a lex ([info]stop_apathy) wrote in [info]engineers,
@ 2005-07-13 14:50:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current music:MC Solar - Obsolete
Entry tags:chemical

Water for the World!! Boo intellectual properties.
Air2Water products are best described as atmospheric water generators. Air2Water water generating machines use technology (developed and patented by Worldwide Water, Inc.) that extracts pure drinking water from the air. The machine first pulls air through an electrostatic filter removing 93% of all air borne particles. As the machine collects the water it drops into a collection tray and immediately passes into Ultraviolet (UV) light, where the water stays in contact with UV rays for approximately 30 minutes. This kills 99.9% of all germs and bacteria in the water. The water is then pumped through a sediment screen into a 24 volt water pump, and back through two (2) solid carbon block 1 micron water filters, NSF 53 approved, which removes 99.9% of any volatile organic chemicals(VOC's) that may be in the water. It it also filtered through our proprietary Ultrafiltration (UF) with membrane pore size of 0.015 micron to remove virtually all bacterian and common viruses. The water then goes through a half calcite, half GAC mineral additive where it is then pumped into a reservoir tank. The water is then recycled every hour through the UV and back into the reservoir tank. The water is then chilled or heated and dispensed to the consumers.

More than anything in this world - people need a clean glass of water. I wonder exactly how this all works. If anyone has ever installed a well system, they know how involved the process can be - this drastically simplifies EVERYTHING. Hmmm - I'll look more into this~


(Post a new comment)


[info]wouch
2005-07-13 10:24 pm UTC (link)
There is a lot of ongoing research in portable technology like this. They're usually more of tandem technology to what is described here, rather than a reverse engineering this expensive technology. Besides, read their intellectual property warning:
The company’s philosophy is to vigorously protect and defend these patents and other intellectual property rights through all legal remedies available. The company anticipates vigorously pursuing litigation against infringers in the future as it becomes aware of these infringements and other violations of its intellectual property rights.

For developing countries (most of the "world"), I think there are many other low-cost, low-tech options for treating available water before resorting to such fancy air-to-water technology. This is pretty neat, though.

UV photodegradation treatment of water being the most promising of these, possibly even using solar power and radiation. The idea is to be able to drop it off at some off-the-grid small village in the Third World. The lab I'm joining for grad school has brought a similar system out to Burning Man for one whole week of unplugged operation, treating grey water to non-potable water.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]hellebelle
2005-07-14 02:48 am UTC (link)
yeah, if developing countries got this air2water thing, they'd totally have to get all the parts and techies shipped in. i think i've heard that water in plastic bottles left out in the sun is basically UV disinfection. i wonder how long it takes though, and how effective it is?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]stop_apathy
2005-07-15 10:27 am UTC (link)
I wouldn't leave water in plastic bottles. The sun does horrible things to plastic, and unless you like polymers in your drink - bad idea. Glass might work though... but a guy working with UV for his PhD isn't so sure. It'd be something you would want to read more literature on before applying.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]stop_apathy
2005-07-15 10:28 am UTC (link)
PS - the UV PhD posted below, I should have made that more clear, readup on what he said if you're interested.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]erasmus
2005-07-13 10:24 pm UTC (link)
It sounds a lot like a fancy dehumidifier, the prices of which from a quick google search range from $200 to over $6000 (most being on the lower end of that though).

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]rocketgeek
2005-07-13 11:20 pm UTC (link)
And the thing about dehumidifiers is that outside of a very wet climate, they are horrendously power hungry for the amount of water produced. If you don't already have cheap, reliable power, a well is substantially less involved than the power infrastructure required.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]mattthateeguy
2005-07-14 03:35 am UTC (link)
that was EXACTLY my thought when I saw this

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]stop_apathy
2005-07-14 05:05 am UTC (link)
there are many places in the world with high humidity in need of clean water

