical) widely uses vacuum drying.

Cuppasoup, for instance, is vacuum dried. Wouldn't want my t-shirts to look like that though!

 

[ogden]

Cuppasoup, for instance, is vacuum dried. Wouldn't want my t-shirts to look like that though!

LOL You need ShirtButler then:

[thm_w]

So they show water boiling at 102 F (39 C) in the image. That means pressure is being dropped from 1,000 hPa to 78hPa or so. Is this doable with a cheap vacuum pump?
Maybe that is why they went with the small chamber, easier to pull a vacuum.

Would be nice to see improved tech in this area, some people refuse to hang their clothes and dryers use quite a bit of power ($1-3 per load!).

The water has a lower boiling point at low pressure. Morus Zero uses a compact high-performance vacuum pump to allow water to boil at lower to 100 °F. The water in the boiling state has a very high evaporation rate, and Morus Zero uses this principle to accelerate the drying speed.   

https://www.omnicalculator.com/chemistry/Boliling-point

[Mr. Scram]

I tried drying with a vacuum for a project once. That turned out to be a massive disappointment. Increasing the surface area and letting physics do its thing turned out to be much faster, which is exactly what people have been doing for ages by hanging their clothes on clotheslines.

[Marco]

So they show water boiling at 102 F (39 C) in the image. That means pressure is being dropped from 1,000 hPa to 78hPa or so. Is this doable with a cheap vacuum pump?

Low cost food vacuum sealers claim to have 0.9 Bar relative pressure diaphragm pumps, so probably.

[EEVblog]

Let's see if they start deleting comments

[EEVblog]

Thunderf00t video is pretty comprehensive, I don't think I can add anything to that?

[EEVblog]

Full flight SuperBacker defense mode!

[EEVblog]

Morus replied

[Dundarave]

So by their own admission, there is no significant vacuum, which simply makes it a not-particularly-efficient version of a regular clothes dryer.

I.e. a counter-top tea-towel dryer for those who only have one tea towel and can’t wait for it to dry draped across the oven handle...

[PlainName]

Thunderf00t video is pretty comprehensive, I don't think I can add anything to that?

Who is that guy? His specialty seems to be stitching together video from various sources.

Anyway, he lost me and I was on his side to start with. Far too technical without an obvious point, and by the time you do get to what he's on about you've figured he's bullshitting anyway. An example is the business of vapour pressure and how a vacuum isn't going to make the water boil (paraphrased), and yet we've seen it happen so often that we've sceptical of what he's saying rather than what he's debunking.

Later, when he's looking at how much energy is needed to evaporate 1kg of water and he's showing the promo video of this thing next to competition, he goes on about these huge numbers of joules and kg of water but the video is clearly showing that we're talking perhaps 100g or less, and he's even saying that looks like a single item of clothing!

So, what could you add? You could debunk it in a convincing way. It''s fine to wibble on about numbers and stuff to a scientific audience, but it's the credulous that need telling, not the already-convinced. There is also the suspicion that a lot of clever stuff happens not because they prove the calculations were wrong but because someone invented a clever workaround that kept the numbers right but not applicable.

[Mr. Scram]

Thunderf00t video is pretty comprehensive, I don't think I can add anything to that?

Who is that guy? His specialty seems to be stitching together video from various sources.

Anyway, he lost me and I was on his side to start with. Far too technical without an obvious point, and by the time you do get to what he's on about you've figured he's bullshitting anyway. An example is the business of vapour pressure and how a vacuum isn't going to make the water boil (paraphrased), and yet we've seen it happen so often that we've sceptical of what he's saying rather than what he's debunking.

Later, when he's looking at how much energy is needed to evaporate 1kg of water and he's showing the promo video of this thing next to competition, he goes on about these huge numbers of joules and kg of water but the video is clearly showing that we're talking perhaps 100g or less, and he's even saying that looks like a single item of clothing!

So, what could you add? You could debunk it in a convincing way. It''s fine to wibble on about numbers and stuff to a scientific audience, but it's the credulous that need telling, not the already-convinced. There is also the suspicion that a lot of clever stuff happens not because they prove the calculations were wrong but because someone invented a clever workaround that kept the numbers right but not applicable.

Thunderf00t is a Youtube channel which depends on shouty clickbait videos and thumbnails. There doesn't seem to be a lot of own orginal content, it's mostly creating controversy. It's pretty much what the worst programs on television do.

