This is so cool. Got me thinking. Could be why temperatures are cooler around plants, too. They reflect the green light so there is more free green light in the vicinity to evaporate water in the air. Maybe the evolution wasn't just to conserve water for the plant, but a symbiosis between the plants to keep each other cool.
-clorophyl does't evolve theres only two types a/b and they have been the same since...a very long time ago -photosynthesis uses 1/ red and blue light 2/water captured by the ROOTS 3/ C02 from air and it produces 1/ carbs that store energy or let the plant grow 2/ O2 released 3/ the green light not used is reflected -leaves have "pores" that can close to block C02 and stop photosynthesis if the plant lacks water so if plants could evolve to process green light they would probably do and would have darker, less colorful, almost black leaves and would grow faster/require less light. light is a scarce ressource in dense primary forest and creates strong competition between plants to grow quickly and reach rhe canopy. plants able to process green light too would have a buge competitive advantage. if dew is on the surface of the leaves it has more chance to be evaporated by the white light from the sun + green light reflecred ny the leaves
A large scale Australian study on evaporation found that light had a significant impact on evaporation that was not modelled and they had to adjust evaporation models to include amount of light to get accurate predictions (the trend in data correlated "Global dimming"'s effect on evaporation). The exact mechanism was not studied but the effect was identified. Good to see this is all tying back to the fundamentals
They also found the by product of desalination was killing ocean life when disposed into the ocean. Read the articles. it shocked them they love the oceans. But were killing it with out of control balances of the by products removed from the ocean water History read articles
@@brasidas2011🤦it's already in the models. Not unlike how water vapor has already been in the atmosphere for hundreds of thousands of years, relatively unchanged - unlike CO2
@@gregjackson4117 Exactly. I was thinking about that when I made my comment. I also wonder if there's a way to plant canopies over the waterways...or at least plant trees on both sides.
Why is MIT so slow, or am I showing my ignorance? As a retired Professional Brewer, we've known about this for a long time. We just call it "Sun Struck". How to evaporate without heat - Only Photons from the Sun. Heineken beer is notorious for getting "Sun Struck" and evaporating a Skunk Sulfur smell without heat. This is why most beers are bottled in a dark brown bottle to filter out all sunlight aka: Photons. But now Heineken is known for their green bottles and refuses to go to brown bottles, even if it will get rid of the Skunk Problem. But that's another story... From a Retired Professional Brewer here in Las Vegas, Cheers...
Yes this has been discovered VERY long ago! The water in the air is a water molecule that has been hit by a photon or cosmic ray and has gone up in the air (essentially evaporating but not evaporating, it just remains suspended! This is how we have humidity and torrential rains when your window is cracked open but your room floor is totally wet... They are rehashing old news!
You’re thinking of UV light here. In the video it’s green wavelength specifically that’s creating this effect, which the green Heineken bottles would reflect away.
i think you're confusing the discovery of a phenomenon with fully understanding why it happens. there have been many cases where we've known things for thousands of years, but never knew *why* until recently.
@@cinebenjamin I was told the green is not dark enough to filter out the sun. Thus brown bottles for all except Heineken. So why hasn't Heineken switched over to brown bottles to keep their beer from being "Sun Struck"? Product Recognition. Heineken refuses to give up their famous green bottles because the green Heineken bottle is known worldwide. How do I know this? The guys at Heineken told me. I do love being a retired Professional Brewer...
@@TheShizzlemop Well, in this case, it sure sounds like they didn't know it was happening at all, not just why. They said evaporation rates are faster, evaporation happens without heat, etc. These all imply they didn't know it was happening. Either there's a misunderstanding or someone didn't do their research before doing their research.
you made me suffer through thundershit video, just wanna ask, what do you know about him? is he a scientist? or just a clickbaiter? does he put any articles or sources in the description? or just his patreon? Does he explain anything scientific or just calls bs on what is convenient for him? really i would like to know what makes you believe in thunderfoots clickbait bs more then in real article from MIT?
