6 ms·
Not bad for a roof of concept...
by srott 8y ago
Not bad for a roof of concept...
- organsnyder 8y agoMillimeters over what area, though? A millimeter depth over a kilometer^2 area is a decent amount of water; a millimeter depth over a meter^2, less so.
- extrememacaroni 8y agoIt's a millimeter towards around up.
- froindt 8y agoThey're measuring in a volumetric unit, and you switched it to a linear unit. They're using milliliters not millimeters. 1 milliliter = 1 cm^3 237 ml = 1 cup EDIT: Nevermind regarding the unit confusion. I'm still learning how to read.
- itp 8y agoUnless I'm missing something, (s)he didn't switch any units. The original article as I am reading it clearly just says "millimeters" without any associated area or timeframe.
- jgh 8y agoI think TC screwed it up, the MIT article (linked in the article) says milliliters. --- > The test device was powered solely by sunlight, and although it was a small proof-of-concept device, if scaled up its output would be equivalent to more than a quarter-liter of water per day per kilogram of MOF, the researchers say. ... > The next step, Wang says, is to work on scaling up the system and boosting its efficiency. “We hope to have a system that’s able to produce liters of water.” These small, initial test systems were only designed to produce a few milliliters, to prove the concept worked in real-world conditions
- narag 8y agoMillimeters over what area, though? [Edited] It could be any, if the device depends on area. The more area you use, the more water you get. Weather report often uses litres per square metres. One meter high per square metre is a thousand litres, so one mm would be a litre. Edit: in the article I read: These small, initial test systems were only designed to produce a few milliliter. So it's much less :-)