> a new class of nanostructured materials that can pull water from the air, collect it in pores and release it onto surfaces without the need for any external energy
As a similar comment note, it's like a high tech Dehumidifier bag. https://www.amazon.com/Wisesorb-Moisture-Eliminator-Fragranc... The bags have Calcium Chloride and absorb water from unsaturated air and make small drops of water. It's obvious that they get depleted, and to use them again you must buy a new one or boil all the water to get the crystals again.
In this new material, the droplets are attached to the material. To remove them you must use energy. They don't just drop to a bucket bellow the device magically. You can't use it to "harvest" water without energy. You can sweep the droplets with a paper towel, but now to remove the water from the paper towel you need energy.
> With a material that could potentially defy the laws of physics in their hands
This does not break the laws of physics. It would be nice that the PR department of the universities get a short course explaining that if they believe the laws of physics are broken, then they must double check with the authors and then triple check with another independent experts. Tech journalist should take the same course.
It's research-in-progress, but I think the promise is slightly different from dehumidifier bags (also in other parts of the world, Thirsty Hippos [1]) which are single use.
You're correct in that: (1) it doesn't break the law of physics; (2) to remove the droplets, you still need energy. But it sounds like if the droplets are moving to the surface, the energy needed to release the droplets could be far lower than most active dehumidification methods (e.g. Peltier junctions).
[1] Thirsty Hippos -- which are very effective in small spaces.
Probably a small piezo junction could be used to provide a solid-state vibrator for releasing water from a proportionately considerably larger area of the material, or at larger scales perhaps a technique similar to the ultrasonic sensor cleaners built into interchangeable-lens cameras.
Yes this requires energy to extract the water, but if it's much less energy than dehumidifiers -say, one order of magnitude less- then it could make harvesting water from humid air economical.
Dehudifier bags (e.g. silica, CaCl) aren't single-use. Microwave, then reuse. Some even are color-changing so you know how much moisture they've absorbed.
Those are usually just calcium chloride in a bag, it's very hygroscopic and fairly cheap... also makes a halfway decent de-icer. The issue I see with this thin-film method is that no mention is made of the rate of production at a given relative humidity for a given area of the film.
It's interesting, but without the details (and with a lot of PR speak) I'm skeptical as hell about this in practice.
What is the theoretical limit on the energy cost to remove water from air? A dew years back 3m had some super inexpensive way that invovled a reusable water andorber that released its water under only slightly decreased pressure and slightly increased temperature. The incoming air and the waste heat from the downstream ac unit provided all the warming with the pressure change being all that was necessary. It had two banks so one could dump water while the other absorbed. It made the whole system rund double digiymore efficient than just the ac alone. And that was neglecting that the felt temperature would be lower with the dessicated air.
The red flags in the uni PR are not so curious compared to the ones in the paper.
From figure 4 (& backed up by simulation fig 3E) it looks like stuff begins to happen only at 97% relative humidity & after a few minutes (at micrometer scale)
Is there some sort of conservation of energy question in this form of water collection that establishes some minimum amount of energy that would be required to collect 1L of water from the air?
I'd assume if the amount of energy required to collect the water is low then we're looking at something interesting.
Yes, water vapor condensing to liquid water at humidity below 100% is an exothermic reaction, and the amount of energy released is (per Google) 2259kJ/kg. So any device that wants to condense 1kg of water has to dissipate at least 2259kJ of energy somewhere, assuming it is in any way temperature-dependent (if it can keep condensing water even if it becomes hotter, then this is somewhat evaded).
For context, that amount of heat is five times the amount needed to heat 1kg of liquid water from 0° to 100°C (without thawing or boiling it). So it's not in any way a trivial amount.
Yeah, "harvesting" probably oversells it unless there's a passive or low-energy way to actually collect the water. Like, maybe coupling it with a wicking surface or capillary-driven transfer system could help, but that’s an open question.
