• stoy@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 days ago

    Yes, this is 100% accurate!

    To the downvoters, please don’t just downvote, give me a plausible scenario of when harvesting water from air is more useful than just cleaning existing water.

    Condensating water is VERY energy intensive, filtering far less so.

    • Pennomi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      It’s not the condensing that takes energy, it’s the thermal release of the water from the desiccant that takes energy. Here’s the real paper with all the details. Avoiding thermal release in favor of mechanical release of water from the desiccant bypasses a good portion of the energy required.

      • stoy@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Cool, but the fact remains that you can’t get a useful amount to water from dry air, and in a humid climate there are other sources of water that is cheaper and easier to exploit.

        EDIT: downvoting facts I see, please don’t turn Lemmy into Reddit

      • stoy@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        Yeah, I remember watching Thunderf00t’s videos on Fontus and the other stupid shit

          • stoy@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            Remember that a person can be a dick and still be correct.

            I did find his rant about feminism to be annoying and over the top, but when it comes to science, like it or not, he has plenty of credentials.

            But since you dismiss him so easily, please tell me what he is wrong about with regards to water from air tech.

          • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            Nah, he was right then and is still right. The anti feminism thing was a weird tangent that a lot of the skeptic channels did go down for a while. Then a lot of them continued down that road and became alt right. Thunderf00t did not.

        • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          Yes, correct. User was claiming “water condensation” is energy intensive - not just the particular tech in the post.

          I pointed out how silly of a claim that was.

      • stoy@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        That works great when there is moisture in the air, whwn there is moisture in the air, there is usually a better way of collecting it for less energy.

        You posted a solar still, a device which uses solar energy to distil water, an excellent solution to get water while on a desert island.

        It won’t nearly as well in dry climates

        Also, “zero energy use”?

        Are you high?

        Sunlight is still energy, it absolutely uses energy.


        Finally, the is a new adaption of an old tech that has been proven to not work as advertised time and time again, it is on the creators of the new tech to prove that it works, I don’t have to disprove this at all, that has been done time and time again.

        • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          Haha claiming the sun is “energy intensive” is some new mental gymnastics that I’d not heard before.

          Will ignore you now 👍