Chances are the effect is negligible and can only be seen because the technology is accurate enough to measure it. I don't see it changing any industrial process, but if it has an effect on weather forecasting, it might still be very useful.
That's what's most fascinating about this! It's not even a minor effect, it's just small under sunlight because only a small fraction of the spectrum is green and the light is randomly polarized (or unpolarized, which is the same thing). I think it's one of the best discoveries since stuffed-crust pizza.
Now guess how long it will take this to be presented as a rock solid counterargument to the greenhouse effect and climate change in general, because SEE we don't understand it AT ALL - that kind of ignorant bs is already on the way. Now to be honest this is agreeably a bit concerning, if there's even a 0.1% difference in the effects of solar radiation to what was understood before, that can quickly accumulate into massive divergences in the applied models, so yeah, what the hell.. Is this really a brand new discovery in 2024? Also seems to be not too subtle, so after decades of precise measurements, how such a thing gets missed for so long? And if this really is the case, what the hell do we actually know, what else we missed, damn this raises a number of rather uncomfortable questions...
What is odd is that we are told how evolution, the big bang, quantum particles, dna and many other things work but we don't truly know how many basic things work.
I don't understand something, why is no one talking about the differential water vapor pressure? I was taught this was the main contributor to water evaporation under regular conditions (20°C, 1 atmosphere).
I assume the thermal limit he discusses at the beginning of the video is for a dry atmosphere where the vapor pressure is lowest. He says that this research is showing evaporation due to the photomolecular effect can reach even higher evaporation rates.
@@oldarisso6819 - Sublimation with light seems like a reasonable hypothesis to look into. It will likely require photons of higher energy, or more arriving simultaneously (and perhaps coherently). But what is your point about the very basic pV=nRT? How do you figure that Ideal Gas law applies to a polar opposite situation, namely, Phase Change?
That is a very valid question, and I’ll try to answer it as best I can as a professor of thermodynamics: What you’re referring to about water vapor pressure is related to something called spontaneity. Water’s vapor pressure is the pressure of gaseous water you’d need in the air for both liquid and gas to be at equilibrium, in other words, for evaporation and condensation to balance each other out and for the bulk of the water NOT to evaporate. When the pressure of water molecules in the air is lower than water’s vapor pressure for that given temperature (which is the pressure differential you’re talking about), the bulk of the water will spontaneously (naturally) evaporate until the air is saturated with water (the pressure reaches water’s vapor pressure), or until it completely evaporates. In short, water (and all liquids and solids) is always evaporating and always condensing. The pressure differential only tells you which of the two processes wins over the other and whether you see a puddle dry up, get bigger, or simply stay as it is. This discovery is about HOW water evaporates, not about what happens when it does or in which way the liquid-vapor equilibrium tilts. That’s why no one is talking about differential water vapor pressure. I hope that answers your question.
I live in a cold climate in Canada. I watch ice shrink in the winter in conditions of -40° . I have always been told this is sublimation. We hang wet clothes outside and they become dry.
Back in the 40s and 50s, my grandmother used to hang the clothes too dry in Chicago winters and occasionally, break a corner off. They dried in the cold too.
This (the video topic) is not sublimation. This is a light hitting the surface of the water causing the formation of a mist (i.e. tiny droplets of liquid water) which drift off and later evaporate in the air. The higher rates of evaporation here are not really anything special it is just a result of more surface area and interaction with the air. You would get a similar effect agitating the water in some other way. They just happen to be doing it using light here.
While heat and (apparently) light can cause evaporation, water evaporates in the dark and cold as well. Water can even evaporate while frozen as ice…it’s called sublimation.
Makes sense, this is why shade from tree cover is so good at maintaining moisture in the soil. Also explains why all plants have a green colour, to reflect the evaporating light back!
Also mowing the grass taller . If an area is too wet we mow it shorter. If it's very sandy soil we mow it at least 3" to help keep the water vapor in the soil.