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]mattthateeguy
2005-07-14 05:13 am UTC (link)
I know. I just wish the humidity would leave where I am (upper NYS). I have a small AC unit/with dehum., but it's on enough. I as still sweeting all over my books and hw when ever I try to work. If there was any other reason to stay in the engineering building this summer during study time other then to bath in their free AC, I wouldn't know what it could be.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]stop_apathy
2005-07-15 10:35 am UTC (link)
Haha - I am in Seattle right now for the summer. And although we have humidity, I face a terrifying 85 degree average heat. It might push close to 90 for a week or so later in the summer, but all in all - not bad.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]originaljaybird
2005-07-15 07:15 pm UTC (link)
If you wan't a fair share of humidity and heat mixed together, try Iowa. With all of our corn plants giving off gallons of water into the atmosphere, things get pretty sticky here. The heat index was at 85 F this morning around 8:30. Whew!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]bridgeman
2005-07-13 11:11 pm UTC (link)
This is basically a combination of existing technologies, so building one is mostly a matter of component integration. Also, there's a good deal of redundancy here; a much simpler system could be developed.

Really, a simple dehumidifier and carbon filter would do most of the work of this system. A standard washable filter screen at the dehumidifier intake to remove dust and a Brita or Pur filter for filtering the water is all you need to provide quite potable water.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]stop_apathy
2005-07-13 11:33 pm UTC (link)
Instead of blasting it with a UV machine - if you left the water in a clear closed system out in the sun all day - think that clean it out?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]bridgeman
2005-07-13 11:54 pm UTC (link)
Well, I'm no expert on microbiology, so I can't say how much UV is required vs. how much the sun provides.

However, consider that there are two sources of bacterial contamination, the air and the system itself. In the case of aerial contamination, a person breathing the air is going to be contaminated too, so there's not point in worrying about it. As for the bacteria in the system, the UV would be helpful in retarding growth, but I would think that a combination of carbon filtration and antibacterial piping/fittings would work just as well.

Overall, I think that you'd only need such extreme measures to sterilize water extracted from the air if you had some sort of biocontamination of local air and water resources coupled with a sealed safe house that needed a source of clean water.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]irving
2005-07-14 08:43 am UTC (link)
I actually work with UV sources as part of my PhD work so I'm going to try an answer both your query and one further up the page about if the sun could just be used as the UV source.

NO.

You'd need one HUGE hole through the ozone layer and clear path before you can even think of coming close.

Based on what they've said on their site:
"Short wave ultraviolet in the region of 253.7 nanometers is lethal to microorganisms including bacteria, protozoa, viruses, moulds, yeasts, nematode eggs and algae. " [ref]

Well that wavelength is in the UV-C (200-280nm) range and UV radiation most likely to pass through even when there's less ozone is in the wavelength range of UV-B (280-320nm). So, as ozone depletion continues, the amount of unfiltered, biologically active UV-B reaching the earth's surface increases as well.

So NO, I doubt very much that the sun directly can help clean it out.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]stop_apathy
2005-07-14 10:14 pm UTC (link)
What're you doing with UVs for your study?
I'm just really interestested in water quality and sustainable development period. Hence the recent posts. Myself, I work with engineers without borders.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]irving
2005-07-15 12:01 am UTC (link)
If you can see my LJ icon, that's one of the UV sources I built. It's a KrCl* (222nm) Excimer Lamp and we use it for the deposition of High-K materials in the field of Semiconductor Processing. In simple layman explaination, most processing in the semiconductor industry occur at high temperatures (>600degC) and as an example, there exists great interest now to nitridate such materials and Si or Ge Surfaces at the moment and the processing is done in excess of 800degC but using a new Ar* (126nm) UV source we're able to integrate N into the material at room temperature. The photon energy emitted by these sources are essentially what compensates for the lack of energy provided conventionally by thermal sources. Think photolytic reaction rather than pyrolytic reaction in the material ... .

I've actually read in the literature that some companies use such excimer lamps for water treatment as well but it's just an additional application I've noted in my thesis writing. I've not actually studied the mechanisms behind it though.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]irving
2005-07-15 03:40 am UTC (link)
I was just scanning through my Endnote Library and re-read some of the papers that touched on Water Photolysis and have come across some interesting notes.

Now water photolysis has been carried out by Xe* (172nm) lamps and low pressure Hg (184.9nm) lamps and the purpose is for a hyroxyl radiacal production (amongst other reactive species) WITHOUT an auxiliary oxidant. Now this process results in the homolysis or heterolysis of the water molecules producing a series of reactive species. NOW for the prized line: Liquid water and vapor starts to adsorb considerably below 180nm. Even with a 172nm source though, the penetration depth is VERY LOW and total absorbance of radiation occurs within an aqueous layer of thickness < 0.1nm!