[PlainName]

Ah, thanks for the heads-up - a pretty accurate description from what I saw 

[ogden]

Thunderf00t video is pretty comprehensive, I don't think I can add anything to that?

Who is that guy?

He is cherrypicking data to suit his debunking agenda. Example: in particular video he first explains how much energy needed to evaporate 1Kg of water which is roughly 2000000 J. Then he conveniently takes same 1Kg to prove that 900W device cannot evaporate such amount of water in 15 minutes, 2KW power needed instead. Seemingly job is done, lies of manufacturer debunked, right? Well... specification says max load = 1.5Kg. In specification there's no mention 1L or 1Kg of water, just BS assumption of 10-30% water contents after spin drying. Anyway if 1.5Kg of damp clothes contains 1Kg of water then it is dripping wet sponge, not clothes out of the modern >= 1200 RPM spinner.

[edit] Example#2: while talking about evaporative cooling, he conveniently forgets that device have IR heating.

[PlainName]

He is cherrypicking data to suit his debunking agenda

Strikes me that if I were running a dodgy Kickstarter project, he's the one I'd want to debunk it

[Dubbie]

Yeah this was the worst debunking I have seen. There are plenty of proper scams out there without splitting hairs about actual functional technology.

[Algu607]

Not saying this gadget isn't stupid but there are several problems with his video. Vapor pressure of water or any liquid is the pressure at which an equal amount of water molecules  enter from the gas the liquid and vice versa.
So going with the pressure below the vapor pressure will effectively remove water molecules. He does all his calculations at 20°C without mentioning that the vapor pressure increases exponentially with temperature. At 60°C the vapor pressure of water goes up from 23 mBar at 20°C to already 200 mBar.
Normal dryers work at atmospheric pressure and supply the energy to the clothes by blowing hot air at it. If you could supply the same amount of energy while at lower pressure your clothes will dry faster. Morus claims that to do that with IR, if they get the same energy into the clothes at a lower pressure it will indeed be faster. Btw, why don't they use microwave radiation, seems ideal?

And what's up with his arrogance? I don't know at which university he works but at the one i am 9/10 Professors will tell you the correct answer why water boils earlier at lower pressure. Boiling is the point where the temperature dependent vapor pressure exceeds that of the surrounding atmosphere.

[Marco]

I don't think you want a microwave arcing with the inevitable belt buckles.

[EEVblog]

Thunderf00t video is pretty comprehensive, I don't think I can add anything to that?

Who is that guy? His specialty seems to be stitching together video from various sources.

Thundf00t is an experimental physicist/chemist and does debunking videos among other topics.
He makes most of his own content, often taken from his previous videos.

Anyway, he lost me and I was on his side to start with. Far too technical without an obvious point, and by the time you do get to what he's on about you've figured he's bullshitting anyway.

The video could have done with some better editing in terms of bunking flow. But this is Thunderf00t's "style" so to speak.

So, what could you add? You could debunk it in a convincing way. It''s fine to wibble on about numbers and stuff to a scientific audience, but it's the credulous that need telling, not the already-convinced. There is also the suspicion that a lot of clever stuff happens not because they prove the calculations were wrong but because someone invented a clever workaround that kept the numbers right but not applicable.

I was thinking of a short debunking video that simply uses their own numbers, and actually ignoring the vapour thing entirely. Thunderf00t did this too, but it's kinda swamped in the other physics explanations.

[EEVblog]

Thunderf00t is a Youtube channel which depends on shouty clickbait videos and thumbnails. There doesn't seem to be a lot of own orginal content

Not true, he creates most of his own animations and often takes footage from his previous videos.

[maginnovision]

He has had a couple if real meh videos lately but generally they're pretty interesting. That was my least favorite behind his fake Kickstarter and fake Kickstarter debunking videos.

[m12lrpv]

The only problem with thunderf00t's video is that the topic itself is very hard to understand and subsequently very hard to explain and demonstrate in what appears to be a rushed video.

The guy himself knows his stuff in this area and i'm hoping he does another video with an experiment that shows the problem a bit more clearly.

[tszaboo]

The only problem with thunderf00t's video is that the topic itself is very hard to understand and subsequently very hard to explain and demonstrate in what appears to be a rushed video.

The guy himself knows his stuff in this area and i'm hoping he does another video with an experiment that shows the problem a bit more clearly.

