Nearly all passive water-from-air devices described in articles are based on false claims. Peltier-based, desiccant/absorption/adsorption based, etc. All end up not working, or not existing. This has been common for ~10 years.
Which category does this fall into?:
- Fraud
- Incompetence / misunderstanding that wasn't cleared up prior to publishing an article
- Neither; this works as expected
depending on actual conditions you are in, it could potentially double (or more) the time before you die of thirst if it was your only source of water.
I do wonder about the tradeoff between excess perspiration due to wearing heavier materials versus the ability to collect water, especially on the days where replenishing fluids is most crucial.
You can wear silica gel since about 1918 - only needs some heat to get the water out and cold to condense it.
Then again, why would you want to wear your dehumidifier (ok ok water harvester)? Is it for excursions into damp areas, so that you can then return to your dry home to extract water?
Then, I believe everything in this video still applies.
https://www.campingsurvival.com/blogs/camping-survival-blogs...
Wouldn't want to be drinking whatever this produces in the GTA though lol
Which category does this fall into?:
https://news.mit.edu/2025/window-sized-device-taps-air-safe-...
So my vote is for working as expected.
A big step towards a stillsuit anyways ;)
A reductive assessment (to a specific feature) of a novel idea, does not make it less interesting.
Then again, why would you want to wear your dehumidifier (ok ok water harvester)? Is it for excursions into damp areas, so that you can then return to your dry home to extract water?
Then, I believe everything in this video still applies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGTRX6pZSns