[ChuckMcM]

Okay, I see where we diverge. The 'cube' was something I was thinking about not in the paper. I'll see if I can describe what I was thinking and you can tell me it breaks the rules :-).

You coat a piece of aluminum with nano-pore material and hang it vertically. Air flows over it and droplets appear on its surface (based on the paper). You also hang a frame of vertical wires (unenergized just small diameter wires, kind of like a screen but without the horizontal members) in front of the sheet by 1/2 the droplet's diameter. The wires don't touch the surface, they are suspended 1/2 droplet away.

Now when a droplet forms, it grows and intersects the wire (which is not hydrophobic) Surface tension puts the droplet around the wire and it slides down to the bottom of the wire frame, impacting any other droplets that had formed below it.

The resulting liquid water drops off the bottom of the wire frame into a catch pan below.

If one of these assemblies generates net water production from RH 70% air then an array of then would generate more water.

What am I missing?

[cyberax]

The second law of thermodynamics. It's now trivially easy to create a free energy:

1. Have the drops fall on some surface and let them evaporate. This can happen because the relative humidity is below 100%.

2. This surface will get cooled by the evaporation.

3. Now use that temperature gradient to get free energy!

[ChuckMcM]

Does hydroelectric power violate the second law of thermodynamics in your opinion? I mean

1. Drops fall from the sky

2. They collect and flow down a river

3. We use that river to generate hydroelectric power to get free energy!

Water vapor, in air, has both thermal and potential energy that under the right conditions can be converted into a more useful form. We agree on that yes?

[cyberax]

No, we don't.

In case of hydroelectric power, there's a temperature gradient, driven by the Sun. Water evaporates in higher temperatures, radiates the heat into space, and falls out as rain.

[ChuckMcM]

This:

"Water evaporates in higher temperatures, radiates the heat into space, and falls out as rain."

The paper says, "Water vapor in the nano-pores radiates its heat into the material and comes out to the surface as liquid water."

So you don't believe that the researchers experiment did what they say it did?

That's fine, typically in science you go and see if you can reproduce it.

So you don't believe that the researchers correctly described what was going on when it did what it did?

That's fine, typically in science you go and propose a way to falsify their hypothesis and test that.

My point was simply, if the researchers were presumptively accurate in their understanding (that's the principle of giving them the benefit of the doubt), then it would imply their material would pull liquid water out of the air below the temperature and conditions in which it would normally precipitate out.

They go to some length in their exposition to describe how they think it does that and where the energy comes from and where it goes. But if you don't believe them, then sure.

[cyberax]

> "Water vapor in the nano-pores radiates its heat into the material and comes out to the surface as liquid water."

Then the _material_ is a store of energy. Once it's exhausted, the condensation will stop.

> So you don't believe that the researchers correctly described what was going on when it did what it did?

The article is very low-quality. They must understand that their work implies the conservation law violations, so there must be some unaccounted source of energy. But they have not attempted to find it.

And it can be as simple as energy from the moving air. Or maybe an electrostatic charge, or something similar.

Once the energy source is identified, they should have calculated the efficiency of their setup, compared to regular dehumidifiers.

[ChuckMcM]

Awesome, that is very helpful.

> Then the _material_ is a store of energy. Once it's exhausted, the condensation will stop.

The paper points out that the sample was surface that maintains a particular temperature (20 degrees C in this case). The water condenses, the material heats up, the thing its sitting on removes that excess heat to maintain the temperature. No violation of CoE or TD.

Without that temperature controller, the material would presumably continue to store the heat, which would make it hotter than the ambient temperature. By how much is, as you point out, something to be characterized.

Thermodynamics says that the heat will equalize, so that excess heat will conduct to the air around it (it's not in a vacuum so it doesn't have to radiate it). That will lower the temperature of the material which will then condense more water and heat up again. My original thought was you could enhance that conduction by putting a heatsink on one side of the material.

The paper states that inside the pores they have managed to create a space that changes the parameters around the vapor carrying capacity of the air which results in the water condensing even though it would not have condensed outside those pores. Then they go on to describe how the effects of hydrophillic and hydrophobic materials, used in conjunction, create spaces near the molecular limit of water molecules and how the forces acting on that water might result in it condensing. When the vapor does condense, the heat goes somewhere, and they assume its going into the material (reasonable assumption in my opinion) and that their temperature controlled platform is then removing it. I found the description of how that water expresses to the surface a bit more "hand wavy" but that they observed liquid water on the surface, and that it is somehow coming from the material they created, seems reasonably well supported.

I think for the purposes of this discussion we're done. I really do appreciate that you are skeptical and feel that some of the more well tested laws of physics are being violated :-). Since we can only go on what they wrote up, I did make the presumption that they too know the laws of physics and have a good faith belief that they are not being violated either. It is one of the things I look for in papers that talk about things like this. Also the journal where they published their paper, Science Advances, is a refereed journal so I would presume that the reviewers were also satisfied they weren't violating any well known laws of physics. Doesn't mean that you should believe what they say, just that it's not obviously wrong.

[gus_massa]

I agree, but let's try to explain the microdetails of the scenario.

The new material is very hydrophilic, so the water prefer to be attached to it than been vapor.

If the wire is even more hydrophilic then the droplets will jump and collect around the wires, but they will be so attached that they will not fall down from the lower extreme of the wires.

If the wires are not so hydrophilic, the water will prefer to keep attached to the surface, or even the droplets will be smaller to avoid the wires and the collection will stop earlier.

Tweaking smartly the hydrophilic values and separations between the wires and the separation with the surface you may get interesting capillarity effect, but the water will be trapped again.

Anyway, it's difficult to look at all the details, but at the end of the day "The second law of thermodynamics. It's now trivially easy to create a free energy:"

[cyberax]

To add to this, there is a well-known "free energy" device design: have wicks moving water from a lower reservoir to a higher reservoir. Then use it to drive a water wheel.

It sounds good on paper because everybody knows that water can travel up a wick. But of course, if the end of the wick in the upper reservoir is submerged in the water, then water will just as happily travel _down_ the wick. And if the end of the wick is in free air, then water will not drip from it because the same capillary forces prevent it.