The problem is that you need to invest significant amount of time into his content. He does debunking videos. So you need to:
1) See the original idea / kickstarter page
2) Watch the videos there
3) Maybe invest time into reading the company's communication on the page
4) See what others news outlets are writing
5) Think about the topic
6) Go watch his video
7) See the fallout and aftermath

You know, having a full time job and hobbies, following some tv series, I dont nearly have enough time to do all this, to have a chuckle, that some idiots try to tumble dry with vacuum, and some people believe it is. The problems with un-scientific prepositions, is that the burden of proof is on the debunker.
Most people know, that water boils at lower temperature at lower pressure.
Most people dont know, how this really works, and what is the temperature and what pressure.
And they dont know how difficult it is to make a vacuum chamber.

[PlainName]

Most people know, that water boils at lower temperature at lower pressure.
Most people dont know, how this really works, and what is the temperature and what pressure.

This. We learn as kids that tea made at the top of Everest is really weak, and we've seen the videos of stuff boiling off at low temperatures. It's pretty much like proving we went to the moon when world+dog could see the flag waving - on an airless world - in the original video.

But them's the breaks. Debunking isn't about reeling off numbers and having your audience fall asleep (or watch more conspiracy channels). You need to be more convincing than what you're debunking, and it's that a bit too difficult then you should stick with your day job. A bad debunking video is counterproductive and merely proves whatever is being debunked is actually real.

[Marco]

And they dont know how difficult it is to make a vacuum chamber.

This isn't high vacuum. The requirements are no different from the multitude of degassing vessels for epoxy.

[EEVblog]

The only problem with thunderf00t's video is that the topic itself is very hard to understand and subsequently very hard to explain and demonstrate in what appears to be a rushed video.

I don't have nearly enough physics knowledge to verify TF's view on this, but I've found he's always right on the fundamentals even if he (like everyone) occasionally goofs a calculation or something.
There are some people saying TF has the physics wrong here, but AFAIK no one has close to the credentials in the field that TF has. So I'd be very surprised if he's wrong.
It's kinda like the the equivalent of the Walter Lewin "Disagreeing with the master" thread on Kichoff's Law

[thm_w]

I don't think you want a microwave arcing with the inevitable belt buckles.

Not to mention a lot of reflective clothing seems to have metallic elements in them. I thought it was just glass beads, but no, its more than that (as I tragically found out last week):

"Many Scotchlite reflective materials contain an aluminum layer as part of their construction."
https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/824071O/reflective-consumer-products-data-sheet.pdf
https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/scotchlite-reflective-material-us/industries-active-lifestyle/active-lifestyle/

You might sense something as large as a buckle, but things like snaps, pins, reflective, is going to be way too small to detect and could destroy an entire load of laundry.

He is cherrypicking data to suit his debunking agenda. Example: in particular video he first explains how much energy needed to evaporate 1Kg of water which is roughly 2000000 J. Then he conveniently takes same 1Kg to prove that 900W device cannot evaporate such amount of water in 15 minutes, 2KW power needed instead. Seemingly job is done, lies of manufacturer debunked, right? Well... specification says max load = 1.5Kg. In specification there's no mention 1L or 1Kg of water, just BS assumption of 10-30% water contents after spin drying. Anyway if 1.5Kg of damp clothes contains 1Kg of water then it is dripping wet sponge, not clothes out of the modern >= 1200 RPM spinner.

So residual moisture content appears to be 40-50% depending on the quality of the spin cycle and materials washed. Towels will be worse, but I assume this thing is not used to dry towels.
If the max load is 1.5kg, then we should be talking about removal of 600-750g of water.

https://www.coolblue.nl/en/advice/washing-machine-rpm.html
https://bandctech.com/commercial-laundry-blog/2017/02/understanding-moisture-retention-in-your-commercial-laundry/

This should be close to 2MJ at 25C right (250k to raise temp and 1,690k to turn to steam)? Assuming normal pressure and 0.75kg.
Next, I'm thinking if you completely removed the temperature rise, you'd still be left with 1,690kJ, not too far off from his number. Is there any way to get better than that?

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-energy-needed-to-evaporate-1-kg-of-water

[ogden]

So residual moisture content appears to be 40-50% depending on the quality of the spin cycle and materials washed.

Right. Yet they say it's 10-30%. They also use pounds in energy efficiency number, 0.24kwh/lb while capacity of dryer is specified in kg   Clear indication that they are not completely honest about numbers. Note that 0.24kwh/lb = 0.53kwh/kg, most heat pump dryers are 0.3-0.4 kwh/kg efficient.