Yes it is impossible to break the laws of physics. If they appear broken then it is only because our understanding was wrong. Similar, the laws cannot be “defied”. You can only do what the universe allows, nothing more.
University PR folk are sometimes quite scientifically illiterate. Their job is basically marketing. They need to turn an esoteric, jargon heavy, and heavily qualified paper into a hype piece that the money people can understand. Everything must be a ground-breaking, world-shaking, all-time first. They sometimes make dubious claims no matter how many times you tell them not to. Ultimately, they report to the university's money people and not to researchers.
If you want science, read journals. If you want to see who is likely to get more money, read university PR releases.
Amusingly, I have the same experience as you and GP. Thee university wants to hear what the researchers have to say, but subsequently they decide independently what they're writing, strict scientific honesty be damned.
I've observed the same. University science PR pieces are usually unreliable -- they are optimized toward generating buzz than scientific accuracy. They usually link to the actual science papers, but the prose is usually a stretch.
Even in this case -- "defying the laws of physics" is sensationalist narrative manufacturing.
The real claim is actually more moderate, and the research is not really close to commercial yet.
"All measurements were performed at 20° ± 0.2°C maintained by an air circulation system unless otherwise noted. The temperature of the films was controlled using a heating/cooling unit (THMS350V, Linkam Scientific Instruments, Salfords, UK) when necessary."
So the latent heat is conducted away by the cooling apparatus, it's just not explicitly stated, to sound more sensational.
Another part from the paper that a lot of people here seem to be ignoring: "Specifically, macroscopic water droplets isothermally form when the NP size is ≤22 nm, RH is >~90%, and ϕPE ranges from 0.05 to 0.35." and "Initial water droplets that are observable under optical microscopy (~1 μm in size) appear within a few seconds after being exposed to 97% RH."
This is really moist air that's only barely short of forming dew. A lot of people are focusing on sensational "violation of physics", when it's an incremental improvement on process that happens naturally.
I think the interesting bit is less about "breaking physics" and more about how finely tuned the material is to encourage this behavior without external cooling.
Keeping the temperature constant with a thermostat is not an issue here. That would only explain things if the surface were kept cooler than the surrounding air (below the dew point), but from the description in the paper that does not seem to be the case. They basically claim that macroscopic droplets form spontaneously from an unsaturated vapor. And no, this is not something permitted by the second law of thermodynamics.
> And no, this is not something permitted by the second law of thermodynamics.
If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations—then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation—well these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.
While I generally agree that it sounds dubious, this argument depends on whether the entropy of the liquid in the pore is lower than the entropy of the vapor in the air in the pore. I could see a highly hydrophilic capillary restricting a vapor enough to where it has better entropy in a liquid state.
If that's true we just need to balance energy, which the cooler does.
Practically it just means that the energy to form the droplets is coming from somewhere else, just not via cooling the surface below the dew point. For instance, you could imagine something like squeezing a material that undergoes capillary condensation to get the water out, since you'd pay the requisite energy cost via mechanical work.
Ah that seems to explain it to me, if instead of presenting it as breaking some physics they should have said what actually makes it useful.
My understanding of it now is that since it can work at a higher temperature in an environment where the ambient temperature is low enough the latent heat can be passively radiated away. Even if using an active heat pump the higher temperatures would allow for a more efficient process. A closed system would eventually reach an equilibrium but there is no need to maintain a closed system.
I think the work stands out anyway. Unlike adsorption techniques there is zero change to the mechanism which just keeps pulling water from the air. Presumably, they will put a layer of this material on aluminum to conduct the latent heat and have something that just produces water full time, without additional energy input. consider a 'cube' of fins of this stuff sitting in shade with a collection bucket underneath it. It will be interesting when they build something like that how many liters/day it can extract from ambient air and under what conditions.
Devices like that would be essential during 'wet bulb' days where the temperature and water content of the air created dangerous conditions for people. A passive device that takes no energy and just sucks water out of the air? Could be a lifesaver.