I think the green color has more to do with the absorption spectrum of chlorophyll. The job of the leaf is to reduce CO2 to more energetic molecules like sugars. The chlorophyll absorbs blue and red light, leaving the green light to be reflected, so the leaf looks green. The absorbed photons provide the energy to run the process of photosynthesis. Since there's not liquid water on the surface of the leaf most of the time, I doubt the photomolecular effect is doing all that much to cool it.
tree shade is trapping moisture because there's not that much energy input compared to lit area. red beach umbrella will have the same effect. plants are usually (but not always) green, because genetically its more efficient to evolve into something that matches quantum efficiency of photosynthesis, more electron transfers happen in the blue and red frequency bands just due to energies involved in excitation of electrons in carbon dioxide and water bonds. carbon dioxide's excitation peaking at blue color and water's at red. if simpler genome has same fittness, it will reproduce more just because it needs less resources. I'm pretty sure you've seen more than negligible amount of red trees with same if not damper soil underneath them just because more reflection in close infrared band, to return to the first idea. but cool study indeed.
The problem with complex machines to do simple tasks like desalination is that they are complex machines, I am a wastewater engineer and oil chemist. I have read hundreds of patents of supposedly better ways to accomplish tasks like this that never pan out. The simplest machines work the best because their maintenance is low. Less moving parts means great longevity. Complexity weakens efficiency. You end up losing the money you would have otherwise saved because you saw it was more efficient in the lab. When you try to scale it up is when you see all the holes in the science. Then again I love to be proven wrong.
And "What the hell am I going to do for a PhD thesis?" is pretty common. Major league source of gen-you-whine mediocrity, stupidity, and half-wit pseudo-science.
This actually makes a lot of sense. Why we get heavy evaporation on both snow and water when the temperature is near freezing. We get these heavy ground fogs at first light that hold until the day warms up at around 10am…then the evaporation is no longer visible.
Also the 10am sun, forget the DST stuff, is around 45 degrees so optimal for the light based evaporation model. Also it's green light and plants leaves are generally green - seems nature pointed the way on that (reasoning is that plants do photosynthesize but also require water to do so - reflecting the green light reduces water loss smart plants.)
fog is not evaporation its condensation. the cold air sinks and where it meets the warm air above it causes the water held in the warmer air to drop out causing fog.
LOL, Poor thunderfoot. Really made a fool of himself on this one. I wonder if he'll accept Ricky's invitation to talk about their opposing views. You'd think that being a PhD and all, he wouldn't be scared, but... you know how these faceless channels are. All warriors behind a keyboard
❤I studied with Horace McCracken in the late 80s. He was a champion of solar water distillation. I own one which has seen continuous use for 30 years. There are no filters and uses sunlight and the photo molecular effect to cause water in a shallow trough the vaporize and condense on the underside of shower door glass. It makes RO quality water with no filters. There is a fill up irrigation valve which lets in a small amount of water every night. A overflow lets out the excess. This makes a 2-3" shallow pond of water. This all makes perfect sense. Sunlight is very reactive and interacts with anything exposed to it like my skin! Beautiful work to discover this photo molecular effect I knew it could not be heat alone which makes a solar still work so good!
In 1988 Horace McCracken had a fancy scientific instrument called a Total Dissolved Solid meter. It was pricey and had a analog needle $500 in 1988 bucks. It was merely a resistance meter calibrated for TDS. Now they are digital and are very cheap. Water with low TDS is very pure. RO water when its working good will deliver water with ,0-4 PPM. The TDS measurement can't tell what's in the the water but how much is in it. Good question!
