Electronics > Power/Renewable Energy/EV's

Water out of desert air

(1/15) > >>

KNSSoftware:
Uh oh, can you smell, what I can smell...  Eau de BS, Dave style

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/new-solar-powered-device-can-pull-water-straight-desert-air

mtdoc:
That is a summary of a legitimate scientific research article published in Science - one of the 2 most prestigious scientific journals in the world (the other one being Nature).

It's about as far from BS as it gets.

I agree with Wilfred - the "debunking" meme is way past it's prime. It may work well as click-bait, but an unfortunate side effect is it leaves many unable to distinguish between real science/engineering and solar-roadways type BS. 

Hensingler:

--- Quote from: mtdoc on April 14, 2017, 05:08:45 am ---It's about as far from BS as it gets.
--- End quote ---

Looks like BS to me or at least abysmal reporting. Titled "This new solar-powered device can pull water straight from the desert air" they show a drawing of what looks like a cube shaped box with this MOF material on the roof and very specifically state


--- Quote ---The setup works so well that it pulls 2.8 liters of water out of the air per day for every kilogram of MOF it contained
--- End quote ---

Maybe someone can check my figures but cool desert air at 10% RH weighs about 1.25kg/m^3 and contains 0.1% water by weight. To extract 2.8l of water they need to pass 2250 m^3 of air across their MOF material and extract 100% of the water content. What size box does it need to get good 'contact' between 2250m^3 of air and its 'roof' during a night and why would the air want to flow through the box anyway? Are they going to have solar cells and batteries and fans?

Then there is the problem with reversing the process where in a hot sunny desert you have to get rid of substantial amounts of heat to keep the bottom of the box cool enough to condense.

mtdoc:
The quality of reporting is a judgement call and in any case is not really relevant to the veracity of the findings in the source journal article.

I'd suggest you read the original source article in Science.  Then, if you feel you're qualified to question Kim et al.'s methods or dispute their data I'd love to hear why and so would  the editors  of Science as well as the peer reviewers of the journal article.

If you have a valid criticism of their methods or data, you could write a letter to the editor of Science and it will be published.  In doing so you would instantly achieve some notoriety in the scientific community.

If that sounds sarcastic - it really is not meant to be.  Findings published in Science are widely read in the scientific community and hold great weight. Careers are literally made by having a research article published in this journal. If there is a fundamental flaw in the methods or data of an article published there, then publishing that could in itself could make a career  :)

Karel:
Nothing new:

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/24/tech/innovation/machine-makes-drinking-water-from-air/

http://water-gen.com/

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version