Looking at the paper, it seems like they put some silicon-dioxide nanoparticles on a substrate, then add a plastic (poly-ethylene) layer on top and melt it (annealing). The spaces between the nanoparticles gets partially filled with plastic. The ratio of plastic to particles is the poly-ethylene volume fraction (ϕPE). They tested different fractions and found that a certain range caused the wetting behavior.
Their experiments suggest that tiny water droplets appear inside the material at 70% RH (relative humidity). If this is true, then I expect there is a way to extract the droplets using very little energy. Ideas:
- make open collection points on the film
- use ultrasound to bounce the droplets around and consolidate them
- make the film on a material that can be saturated with water so the new droplets can easily join the flow
> So the latent heat is conducted away by the cooling apparatus, it's just not explicitly stated, to sound more sensational.
In theory, if that makes it hotter than ambient air in the process, that would be a good thing - usually we have to cool things down below ambient air to get moisture out.
Not a good thing if you want to measure maximum moisture extraction, but cooling something to ambient temperatures is a much easier task.
Would this not invalidate the conclusions of the paper? considering they are not just claiming to form water droplets, but that they do so isothermally.
It could still be a useful material, but the science would be bad.
Unless they have buried some really important caveat somewhere in the paper [1], it really looks like they are making claims that are incompatible with the second law of thermodynamics. They claim that water droplets are condensing on their nanomaterial at constant temperature and less than 100% relative humidity. This is absolutely forbidden by thermodynamics as we understand it. Under these conditions droplets can condense within pores (forming a concave surface), but they can never form a convex droplet on a flat surface.
Their mumbo-jumbo about water being "squeezed out" onto the surface by the hydrophobic component is totally bogus as well. The condensation will just stop earlier, without overflowing. Water condensing in concave pores and being squeezed into convex droplets requires hydrostatic pressure to be positive and negative at the same time.
The possibilities I see are: 1) contaminated surfaces 2) miscalibrated relative humidity or 3) they've neglected to mention a cooling plate that keeps the material below ambient.
I'm not sure what's forbidden here. You don't need 100% relative humidity to grab water from the air in fact in any wood has a moisture content that in equilibrium is in relation to the air moisture content. The moisture diffuses into every material and evaporates based on where it finds less vapor pressure. That's why you may have dry lips at 40% RH versus moisturized lips at 70% RH.
What you're referring to is condensation and is caused by air oversaturation due to a temperature drop which doesn't seem to be the case here.
Theoretically speaking, you can have a material that somehow absorbs high moisture from the air but has microscale properties that promote creation of droplets then somehow these droplets are separated from the rest of the air (with something like a smart vapor retarder, a passive material) and the water gets harvested.
What you are referring to is called capillary condensation [1]. When you have a hydrophilic surface with thin capillaries or small pores, they can pull water from the air below 100% RH. However, this process requires an enclosed space with a very small radius and the air-water interface is always concave in this case (it's just how capillary forces work).
Forming a convex surface, on the other hand, requires an at least slightly hydrophobic material and produces a positive internal pressure. This is a key difference, because condensation into a hydrophilic pore is favorable in terms of free energy, while condensing onto a hydrophobic surface is unfavorable (unless you have a supersaturated vapor).
> Theoretically speaking, you can have a material that somehow absorbs high moisture from the air but has microscale properties that promote creation of droplets then somehow these droplets are separated from the rest of the air
That "somehow" is what makes the paper's claims impossible. The water condenses spontaneously into the pore because it thereby lowers its free energy. Extruding it onto the surface is then even more unfavorable than direct condensation. Unfortunately, no passive system can achieve this feat, no matter how cleverly nanostructured, as it would go against the arrow of increasing entropy. You need an external energy source to drive that process.
The reverse problem is also true with such materials:
Water harvesting in pristine lab conditions may break down rapidly in realistic scenarios. Something that’s wet attracts dust and microbes. Dust plus water means more microbes. You’ll have lichen growing on this stuff in no time.
