4 ms·

> Their prototype generates drinking water at a rate of 0.3 liters per hour, and requires only 20 watts of power per liter. Not great phrasing I agree but the

• qayxc 4y ago
  Nah, still doesn't make any sense either way. Watts is a measure of power, not energy. The amount of power (given they use a pump and electrodialysis) shouldn't depend on the volume. Energy OTOH does. So either their device requires 20W of power - which sounds reasonable as the image shows a <100Wp solar panel next to it - and the volume figure is meaningless. Or the author left out crucial context (e.g. is the power draw correlated with the speed, i.e. 20W @ 0.3l/h). The amount of energy would be 67Wh/l regardless given those numbers. It's just a confused mix of performance (processed volume per hour) and power requirements (which is independent of volume and should only depend on the performance).
• denton-scratch 4y ago
  The trailing "per liter" seems the problem: I think maybe what they mean is that 20W gets you 0.3 liters per hour? So their machine produces 0.3 liters per hour, and draws 20W? I wish journos wouldn't bandy around terminology and statistics they don't understand. It's getting worse.
  • SamBam 4y ago
    It isn't, though, because that would be 60Wh per liter, but the video actually specifies it's 20Wh per liter. They just stupidly used watt instead of Wh in the article text.