Author Topic: Fancy another debunk?  (Read 7890 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Geonerd

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 10
  • Country: us
Fancy another debunk?
« on: October 12, 2016, 10:02:55 pm »
No obvious electronics involved, but this device does suffer some serious thermodynamic issues.
https://www.facebook.com/WaterSeer/
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32204
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Fancy another debunk?
« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2016, 10:14:07 pm »
That's more of a Thunderf00t thing.

"The chamber is also cooler than the air"  :-//
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 10347
  • Country: au
Re: Fancy another debunk?
« Reply #2 on: October 13, 2016, 02:15:02 am »
This idea sounds plausible - but, yes, there are a couple of thermodynamic questions.

There is also this statement that raised my eyebrows.... "Since WaterSeer uses the difference in the ground and air temperature, which requires no power to achieve, WaterSeer effectiveness is not based on Relative Humidity, as with other, energy intensive, condensation devices."  ............. Hmmm.  This is hard to swallow.  If you have drier air - this isn't going to make a difference? .... and if you need to pass more of it through the system to recover the moisture, surely the air is going to heat up the condensation chamber more...  There's one of your thermodynamics questions.

As for the condensation chamber being colder than the air - I can see that happening because it is buried in the ground.  How effective it is over time is another thermodynamics question.....


At least it has a significant ground mass involved in the cooling side of things.
 

Offline Geonerd

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 10
  • Country: us
Re: Fancy another debunk?
« Reply #3 on: October 13, 2016, 08:19:11 am »
Given the huge volume of air you'll need to cool to extract meaningful water, plus the significant released latent heat of condensation, it seems clear that the bulb and surrounding soil will very quickly warm, ending the fun.  (Keep in mind that soil has a low specific heat and decent insulating properties.)
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 10347
  • Country: au
Re: Fancy another debunk?
« Reply #4 on: October 13, 2016, 02:57:37 pm »
... it seems clear that the bulb and surrounding soil will very quickly warm, ending the fun.

That is, indeed, perhaps the most important thermodynamic question.
 

Offline R005T3r

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 387
  • Country: it
Re: Fancy another debunk?
« Reply #5 on: October 19, 2016, 09:44:20 am »
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/waterseer-water-women#/

Okay. This simply won't work because of three things:
1. wind and humidity are not constant during the day. Also, more wind => less humidity on the air because the moisture is blown
2. Clean water? try it near a coal mine
3. It's a condenser... You need approximatively  2217 KJ/Kg at 1.69 Bar to convert moisture into water... Let you to do the consideration.
4. How on earth you will force the moisture on a hole? With wind? Seriously?

There's more check this vid:


Haha, same BS, but even more ridiculous...
« Last Edit: October 20, 2016, 06:20:18 am by R005T3r »
 

Offline rrinker

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2046
  • Country: us
Re: Fancy another debunk?
« Reply #6 on: October 19, 2016, 09:18:06 pm »
 Say this actually worked, and a billion or so of them got set up around the world - how badly would that mess up the climate?
Look at what naturally happens, say in the Cascades in the use - near rainforest one side, desert on the other. If you pull a significant amount of moisture from the air in an area is normally stays as a vapor and then condenses out later over a different part of the world, then the air will be dry and reduce the rainfall where it used to rain. Like damming up a river and cutting the water flow to those downstream. Maybe it's good things like this don't work or are simply impractical.
 

Offline rfeecs

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 696
  • Country: us
Re: Fancy another debunk?
« Reply #7 on: October 19, 2016, 09:51:47 pm »
Since my alma mater, UC Berkeley was involved, I tend to think that it's legit:
http://waterseer.org/

They have field test results, references, etc.:
http://waterseer.org/assets/waterseer_field_test_results_v2_7.pdf




 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 10347
  • Country: au
Re: Fancy another debunk?
« Reply #8 on: October 20, 2016, 05:04:46 am »
I don't think the fundamental principles are a problem here - just the practical efficiency and output.

Cue the field studies.
 

Offline rfeecs

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 696
  • Country: us
Re: Fancy another debunk?
« Reply #9 on: October 27, 2016, 01:01:00 am »
That's more of a Thunderf00t thing.

"The chamber is also cooler than the air"  :-//

Well here it is:

https://youtu.be/LVsqIjAeeXw
 

Offline Geonerd

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 10
  • Country: us
Re: Fancy another debunk?
« Reply #10 on: October 30, 2016, 02:40:04 am »

That is, indeed, perhaps the most important thermodynamic question.

Scott Larsen came up with a reasonably complete spreadsheet model for the thermal resistance.  His numbers look about right, and back up those who doubted the heat sinking ability of such a small volume of dirt.

Worth a watch!
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 10347
  • Country: au
Re: Fancy another debunk?
« Reply #11 on: October 30, 2016, 04:13:48 am »
The numbers may well indicate it's all a forgone conclusion - but there will need to be a number of field studies to generate actual results.  Only then can the theoretical predictions be confirmed (or disproved).

There may be some parameter that exists in the real world that the theoretical exercise has not considered.

Before anyone tries to shoot this caveat down in flames, I ask you this.... "How many advances in knowledge came from real world observations that did not fit with the understanding at the time?"