MIT didn't discover anything, anymore than Christoper Columbus discovered "america" even though there were already 50 million people living there. All this and many more properties of water are described in The Fourth Phase of Water by Gerald Pollack, been out for over a decade now.. I guess someone at MIT decided to buy and copy .. they "discovered" the book
I’ve long wondered if, in the long stretches of undeveloped land in CA, they could create long (switchbacked) solar still type water troughs on the valley side to desalinate agricultural water. Pump (slightly inland for sand prefilter) ocean water up the mountain into one trough with a clear cap (this video suggests it should be a polarized cap that condenses into an adjacent trough. Have a couple iterations if need be. Truck or pipe the excess brine back over or through the hill, collect the evaporated water for agriculture. There’s lots of hilly land with lots of sun and the biggest cost is probably pumping the water up & a return for the brine. Aside from the pump nand an occasional scrub down, it’s filter free with no moving parts and low maintenance.
I remember watching that "debunk" video where old Philly's key takeaway was that, even if LK-99 was a room-temperature SC, it wouldn't change a thing because it's a ceramic and there's NO WAY YOU COULD POSSIBLY MAKE A PRACTICAL POWER LINE WITH A CERAMIC because how brittle it is. Phill was very, very categorically emphatic about that key point. But I did one Google search, just one, and I found that a Korean utility company already built and is operating the world's first commercial 1.1 km-long power line made of a high-temperature (that's liquid nitrogen temperature or 77K) ceramic superconductor. All it took was just one little google search to find a single piece of evidence that big bad thunderfoot was as wrong as a flat earther. You really need to stop taking his every word as the bible. Do your own research, and always have a critical mindset. You'll make less a fool of yourself in the future
@@ipp_tutor i would like to know where you find the article for the powerline, i only found one link at ubergizmo and nothing else. ok I found out its from Kepco, HTS wire but nothing about ceramic. Couldnt find results at first cause I searched for room temperature initially. On further investigation the cable was supplied by SuNam so Ive been browsing through their HTS wire catalogue and I still couldn’t find mentions of it using ceramics?
It is wrong that heat is the source of evaporation. Actually, it is the saturation deficit that drives evaporation. This is also why clothes will also get dry in winter.
@@freefall9832 That's not evaporation, that's condensation of the air's water. Like the one that happens in the outside of a bottle filled with cold water.
lack of high school physics knowledge in this video makes an almost perfect vacuum and if released - it could decrease overall atmospheric pressure and evaporate even more water without any additional energy input
Maintaining a vacuum costs non trivial amounts of energy. And the water that evaporates immediately reduces the vacuum. If there's a cheap way to do this it would be very valuable.
My undergraduate degree is in physics and my graduate thesis was on this very proposed effect. I don’t think it exists, but the actual physics proposed by Gang’s group is feasible. My research demonstrated (although not entirely conclusively) that this effect either does not exist or is completely dominated by lower-order effects.
I learned in school, and has observed myself how ice/snow can go straight from solid to gas phase - even at night. So the MIT discovery must be an addition. Water doesn't only evaporate due to heat. All molecules try to obtain a balance reaching a certain saturation in oaetial pressure.
the laws of thermo dynamics were proven wrong and are completely flawed, the black box experiments emitting radiation only worked if the box was made of pure carbon. And this evaporation effect was all figured out long ago, it was called polywater in the 70s and was discredited, plus there is far more to the effect, which Gerald Pollack wrote a book about The Fourth Phase of Water. What's next, is MIT going to go watch the Thunderbolts channel and claim that they figured out that stars are externally powered and steal all Wal Thornhill's work? And then read The Nature of the Atom by Edo and steal his work as well, claiming they figured out the neutron doesn't exist? Why was this covered up for decades and just now the media is announcing some truth? Plus they left out a lot more that goes along with structured water including that is has memory, it self purifies, it generates electric, and it can transmit complex DNA patterns. Seems like this "release" of information is just a limited hangout.
Exactly. I've always observed back when I was a kid, if I left the light on in the washroom overnight, my t- shirts especially, dried out by morning time..Other heavier fabrics like my jeans would be damp, but the cottons were dry.
It seem this also gives a better answer to the very simple question: Why are most plants green? We know that most forms of chlorophyll absorbs mainly blue and red light for photosynthesis; but they reflect green light So, this is cool. By reflecting light in the 520nm range (green), they would greatly reduce the photomolecular effect and better retain water.