Also, they do a really good job of making it sound like it violates thermodynamics. Since it doesn't, and dehumidifiers already do a good job of getting water out of air for the energy price you have to pay, there has to be some other selling point. Right? But I'm not sure I see it.
> dehumidifiers already do a good job of getting water out of air for the energy price you have to pay
They do a terrible job. Condensate dehumidifiers are as expensive to run as an AC, produce unwanted heat, and are noisy. Dessicant dehumidifiers are even less energy-efficient.
If there's a way to extract moisture from the air with less energy and less noise, that would be huge.
Less energy would definitely be a huge plus but unless this violates our understanding of thermodynamics there will still be unwanted heat put out into the air. The heat from a dehumidifier comes primarily from the latent heat in the water being released so that the water can become liquid. This heat must be released somehow in this process unless they actually did find something that breaks our understanding of physics.
> If there's a way to extract moisture from the air with less energy and less noise, that would be huge.
Less noise: I agree, but you still need some air flow so the corners of the room that are far away also get dehumidified. Perhaps a slow fan in enough, and when you run them slowly they are quieter.
Less energy: It's not clear that this uses less total energy. It's easier to imagine what is happening if you compare it to a high tech Dehumidifier Bag. https://www.amazon.com/Wisesorb-Moisture-Eliminator-Fragranc... But instead of sending the drops down, they get attached to the device. You can use it only once unplugged. Then you have to buy a new one or use energy to extract the water (like boiling the water of the dehumidifier bad until you get the crystals again). It's not clear if building a new copy of this is cheaper than building some new calcium chloride salts, and/or if regenerating the new device is cheaper than regenerating the calcium chloride salts (that is usually not done).
> If there's a way to extract moisture from the air with less energy and less noise, that would be huge.
I vote we write to our legislators to update the laws of thermodynamics to enable this. Typically I would agree we should leave well enough alone, but in this case it seems like the benefits outweigh the costs.
It almost certainly doesn't violate our understanding of thermodynamics, but it's not clear that it would have to in order to condense ambient water vapor from the atmosphere.
From the paper [1]:
Remarkably, when these amphiphilic nanoporous PINFs are exposed to high yet subsaturating conditions [i.e., relative humidity (RH) < 100%], macroscopic water droplets appear spontaneously on the film surfaces without the need for cooling, as illustrated in Fig. 1C and shown in Fig. 1D.
Those exist, but, as the GP points out, they're called "dehumidifiers". Or sometimes clothes driers. The question was, what makes this new dehumidifier any better than existing dehumidifiers.
I wish they hadn't used "physics-defying" in their press release because I'm certain this is an important discovery for water condensers, but claiming it doesn't need an external energy source is massively negligent.
People love to claim there's no external energy source, but then when you look closely, you'll find a hot-cold differential, and then you need external energy to maintain that differential. I'd put a large sum of money that either the material is colder than the ambient environment or the incoming moisture is warmer than the ambient environment. It might even be a differential within their material, and the lab lights are warming one side! There's a lot of passive devices that rely on the hot-cold cycle of day and night, that still counts as energy input from the sun.
The article even mentions they tried to rule out a thermal gradient by increasing the thickness of the material, I'm not sure I understand why that would rule it out... the gradient would still exist.
I hate this, because if they aren't intentionally supplying energy, it's probably really efficient (assuming they aren't taking samples out of the freezer or something) so it's still a big deal and important but apparently we have to claim something is a perpetual motion machine to get attention among the public.
Yeah I understand the need for an university to make the news once in a while, and the fact that this made the front page here proves the effectiveness of the method, but the terms "Passively Harvest" and "Defies Physics" should be used very carefully in the context of a scientific publication, even though it's only a blog post so we don't expect peer-reviewed journal levels of rigor.
