Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's very exciting. I'd love to have everything in/around my house open source.
Quoted post unavailable.
Found the MPAA / RIAA rep
Google open sources solar atmospheric water generator
211–220 of 246 posts
Re: Google open sources solar atmospheric water generator
#212Open sources is another word for "abandons". Israel has made a massive desalination plant, to turn salt water into potable water and it's no easy task. If they could have taken water from the atmosphere I'm sure they would have tried. It's a pipe dream so far.
The absolute worst case for open sourcing ("abandoning") a project is showing everyone else what you did and what results you reached or didn't, meaning everyone can avoid doing the same thing again, which is still a positive. All other scenarios are even better.
Re: Google open sources solar atmospheric water generator
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
He actually has outlined exactly what's wrong with these ideas. I mean the hyperloop was supposed to be "like an air hockey table", well guess what, musk now "advocates for wheels"... It's just a really bad and unworkable idea. The idea of 1000km long vacuum tubes is beyond stupid, when we already have high speed rail. Please tell me how stating these facts are "small minded" or "pessimistic". His main point is usual…
I never mentioned hyperloop. Again this is the level of reply I would expect of Thunderf00t. You can do better
This relates to hyperloop "Elon Musk Invents UNDERGROUND Traffic Jam!"
Re: Google open sources solar atmospheric water generator
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citation needed. I worked there for two years and there are a LOT of projects that are sitting collecting dust that in my opinion could really help people if they were released as open source. The one I am thinking of (not my place to disclose what it is) was canned in 2017 and I always wished they would have just released it. X has open sourced some stuff and that is great, but whether they have been "really good" a…
Be the change you want to see in the world. Inquire about getting it open sourced.
I was very new and low level when that happened. But as I stayed there for a while I did inquire about some other things, and the responses I got showed me that they don’t really care. I tried to start an internal initiative for something and more or less got shot down. It was pretty upsetting actually.
So then I left and started an open source farming robot project I am really proud of:
https://community.twistedfields.com/t/march-2022-update-simu...
Re: Google open sources solar atmospheric water generator
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Any water condensed from the air is going to be "pure" by most measures. It's essentially distilled water. And you can freely give it for spherical cows to drink in vacuum. Keeping any such device free from contamination is very difficult. Bacteria love the moist environments. Leave it unattended and you have moist dust. Lovely.
So put an air filter on it for the dust and boil or chlorinate the final product. I'm betting it's a lot cleaner than groundwater.
Boiling the final product then gives a process of: evaporate -> condense -> re-evaporate -> re-condense
Quite a lot of energy, but at least you can market it as double-distilled, like a fancy spirit.
Re: Google open sources solar atmospheric water generator
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never mentioned hyperloop. Again this is the level of reply I would expect of Thunderf00t. You can do better
This relates to hyperloop "Elon Musk Invents UNDERGROUND Traffic Jam!"
That video is about the Boring Company. They are making tunnels not hyperloops
Re: Google open sources solar atmospheric water generator
#217The biggest question is why did they can the project?
Without knowing that, I don't really want to touch it. If I spent a couple of years trying to take their prototype design and bring it to market, only to discover the fundamental flaw that also caused them to can the project, it would be massive waste of my time and resources.
Re: Google open sources solar atmospheric water generator
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, let me say the number comes from the readme presented, not my own research or claims. Second, the claim that the water isn't clean enough for drinking should be qualified. You can drink it and survive, hopefully. But bacteria exist in these water sources that give people dysentery or other illnesses from which they die. In underdeveloped parts of the world there are poor mortality rates. Humanitarian goals see…
I think I see what you are saying, and I haven't read the book or anything on this topic. I can absolutely imagine how people would have better lives with more and cleaner water. But billions of people is an extraordinary equilibrium population already, and it makes me wonder if access to water will improve the lives in question, or raise the equilibrium population to a higher level at the same amount of misery and s…
Coming from a country with more than a billion people, most of them not having access to safe water I’d reckon the number isn’t absurd at all.
PS. On top of that this country isn’t the unsafest drinking water place on the planet.