Plants have other means of protecting themselves from evaporation, such as waxy coatings on their leaves. The ancestors of plants also evolved in the oceans where evaporation wouldn't have been much of an issue. A more widely accepted idea for why plants are green is the Purple Earth Hypothesis. The basic idea is that photosynthesizing organisms that use chlorophyll evolved after and had to compete for light with earlier organisms that did absorb green light (and were thus purple). We don't see that state of affairs today because most of the purple photosynthesizers were killed off by all the oxygen that chlorophyll-based organisms eventually produced.
When I was in school back in the 1970s, I asked my teacher if air movement made water evaporate and he told me that water didn't need air, heat, or light to evaporate. Water evaporated even in a vacuum, even when cold (with even frozen water sublimating under low pressure), and even in the dark. Apparently, he was decades ahead of the "conventional wisdom" you described here?
Exactly, heat was the obvious one but my school also taught that lowering pressure (which reduces temperature) absolutely vaporises water! Ask a cloud .
Those properties of water were well known by the 1970's. Freeze drying depends on evaporating water in a cold vacuum. The Inca freeze dried potatoes as far back as the 13th century, and modern freeze drying to the 1890's. And that's just freeze drying - our understanding of that bit of water's behavior is even older. The great problem with "conventional wisdom" is that the convention is we reward ignorance and showmanship over facts and careful research.
yes, all substances do that. As long as the whole system has enough energy to knock a single molecule off (minus a bit of quantum tunneling), it will do it at some point (although ofc the probability of that happening is low then). Even nuclear fusion happens at ambient conditions and even near absolute zero, but ofc it's incredibly rare then. Heat helps increase the probability (in both cases, evaporation and fusion). Ofc, the higher the temperature and lower the pressure, the more likely a molecule is to break off. The less molecules are directly above the surface (being able to condense), the more likely the substance is to evaporate faster, where air movement comes into play. (Liquids are always fully saturated just above their surface, so removing that layer is key in fast evaporation)
When we discovered the photoelectric effect, that spawned hundreds of new technologies we rely on today, like LEDs, solar cells, light sensors and detectors and, by extension, fiber optic communications and electronics like what powers the internet. Can you imagine what could come out of the photomolecular effect? Perhaps even new ways to etch transistors onto semiconductors and other crazy stuff that could change the way the world works!
In a related matter, I've often wondered why cool humid air feels colder than dry cool air - while warm humid air is the opposite. I speculate that near the freezing point, many of those clusters are actually ice clusters, and it takes a lot of heat energy to melt and vaporize the clusters. Regardless, I think water vapor in cool air is in the form of tiny, tiny water droplets and it takes heat energy to evaporate them.
@@FLPhotoCatcher ice clusters? Like microscopic slush? So, clumps of inert, bonded, water molecules that aren't plentiful enough to form a visible ice crystal?
@@Arthurians Maybe not the most scientific terminology, but it could happen. During one of the last storms we had here in NorCal, I was sitting in my car gabbing on the phone because I forgot my umbrella, and I noticed that mixed in with the rain was tiny micro hail, a mm or smaller. The lighting conditions just happened to be perfect for me to see these baby hailstones bouncing off the hood of my car. 🍀
@@FLPhotoCatcher I think it's more like that humid air is just better at conducting heat which would make cold air feel colder and warm air feel warmer as it's more efficiently pulling away or depositing heat energy onto your skin which would make it feel colder or warmer.
ideas: * it could make wet coating of battery cells more energy efficient because the solvent needs to be evaporated after coating the surface with the black slurry. * if there are two different liquids like alcohol and water to be needed to evaporate (destillery), but not at the same time, the photomolecular effect could be a better way of separation by finetuning the wavelength to a different molecule. this for me would be the real game changer because it goes beyond just saving energy, it might offer you a new function/tool. * improving the efficiency of water electrolysis but you probably need higher frequencies which means a shorter wavelength to help breaking up the bonds between oxygen and hydrogen. the resulting effect might be a cooler H2 gas which saves you more energy in cooling/compressing. on the other side, hot water might not need that much extra energy to be split up in H2 and O, so when compressing hydrogen in tanks, you could use the resulting heat to heat up the water.
