3 ms·

Okay, I see where we diverge. The 'cube' was something I was thinking about not in the paper. I'll see if I can describe what I was thinking and you can tell me

Okay, I see where we diverge. The 'cube' was something I was thinking about not in the paper. I'll see if I can describe what I was thinking and you can tell me it breaks the rules :-). You coat a piece of aluminum with nano-pore material and hang it vertically. Air flows over it and droplets appear on its surface (based on the paper). You also hang a frame of vertical wires (unenergized just small diameter wires, kind of like a screen but without the horizontal members) in front of the sheet by 1/2 the droplet's diameter. The wires don't touch the surface, they are suspended 1/2 droplet away. Now when a droplet forms, it grows and intersects the wire (which is not hydrophobic) Surface tension puts the droplet around the wire and it slides down to the bottom of the wire frame, impacting any other droplets that had formed below it. The resulting liquid water drops off the bottom of the wire frame into a catch pan below. If one of these assemblies generates net water production from RH 70% air then an array of then would generate more water. What am I missing?

cyberax 1y ago
The second law of thermodynamics. It's now trivially easy to create a free energy: 1. Have the drops fall on some surface and let them evaporate. This can happen because the relative humidity is below 100%. 2. This surface will get cooled by the evaporation. 3. Now use that temperature gradient to get free energy!
- gus_massa 1y ago
  I agree, but let's try to explain the microdetails of the scenario. The new material is very hydrophilic, so the water prefer to be attached to it than been vapor. If the wire is even more hydrophilic then the droplets will jump and collect around the wires, but they will be so attached that they will not fall down from the lower extreme of the wires. If the wires are not so hydrophilic, the water will prefer to keep attached to the surface, or even the droplets will be smaller to avoid the wires and the collection will stop earlier. Tweaking smartly the hydrophilic values and separations between the wires and the separation with the surface you may get interesting capillarity effect, but the water will be trapped again. Anyway, it's difficult to look at all the details, but at the end of the day "The second law of thermodynamics. It's now trivially easy to create a free energy:"
  - cyberax 1y ago
    To add to this, there is a well-known "free energy" device design: have wicks moving water from a lower reservoir to a higher reservoir. Then use it to drive a water wheel. It sounds good on paper because everybody knows that water can travel up a wick. But of course, if the end of the wick in the upper reservoir is submerged in the water, then water will just as happily travel _down_ the wick. And if the end of the wick is in free air, then water will not drip from it because the same capillary forces prevent it.
- ChuckMcM 1y ago
  Does hydroelectric power violate the second law of thermodynamics in your opinion? I mean 1. Drops fall from the sky 2. They collect and flow down a river 3. We use that river to generate hydroelectric power to get free energy! Water vapor, in air, has both thermal and potential energy that under the right conditions can be converted into a more useful form. We agree on that yes?
  - cyberax 1y ago
    No, we don't. In case of hydroelectric power, there's a temperature gradient, driven by the Sun. Water evaporates in higher temperatures, radiates the heat into space, and falls out as rain.
    - ChuckMcM 1y ago
      This: "Water evaporates in higher temperatures, radiates the heat into space, and falls out as rain." The paper says, "Water vapor in the nano-pores radiates its heat into the material and comes out to the surface as liquid water." So you don't believe that the researchers experiment did what they say it did? That's fine, typically in science you go and see if you can reproduce it. So you don't believe that the researchers correctly described what was going on when it did what it did? That's fine, typically in science you go and propose a way to falsify their hypothesis and test that. My point was simply, if the researchers were presumptively accurate in their understanding (that's the principle of giving them the benefit of the doubt), then it would imply their material would pull liquid water out of the air below the temperature and conditions in which it would normally precipitate out. They go to some length in their exposition to describe how they think it does that and where the energy comes from and where it goes. But if you don't believe them, then sure.
      - cyberax 1y ago
        > "Water vapor in the nano-pores radiates its heat into the material and comes out to the surface as liquid water." Then the _material_ is a store of energy. Once it's exhausted, the condensation will stop. > So you don't believe that the researchers correctly described what was going on when it did what it did? The article is very low-quality. They must understand that their work implies the conservation law violations, so there must be some unaccounted source of energy. But they have not attempted to find it. And it can be as simple as energy from the moving air. Or maybe an electrostatic charge, or something similar. Once the energy source is identified, they should have calculated the efficiency of their setup, compared to regular dehumidifiers.

