590

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/59925291

The system can function in air with 20% humidity or less. But these 1,000 liter a day machines are not small, at around shipping container size.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world 24 points 2 days ago

Well, unless he sells the patent to Nestle, it's COMMUNISM. Water is private property. /s

[-] Tattorack@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

It's a dehumidifier. There's nothing to patent that hasn't already been patented.

[-] Hi_ImSomeone@lemmy.world 33 points 2 days ago

I used to work for a company making a similar device, the chemistry behind the technology is actually a well researched topic, and there are many kinds of various chemistries that can achieve a similar effect. Silica gel packets are the most common, a cheap solution that extracts moisture from the air, but is non-reusable.

These MOF compounds are useful because they have a fundamentally different method of collecting the water molecules. The framework traps the molecules inside, which can be later released with heat. Thermal solar power is free, but does require careful management of the rest of the device such that the material can get hot enough (usually around 100c), which also providing another surface to condense the vapour. I spent alot of time designing and testing such panels. They do work! I can post pictures of fishtanks of water later.

There truly couldn't be much of a downside to these technologies. The real alternative is desalination, which produces hyper concentrated salt pools, or well water extraction, which is also bad...

The reason these technologies is usually due to the cost effectiveness to produce the material, and to build the enclosure around the material. The panels have to scale very large to get any reasonable about of solar power, plus the condensing and collecting mechanisms also add weight and cost. Water is not an expensive product, so at the end of the day, the economics don't always work out favourably.

Happy to answer any questions about the technology.

[-] Hi_ImSomeone@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Here's a picture of one of our tests generating water from air! We got 21kg from a large-ish panel.

I can't show much else but I can guarantee we did harvest the water from the air.

[-] zephiriz@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

MOF's sound like normal dehumidifier with extra steps. The way I see it and from what I understand from reading this.

Put MOF outside so it absorbs water from air.

Heat MOF up to boiling( 100C) to get the water out. ( as something lime squeezing it would probably destroy it, though would be cool)

Cool the water vapor back down using normal dehumidifier means.

Why spend the energy to heat the MOF up. Just cool the air down using normal dehumidifier means. It take a ton of energy to heat water up. Edit: and cool it down but why not skip the heat up part.

[-] Hi_ImSomeone@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

MOF behaves like a sponge, but wouldn't feel like a sponge. Squeezing it would be nice, and could definitely eliminate the hassle of having to heat it up.

As for the energy, the thermodynamics of dehumidification basically requires an external energy source. To cool the air, you have to have a heat engine which removes the active ambient thermal energy out of a system. Such a system would look like a traditional dehumidifier hooked up to solar panels. The issue with that is the associated capital expenditure costs to build up such a system, as that already costs significantly more than "some random metal sponge" (assuming we could make it at scale).

For now, the only ways to cool the air down would be to use traditional refrigeration techniques, or peltier coolers. Peltier coolers are super inefficient, and traditional heat pumps require alot of energy. When in a low humidity environment, the coefficient of performance for heat pumps goes way down because the outdoor temperature could be very high, and the humidity very low. To reduce the air temperature to below dew point would mean cooling the air to near 0c, which is pretty much putting a freezer in a desert.

Solar energy is free, but absorbing it and converting it into useful work takes a good bit of engineering effort to make happen. What MOFs and similar materials can take advantage is being able to be left out in the sun like a sun dried tomato and covered in a black painted cover. Couldn't be simpler!

[-] zephiriz@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

Now from this it sounds like a fancy dew collector with extra steps.

Why most certainly there is some niche uses for it and every situation is different. I highly doubt it has a real would massive scale use and when people promise the world( like pulling drinking water out of air) I think they are nothing more than a pipedream.

I stand by a post I made here elsewhere. It would be cheeper to load up a truck with water and move it to where you need it, or better yet build a pipeline. MOF while, like I have their uses, we already have very efficient ways yo clean and move water and no supper SciFi techno babal will replace what we already use. It the same thing as data centers in space.

[-] Hi_ImSomeone@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Actually, this isn't quite as simple as a dew catcher. For MOFs specifically, there's a fundamental physical chemistry principle going into it which is able to capture the water. At the molecular level, the MOF structures are super porous, which allows the water in the air to become trapped inside. The difference between that and dew catchers is dew catchers aren't able to actually harvest gasseous H2O. They only harvest what is able to be deposited in liquid form. Water from air technology is a real thing, and there are at least decades of research on it.