the solvent is different from water, the photon basically rips the bond between the rest of the water with high energy, like twisting a water bottle and shooting it makes water vapor, the photon ripping it so fast causes it to evaporate, which means this most likely wouldnt work on highly structured compounds like a solvent. unless its alcohol, just blow hot air onto it from your mouth will do the trick.
"New Discovery"? I remember reading about how light impacting on water causes it to absorb without it needing to heat up over a decade ago in college. Is it just have have done more testing to further confirm it?
This isn't absorption. Bulk water doesn't absorb green visible light. In fact, green is the part of the visible light spectrum that water absorbs the least. This is different
@@PyroMancer2k a decade ago, I watched a talk by Jerry Pollack on “EZ water”, where he hinted about interaction between light and water, and he used this effect for nifty experiments, making small pumps which were running on light. So yes, this has been around for a long time. The smart people at MIT figured out the theory behind it.
It's not JUST about heat; it's also about atmospheric pressure and relative humidity. And "light" and heat are just different wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. From everything I've ever heard, or read, the water molecules don't care whether the energy comes in the form of light or heat. It's the total energy applied to the water molecules. I'd like to see more on this.
It can even come from kinetic energy. Cigar stores have rooms where fans slam air molecules into a container of water. The air has sufficient kinetic energy to break the surface tension of the water and to force it upwards into the surrounding air.
@@chrisfleischman3371 Absolutely. drying my bathroom (sometimes full of wet clothes lines) is the most efficient when I put a fan in there. I have a fan in the wall pushing out the moist air, but that air flow is to small to be of huge help. The big table fan flapping the clothes around does the job ten times faster. But is ten times more powerful. So in the end the question is about how much energy requires every method? boiling?, filtering, or evaporating with wind light or whatever. By now the filtering, I mean reverse osmosis, at large scale is quite cheap. I hear that is 50 cents per ton. In my region the official price of water is about ten times higher, even the water is collected from a river and filtered with standard method, like sand filters, and chlorinated. So, in the end, here making the water cheaper for the consumer is about better administration, not better technologies. I mean getting rid of corruption. So yeah, new technologies may be just interesting and fun to discover, but not so helpful unless are really huge breakthroughs.
@@chrisfleischman3371 "The air has sufficient kinetic energy to break the surface tension of the water and to force it upwards into the surrounding air." I believe that's called "splashing" 🤣
What's super cool about this is that we can engineer this effect to make evaporation (which is VERY energy intensive) require much less energy input, and more efficient by not wasting energy as heat. I mean, can you imagine a lamp that you just point it at your clothes and they dry up almost instantly without even warming you up? And it's green visible light so it's totally harmless!
The video literally said you can't do this - conservation of energy is not broken, you're just getting the energy from a different source. Anyone claiming to have invalidated conservation of energy (Unless they're talking about red shifting light due to the expansion of interstellar space, which does appear lose energy rather than conserving it), is either a con artist preying on the scientifically illiterate, scientifically illiterate themselves or both.
Another advantage seems like it could work on flowing water since the light is targeted on the molecules it interacts with at the surface, whereas heat needs to dissipates throughout the bulk of the water before evaporation can reach its equilibrium. This also implies that the initial energy savings is even greater.
@@riderpaul No it doesn't evaporation always happens at the surface of a liquid. Just blow dry air over it and it'll evaporate room temperature water all day. Make the air warm for even higher effectiveness - you know, like a hand dryer... I literally can't stress enough that there is no energy saving in this. Whatever method you use to evaporate a certain mass of water will require exactly the same energy because this value is literally a fixed property of water.