Re: Google open sources solar atmospheric water generator
#219Open sources is another word for "abandons". Israel has made a massive desalination plant, to turn salt water into potable water and it's no easy task. If they could have taken water from the atmosphere I'm sure they would have tried. It's a pipe dream so far.
They have tried, actually, and are trying still: https://www.technion.ac.il/en/2021/07/water-from-air-europe-...
Re: Google open sources solar atmospheric water generator
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dehumidifiers aren't what's thermodynamically impossible, of course; Fontus was just making quantitative performance claims that were thermodynamically impossible about how small their system would be and how little energy it would use. You don't need to sink to citing YouTubers to figure out how much water air contains. You can just consult a standard psychrometric chart: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Psyc…
> " You don't need to sink to citing YouTubers " You say, whiloe going through the same calculations as Thunderf00t makes, to make the same points he makes. Including: how it is possible to do it, how dehumidifiers exist, what humidity means, how far out the Fontus design sizes were from being practically workable. 49cfm assuming you get solar power 24/7. Double or triple that to get it through while the sun is shini…
> You say, while going through the same calculations as Thunderf00t makes, to make the same points he makes
Right, but people reading my comment don't have to sit through a long video of some guy yelling at them to see that the calculations are correct. And they can see your correction to the airflow calculation immediately below my comment:
> Double or triple that to get it through while the sun is shining.
I'd say quadruple, given the typical 25% capacity factor for utility-scale PV in the desert in the US. (Quintuple or more if you aren't in the desert — but then you can just use a rain barrel.) I should have included that correction in my comment, and I appreciate that you took the time to point it out.
> we can hear the fans running and see how "barely noticeable" they are
It's all a matter of ducting cross-sectional area. 10k m³ per day is 120 ℓ/s; through a 100-mm-diameter round duct that's 15 meters per second, or 55 km/h, "near gale" on the Beaufort scale. The same 120 ℓ/s through a one-square-meter aperture is 120 mm/s, a wind speed where smoke from a chimney rises vertically.
> This comment is weird because I imagine you don't actually right now have a solar-water-dehumidifier providing water for your family so that you don't die in 48 hours when your water supply fails? If not, why not?
I don't live in the sort of desert where a solar dehumidifier would be a better option than a cistern; I live next to the widest river in the world. If I dig a hole in the sandy soil, after about three meters I have to stop digging unless I have an electric water pump running 24/7 to keep the hole from filling up with water. I don't know how things are where you're from, but here in Argentina, we have municipal water supplies run through pipes, supplied by water treatment plants. Unlike truckers, the pipes don't go on strike, call in sick, or get hijacked by asphalt pirates, and if a worker at the plant does, another worker can fill in for them. There's a 1000-liter water tank on the roof which takes about three days to empty when the water main does cut out. (Yes, sometimes that means it gets unpleasantly warm.) Dozens of grocery stores are a short walk away, replete with bottled water and soft drinks. We get 1200 mm of rain a year. In fact, it's raining right now.
A friend of mine lives in a nearby suburb that doesn't have a municipal water supply and where the river water is too polluted to drink safely. Her roof drains into a rain barrel.
My family members who live in semi-arid deserts without municipal water systems drill wells. (One of them actually has a dug well, the kind you could fall into, predating the municipal water supply.) The aquifers reached by the wells go lower every year, and sometimes you have to go and drill them deeper. In such places, civilizations like that of the ancestral Puebloans have collapsed during centuries of drought. People living in such places today without well-drilling equipment often spend many hours a week walking to water sources and carrying the water back home.
Many deserts today have no permanent inhabitants because of such considerations — you can only stay there until you run out of the water you brought with you. Burning Man is held in such a place, but not the driest one; there are places in the Atacama where rainfall has never been recorded. Theoretically a permanent settlement in such a place could rely on weekly water tankers driving in from wetter regions, but, for the reasons I outline above, only theoretically. Household-scale solar dehumidifiers are a much more feasible solution.
The more important reason my comment is weird is that it engages in factual and logical exploration of things that currently do not exist, but could, based on objectively verifiable information about the world. Your comment is weird in the same way, and I appreciate that. Let's have more weird comments.