If the max load is 1.5kg, then we should be talking about removal of 600-750g of water.

Yes. To dry 750g of water, it takes 60*0.75*0.53 = 24 minutes, 30 min considering losses. Not 15 as they claim

BTW just checked that internal energy of 1kg saturated vapor at 101 kPa (standard atmospheric pressure) is 2.5 MJ but at 6% of atmospheric pressure (vacuum of Morus Zero) it's 2.4 MJ. Saved energy due to vacuum - miserable 4%. T-foot is right saying that vacuum is gimmick. Conclusion: save little more money and get proper heat pump tumble dryer.

[ebastler]

So residual moisture content appears to be 40-50% depending on the quality of the spin cycle and materials washed. Towels will be worse, but I assume this thing is not used to dry towels. If the max load is 1.5kg, then we should be talking about removal of 600-750g of water.

https://bandctech.com/commercial-laundry-blog/2017/02/understanding-moisture-retention-in-your-commercial-laundry/

I don't think you got the numbers quite right. As stated on the page you linked to,

how much water is left in the goods after extract [is] expressed as a percentage of the original dry weight prior to washing

So for a 1.5kg load with 50% residual humidity, the dry weight of the laundry would be 1kg and the water content 500g.

Hence, if we neglect losses, the stated 15 min drying time seems not too far off. If we assume a more favorable 40% residual humidity as the starting point, there is even room for some losses.

[ogden]

So residual moisture content appears to be 40-50% depending on the quality of the spin cycle and materials washed. Towels will be worse, but I assume this thing is not used to dry towels. If the max load is 1.5kg, then we should be talking about removal of 600-750g of water.

https://bandctech.com/commercial-laundry-blog/2017/02/understanding-moisture-retention-in-your-commercial-laundry/

I don't think you got the numbers quite right. As stated on the page you linked to,

Seems to be right. Consumer washing machine *and* dryer capacity usually is specified as dry laundry weight *before* washing.

[ebastler]

Seems to be right. Consumer washing machine *and* dryer capacity usually is specified as dry laundry weight *before* washing.

Ah, thanks -- that had not occurred to me. Makes sense for washing machines, of course, but is a bit counter-intuitive for dryers. But you are right, that seems to be the consensus for specifying capacity. So the Morus spec is indeed highly optimistic, by assuming unrealistically low moisture of the incoming laundry.

[PlainName]

I am dubious that there is 40-50% water content after spin drying. When I hang  up stuff it is not much heavier than dry, and MUCH lighter than not spun. But my google-fu is lacking and I can't find a source of figures, not even made up ones!

[thm_w]

I am dubious that there is 40-50% water content after spin drying. When I hang  up stuff it is not much heavier than dry, and MUCH lighter than not spun. But my google-fu is lacking and I can't find a source of figures, not even made up ones!

I had two links in my post for references. But, that is a good self experiment to do: measure weight before washing, after washing and spin cycle, then after drying and let us know.

Might find more in here:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11743-005-0335-5
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00975.x
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12053-014-9268-4
http://wiki.zero-emissions.at/index.php?title=Drying_of_clothes

I think its hard to tell a 40% increase in weight when the item is so light to begin with. Towels/cotton is the worst, "quick dry" style sports fabrics could be better than 40%.
But generally in a load of laundry you will have a mix of these items, so the average would still be in that 40-50% range.

[PlainName]

I will check when we next do the laundry, but we don't have a drier other than fresh wind.

[KaneTW]

Vacuum drying is actually pretty efficient, since heat isn't wasted for heating up the clothes material or the dryer significantly above ambient. It's just that you still need to supply heat or pull a progressively stronger vacuum. Microwave-vacuum drying is getting popular, where microwaves are used to heat up the water (and avoiding the vacuum heat transfer issue).

If one kg of water evaporates, it removes 2.2MJ from the system. You still need to add those 2.2MJ to the system, but since it's running close to ambient, heat losses are going to be much smaller. Don't forget that the heat transfer rate is Q' is proportional to DeltaT. This eliminates the major contributor to energy losses --- heat leaving the system to ambient.

[ogden]

Vacuum drying is actually pretty efficient, since heat isn't wasted for heating up the clothes material or the dryer significantly above ambient. It's just that you still need to supply heat or pull a progressively stronger vacuum.