It's very important to notice that the molecular weight of water is substantially smaller than the molecular weight of the gases in the atmosphere. It is already remarkable that water is a liquid at room temperature. This suggests that you don't really need much energy to liberate water molecules from their aqueous environment. You just need to disrupt the hydrogen bonding in some way.
Water has a molecular charge orientation which makes it align in a very strong way. This makes it denser than air which compared to water is more charge balanced in relation to its peers. Denser of course means it tries to push lower in the gravity field. But, that is an interesting observation none-the-less.
I believe there is additional energy needed to heat the water. It will be cooling while the laser evaporate the water. The air cools then that also cools the water. 9:30
The uneven charge across the water molecule causes the molecules to bond together far more strongly than molecules with a similar atomic weight but more even charge distribution. The OH group that defines alcohols also creates this dipole, keeping alcohols liquid at room temperature too. Water requires a huge amount of energy to evaporate (It take far more energy to convert a kg of water at 100 C to steam than it does to heat the same kg of water from 0 to 100 C). That's why steam is such a good way of transporting heat energy for power generation.
You failed to take into account sublimation. Notice the effect of meat drying out in a freezer. No heat or light is needed. When the vapor pressure of water is higher than its surroundings it continues to evaporate until it reaches the saturation point.
I have access to a freeze dryer that uses heat (conductive and radiant) to sublimate water vapor from ice surface contained in the food. The freeze dry industry has a strong interest in this technology.
You missed the fact that large scale desalination of water is done in the absence of air. The water is vaporized to separate it from the nonvolatile salt then the vapor (steam) needs to be re-condensed. This new process appears to be more of a microscopic mist generation (like a nebulizer). This mist is generated in a subsaturated atmosphere of air and the micro droplets are further evaporated by drawing heat from the air. Without air it does not work.
You are right, for example the evaporation of water in a pond in the summer is most dependent on the relative humidity and of course the wind speed. Here too, the vapor pressure is an important factor in the same way and only a higher temperature has less effect. I would like to see the experiment showing that photons alone make the water evaporate much faster, so how exactly did they compare this evaporation. This man says that with the same amounts of energy of light compared to "heat", the water evaporates 4 times faster. If you want to evaporate 1 liter of water on a stove, you would have to compare that with photons that hit a very large surface of water. Photons have much less energy per m2. I'm curious what this experiment looked like.
I dry clothes with the sun sometimes; much faster than just hanging them up indoors. I always chalked up the speed to heat from the sun. Having learned the common wisdom stood in the way of receiving lessons from my own experience.
It's far better outside. I agree. Love sun dried clothes cause they are naturally soft and smell fresh and NOT like some perfume crap like Febreze or Gain. Yuck!!!
@@orangestoneface Here in Vegas, with 2% - 6% humidity, by the time you finish hanging the last of the wet clothes out to dry, you can take down the already dry clothes that were hung first. Leave them out there too long and they spontaneously combust!!! (Fancy werds for: catches on fire)
@@BirdHugsAreTheBest I need to try that, I have a perfume allergy so it's gotten pretty tough to find ways to keep my clothes fresh beyond unscented laundry detergent
I always put that down to better ventilation. Evaporation will occur faster in low humidity. If you're not providing sufficient movement of the air then the air immediately around the clothes will become much more humid. If it reaches 100% humidity evaporation will stop completely. But this effect may be playing its part too.
This reminds me of something my dad told me when I was a kid. He said my wagon should have bigger wheels on the back and smaller ones on the front so it would always be rolling down hill.
This one of the most irritating phrases (the science is settled) to me because it’s the equivalent of saying we know everything there is to know and that is ridiculous, and smacks of pride and ego beyond comprehension. Only a fool would think that
that's what makes science so useful, by design, it asks to be challenged and to dig deeper, rather than be punished for refusing to change the reasons for a thing when better (more comprehensive/more accurate) reasons/theories are presented.
