Pulling drinkable water out of dry air

[@nikolasga5423]

we studied mofs in university and its actualy amazing to see them in real aplications!

[@ByronAgain]

I don't disagree that MOFs are a neat tech. but they're a really bad, costly way to make water. And they, like any other desiccant dehumidifier won't produce a drop unless they're in the perfect conditions - so, cool tech with some niche applications, but not a solution to a water shortage.

[@Dexter101x]

+Thunderf00t, where are you?

[@user-cu1uj6bl3r]

He's too busy thinking he's sensible at politics.

[@Dexter101x]

lol

[@dkorobchenko1]

aww i was to late

[@Hammerhook12]

Boo He's actually back at debunking bad science and has been at it for a while.

[@Dexter101x]

Cipheroid he has now uploaded a video debunking this

[@cabbage5114]

I like how there are people in the comments who know more about MOFs than a person who has been researching them for nearly three decades

[@cabbage5114]

its awesome how he condenses years of research into you pour this into this, mix it, and take the water out of it

[@moleculeman4653]

MOFs are wonderful ensembles! The potential uses are limited only by our imaginations.

[@megoesmo0]

This is still a standard Peltier dehumidifier with a little add-on MOF layer that might make it easier to take the liquid out of the air. So when a normal dehumidifier would struggle getting any water out of 30% humidity this will get some drops. There is 1kg (2.2 lbs) of MOF needed to get 2.8 liter of water. Looking at the size of this device there is maybe some grams, lets day 5g, of MOF on one of these devices, so you would still need 200 of these little boxes to get 2.8 litres of water. I don't think that will solve any water problems in the near future.

[@ByronAgain]

Agreed. It's a false economy and far, far from being a solution to water shortages.

[@anirudhbharadhwaj9553]

awesome !!! ,guys make it available for everyone ! you guys are changing the world ! making it a better place

[@liangshang7072]

good, Berkeley is always good at chemistry and physical sciences, show us more of the videos

[@mmalshammeri5326]

can you buy this material

[@alvaromartinez3640]

Alguien sabe donde se puede acceder a ese MOF-303?

[@diamonsterish]

It is something like the combination of liquid and solid desiccants. Despite having thrived for several years, the efficiency in term of recycling is still desperate. Supposing that they would break this hurdle thanks to the MOF.

[@beautifulfouse]

While I appreciate new discovery and do think this will eventually advance to be successful I have to say it is not workable yet. Having to have water and liquids in the first place to make MOF, then take the MOF to the desert is a chore. There are many ways to pull water in the desert with basic tools now which are far more practical. But in the future of MOF could be a great advancement. I was military water procurement which involved high volume delivery systems, trust me we have them in much simpler forms.

[@Julian-tf8nj]

This might be great for sailboats, etc, on long ocean voyages!

[@RalphDratman]

How do you get the water out of the MOF? I assume the answer has something to do with the sunlight you mentioned. Would sunlight also be used to remove CO2 or natural gas from one of the other kinds of MOF?

[@ericcartmann]

What keeps the container walls cool?

[@RalphDratman]

So it is the temperature rather than a direct photon reaction

[@bluenetmarketing]

Eric Cartman - The container walls are kept cool by an a/c that runs on electricity which costs twice as much to cool the water out of the air as you saved using the MOF, proving once again that the inventions of the left always give you one dollar in your right hand and take away two dollars from your left hand. Also you have to actually heat the MOF to 1000 degrees C to force the water out of it, which also costs a lot of hamburgers. So in a nutshell, it's great for the existing energy companies with all of the MOFing, heating, and cooling. Oh well, at least it made a nice sounding video.

[@ericcartmann]

that was my skepticism. It requires energy to pull a system out of equilibrium. This is known as entropy. Just because a H2O(g) releases energy to get to H2O(l), you need energy to pull this system out of equilibrium. However what do you mean "inventions of the left". lol

[@247musicloop]

it's cheaper to burn candles than use a light bulb. It's cheaper to heat your home with wood stove. it's cheaper to do nothing and just live like cavemen. Inventions are meant to make life easier not cheaper.

[@swapnendupramanik2067]

Thanks Mr yaghi

[@charleslindeman2169]

So... how is this better from a conventional dehumidifier?

[@Dexter101x]

He isn't asking for crowdfunding????

[@SmartK8]

Instead of 0.2l per 24h you have 3l per 12h (30x better) with only solar energy (less power). It's also cheaper to make. Just these "little" differences.

[@nakedgunmusic]

How about you listen to the clip before you comment... "using nothing but sunlight"...

[@charlesvan13]

So it uses solar power to power a dehumidifier. This is debunked on Thunderfoot's channel. You can't change the amount of energy needed to change water from a gas to a liquid. You have to take a huge amount of energy out of the system, which requires large amounts of energy.

[@Dexter101x]

Charles Lindeman I have seen it

[@ryeosborne]

Uncle Owen would be proud.

[@nu.wa.n]

Moisture Farming on Mars will be a thing

[@victorruiz7359]

Tatooine

[@JudgeDillon]

How is this any more viable than a conventional peltier effect dehumidifier?

[@Chase-b5t]

Is it really that difficult to comprehend? Look up the materials that make up a standard dehumidifier and the performance based upon them and look up the materials that make up this device and the performance based upon them and come back and tell us what you find.

[@BingeCenter]

it's a catcher

[@Fogsight]

"Phil: I can write a program that’s triggered by an acid buildup. A sort of acid interface, or “*ass face*” for short. Lem: I’m not sure these abbreviations are really worth the time they’re saving." I miss Better Off Ted. Also, great invention!

[@UrgeidoitNet]

amazing!

[@antonv.]

cool invention!