Exactly - heat *and* vacuum supply needed because of evaporation. Vacuum pump needs energy and has it's own (in)efficiency figure. Whatever is efficiency numbers of other vacuum dryers, Morus is not in "pretty efficient" category. It does not beat efficiency numbers of common heat pump dryers (0.53 versus 0.3-0.4 kwh/kg). Numbers from document T-f00t used in his video.

[PlainName]

It does not beat efficiency numbers of common heat pump dryers

I don't think they claim that it does. What they do claim is that it's quicker than conventional (which I presume means non-heat pump) dryers, and it does it on a counter top.

[ogden]

It does not beat efficiency numbers of common heat pump dryers

I don't think they claim that it does.

They do, by claiming 40% energy savings

[PlainName]

A I point out, they make the claim against conventional dryers. All they need to do is find one that gives 0.4kwh/lb and they're quids in.

But they don't even need to do that, because they claim up to 40%, so it's basically claiming whatever they want it to

[ogden]

A I point out, they make the claim against conventional dryers. All they need to do is find one that gives 0.4kwh/lb and they're quids in.

But they don't even need to do that, because they claim up to 40%, so it's basically claiming whatever they want it to

It's marketing by deception. Anyway you can twist it as you like, fact stays: Morus Zero is not as efficient as modern tumble dryers. Last time I repeat this.

[paulca]

The only problem with thunderf00t's video is that the topic itself is very hard to understand and subsequently very hard to explain and demonstrate in what appears to be a rushed video.

I don't have nearly enough physics knowledge to verify TF's view on this, but I've found he's always right on the fundamentals even if he (like everyone) occasionally goofs a calculation or something.
There are some people saying TF has the physics wrong here, but AFAIK no one has close to the credentials in the field that TF has. So I'd be very surprised if he's wrong.
It's kinda like the the equivalent of the Walter Lewin "Disagreeing with the master" thread on Kichoff's Law

He put up a video recently, which while a little egotistical, was enlightening as to just how experienced he is.  More importantly how published and how widely cited he is in academic journals.  Basically he is a very widely published and cited experimental physicist.  Of course day job experience doesn't always translate directly to hobby videos, but like I trust (you) Dave in electronics, I kinda tend to trust TF in his experimental physics, while some of his hyperbolic assumptions can bring a frown or two to my face.

I have watched a lot of his videos and you will find a few where he admits to errors in calculations or in assumptions.  The NASA Mars helicopter debunking for example which he mostly retracts.

[KaneTW]

Vacuum drying is actually pretty efficient, since heat isn't wasted for heating up the clothes material or the dryer significantly above ambient. It's just that you still need to supply heat or pull a progressively stronger vacuum.

Exactly - heat *and* vacuum supply needed because of evaporation. Vacuum pump needs energy and has it's own (in)efficiency figure. Whatever is efficiency numbers of other vacuum dryers, Morus is not in "pretty efficient" category. It does not beat efficiency numbers of common heat pump dryers (0.53 versus 0.3-0.4 kwh/kg). Numbers from document T-f00t used in his video.

It doesn't, not even remotely. That's why I'm so upset about it---you can make an innovative product, but instead they just produce some dumb-ass garbage.

Not to mention that a well engineered vacuum drying solution will be way more expensive. Their shitty product will fail in a year simply due to water damage to the shitty cheap pump they're using.

[Sonny_Jim]

They just tried to astroturf their 'rebuttal' video on /r/shittykickstarters:

[PlainName]

Well, you certainly did that for them here 

[Sonny_Jim]

*shrugs*

They have a right to respond to criticism, but we have rules over there that they have to do it as themselves, not brand new sockpuppet accounts with nothing posted apart from that video.

https://np.reddit.com/user/coconutkunka

[ogden]

At least they did not lie by stating "Morus Zero is more efficient than [ancient] vented tumble dryers"

FYI most washing machines specify 50..53% RMC (Remaining Moisture Contents) for full load, cotton, 1400rpm spin, including Miele (link to pdf user manual). Morus Zero team probably tested just barely loading washing machine with few synthetic T-shirts - that's why 33% figure.

[Marco]

I wonder about the energy limits of a dryer, if you exhaust water vapour with the vacuum pump you obviously lose all the heat of evaporation. A mostly closed cycle which recondenses the water and recovers the energy might be possible though.

Just breaking the molecular bonds between the fabric and the water takes I think far less energy than the evaporation.