You may have some experience with a slightly different form of vapor harvester, silica gel packets! Those use a chemical based methodology to bond with water molecules in the air instead. There are two major difference between those and MOFs is that MOFs are reusable, and silica gels are not quite reusable. The other difference is in the holding capacity of MOFs. They can hold significantly more water than silica based gels.

The economics of the emerging MOF field is definitely uncompetitive in it's current form. The current price to performance ratio isn't something that can currently compete with existing technologies, whether it is trucking water, or desalination. The industry knows this, and knows it must get the price down to competitive levels. However the reason why it is nobel prize winning this time is that now the performance is in a ballpark where it could be commercially viable. It would be more environmentally friendly to setup some solar water harvesters one time, rather than to be constantly trucking or piping in water from elsewhere. Extremely remote communities would be more self reliant if they don't have to be paying exorbitant amounts of money each time for new water delivery.

[-] zephiriz@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

I still think it's a pipedream. The energy needed vs what you get in return doesn't add up for me.

I would imagin they are similar to molecular sieves. They are very porous and that's how they trap the water. If it was easy to get out then it wouldnt trap water very well. To pull that water back out you have to really heat it up to force it to find its way out like a maze. If you where to say used black plastic, I have doubts you could get anywhere near boiling so it might be free an easy you wouldn't be putting enough energy in to get enough water out. So you would need an external power source. No matter where (magic solar panels).

If your going to use an external power source might as well use it to put a pump on a pipe and I would guess move an infinite more amount of water for the power used.

While trucking water would be expensive. I would imagen these would be even more so. You have to buy them move them set them up and im sure do some sort of maintains. And if you want a long term solution look no further than Las Vegas. Where a big pipe is cheap and easy, well compared to what I would imaging what this would cost at the same scale.

Also to my understanding many places do have some form of water but its not safe to drink. I would rather spend the money on a filter/ purification system of water than try to pull it out of the air that would still probably need to be filtered, dust is crazy.

[-] tengkuizdihar@programming.dev 2 points 1 day ago

easy, use the salt pool to create salt batteries, now youre several step away from creating an energy plant in the middle of nowhere!

[-] Hi_ImSomeone@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Haha yes salt pools are fun, but wouldn't always be the right kinds of salts required to create batteries. Unfortunately real chemical processes require very high purity raw ingredients, and using the reject water from an desalination plant probably wouldn't cut it. Although if someone figured out how to make a battery out of that, that could have big potential! You'd get all the water and energy storage you would need.

[-] PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

There truly couldn’t be much of a downside to these technologies.

What you mean to say is "We don't know what the downside will be untill these technologies are implemented and used for a long time and then studied." Otherwise you sound like the well-intentioned-but-unhinged chemist that accidentally starts the zombie apocalypse at the beginning of the movie.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Tattorack@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Well... There would also have to be water to actually collect from the air. Thunderfoot made a really good video about these dehumidifiers when yet another one popped up on Kickstarter claiming to end water shortages.

[-] Hi_ImSomeone@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

You're absolutely correct that there has to be water in the air. However part of the trick to these panels is that they're not steady state. They have a day cycle and a night cycle. During the night is where they do most of the work of absorbing the water from the air. Over a number of cycles I have overseen, the humidity in the air rises dramatically during the night. This helps these panels in terms of air extraction, since they work on a humidity basis, rather than a total-air-water-content. Think dilution or osmosis when it comes to the actual absorbtion mechanism.

When you do the math, it also doesn't really seem like there's alot of water in the air. Only something like 10-40 grams of water, especially depending on the outdoor temperature. We ran indoor tests with a panel a few sqm in size, and even in a small indoor warehouse, it was not able to dehumidify the warehouse to any significant levels. Maybe at most 5% humidity delta. However air is not static, and wind is always blowing, even when it seems really weak. There's a huge amount of atmosphere above the ground, and unless the panels can absorb the water from the clouds too, the localized de-humidification that happens isn't going to be significant. It's like trying to suck up all water on a beach. The waves are going to replace it shortly enough.

