this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2025

58 points (100.0% liked)

Hacker News

3136 readers

598 users here now

Posts from the RSS Feed of HackerNews.

The feed sometimes contains ads and posts that have been removed by the mod team at HN.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

patrick@lemmy.bestiver.se

rssbot@lemmy.bestiver.se

Ultrasonic device dramatically speeds harvesting of water from the air (news.mit.edu)

submitted 1 day ago by rssbot@lemmy.bestiver.se to c/hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Comments

top 17 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

I’m curious, do ultrasonics also fatigue the capture material, shortening its lifespan?

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago

From the first paragraph of the article:

Even in desert conditions, there exists some level of humidity that, with the right material, can be soaked up and squeezed out to produce clean drinking water.

In the dry dessert the amount if water in the air is so minuscule that it just doesn't doesn't make any sense to do this.

Regarding the "clean" claim, you would get all the crap from the air in your water, also to preserve the water you would need to keep it chilled after boiling it, else you get sick, badly sick.

[–] Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io 2 points 1 day ago

Some additional resources for dew harvesting:

https://www.opur.cloud/ - International Organizations for Dew Utilization

https://www.rexresearch.com/dewharvest/dewharvest.html

https://iwaponline.com/ws/article/22/1/697/83295/Analysis-of-different-condensing-surfaces-for-dew

[+] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world -8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Harvesting water from air the most pointless thing to put money into. The only places with enough water in the air to make it worth it already have plenty of water. This is always snake oil.

[–] Contingencyfork@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

My dehumidifier hates you, you mould shill

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 day ago (4 children)

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.

[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

collapsed inline media

"Energy intensive".

There are also commercial versions that are designed for permanent use. Again, zero energy use.

Generally when you make a claim, its on you to back it up with evidence, not everyone else to 'prove you wrong'. "God is real, prove me wrong."

https://www.futurity.org/water-harvesting-condenser-humidity-2588972-2/

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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 1 points 1 day ago

Haha claiming the sun is "energy intensive" is some new mental gymnastics that I'd not heard before.

Will ignore you now 👍

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

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 -1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours 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

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

People just want it to be true. They're willing to buy into the scam.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I would not put any stock in anything Thunderfoot claims, he's a grifter and makes profoundly dumb arguments.

Source is biased obviously, but contains many, many references: https://skepchick.org/2025/01/thunderf00t-is-still-an-ignorant-loser/

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day 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.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day 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.

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

There's some places where fog nets are viable. Here's a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw5mtky8rF8