[thm_w]

I wonder about the energy limits of a dryer, if you exhaust water vapour with the vacuum pump you obviously lose all the heat of evaporation. A mostly closed cycle which recondenses the water and recovers the energy might be possible though.

Just breaking the molecular bonds between the fabric and the water takes I think far less energy than the evaporation.

Potentially a re-usable dessicant could help with this process, but you'd need some post drying cycle.
Ultrasonic to break the bond maybe: https://insiderlouisville.com/economy/ge-appliances-wants-to-vaporize-the-water-in-your-laundry/

[Jay_Diddy_B]

Hi group,

I think this is the most interesting picture on the kickstarter campaign:



And it is what you don't see that is interesting. I don't see a structure that is capable of support the mechanical stress of reasonable vacuum. I also don't see a vacuum pump.



Latent heat of vaporization of water = 2256 kJ/kg.

900W for 15 minutes = 15 x 60 x 900 = 810 kJ

Even at 100% efficiency enough energy to vaporize 0.36 kg of water.

Regards,
Jay_Diddy_B

[ogden]

And it is what you don't see that is interesting. I don't see a structure that is capable of support the mechanical stress of reasonable vacuum. I also don't see a vacuum pump.

Right. There are no vacuum hose as well. Also I wonder - how do they manage to seal 6% vacuum between rotating drum and stationery translucent door?

[edit] Minute later possible solution came: whole enclosure except water tank could be under vacuum.

[EEVblog]

[EEVblog]

Hi group,

I think this is the most interesting picture on the kickstarter campaign:

How they thought they could display that teardown picture and not have people see there is no vacuum system is beyond me 

[PlainName]

I will check when we next do the laundry, but we don't have a drier other than fresh wind.

And I did. Well, tell a lie, I didn't but my missus did 

item	1200 Spin	dry	% water
cotton thingy	357g	219g	39
cotton t-shirt	270g	190g	30
George knickers	33g	22g	33
M&S knickers	37g	25g	32

So 30-40% seems to be the actualite.

[ogden]

item	1200 Spin	dry	% water
cotton thingy	357g	219g	39
cotton t-shirt	270g	190g	30
George knickers	33g	22g	33
M&S knickers	37g	25g	32

So 30-40% seems to be the actualite.

It is for for nearly empty (total dry < 0.5Kg) washing machine, right? When machine is loaded up-to nominal capacity, there will be more remaining moisture, I bet up-to 50% as manufacturers say.

[PlainName]

No, there was more but I'd asked for the comparison of a cotton t-shirt and she came up with that list.

Edit: your post prompted me to go and check what they actually claim, and they say this:

The clothes after spin dried normally contain 10%-30% of water. While in our demo the clothes were wrung dried by hand so it had more moisture (40%).

The water content here is the weight of water divided by the weight of the wet clothes. According to CFR, RMC (remaining moisture content) is the weight of water divided by the weight of dry clothes. In this case, the RMC of the item in the test is 66.6%.

[Gregg]

Hi group,

I think this is the most interesting picture on the kickstarter campaign:

How they thought they could display that teardown picture and not have people see there is no vacuum system is beyond me 

An interesting thought experiment:     
A cheap way to create a vacuum in a chamber is to inject steam to displace the air and then condense the steam.  Not that this is a viable method for the job of drying clothes.  First there has to be valve to let the air out; that isn’t too hard to accomplish.  The big problem is that the steam has to be cooled in order to make it condense.  Where could they put this heat energy?  Well, the clothes could be heated to make them dry faster, so heat the clothes with steam. 
From a marketing standpoint this looks like a winner plus a claim of (elusive) “energy savings” by using the steam to do two things.   
But wait, what about the steam condensing and adding water to the clothes that are supposed to be drying?  The marketing wank answer is that they are under a vacuum and heated so drying so much more efficient.  (Cue Dave’s fail button sound here, WA, Wa,wa)  The Morus marketing people obviously don’t understand equilibrium, such a concept doesn’t seem like it has enough profit margin.  So there is equilibrium of steam that was injected to make a vacuum and water vapor evaporating from the clothes; there doesn’t seem to be any energy savings with this model.
Then there is the bonus feature of a tray that collects all of the condensed water.  There seems to zero heat pump components in the picture and Peltier junctions are anything but efficient against the heat of vaporization for water which needs to be removed from the vapor to condense it into water.

[Jaw]

So they show water boiling at 102 F (39 C) in the image. That means pressure is being dropped from 1,000 hPa to 78hPa or so. Is this doable with a cheap vacuum pump?
Maybe that is why they went with the small chamber, easier to pull a vacuum.