So 2 things from that last passage:
a) NO way your friendly sun will ever do anything significant to water left out in plastic bottles... .
b) If you're putting this machine in an office space, think of the sweat, breath and moisture from the surrounding environment you're supposedly purifying! Gross!! So I hope whatever UV source they're using is >> 172nm else it's not going to be of much use!

Yes perhaps where water is NOT readily available, this is a viable kit but until I know exactly the underlying process of their UV Photolysis of the water, I MIGHT NOT be so keen to try it out.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]stop_apathy
2005-07-15 10:32 am UTC (link)
Hmmm... my understanding of lightwave frequencies is very mediocre at best, but I got the jist of what you were saying. I'd like to read up more on the UV perifying process though, and add to my rudimentary understanding of lightwaves - seems very interesting.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]eh1steve
2005-07-14 05:40 pm UTC (link)
It probably doesn't matter so much if a lot of the germs even stayed in the water and we drank them. However, I'm thinking of the workplace scenario when I say that it becomes a big deal when that guy with strep throat who refuses to take a sick day goes to get a glass and coughs directly into the intake. (We all know a few slobs who just don't give enough of a shit to turn when they cough or stay home to avoid getting us sick.) That stuff doesn't live in the air for very long, but it sure survives a lot longer in water. When half of your small company goes to drink right afterward because they're on break, you to deal with a lot of sick days.

Overall, the system is probably overdoing it. However, something to kill the bacteria in the air is a really good idea. At the very least, the water it makes is probably really good.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]bridgeman
2005-07-14 05:51 pm UTC (link)
I really doubt this would be used in a business setting, as it would be horribly inefficient. Easier to just get water off the mains and filter it instead of wasting tens or hundreds of watts on trying to squeeze a bit from the air.

Besides which, there's always some guy who comes in sick and infects everyone else. A bit on the paperwork, some in the air in his office, the faucets in the bathroom....

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]eh1steve
2005-07-14 06:13 pm UTC (link)
I think this thing is intended as a replacement for those water coolers you see around businesses with the 5-gallon bottles on them. Those aren't exactly coming off the tap and I'm sure it costs money to have the water delivered. I still don't know how it compares on cost, but I doubt it's that far off.

"Besides which, there's always some guy who comes in sick and infects everyone else. A bit on the paperwork, some in the air in his office, the faucets in the bathroom...."

Maybe true, but I've always had the philosophy that you still try to limit that stuff as much as possible. Just because something's going to happen anyway doesn't mean it needs to be encouraged. Part of my point is that the germs tend to live a lot longer in water. The very fact that it's water nearly everyone is going to drink makes it a more efficient method of dispersal than a sheet of paper.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]stop_apathy
2005-07-14 10:12 pm UTC (link)
But this all depends on location, location, location...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]alphac3lerate
2005-07-14 12:42 am UTC (link)
This technology will be great when we travel to places like... Mars or the moons of Saturn. For desanitizing water, there are way better technologies out there. I agree with all you people.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]stop_apathy
2005-07-15 10:33 am UTC (link)
;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]happa_tie_yatta
2005-07-14 04:11 am UTC (link)
just think about if people stopped being germaphobes and grew an immune system. Wouldn't that be somethin'?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]stop_apathy
2005-07-14 05:07 am UTC (link)
yeah - but something about malaria and arsenic just doesn't sit right with a lot of people

(Reply to this) (Parent)
I think I can use one of these.
[info]dmeares
2006-03-11 10:14 pm UTC (link)
I have a remote cabin on a bay in Alaska. I just got connected to the electrical grid last year. Right now I haul my water in 5 gallon jugs from the harbor 5 miles away. This works well on nice days, but in bad weather it might as well be on another planet. I also wonder about what's coming out of the garden house at the harbor, but I try not to think about it too much.
I collect rain water, but the eagles like to sit on my roof. So I also haul propane to boil my rain water (roof water). There are dry spells on occassion.
With something like this I could make drinking water from the rather humid air and filter the rain water.
I considered desalination, my bay is pretty big, but it's got enough stuff growing in it that strainers get clogged pretty fast.
Does anyone know how well these things work?

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…