Seems that using a condensation "catalyst" metal organic framework reduces the power requirement significantly.
Well, I was completely ready to call BS on this, based on this episode but then I realized that this might be new approaches being explored by, you know, actual scientists. Since I work at Berkeley I'm a bit more confident this is credible. But figured it would be interesting to see Dave's take on this. Seems that using a condensation "catalyst" metal organic framework reduces the power requirement significantly.
I'm a bit sceptical about a catalyst overcoming a basic issue of thermodynamics.
(notice the heat pipes and fin unit at the bottom designed to keep the condenser plate at ambient). There's no "issue of thermodynamics" being "overcome".
TF has said this is his next debunk video.
There could be a lot of back and forth to come.
Yup there's quite obviously a peltier element to actually condense the water that they carefully omitted. Their thing may "attract" more water vapor but it still has to be condensed, which... is the showstopper for such applications.
What's shown on the videos and photos is not a prototype; in some it's the experimental rig they used to measure the properties of 1.8 g of MOF, in some others it's a proof-of-concept device with 1.3 g (that's grams, not kg) of MOF, with a lot of additional instrumentation attached.
Because they wanted to test different temperatures in the experiment, they attached a Peltier effect cooler to the system, just like a plane model inside a wind tunnel has a mount that can change the model's angle of attack and that doesn't mean that real planes need mounts. Given that it shows in some photos, some might assume that Peltier cooling is part of the device (it's not, the paper is very clear on that; the solar energy is used for heating the MOF and releasing the moisture).
Quoting myself from another thread:What's shown on the videos and photos is not a prototype; in some it's the experimental rig they used to measure the properties of 1.8 g of MOF, in some others it's a proof-of-concept device with 1.3 g (that's grams, not kg) of MOF, with a lot of additional instrumentation attached.
Because they wanted to test different temperatures in the experiment, they attached a Peltier effect cooler to the system, just like a plane model inside a wind tunnel has a mount that can change the model's angle of attack and that doesn't mean that real planes need mounts. Given that it shows in some photos, some might assume that Peltier cooling is part of the device (it's not, the paper is very clear on that; the solar energy is used for heating the MOF and releasing the moisture).
Device pulls water from dry air, powered only by the sun
with the demonstration this week of a water harvester that uses only ambient sunlight to pull liters of water out of the air each day in conditions as low as 20 percent humidity
The prototype, under conditions of 20-30 percent humidity, was able to pull 2.8 liters (3 quarts) of water from the air over a 12-hour period, using one kilogram (2.2 pounds) of MOF.
And quoting the berkeley articleQuoteDevice pulls water from dry air, powered only by the sun
BS. Dry air does not contain any water to pull.
QuoteThe prototype, under conditions of 20-30 percent humidity, was able to pull 2.8 liters (3 quarts) of water from the air over a 12-hour period, using one kilogram (2.2 pounds) of MOF.
More BS there is no such device. The article states the MOF can only hold water 20% of its weight so if it did exist they would have to do 14 solar powered accumulate/release cycles in those 12 hours - BS.
Thanks for letting us know the paywalled publication doesn't support the BS claims in the Science and Berkeley news articles.
When speaking of dry air in relation to the atmosphere it is commonly understood to be air that feels dry to the skin. Dry desert air is not normally understood to be air with 0% moisture.
Personally, I think the energetic insistence on dry air as air that contains no moisture at all is nonsensical in the context of a discussion about extracting moisture from air.
So much so that my initial inference was that you were trolling the discussion.
So much so that my initial inference was that you were trolling the discussion.You may be on to something..
TF has said this is his next debunk video.
There could be a lot of back and forth to come.
TF lost all credibility for me a while back.
The problem with these youtube "debunk" type videos is they become a thing in themselves. While there's plenty of real scams out there - the youtube views that come from legitimate debunking of solar roadways and batterizer type hyped products becomes too enticing I believe and leads some (like TF) into trying to do "debunking" in areas that they have no real expertise.
I think the "debunk video product" runs the danger of becoming as much a scam as some of the physical product scams that the early debunk videos took on - sucking in viewers (or buyers) with impressive sounding technical jargon. But I guess anything to get the youtube views..
How would a "debunking product" become a scam if it's correct?
You may not like them, or think he's making too many of them etc, but that's no valid reason to disparage the worth of them.
How would a "debunking product" become a scam if it's correct?
How would a "debunking product" become a scam if it's correct?
Because if the author is not an expert in that particular field, does not present any of their own data, and simply does a lot of sensationalistic hand waving, video graphics and use of technical jargon then it is a product being sold under false pretenses. Just because it might sound "correct" does not mean it is. (Your Solar Roadways and Batterizer debunk videos were not like that BTW).
Yes, the Hyperloop video is a prime example. His debunking videos have been debunked by both experts in the relevant field (which he is not) and others (e.g. Jose's blog post re: the process of idea --> product) . He never adequately addressed those criticisms (yes, I know he made more of the same type of sensationalistic videos in response).
That doesn't mean that the Hyperloop will become reality(I doubt it will) - just that TFs videos on the subject were senstionalistic, ill-informed and IMO little better than the videos by the Solar Roadways proponents. But in his case, the videos are the product he's selling.
Err, yeah, that's called making mistakes. People make mistakes in videos all the time.
Hyperloop is not saying "Hey, this sounds cool, lets do some research and see where it goes, it might work, it might not, it might have some interesting spin-off's" etc. No, they are selling and marketing the crap out of the completely viable product idea.
Would you prefer to live in a world where no one questions product/idea marketing like this?
And those who are honest acknowledge and correct them. But I'm not talking about making mistakes. I'm talking about selling a product with more hype than substance. Solar Roadways has done this and so has TF IMO.
I'm not sure who you are referring to when you say Hyperloop. Hyperloop is an idea. There are several privately funded companies currently trying to develop the technology. As far as I know none of them are selling a product yet or soliciting money from the general public.
And there are several (at least 24 that I'm aware of) university engineering department teams working on developing the technology. Are you accusing them of "selling and marketing the crap out of" something?
And don't you think that the many engineers, private funders and 24 university engineering teams have questioned and continue to question the Hyperloop idea?
In the end it will be the real physical world that determines whether the companies and university engineering teams are successful and even then, if the technology does prove viable, it will be subject to the realities of politics and high finance. It's not an Indiegogo project.
Once again, do you want to live in a world were no one is publicly questioning these things and encouraging people to critically thing about claims they see?
What's actually wrong with some debunking hand waving anyway? If it gets people thinking then it has value in itself.
I don't know where you got the idea I was accusing engineering teams of anything.
Why would funders and people enagaged in development of an idea want to question the entire concept?
They are no doubt just working on something fun, and usually some small aspect of it, more power to them.
I've worked at companies where if you dared criticised the direction the product concept idea then you were either fired or shunned. If you don't think that's not happening here as well then you are a fool.
If I didn't know any better I'd say you were advocating that debunkng videos are worthless unless 100% accurate and thorough?
The TF style Hyperloop type debunking videos (lots of hype, high on technical jargon but with relatively little actual science or engineering) attacking a complex multifaceted technological proposal or a peer reviewed research article, done by someone without specific expertise in that field are not only worthless but damaging to the general public's understanding of science and technology IMHO. YMMV.