Fancy another debunk? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Geonerd
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 12, 2016, 10:02:55 pm
content: No obvious electronics involved, but this device does suffer some serious thermodynamic issues.https://www.facebook.com/WaterSeer/

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 12, 2016, 10:14:07 pm
content: That's more of a Thunderf00t thing."The chamber is also cooler than the air"

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 13, 2016, 02:15:02 am
content: This idea sounds plausible - but, yes, there are a couple of thermodynamic questions.There is also this statement that raised my eyebrows...."Since WaterSeer uses the difference in the ground and air temperature, which requires no power to achieve, WaterSeer effectiveness is not based on Relative Humidity, as with other, energy intensive, condensation devices."............. Hmmm. This is hard to swallow. If you have drier air - this isn't going to make a difference? .... and if you need to pass more of it through the system to recover the moisture, surely the air is going to heat up the condensation chamber more... There's one of your thermodynamics questions.As for the condensation chamber being colder than the air - I can see that happening because it is buried in the ground. How effective it is over time is another thermodynamics question.....At least it has a significant ground mass involved in the cooling side of things.

author: Geonerd
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 13, 2016, 08:19:11 am
content: Given the huge volume of air you'll need to cool to extract meaningful water, plus the significant released latent heat of condensation, it seems clear that the bulb and surrounding soil will very quickly warm, ending the fun. (Keep in mind that soil has a low specific heat and decent insulating properties.)

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 13, 2016, 02:57:37 pm
content: Quote from: Geonerd on October 13, 2016, 08:19:11 amThat is, indeed, perhapsthemost important thermodynamic question.

author: R005T3r
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2016, 09:44:20 am
content: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/waterseer-water-women#/Okay. This simply won't work because of three things:1. wind and humidity are not constant during the day. Also, more wind => less humidity on the air because the moisture is blown2. Clean water? try it near a coal mine3. It's a condenser... You need approximatively 2217KJ/Kg at 1.69 Bar to convert moisture into water... Let you to do the consideration.4. How on earth you will force the moisture on a hole? With wind? Seriously?There's more check this vid:Haha, same BS, but even more ridiculous...

author: rrinker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2016, 09:18:06 pm
content: Say this actually worked, and a billion or so of them got set up around the world - how badly would that mess up the climate?Look at what naturally happens, say in the Cascades in the use - near rainforest one side, desert on the other. If you pull a significant amount of moisture from the air in an area is normally stays as a vapor and then condenses out later over a different part of the world, then the air will be dry and reduce the rainfall where it used to rain. Like damming up a river and cutting the water flow to those downstream. Maybe it's good things like this don't work or are simply impractical.

author: rfeecs
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2016, 09:51:47 pm
content: Since my alma mater, UC Berkeley was involved, I tend to think that it's legit:http://waterseer.org/They have field test results, references, etc.:http://waterseer.org/assets/waterseer_field_test_results_v2_7.pdf

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 20, 2016, 05:04:46 am
content: I don't think the fundamental principles are a problem here - just the practical efficiency and output.Cue the field studies.

author: rfeecs
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2016, 01:01:00 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on October 12, 2016, 10:14:07 pmWell here it is:https://youtu.be/LVsqIjAeeXw

author: Geonerd
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 30, 2016, 02:40:04 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on October 13, 2016, 02:57:37 pmScott Larsen came up with a reasonably complete spreadsheet model for the thermal resistance. His numbers look about right, and back up those who doubted the heat sinking ability of such a small volume of dirt.Worth a watch!

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 30, 2016, 04:13:48 am
content: The numbers may well indicate it's all a forgone conclusion - but there will need to be a number of field studies to generate actual results.Only thencan the theoretical predictions be confirmed (or disproved).There may be some parameter that exists in the real world that the theoretical exercise has not considered.Before anyone tries to shoot this caveat down in flames, I ask you this.... "How many advances in knowledge came fromreal world observationsthat did not fit with the understanding at the time?"Just to be clear, I can't see this thing producing anywhere near thequantityof water they are spruiking, but I would like some long-term field study results before bringing along the coffin nails.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 30, 2016, 08:46:31 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on October 30, 2016, 04:13:48 amWould you say the same thing of Solar Roadways?The problem is they are takingother people's moneyto do this.

author: R005T3r
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 30, 2016, 09:48:01 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on October 30, 2016, 04:13:48 amDatas and research costs a lot of money and resources. The problem with waterseer is that they didn't even borthered to make some basic calculation! And, this thing don't EVEN work with theoretical datas! Want to try to make field result with something not working? It's like pretending to drive a car without wheels. Of course the will not work!Adding other parameters to the system, it will only degrade it's performance."How many advances in knowledge came fromreal world observationsthat did not fit with the understanding at the time?"the problem wit this, is that we UNDERSTAND the way thermodynamics works and we are able to already predict the output. You assumed we made an "observation we don't understand in that time", but it is false, since we are able to alredy predict the data.The real shocking thing is that one of the first top universities in the world got involved in this.... Mistakes happens, okay, but this is ridiculous, because all the working team probably didn't know the first principle of thermodynamics... If I brought a project like that to my physic professor, he would have laughed at me!So, basically this "project" have:1. involved a prestigious university and screwed it in a really wired up way2. took pepole money proposing something it's fundamentally wrong, from concept to implementation (it won't even work in rainy areas!)3. got involved the UN making them really look stupid4. the poor guys on the video were tagged as ignorant in thermodynamics (they will probably have a really hard time passing physics exams!)5. used African poor peoples as an excuse to raise money6. screwed indiegogo credibility.And all the points are morally unacceptable to me. Won't be a surprise if someone take legal actions against them (and man, we are talking to giants even more powerful than mega-corporations!)

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 30, 2016, 11:26:53 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on October 30, 2016, 08:46:31 amSolar roadways have had a better head start - and haven't been able to justify the concept. They've only been 'successful' in marketing and PR - a bubble that is going to burst.QuoteWould you say the same thing about a company floating on the stock exchange?Anyway, the Waterseer won't need the buckets of money that solar roadways demands. There shouldn't be any real impediment in getting some field studies done.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 30, 2016, 10:53:54 pm
content: But, let me be clear....I think this idea can work - but (just as the Batteriser)notat the level of performance being claimed. Field study data will nail this home.As I said before:Quote from: Brumby on October 13, 2016, 02:15:02 amTo discount the very parameter that tells you how much water is available to harvest - and, together with temperature, how hard/easy it is to harvest - doesn't give me any confidence.To properly characterise the Waterseer, they are going to need at least a year of field tests in a variety of situations where performance and environmental parameters are recorded, followed by appropriate analysis. One can only hope that this will be done - and done properly.You never know ... the data gathered from this exercise might well kill the Waterseer in its intended application, but may prove to be useful for some other situation.Call me an optimist.