Oh boy, here we go...
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!
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.
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?
Thunderf00t video is pretty comprehensive, I don't think I can add anything to that?
QuoteThunderf00t 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.
QuoteThunderf00t 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
QuoteThunderf00t 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.
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
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.