I feel that it disserves science in the end, the belief that some magic material is going to break the second law of thermodynamics is closer to alchemy than chemistry.
PET is a decent insulator, and they seem to be trying to ensure it wasn’t the temperature difference causing condensation, but the nano structure itself. I’m assuming they were controlling temperature and humidity, so it would mean the material must get hotter, but that seems like it can also be passively solved with a radiator. What they are describing would be a pretty big deal and seems plausible.
This is pretty cool! Basically changes the thermodynamic delta required for a condensation-evaporation cycle from climatic mediation to material mediation.
What if you could eventually program the pore size? This would mean you could change the inflow/outflow balance of the reservoirs on-demand. Imagine smart clothing. Hot out -> increase pore size so the material dumps water, cold out -> pore size shrinks so the water is less likely to evaporate.
I am peeved by the "violates physics" verbiage in the article though.
This apparently can collect vapor (not fog) in ambient temperature, although the material heats up a little bit while absorbing water and needs to cool back down, which should be fine since when warm it's warmer than ambient air.
All of those rely on condensation, which is caused by temperature getting low enough the air can’t hold water. The mechanism for the new material is completely different. It doesn’t appear to require the air to be saturated.
We already have substances that remove water from air. In those the water becomes absorbed. This seems to work on a similar principle. The real difference is the water doesn’t stay absorbed.
Dew collectors are used in agriculture in deserts for real and I think in Dune too. Shaun Overton has a youtube channel where he's trying to revitalize a piece of desert and he has tried building some.
People need to understand that the minimum energy required to separate water from air is much higher than the minimum energy required to separate water from salt. This fact of physics means desalination will always be more efficient than water harvesting.
My understanding is that with desalination you now have the problem of all the brine (on top of needing a good amount of consumable material to do the desalination when looking at existing products).
Seems to me that if you have a device that requires no extra material consumable input that's pretty interesting? Plenty of places with access to electricity that could benefit from the lack of other material input in theory.
Readit News
As a similar comment note, it's like a high tech Dehumidifier bag. https://www.amazon.com/Wisesorb-Moisture-Eliminator-Fragranc... The bags have Calcium Chloride and absorb water from unsaturated air and make small drops of water. It's obvious that they get depleted, and to use them again you must buy a new one or boil all the water to get the crystals again.
In this new material, the droplets are attached to the material. To remove them you must use energy. They don't just drop to a bucket bellow the device magically. You can't use it to "harvest" water without energy. You can sweep the droplets with a paper towel, but now to remove the water from the paper towel you need energy.
> With a material that could potentially defy the laws of physics in their hands
This does not break the laws of physics. It would be nice that the PR department of the universities get a short course explaining that if they believe the laws of physics are broken, then they must double check with the authors and then triple check with another independent experts. Tech journalist should take the same course.
Note that the bad sentence and the misleading title is from the university https://blog.seas.upenn.edu/penn-engineers-discover-a-new-cl...
You're correct in that: (1) it doesn't break the law of physics; (2) to remove the droplets, you still need energy. But it sounds like if the droplets are moving to the surface, the energy needed to release the droplets could be far lower than most active dehumidification methods (e.g. Peltier junctions).
[1] Thirsty Hippos -- which are very effective in small spaces.
https://www.amazon.sg/Thirsty-Hippo-Dehumidifier-Moisture-Ab...
Basically a supercharged silica gel.
It's interesting, but without the details (and with a lot of PR speak) I'm skeptical as hell about this in practice.
From figure 4 (& backed up by simulation fig 3E) it looks like stuff begins to happen only at 97% relative humidity & after a few minutes (at micrometer scale)
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adu8349
Granted, it's almost easy enough to try at home: melt some poly gloves into "freeze dried" silica powder
I'd assume if the amount of energy required to collect the water is low then we're looking at something interesting.
For context, that amount of heat is five times the amount needed to heat 1kg of liquid water from 0° to 100°C (without thawing or boiling it). So it's not in any way a trivial amount.
