Extracting drinking water from dry air

Originally posted by @metal-brain
What is your source of information?

sometimes hearing people speak of "dry air" + common sense telling us they don't mean air with zero humidity because that wouldn't make sense.
What is your source of information?

Originally posted by @humy
sometimes hearing people speak of "dry air" + common sense telling us they don't mean air with zero humidity because that wouldn't make sense.
What is your source of information?

I thought you were making it up.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
I thought you were making it up.

But you have to know there was previous work done to exactly that but not as efficiently, like piling up stones say 10 cm in diameter in a pile say 2 meters high in the shape of a pyramid and a water collector underneath and that assembly was proven to collect some water, not a huge amount but enough for a couple of people.

So did you watch the video? That is doing the same thing but much more efficiently, more water collected per pound of material.

There is no place on Earth where the air has zero moisture and I think you know that.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
But you have to know there was previous work done to exactly that but not as efficiently, like piling up stones say 10 cm in diameter in a pile say 2 meters high in the shape of a pyramid and a water collector underneath and that assembly was proven to collect some water, not a huge amount but enough for a couple of people.

So did you watch the video? T ...[text shortened]... terial.

There is no place on Earth where the air has zero moisture and I think you know that.

Extracting drinking water from "relatively" dry air.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Extracting drinking water from "relatively" dry air.

Obviously. That is implied by the term.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Obviously. That is implied by the term.

No, it is not implied. It is assumed by those that accept his error as acceptable. That is all.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
No, it is not implied. It is assumed by those that accept his error as acceptable. That is all.

It isn't an "error" to assume the most common given meaning of a common English term or word as 'acceptable'. Unless it's a scientific/maths term (in which case it is possible for it to be generally assigned the wrong meaning by most laypeople and I can think of several examples of that), it is reasonable to accept that the most 'correct' meaning to assign to a common English term/word is necessarily whatever most English speaking people mean by it. "dry air" isn't a scientific/maths term thus it isn't an error to assign to it whatever meaning most people usually assign to it. Most people don't imply zero humidity by "dry air" thus you are in error to claim they are in error by them sometimes calling air that has non-zero humidity "dry air". "dry air" means air merely with relatively low humidity (and no liquid water), not with zero humidity (although if it did have zero humidity then it would still be called dry air).
It's a relative term; so what? Many English terms are.

Originally posted by @humy
It isn't an "error" to assume the most common given meaning of a common English term or word as 'acceptable'. Unless it's a scientific/maths term (in which case it is possible for it to be generally assigned the wrong meaning by most laypeople and I can think of several examples of that), it is reasonable to accept that the most 'correct' meaning to assign to ...[text shortened]... then it would still be called dry air).
It's a relative term; so what? Many English terms are.

In other words, it is too much trouble for you to use the word "relatively" even though it would correct your incorrect statement.

Defending inaccuracies is futile. Assuming is not scientific. How many times have I told you not to assume?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
In other words, it is too much trouble for you to use the word "relatively" even though it would correct your incorrect statement.

No. "dry air" is the correct term. No need to prefix that with the obviously superfluous word "relative" when it is perfectly obvious to all it is relative.
It is just like all other relative terms such as "tall man" or "dirty" or "too much trouble" (your above words) or indeed "dry"; it is completely idiotic to insist that people should always say that as "relatively tall man" or "relatively dirty" or "relatively too much trouble" or "relatively dry" as the "relative" part is superfluous as it is obvious to all that it always IS relative.
With your own above moronic logic, your above statement must be incorrect because you said that as "...it is too much trouble for you to use the word... " and not as "...it is relatively too much trouble for you to use the word... ".
In other words, it is too much trouble for you to use the word "relatively" even though it would correct your incorrect statement (your own moronic logic used against you).
With you above moronic logic, probably most English sentences should include at least one superfluous use of the word "relative"; why?

Assuming is not scientific

'Assuming' what? What am I 'assuming' here that is anti-scientific?

Originally posted by @humy
No. "dry air" is the correct term. No need to prefix that with the obviously superfluous word "relative" when it is perfectly obvious to all it is relative.
It is just like all other relative terms such as "tall man" or "dirty" or "too much trouble" (your above words) or indeed "dry"; it is completely idiotic to insist that people should always say that as " ...[text shortened]... is not scientific [/quote]
'Assuming' what? What am I 'assuming' here that is anti-scientific?

🙄

Originally posted by @metal-brain
🙄

Why are you quibbling over semantics when what we are talking about is really nice scientific result, getting water out of air as low as 8% humidity.

Why bring up side issues when that is what we are discussing?

Who gives a shyte as to what 'dry air' means? Like I said, you know full well there is no place on Earth where air is 0 % humid outside a laboratory.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Why are you quibbling over semantics when what we are talking about is really nice scientific result, getting water out of air as low as 8% humidity.

Why bring up side issues when that is what we are discussing?

Who gives a shyte as to what 'dry air' means? Like I said, you know full well there is no place on Earth where air is 0 % humid outside a laboratory.

Of course. Wet air is just purified water.

Did you find that citation for kombucha causing liver and kidney damage. If true, that seems like a substance that should not be sold a grocery stores. You'll be happy to know I stopped drinking it.

It'd be really cool if they could engineer this as a handheld or small-ish (backpack size) device you could take hiking or camping in water-less climates.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
No, it is not implied. It is assumed by those that accept his error as acceptable. That is all.

Tell that to a meteorologist. They talk about dry air all the time.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Tell that to a meteorologist. They talk about dry air all the time.

Apparently he thinks he knows better than the meteorologists (and all other people).
In contrast, I don't.
He inadvertently shows how very important it is to know one's limits of one's knowledge.

Originally posted by @humy
Apparently he thinks he knows better than the meteorologists (and all other people).
In contrast, I don't.
He inadvertently shows how very important it is to know one's limits of one's knowledge.

Meteorologists are not physicists.

What is your field of study again?