Even more surprising: the droplets didn’t evaporate quickly, as thermodynamics would predict.
“According to the curvature and size of the droplets, they should have been evaporating,” says Patel. “But they were not; they remained stable for extended periods.”
With a material that could potentially defy the laws of physics on their hands, Lee and Patel sent their design off to a collaborator to see if their results were replicable.
I really don’t like the repeated use of the phrase “defy the laws of physics.” That’s an extraordinary claim, and it needs extraordinary proof, and the researchers already propose a mechanism by which the droplets remained stable under existing physical laws, namely that they were getting replenished from the nanopores inside the material as fast as evaporation was pulling water out of the droplets.
I recognize the researchers themselves aren’t using the phrase, it’s the Penn press release organization trying to further drum up interest in the research. But it’s a bad framing. You can make it sound interesting without resorting to clickbait techniques like “did our awesome engineers just break the laws of physics??” Hell, the research is interesting enough on its own; passive water collection from the air is revolutionary! No need for editorializing!
Yeah, science communicators need to not evaluate themselves by the same metrics as newspapers and magazines. Getting people to click and share should not be the metric of success.
pull water from the air, collect it in pores and release it onto surfaces without the need for any external energy
If this is legit, it’s going to be revolutionary.
deleted by creator
You realize the amount of water is constant, right?
Water is created and destroyed by biological and other natural processes. Here go photosynthesis:
6CO₂ + 6H₂O + Light → C₆H₁₂O₆ + 6O₂
I am fairly certain they are referring to the fact that we are already removing water from the fresh water cycle, and this could remove even more. For example, global warming combined with draining the aquafers means less water in the cycle as it was drained into the ocean and isn’t beaing replenished as snow/glaicers.
Yes, the total volume of water on the planet isn’t being changed by that shift, but the amount of freshwater is.
Nobody will remove water from ambient air in relevant amounts. Roughly 0.5 % of air is water vapor, a total of something like 10’000 km³ liquid water. This is replaced (residence time) about once every 10 days, so roughly 1’000 km³ daily.
Say we extract 10 km³ (10’000’000 m³) daily, enough for roughly 10 million people (including all industry, zero recycling of the water etc.). By that time you deal with 1 % of earths atmosphere every day. May I remind everyone how absurdly costly in any conceivable way that would be? You would rather lay a few pipes and purify sea water at a tiny(!) fraction of the cost.
They won’t drain the aquifers, nature will replace that much water!
They won’t cut down all the forests, the trees will just regrow!
They don’t have to cycle the entire atmosphere to cause havoc. Pulling the moisture out in local areas that already have lost aquifers and ice in the mountains is the obvious issue. Plus, you don’t know the cost in the long run, it could end up being fairly cheap.
People were able to (and at some places did) cut down every tree WELL before they had power tools and even saws. Just with axes. The comparison is laughable.
No, massive air moving structures can not be cheap. Neither building nor operating them.