If you want science, read journals. If you want to see who is likely to get more money, read university PR releases.
Even in this case -- "defying the laws of physics" is sensationalist narrative manufacturing.
The real claim is actually more moderate, and the research is not really close to commercial yet.
Dead Comment
"All measurements were performed at 20° ± 0.2°C maintained by an air circulation system unless otherwise noted. The temperature of the films was controlled using a heating/cooling unit (THMS350V, Linkam Scientific Instruments, Salfords, UK) when necessary."
So the latent heat is conducted away by the cooling apparatus, it's just not explicitly stated, to sound more sensational.
This is really moist air that's only barely short of forming dew. A lot of people are focusing on sensational "violation of physics", when it's an incremental improvement on process that happens naturally.
If that's true we just need to balance energy, which the cooler does.
My understanding of it now is that since it can work at a higher temperature in an environment where the ambient temperature is low enough the latent heat can be passively radiated away. Even if using an active heat pump the higher temperatures would allow for a more efficient process. A closed system would eventually reach an equilibrium but there is no need to maintain a closed system.
Devices like that would be essential during 'wet bulb' days where the temperature and water content of the air created dangerous conditions for people. A passive device that takes no energy and just sucks water out of the air? Could be a lifesaver.
Their experiments suggest that tiny water droplets appear inside the material at 70% RH (relative humidity). If this is true, then I expect there is a way to extract the droplets using very little energy. Ideas:
- make open collection points on the film
- use ultrasound to bounce the droplets around and consolidate them
- make the film on a material that can be saturated with water so the new droplets can easily join the flow
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volume_fraction
In theory, if that makes it hotter than ambient air in the process, that would be a good thing - usually we have to cool things down below ambient air to get moisture out.
Not a good thing if you want to measure maximum moisture extraction, but cooling something to ambient temperatures is a much easier task.
Deleted Comment
Is there a corollary to Betteridge's Law that says that popular science journalism will always overatate the result?
It could still be a useful material, but the science would be bad.
Their mumbo-jumbo about water being "squeezed out" onto the surface by the hydrophobic component is totally bogus as well. The condensation will just stop earlier, without overflowing. Water condensing in concave pores and being squeezed into convex droplets requires hydrostatic pressure to be positive and negative at the same time.
The possibilities I see are: 1) contaminated surfaces 2) miscalibrated relative humidity or 3) they've neglected to mention a cooling plate that keeps the material below ambient.
1. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adu8349
What you're referring to is condensation and is caused by air oversaturation due to a temperature drop which doesn't seem to be the case here.
Theoretically speaking, you can have a material that somehow absorbs high moisture from the air but has microscale properties that promote creation of droplets then somehow these droplets are separated from the rest of the air (with something like a smart vapor retarder, a passive material) and the water gets harvested.
Forming a convex surface, on the other hand, requires an at least slightly hydrophobic material and produces a positive internal pressure. This is a key difference, because condensation into a hydrophilic pore is favorable in terms of free energy, while condensing onto a hydrophobic surface is unfavorable (unless you have a supersaturated vapor).
> Theoretically speaking, you can have a material that somehow absorbs high moisture from the air but has microscale properties that promote creation of droplets then somehow these droplets are separated from the rest of the air
That "somehow" is what makes the paper's claims impossible. The water condenses spontaneously into the pore because it thereby lowers its free energy. Extruding it onto the surface is then even more unfavorable than direct condensation. Unfortunately, no passive system can achieve this feat, no matter how cleverly nanostructured, as it would go against the arrow of increasing entropy. You need an external energy source to drive that process.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capillary_condensation
Water harvesting in pristine lab conditions may break down rapidly in realistic scenarios. Something that’s wet attracts dust and microbes. Dust plus water means more microbes. You’ll have lichen growing on this stuff in no time.