So the one practical limit of these panels that is most frequently missed is the solar aspect. The MOF materials are like a sponge. You can absorb all the water in the air, but you still need to take the water of the MOF. The limit depends on the sensible and latent heat of the water, while in the sponge. MOF doesn't actually really change the boiling point of water at all, so you're really essentially creating a water distillation tower. In 1sqm of land, the most irradiance you're going to get is about 1kw/sqm. 1kwh can boil about 10 liters of water. Taking that into account, over a 8 hour solar day. That means at most a single square meter of solar panel could generate 80 liters of water per day. It's alot, but considering solar losses, glass loss, and thermal loss, more practical limits would probably be like 40 liters. The MOF material also required sensible heat as well, so already a huge portion of incoming solar energy is gone to heating the environment and raising temperature.

In all, you'd have to cover a huge amount of acres before this would dent the atmosphere in terms of humidity. The 1000 liters a day can really only happen when you have a large solar collection area, plus absorbtion surface area to back it up.

[-] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

At mass scale, could taking enough moisture out of the air affect local weather patterns?

[-] Hi_ImSomeone@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

Technically yes! To put it in perspective, there's about 2.5kg of water in the atmosphere per m^2 of earth surface area. If you put enough panels across the earth, you could probably do a decent job at taking some of the water out of the air.

We have to look at another factor affecting the water in the air. As we take water out of the air, it's not really a finite resource. Most water in the air generally comes from the sun evaporating the oceans. If we take the water out of the air, the sun will put the water back. There's always a balance of humidity and quantity evaporated. When the humidity is lower, the sun would have an easier time evaporating more water due to the osmosis of the water from the source (ocean) going into the air. Osmosis is a kind of log graph, so even if the humidity is lower, the exponential tail means the solar evaporation and humidity pretty much balances out at the end of the day.

It's similar thing to taking water from a river. If we take all the water from a river, can we dry up downstream? Yes! But considering the height of the atmosphere, it's like standing at the edge of the river trying with a bucket and trying to scoop everything up. Unless these water-from-air harvesters can reach all the way to the clouds, we probably won't dry anything up.

[-] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Thanks for your answer! I feel like that makes sense on a global scale, but mightn't local and regional scales be more impacted? We already know that the transpiration from forests affects rain patterns, and the forests don't need to be huge either.

Also, some ecosystems might be particularly vulnerable. For example, redwood trees actually absorb most of their water through their leaves from fog and mist. Could a local humidity harvesting plant potentially pull enough water from the air that the osmotic pressure is reduced below what redwoods need to absorb water? I suspect the answer is actually no for this particular examole, but my point is that powerful technologies like these must be thought through, especially if someone is claiming zero side effects. The time is long past for humanity to learn a little caution with potential climate changing technologies.

[-] Hi_ImSomeone@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

As for local or regional scales, yes there could be impacts. I'm not quite as well versed in how trees affect the environments, but I suspect a local water-from-air farm would have some impacts on a local scale. If we had some data on how redwood trees absorb based on the different environmental conditions, I could run some numbers to figure out the differences and see how it would be affected.

Agreed on the impacts though, this isn't a zero impact technology, but compared to the direct competitors it is trying to replace (groundwater harvesting or desalination), it is an improvement. A mindset I like to apply is that humanity will need water regardless of how they get it. New technologies should provide a solution that is lower impact, along with a financial incentive (cost).

[-] ammonium@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Not that I think your device has the same danger because water captured from the air will likely quickly be released again into the same air, but I think this is not a very good example of the safety of your device:

It’s similar thing to taking water from a river. If we take all the water from a river, can we dry up downstream? Yes!

We can and we do. The Colorado and the Yellow river no longer consistently reach the ocean.

[-] Hi_ImSomeone@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

The comparison I was trying to make is that we do have the power to capture 100% of a river. This isn't good, for obvious reasons. Humidity capture is a much different process, since we can't just capture 100% of the humidity from a panel either. You could have 80% humidity going in, but actually still 50% relative humidity going out. And that would be maximum absorbtion performance!

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] lumettaria@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 day ago

Don't let Sam Altman know about this, his data centers about to have some upgrades /s

[-] Gsus4@mander.xyz 8 points 1 day ago
[-] Tattorack@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago

So... Another dehumidifier... We've been over this before.

Many times.

Many many times.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] 69420@lemmy.world 228 points 3 days ago

Finally, I can achieve my dreams of becoming a moisture farmer.