cyberax 1y ago

The second law of thermodynamics. It's now trivially easy to create a free energy: 1. Have the drops fall on some surface and let them evaporate. This can happen because the relative humidity is below 100%. 2. This surface will get cooled by the evaporation. 3. Now use that temperature gradient to get free energy!

gus_massa 1y ago
I agree, but let's try to explain the microdetails of the scenario. The new material is very hydrophilic, so the water prefer to be attached to it than been vapor. If the wire is even more hydrophilic then the droplets will jump and collect around the wires, but they will be so attached that they will not fall down from the lower extreme of the wires. If the wires are not so hydrophilic, the water will prefer to keep attached to the surface, or even the droplets will be smaller to avoid the wires and the collection will stop earlier. Tweaking smartly the hydrophilic values and separations between the wires and the separation with the surface you may get interesting capillarity effect, but the water will be trapped again. Anyway, it's difficult to look at all the details, but at the end of the day "The second law of thermodynamics. It's now trivially easy to create a free energy:"
- cyberax 1y ago
  To add to this, there is a well-known "free energy" device design: have wicks moving water from a lower reservoir to a higher reservoir. Then use it to drive a water wheel. It sounds good on paper because everybody knows that water can travel up a wick. But of course, if the end of the wick in the upper reservoir is submerged in the water, then water will just as happily travel _down_ the wick. And if the end of the wick is in free air, then water will not drip from it because the same capillary forces prevent it.
ChuckMcM 1y ago
Does hydroelectric power violate the second law of thermodynamics in your opinion? I mean 1. Drops fall from the sky 2. They collect and flow down a river 3. We use that river to generate hydroelectric power to get free energy! Water vapor, in air, has both thermal and potential energy that under the right conditions can be converted into a more useful form. We agree on that yes?
- cyberax 1y ago
  No, we don't. In case of hydroelectric power, there's a temperature gradient, driven by the Sun. Water evaporates in higher temperatures, radiates the heat into space, and falls out as rain.
  - ChuckMcM 1y ago
    This: "Water evaporates in higher temperatures, radiates the heat into space, and falls out as rain." The paper says, "Water vapor in the nano-pores radiates its heat into the material and comes out to the surface as liquid water." So you don't believe that the researchers experiment did what they say it did? That's fine, typically in science you go and see if you can reproduce it. So you don't believe that the researchers correctly described what was going on when it did what it did? That's fine, typically in science you go and propose a way to falsify their hypothesis and test that. My point was simply, if the researchers were presumptively accurate in their understanding (that's the principle of giving them the benefit of the doubt), then it would imply their material would pull liquid water out of the air below the temperature and conditions in which it would normally precipitate out. They go to some length in their exposition to describe how they think it does that and where the energy comes from and where it goes. But if you don't believe them, then sure.
    - cyberax 1y ago
      > "Water vapor in the nano-pores radiates its heat into the material and comes out to the surface as liquid water." Then the _material_ is a store of energy. Once it's exhausted, the condensation will stop. > So you don't believe that the researchers correctly described what was going on when it did what it did? The article is very low-quality. They must understand that their work implies the conservation law violations, so there must be some unaccounted source of energy. But they have not attempted to find it. And it can be as simple as energy from the moving air. Or maybe an electrostatic charge, or something similar. Once the energy source is identified, they should have calculated the efficiency of their setup, compared to regular dehumidifiers.