this post was submitted on 26 May 2025
195 points (94.5% liked)

Technology

70396 readers
3950 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 days ago (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If a "passive dehumidifier" is possible using this and a funnel/hose, that could be extremely exciting for basement and cellar owners everywhere

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

depends how space efficient it is. maybe you would you need to fill your entire basement with the stuff for it to work.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

A surface-area maximizing structure like a radiator grille could probably be used if it's anywhere near reasonable, but yeah, that could be a concern

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That seems like it would violate the law of entropy by turning a high entropy state (water vapor mixed into the air) into a lower entropy state (water in liquid form), but I'm probably just missing something.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I don't at all understand why the second law of thermodynamics is being invoked. Nonetheless, capillary condensation is already a well-studied phenomenon. As the scientific article itself notes, the innovation here over traditional capillary condensation would be the ability to easily remove the water once it's condensed.


Re: Entropy:

  • Entropy is a statistical phenomenon that tends to increase over time averaged across the entire body, i.e. the Universe. Not literally every part of the Universe needs to increase its entropy as long as on average it is increasing. You're evidence of that: your body is a machine that takes entropy and pushes it somewhere else.
  • Water vapor is a high-energy state compared to liquid water. What you're saying therefore is the opposite of how the second law works: water vapor's energy tends to spread out over time until it eventually cools back to a liquid. Liquid water is a higher entropy state than water vapor.
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The entropy of a little water mixed with air is higher. As with anything that mixes a little.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

Condensation is exothermic, though, so the material will heat up slightly

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

Yeah that was my thought too. I hope it makes it to actual use cases and not just lab proof of concept.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Yeah now we can industrially extract all the remaining water from the air as well as the ground.

edit: Sorry I thought it was obvious this was slightly tongue-in-cheek.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (6 children)

You realize the amount of water is constant, right?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

Not if Nestle has anything to say about it

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

They do have a point about groundwater though.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

We prefer the term “recycled dinosaur pee”.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

FMT99 missed the week they taught the water cycle.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Water is created and destroyed by biological and other natural processes. Here go photosynthesis:

6CO₂ + 6H₂O + Light → C₆H₁₂O₆ + 6O₂

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago

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.