[-] mushroommunk@lemmy.today 81 points 3 days ago

Hope you enjoy a whiny nephew

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] sveltecider@lemmy.world 21 points 2 days ago

I’m always extremely skeptical of stuff like this

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] GenosseFlosse@feddit.org 35 points 2 days ago

This has been debunked before. To get 1000liter of water out of the air, the air needs to hold that much water.

[-] Slashme@lemmy.world 36 points 2 days ago

This is a bit more serious than the old, frequently-debunked "dehumidifier in the desert" stuff, because it doesn't depend on cooling the air to get the water out, but using a molecular sponge. If you pump enough air over that, you'll eventually fill it up, and you can drive the water out by heating it up.

The guy behind this is a serious organic chemist, and his Nobel prize was actually for pioneering and developing these molecules, so it's not a case of "Nobel prize winner does daft stuff about a subject he's not an expert in", either.

I'm still reserving judgement on whether this will be economically sensible, but I'm not dismissing it immediately, either.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] cout970@programming.dev 24 points 2 days ago

Oh no, the same scam again, when will people realize that putting dehumidifiers in the desert, where there is little to none humidity in the air does not produce significant quantities of water.

You can claim that your solution produces thousands of liters of water, but in practice its obvious that you cannot extract more water than what's already im the air, once you extract it, there is nothing left, it may work at first, but is not going to work continuously forever.

This is another example of a promised technology scam, pay me for the development and once it doesn't work, disappear with the money. People keep falling for it for some reason.

[-] zephiriz@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 days ago

How many times do we have to fall for this garbage. Well I guess if your doing it to scam dumb rich people be my guest, but this shit is dumb.

https://youtu.be/OfmQcY_sEt0

[-] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 days ago

If people keep reinventing the fucking dehumidifier I'm going to start beating these dipshits bloody. Or maybe I should just collect the old beater ones I see at estate and yard sales to make YouTube videos making fun of them. Regardless this is barely worth praise for an amateur engineering project let alone a nobel prize.

[-] Eccowave@feddit.org 83 points 3 days ago
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 2 days ago

There have been so many of these devices promoted in Kickstarter, dragons den, etc.

I'm highly sceptical, as so far scientists have told me there simply isn't that much moist in the desert air to get even one liter of clean water per day. You simply cannot create water out of nothing.

[-] Malfeasant@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I live in Phoenix. When I first moved here, I lived in a shitty apartment that didn't maintain my air conditioning, and the condenser drain clogged and started leaking, so I had to put out buckets to catch the water. I could easily squeeze a gallon out of the air in a few hours, and that was just a 750 sqft apartment...

[-] pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 days ago

I wonder if these guys realize that if you suck up all moisture from the air, it will be pretty dry and you will need the same amount of water to replace the water you displaced

[-] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 days ago

I am guessing they are aware how their machine works. Air isn't usually stagnant, if you have moving air that means moisture is replacing it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] HowAbt2day@futurology.today 59 points 3 days ago

That water was in its way to somewhere, though. What is that other area gonna look like now that this device intercepts the water?

[-] SweatyFireBalls@lemmy.world 59 points 3 days ago

Sounds like that other area needs to pull up on those bootstraps and make a water machine for its needs then.

This comment is brought to you by the sigma water machine, buy yours today and lock your grindset on hydration!

(Hopefully obvious but /s)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] homes@piefed.world 28 points 3 days ago
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] MolochHorridus@lemmy.ml 43 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Yet again, nobody seems to be giving a thought what this means to organisms that are living in the desert. This water is necessary for life and we’re taking it.

[-] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 60 points 3 days ago

As someone who has thought about it, could you provide the data that you used to come to the conclusion that the amount of water being extracted from the air has any appreciable effect on local life?

From my thinking...

Death Valley covers 7800km^2.. Atmospheric moisture is typically contained in the first 10km of air. So there is somewhere around 2.5 quadrillion cubic feet of air containing 114 billion gallons of water.

The average Atmospheric Water Vapour Residence Time is around 8 days The median is 5 days and Death Valley's topography is a valley which would trap more moisture, but we'll use the average instead.

This represents a moisture turnover rate of about 625,000 Liters/second (or 1.45x10^10 gallons/day).

So, one of these devices would consume .000185% of the moisture that enters Death Valley every day.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2026
590 points (96.1% liked)

Technology

82188 readers
3275 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