Would be nice to see improved tech in this area, some people refuse to hang their clothes and dryers use quite a bit of power ($1-3 per load!).

The water has a lower boiling point at low pressure. Morus Zero uses a compact high-performance vacuum pump to allow water to boil at lower to 100 °F. The water in the boiling state has a very high evaporation rate, and Morus Zero uses this principle to accelerate the drying speed.   

https://www.omnicalculator.com/chemistry/Boliling-point

Most people know, that water boils at lower temperature at lower pressure.
Most people dont know, how this really works, and what is the temperature and what pressure.

This. We learn as kids that tea made at the top of Everest is really weak, and we've seen the videos of stuff boiling off at low temperatures. It's pretty much like proving we went to the moon when world+dog could see the flag waving - on an airless world - in the original video.

But them's the breaks. Debunking isn't about reeling off numbers and having your audience fall asleep (or watch more conspiracy channels). You need to be more convincing than what you're debunking, and it's that a bit too difficult then you should stick with your day job. A bad debunking video is counterproductive and merely proves whatever is being debunked is actually real.

Registered just to correct the record: It has nothing to do with boiling point. Water freezes at 273.15K but supercooled water exists, just because a material crosses the boiling/freezing point doesn't mean it necessarily will freeze/boil

 The energy it takes to go from a liquid to a gas (in macroscopic terms) is the latent heat of evaporation. In microscopic terms it is the energy required to break the hydrogen bond, which TF demonstrated with computer simulation in his video and as someone who also work in the same field - the theory is sound

[PlainName]

and as someone who also work in the same field - the theory is sound

I think "Whooosh" is an appropriate response here, particularly considering the extracts you quoted!

No-one here doubts the theory or the numbers. The point was that it doesn't matter how sound or unflawed it is - present it poorly and you've done nearly as much damage as saying "Yep, that's a pukka kickstarter."

[ebastler]

item	1200 Spin	dry	% water
cotton thingy	357g	219g	39
cotton t-shirt	270g	190g	30
George knickers	33g	22g	33
M&S knickers	37g	25g	32

So 30-40% seems to be the actualite.

Err, no. Seems that water content is commonly expressed as a percentage of dry weight. So the residual water content in your experiment is about 50%.

    how much water is left in the goods after extract [is] expressed as a percentage of the original dry weight prior to washing

https://bandctech.com/commercial-laundry-blog/2017/02/understanding-moisture-retention-in-your-commercial-laundry/

[PlainName]

a percentage of dry weight.

OK. I guess that makes sense - it's not so circular

[Yansi]

Just to let you know guys that google started showing ads for this scam.

[daqq]

Thunderf00t actually got one!

[PlainName]

Figured what I really hate about thunderf00t's videos - the chopping to multiple clips (I bet he doesn't bother with copyright) so at any one point you don't know if you're watching him, the product, some unrelated 'statement' thing, stuff just for the crack or what. And just as you almost figure it out it changes again.

Does he suffer ADHD on fast play or something?

[daqq]

the chopping to multiple clips (I bet he doesn't bother with copyright)

Interestingly enough he does bother with copyright and the understanding of fair use.

[PlainName]

Fair use allows him to use the product videos. The other stuff is more like using someones photo to illustrate something - he is making money from their work. Fair use might allow him to use short clips, but on a moral level he is essentially filling up his 28 minutes with other people's work because he doesn't have enough material. No doubt why the same 2-second clips come around and around and around...

[daqq]

Fair use might allow him to use short clips, but on a moral level he is essentially filling up his 28 minutes with other people's work because he doesn't have enough material.

Moral and legal are two different things. That said, I do not think that his use of, say, a few seconds worth of film clip is immoral. You may as well argue that using memes based on movies to make a humorous point is immoral. Either way, it was clearly demonstrated that the Morus delivered is not the Morus promised and that the whole thing was bollocks.

[Psi]

15 minute drying time....

* Tested with 1 polyester t-shirt

[PlainName]

it was clearly demonstrated that the Morus delivered..

I wanted to see what he actually got, but after a minute or so of his editing skillz realised I couldn't give a toss any more.

[Barny]

I was hoping to get an cheap vacuum chamber.
The UV-sterilization would make it simple to degas & harden glue / epoxy / resin


Sadly it's the usual over promise, under deliver scam