[@randywatson8347]

Saw that article few weeks ago... they never learn... Instead of glorifying the science behind it, why not go straight to the areas that need help and fund the building of water infrastructure/transportation instead. Stop referencing other people's social economic problems to claim your solution until you prove it is really working in the field.

[@randywatson8347]

@E W Ok, sexual butthole.

[@victorruiz7359]

that sounds extremely dangerous....

[@notarealhandle123]

You don't need to wear glasses for this interview, show off!

[@no.one.two.]

No glasses, no entrance to the lab, simple as that! This stupid way you try to discredit Yaghi says a lot more about yourself than him...

[@Ichinin]

Obligatory Dune clip: kzbin.info/www/bejne/q32meZ6Yh5JqoM0

[@GMRTranscriptionServicesInc]

MOFs can solve critical problems faced by humanity, like water scarcity in the arid regions and pollution in industrialized areas, if deployed on a mass scale into the future. Full credits to the professor and his team for this path-breaking research. :)

[@ByronAgain]

No, they can't. Not unless the conditions are absolutely ideal. Nor can any other desiccant dehumidifier or solar still etc. conservation of energy etc. I don't deny MOFs are very cool technology, but as a large-scale solution to water shortage, no. The costs in materials, logistics and even losses to evaporation in hot, dry conditions all run against this as a solution (to name a few). Honestly, trucking in water in convoys is a better use of the energy than this.

[@ByronAgain]

*Oh, come on. Haven't you read the label on a dehumidifier?* "do not drink this water" - why? It's a nasty sludge that would require both decontamination and remineralization before it could be considered fit for human consumption. So, that's nice? Right? And while we're on the topic; thermodynamics? Ya didn't think so. To produce water from air that is either too dry or too cold, or too hot - that's right, water from air that's not in the Goldilocks zone of just the right temperature and humidity, well, there won't be any water, no matter how much power you pump into it - by the way, even if you pumped in megajoules of energy and did manage to make water, it'd be the most expensive water on earth - which, as bragging rights is a thing, but not one people won't laugh at. So, go reread the law of the conservation of energy and generally brush up on thermodynamics and stop spreading this codswallop around like a muppet-headed sheep.

[@no.one.two.]

You clearly don't know the simplest principles about MOFs.

[@ByronAgain]

@@no.one.two. Well, you'd be wrong about that. Look at the energy costs for the system. While you're at it look at the total material costs for the system as a whole. What does that do to the cost of the water? Oh, and now operate the system in a low humidity setting. Let me know how it goes.

[@cabbage5114]

this is developing technology, dude. give it time, there is a lot more research to be done in this field. plus, professor yaghi is one of the foremost researchers in this field. also, are you comparing cutting edge mof technology to a dehumidifier?

[@ByronAgain]

@@cabbage5114 because that what it amounts to. Most solutions 'in development' never make it out of the lab p and that what this is, a lab experiment, end of story. Sure, it 'looks cool' but in practical terms it's unlikely to scale or compete with less technologically encumbered solutions. Stop fanboying and think critically - look at the problem and the other solutions that are available.

[@cabbage5114]

@@ByronAgain Never said it will, might never, but that doesn't change the fact that it could. if this man has been researching them since the early 90's, he probably knows what he's talking about. plus a scientist at an esteemed university has practically no reasons to try and scam you. if h say's something, he genuinely believes it, though it may be right or wrong. I'm not saying you're wrong either. I respect your opinion, but I'm just saying that you shouldn't completely deny a potential idea, just because we haven't gotten around the problems yet. living past fifty was considered impossible a thousand years ago. and about fanboying, I literally just found out this guy existed.

[@Mobutusese]

How are we "serving" society with this again? or are we going to sell something real soon to kind of trick people to think is something huge when in reality is more gimmicky science, making as usual a few even wealthier and the rest staying as they are? Tired of this 30 year long "studies" going no where.

[@Mobutusese]

@E W go fucq yourself XlX nerd

[@unitedstatesofanime222]

YES YES YES!!!

[@ByronAgain]

H AHA HHAHAHHAHAH...no.

[@drvirendrakumar2388]

fine good service of mankind

[@bartonez123]

HAHAHAHAHA Someone get this guy to look up the law of thermodynamics so he can move on and actually work on something close to being real world practical. I hope no taxpayer money went towards funding this guy

[@ryeosborne]

bartonez123 Gotta love a random KZbin dork that thinks he knows more than a UC Berkeley scientist.

[@ByronAgain]

Ryan Osborne Amazing, how some other random youtube jerk thinks another random youtube jerk knows more than a UC Berkeley jerk - funny story though, the first rando was right and the second rando should have paid more attention in physics class.

[@Chase-b5t]

@@ByronAgain No you clown, I have a PhD in physics and Yaghi is completely correct. There's nothing here that goes against any laws of thermodynamics. Perhaps you should take your own advice and read the chapters on the first and second laws from a high school chemistry book before attempting to undermine people who understand more than you.

[@ByronAgain]

@@Chase-b5t Couple of things, you muppet, if MOFs work why do they need a Peltier device? (you did see the whacking big Peltier wired into the system, right?) No? Interesting... look again. Now, Aren't MOFs supposed to be passive collectors? Yes? Then why the Peltier? MOFs might be great in a humid environment, not so good in a dry one. "Solar and wind!" you say, which true; given that MOFs aren't passive water collectors, you can produce the energy you need to power the Peltier devices, but then how much energy are you pouring into the device versus how much water as a product? What does the energy consumption look like and what's the resulting cost per liter for the water? And how does that scale versus just laying a pipeline or trucking the water in?

[@xouric0]

This does not work... jesus christ... How can this crap be published on Science magazine I wonder... =\