Just to be clear, I can't see this thing producing anywhere near the quantity of water they are spruiking, but I would like some long-term field study results before bringing along the coffin nails.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2016, 04:23:59 am by Brumby »
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32204
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Fancy another debunk?
« Reply #12 on: October 30, 2016, 08:46:31 am »
The numbers may well indicate it's all a forgone conclusion - but there will need to be a number of field studies to generate actual results.  Only then can the theoretical predictions be confirmed (or disproved).
There may be some parameter that exists in the real world that the theoretical exercise has not considered.
Before anyone tries to shoot this caveat down in flames, I ask you this.... "How many advances in knowledge came from real world observations that did not fit with the understanding at the time?"
Just to be clear, I can't see this thing producing anywhere near the quantity of water they are spruiking, but I would like some long-term field study results before bringing along the coffin nails.

Would you say the same thing of Solar Roadways?

The problem is they are taking other people's money to do this.
 

Offline R005T3r

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 387
  • Country: it
Re: Fancy another debunk?
« Reply #13 on: October 30, 2016, 09:48:01 am »
The numbers may well indicate it's all a forgone conclusion - but there will need to be a number of field studies to generate actual results.  Only then can the theoretical predictions be confirmed (or disproved).

There may be some parameter that exists in the real world that the theoretical exercise has not considered.

Before anyone tries to shoot this caveat down in flames, I ask you this.... "How many advances in knowledge came from real world observations that did not fit with the understanding at the time?"



Just to be clear, I can't see this thing producing anywhere near the quantity of water they are spruiking, but I would like some long-term field study results before bringing along the coffin nails.
Datas and research costs a lot of money and resources. The problem with waterseer is that they didn't even borthered to make some basic calculation! And, this thing don't EVEN work with theoretical datas! Want to try to make field result with something not working? It's like pretending to drive a car without wheels. Of course the will not work!

Adding other parameters to the system, it will only degrade it's performance.

"How many advances in knowledge came from real world observations that did not fit with the understanding at the time?"
 :) the problem wit this, is that we UNDERSTAND the way thermodynamics works and we are able to already predict the output. You assumed we made an "observation we don't understand in that time", but it is false, since we are able to alredy predict the data.

The real shocking thing is that one of the first top universities in the world got involved in this.... Mistakes happens, okay, but this is ridiculous, because all the working team probably didn't know the first principle of thermodynamics... If I brought a project like that to my physic professor, he would have laughed at me!

So, basically this "project" have:
1. involved a prestigious university and screwed it in a really wired up way
2. took pepole money proposing something it's fundamentally wrong, from concept to implementation (it won't even work in rainy areas!)
3. got involved the UN making them really look stupid
4. the poor guys on the video were tagged as ignorant in thermodynamics (they will probably have a really hard time passing physics exams!)
5. used African poor peoples as an excuse to raise money
6. screwed indiegogo credibility.

And all the points are morally unacceptable to me.  Won't be a surprise if someone take legal actions against them (and man, we are talking to giants even more powerful than mega-corporations!)
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 10347
  • Country: au
Re: Fancy another debunk?
« Reply #14 on: October 30, 2016, 11:26:53 am »
The numbers may well indicate it's all a forgone conclusion - but there will need to be a number of field studies to generate actual results.  Only then can the theoretical predictions be confirmed (or disproved).
There may be some parameter that exists in the real world that the theoretical exercise has not considered.
Before anyone tries to shoot this caveat down in flames, I ask you this.... "How many advances in knowledge came from real world observations that did not fit with the understanding at the time?"
Just to be clear, I can't see this thing producing anywhere near the quantity of water they are spruiking, but I would like some long-term field study results before bringing along the coffin nails.

Would you say the same thing of Solar Roadways?
Solar roadways have had a better head start - and haven't been able to justify the concept.  They've only been 'successful' in marketing and PR - a bubble that is going to burst.

Quote
The problem is they are taking other people's money to do this.
Would you say the same thing about a company floating on the stock exchange?


Anyway, the Waterseer won't need the buckets of money that solar roadways demands.  There shouldn't be any real impediment in getting some field studies done.
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 10347
  • Country: au
Re: Fancy another debunk?
« Reply #15 on: October 30, 2016, 10:53:54 pm »
But, let me be clear....

I think this idea can work - but (just as the Batteriser) not at the level of performance being claimed.  Field study data will nail this home.

As I said before:
There is also this statement that raised my eyebrows.... "Since WaterSeer uses the difference in the ground and air temperature, which requires no power to achieve, WaterSeer effectiveness is not based on Relative Humidity, as with other, energy intensive, condensation devices."  ............. Hmmm.  This is hard to swallow.
To discount the very parameter that tells you how much water is available to harvest - and, together with temperature, how hard/easy it is to harvest - doesn't give me any confidence.


To properly characterise the Waterseer, they are going to need at least a year of field tests in a variety of situations where performance and environmental parameters are recorded, followed by appropriate analysis.  One can only hope that this will be done - and done properly.

You never know ... the data gathered from this exercise might well kill the Waterseer in its intended application, but may prove to be useful for some other situation.


Call me an optimist.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf