Water Condensor by MIT using Metal Organic Framework - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: trophosphere
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2017, 01:25:05 am
content: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has created a water harvester that uses sunlight to condense water out of air at low humidity. The special thing about it is the class of material used to bind the water vapor called metal-organic framework (MOF) produced at UC Berkeley. Prototype unit was reported to pull 2.8L of water in 12 hours in an environment with 20-30% humidity.More Information:News Article 1News Article 2Article (Paywalled)

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2017, 01:32:03 am
content: Good stuff, but for many desert dwellers 20-30% humidity is a muggy horridly wet day.

author: BradC
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2017, 02:59:23 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on April 14, 2017, 01:32:03 amDay, sure. But it actually absorbs at night when it's generally considerably more humid.

author: MrOmnos
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2017, 07:55:45 am
content: Quote from: BradC on April 14, 2017, 02:59:23 amBut no sunlight at nightwhich means good sized batteries for storing energy. Non the less great idea.

author: BradC
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2017, 08:41:35 am
content: Quote from: MrOmnos on April 14, 2017, 07:55:45 amDidn't read any of the articles huh?

author: MrOmnos
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2017, 02:38:25 pm
content: Nope. I just assumed things. Sorry my bad.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 14, 2017, 03:01:05 pm
content: "There is a lot of potential for scaling up the amount of water that is being harvested.It is just a matter of further engineering now."

author: station240
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 14, 2017, 04:02:54 pm
content: Figured I would attempt the maths for what volume of air is needed to get 2.8L of water.Assume 5.6g of water per cubic meter of air (20% of 28 grams of water per cubic meter of air at 30 °C)At nightime when the air is colder, it can hold less volume of water, but the amount of air and water doesn't change.Therefore to get 2800mL of water (1gram = 1mL), you need to process at least 500 cubic meters of air. Sounds plausible, for a small scale emergency water supply. For a large scale water capture system, this is never going to work easily, too easy to deplete a local area of water vapour.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2017, 07:57:45 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 14, 2017, 03:01:05 pmI'm disappointed Dave. Are you not able to distinguish between actual science and engineering breakthroughs and commercial scams? Who knows if this will eventually lead to any commercial product. That's not what this report inSciencewas about.This was brought up inanother thread. I'll repeat what I posted there:That is a summary of a legitimate scientific research article published in Science - one of the 2 most prestigious scientific journals in the world (the other one being Nature).It's about as far from BS as it gets.-- - the "debunking" meme is way past it's prime. It may work well as click-bait, but an unfortunate side effect is it leaves many unable to distinguish between real science/engineering and solar-roadways type BS.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2017, 03:45:23 pm
content: This has real potential, but there is a lot that could kill it. Would be a perfect fit for coastal equatorial deserts where temperatures are warm and relatively high humidity occurs at night. Other deserts remain dry in the winter when temperatures are much lower and water content of the air drops dramatically. Whether the capital costs will be low enough to make sense for a device that only works well part of the year will be an interesting question.

author: JimRemington
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2017, 04:29:04 pm
content: QuoteBoth of those journals have far too frequently published articles that later turned out to be complete BS, based on fabricated or incorrectly interpreted data.While this article may be legitimate, it is not a good idea to revere any scientific journal, including those two.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2017, 05:04:13 pm
content: Quote from: JimRemington on April 15, 2017, 04:29:04 pmAll human endevors are imperfect. ALL scientific journals occasionally see failures in the peer review and editorial process. But the scientific community generally considersScienceandNatureto be the best of breed. The instances of this are rare and later rectified. On the other hand, if a dishonest scientist fabricates data then that can only be caught after publication and attempts to repeat done by other scientists. But again, the scientific process included a mechanism for flushing this out. But of course any scientist who does such a thing has then ended their career and ruined their reputation.My point was never to imply that the journalScienceis infallable. My point was that dismissing this report as BS because you think it seem implausible or because of back of envelope calculations, etc shows a lack of ability to discriminate between real science and solar-roadways type scams.As I posted in the other thread on this (which should really be merged with this one - mods?), anyone who wants to question the authors (from the MIT ME dept and Cal Chemistry dept) conclusions in this report then the only legitimate way to do that is to read theoriginal source article inScience. Then, if they feel they're qualified to question Kim et al.'s methods or dispute their data they should post it here.If they have a valid criticism of their methods or data, they should write a letter to the editor ofScienceand it will be published. In doing so they would instantly achieve some notoriety in the scientific community.If that sounds sarcastic - it really is not meant to be. Findings published inScienceare widely read in the scientific community and hold great weight. Careers areliterallymade by having a research article published in this journal. If there is a fundamental flaw in the methods or data of an article published there, then publishing that could in itself could make a career.

author: TheAmmoniacal
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 15, 2017, 05:20:24 pm
content: Nature, Science and Cell have the highest impact factors, and are the most recognized scientific journals. But this does not mean that they are good scientific journals, far from it. They are highly popularized and generalized journals, they push hype and force authors to edit it down to absolute essentials. They are very much the tabloids of scientific journals, far from what journals should and ought to be. One major issue is that journals in Nature cannot be replicated, and are very difficult to read /even for scientists in the field/, because they are so condensed and made to have a broad appeal.You publish in these journals if you want to further your academic career, not if you want to further your scientific field.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2017, 06:01:34 pm
content: Quote from: TheAmmoniacal on April 15, 2017, 05:20:24 pmWell I guess that depends on how you define good. They are different than the best field specific journals. But they don't publish rubbish as some of the lesser field specific journals do.QuoteYep, I agree - Though I think the hype factor is a more recent development. I think they force authors to condense their work to the essentials because of their generalized nature. But I don't view that as necessary a bad thing.QuoteWell calling them "tabloids" is hyperbole IMO. I think they are exactly what they are meant to be - that is general scientific journals publishing the highlights of science that will have broader appeal. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by cannot be replicated - do you mean photocopied? Also I don't find them difficult to read at all. Maybe a language thing?QuoteI don't disagree. But as I'm sure you are aware, results published in these journals are often also published in more extensive and complete form in a top field specific journal.

author: JimRemington
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2017, 06:07:02 pm
content: QuoteAgreed, even though I have published in those journals and frequently review research papers for them. The reproducibility problem is especially severe.Further objections that are very frequently raised about Science, Nature and Cell (and their numerous spawn) include the fact that unqualified reviewing editors have first rejection rights, so that many excellent papers that are not considered "sexy" enough are thrown out in the first round, without formal review. Then, papers are often sent to unqualified referees, and legitimate issues raised by qualified referees are often ignored, especially if an article is considered sufficiently flashy. Finally, it is sometimes years before a completely false publication is rooted out, causing great setbacks in specialized fields.

author: TheAmmoniacal
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 15, 2017, 06:33:45 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on April 15, 2017, 06:01:34 pmThey are difficult to read because they use non-standard terminology a lot, leave out important details and often make leaps in logic (as a result of condensing the script, which often leads to jumping between "what we did" without connecting it with reasoning, thought-process, or justification).Leaving out these important details makes the experiments themselves impossible to replicate by other research groups.And good luck trying to get good answers from them by email.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2017, 06:39:34 pm
content: Thanks for your inside scoop Jim. I've never published in those journals but as a graduate student in the 1980s a postdoc in my lab did have a "cover article" published inScienceand I recall some of the politics.After your post I think I realize now what Ammominiacal (and you) meant about reproducability. You are referring to inability to reproduce the research due to lack of detailed materials and methods in the journal article. Yes, I can see how that would be an issue.As mentioned - at least in my experience, often an article inScienceorNaturehas referenced or later followed by a more traditional, complete article in another field specific journal. But apparently that must not be true in all fields - or maybe less common now then it was when I was last active in research.

author: TheAmmoniacal
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 15, 2017, 06:44:02 pm
content: To be fair, Nature and Science most often provide a lot of the details in supplementary materials. It's just often not enough, not sure if it's deliberate or of it just gets lost in the editing process/condensing.

author: edavid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2017, 06:48:15 pm
content: Another factor is that MIT has the most aggressive press office in existence. They will do anything to publicize MIT. I am always extra skeptical of anything they have touched.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2017, 06:59:15 pm
content: Quote from: edavid on April 15, 2017, 06:48:15 pmHa! Yes that might explain why this was picked up by so many science "journalism" type venues.To be fair though, that is a separate issue from the research itself and journal publication (though perhaps some pressure is applied to submit toScience?). IME, most scientists are not looking for general publicity and often try to avoid it. There are notable exceptions though!

author: Habropoda
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2017, 02:59:45 am
content: I wondered why information was so difficult to tease out of the paper. Thanks for explaining.Because of the obtuseness of the paper, the bunk has started with the media grabbing onto the 2.8L figure and showing a picture of the little prototype, implying or sometimes outright stating that it produced that amount in a 24 hour real world test with one solar thermal cycle. It’s only a matter of time before we see animations of women and children walking miles to get water and of water bottles magically filling up from tiny devices. Talk about clickbait, it’s just too temping for the media. Let the debunking continue!It looks like the 2.8L figure was produced by a simulation drawn from small scale lab tests and not the prototype. The simulation was for a 24 hour period using multiple thermal cycles with one kilogram of MOF, rather that just one cycle in a normal solar day.Is anybody seeing in the report just how much water they got out of the prototype in their real world test? How many square meters of material would it take to get that 2.8L in 24 hours outdoors?It may be that this will be useful technology but it would be good to know the real limitations and not the BS the media is spitting out.edit: corrected simulation parameters.

author: rfeecs
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2018, 07:18:14 pm
content: Some more progress on this:"In field tests, device harvests water from desert air":http://news.mit.edu/2018/field-tests-device-harvests-water-desert-air-0322The full paper:"Adsorption-based atmospheric water harvesting device for arid climates":https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03162-7

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2018, 07:42:58 pm
content: Quote from: rfeecs on March 22, 2018, 07:18:14 pmBut, but, tHunderFool said it was a hoax..As per Evelyn Wang, the PI:Quote

author: rfeecs
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2018, 07:48:15 pm
content: Trying to figure out how much water they actually harvested. From the paper:QuoteSo too little to accurately measure?

author: TheAmmoniacal
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 22, 2018, 07:48:41 pm
content: It's the same joke as last time, nothing new.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2018, 08:13:32 pm
content: They clearly demonstrated water harvesting and addressed prior criticisms. Again per Dr. Wang:QuoteThis is how real science works. It's an iterative process with constant review.This research has now been published in bothScienceandNature. That in no way means it is perfect or infallible but it means it takes more than Youtube hucksters or casual internet forum review to cause any meaningful dent in its credibility.The authors are not selling anything. They are putting their reputatiuons and career on the line by publishing this. IOW, they have skin in the game.