Also, they do a really good job of making it sound like it violates thermodynamics. Since it doesn't, and dehumidifiers already do a good job of getting water out of air for the energy price you have to pay, there has to be some other selling point. Right? But I'm not sure I see it.
They do a terrible job. Condensate dehumidifiers are as expensive to run as an AC, produce unwanted heat, and are noisy. Dessicant dehumidifiers are even less energy-efficient.
If there's a way to extract moisture from the air with less energy and less noise, that would be huge.
Obligatory Technology Connections video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_QfX0SYCE8
Less noise: I agree, but you still need some air flow so the corners of the room that are far away also get dehumidified. Perhaps a slow fan in enough, and when you run them slowly they are quieter.
Less energy: It's not clear that this uses less total energy. It's easier to imagine what is happening if you compare it to a high tech Dehumidifier Bag. https://www.amazon.com/Wisesorb-Moisture-Eliminator-Fragranc... But instead of sending the drops down, they get attached to the device. You can use it only once unplugged. Then you have to buy a new one or use energy to extract the water (like boiling the water of the dehumidifier bad until you get the crystals again). It's not clear if building a new copy of this is cheaper than building some new calcium chloride salts, and/or if regenerating the new device is cheaper than regenerating the calcium chloride salts (that is usually not done).
I vote we write to our legislators to update the laws of thermodynamics to enable this. Typically I would agree we should leave well enough alone, but in this case it seems like the benefits outweigh the costs.
From the paper [1]:
Remarkably, when these amphiphilic nanoporous PINFs are exposed to high yet subsaturating conditions [i.e., relative humidity (RH) < 100%], macroscopic water droplets appear spontaneously on the film surfaces without the need for cooling, as illustrated in Fig. 1C and shown in Fig. 1D.
1 - https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adu8349
Sorry, I don't know the correct physics lingo. Heat of enthalpy or formation or whatever.
First you get water, and as a result material heats up a little bit, then it can cool down passively back to ambient.
Windtraps [0].
[0]: https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Windtrap
https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Moisture_vaporator
Thanks! there were a few comments there and we'll merge them hither.
I'm fairly certain they've created some form of a Brownian Ratchet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_ratchet
People love to claim there's no external energy source, but then when you look closely, you'll find a hot-cold differential, and then you need external energy to maintain that differential. I'd put a large sum of money that either the material is colder than the ambient environment or the incoming moisture is warmer than the ambient environment. It might even be a differential within their material, and the lab lights are warming one side! There's a lot of passive devices that rely on the hot-cold cycle of day and night, that still counts as energy input from the sun.
The article even mentions they tried to rule out a thermal gradient by increasing the thickness of the material, I'm not sure I understand why that would rule it out... the gradient would still exist.
I hate this, because if they aren't intentionally supplying energy, it's probably really efficient (assuming they aren't taking samples out of the freezer or something) so it's still a big deal and important but apparently we have to claim something is a perpetual motion machine to get attention among the public.
I feel that it disserves science in the end, the belief that some magic material is going to break the second law of thermodynamics is closer to alchemy than chemistry.
What if you could eventually program the pore size? This would mean you could change the inflow/outflow balance of the reservoirs on-demand. Imagine smart clothing. Hot out -> increase pore size so the material dumps water, cold out -> pore size shrinks so the water is less likely to evaporate.
I am peeved by the "violates physics" verbiage in the article though.
We already have substances that remove water from air. In those the water becomes absorbed. This seems to work on a similar principle. The real difference is the water doesn’t stay absorbed.
Like, not even ironically.
I know this isn't reddit and all, but, well..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(novel)
Seems to me that if you have a device that requires no extra material consumable input that's pretty interesting? Plenty of places with access to electricity that could benefit from the lack of other material input in theory.
If you have power, you can harvest water from the air wherever you are. Desalination generally requires trucking the water from the ocean to you.
I don't have the slightest idea whether transportation costs can ever be large enough to make water harvesting more efficient?