Tbh the entire thing is basically "oh hang on, we found another discrepancy between our model and reality". That's all this "maximum rate" really is. It's not even about the model that describes the basic process, but about an applied spreadsheet. The assumption in the applied model was not entirely correct. Whoopteedoo. As for the explanation, liquid water is not a rigid unmoving structure, and the overall rate of evaporation in general is a balance between rates of evaporation and condensation at the surface, plus more distribution shenanigans at the boundary area. So basically the whole explanation shows why we don't often hire US students for hard science.
has thunderf00t ever proposed anything on his own? or does he just dedicate his platform for debunking, because building something requires more effort and merit than simply destroying things.
@@cannabico6621 It would have taken less time to go on his channel and find out the answer. Yes, he has published many papers and has at least one scientific discovery, of which I know of, that was made possible do to crowd funding by his TH-cam followers and others.
This effect is very intuitive. When we say "the fog is burning off" we are not saying it evaporates, but that the sunlight is affecting it. I'm surprised this was discovered recently and not 200 years ago or more.
It seems the effect has been known for a while, but just recently have measurements been made which concretely define the mechanism. That deeper understanding can open the door to intelligent technology development. I doubt thisll be used for desalination though, the energy needed to power massive lasers (or laser arrays) to bulk desalinate water in this manner would be too costly id think.
Perhaps the video is making the process sound much easier to understand than it actually is, but why wasn't this discovered much sooner? Was it really a matter of no one thought to ask the question until recently? Or is this massively more complicated that it appears?
if you put ice cubes in a freezer and never touch the ice cubes for a long time you will see the ice cubes shrink because of it turning from solid straight into a gas. so there is almost no light hitting the cubes. could be something to do with pressure, but not sure.
Modern freezers are actually highly efficient dehydrators. Cooling is the effect of dehydrating. When you get frost build-up in your freezer, your condenser is overheating, say when the door is left open or not enough air gap is left between the freezer and the wall/floor etc. Usually to get rid of frost, close the door. Dehydrating evaporates water.
Because you have warmth from the light including IR and UV and wind, it doesn't work in damp air. 😂 This why you get sunburnt on snow, the light is reflected and burns you, this has been known for centuries.
Given that it happens. it certainly would happen on a clothes line, but there are many other factors at play in those cases. I would hardly call a clothes line a controlled enough environment to tease out the relative effects of different evaporative processes (especially when they inherently are linked--sun light also heats clothes which would increase thermal evaporation as well).
I've been telling people for decades...I actually feels cooler under the sun in Taiwan during summer when humidity is maxed out and there's no wind and I'm soaked in sweat than under the shade....everyone thought I was crazy. And boom, this backs up my claim
I love that we are always learning new things about the world we live in by science. The science is never settled! We are always refining it and fine-tuning things. We try to find the most obvious explanation for things that we observe in the natural world. But later on, we often discover our initial explanations were wrong or incomplete. That is why it is so dangerous to use the phrase "the science is settled" to enforce the will of the government onto the people.
As a chemist, who was awarded a PhD in 1991, albeit not in this field, I'm astonished that this is a new discovery. Once you think about it, it makes total sense.
As a chemist, I skipped the PhD part. But once I thought about it, it still makes no sense. And the only thing I am astonished at is, is how much BS this guy spouts and a PhD chemist is still going give this any credence. Anyway, this is another channel for my block list. Always keep your porch clean and don't let bulls shit all over it.
missing from this 'explanation' is what/how the salts and other contaminates are bound in H2O, and how they may not be carried into the air also. You have shown the evaporation of pure water, not saline. ?? that is a big omission.
I thought the general idea was known for some time - I remember watching a documentary on climate change and possible causes besides human CO2 emissions and one of the data points was records of how much water was added to the water basins on ranches. I think these basins were only used to monitor how fast the water in basins used by the ranch animals would evaporate. The ranchers would know how much water the herd would consume (given weather conditions) that would help them avoid having those basins run dry without requiring someone to physically check the water levels several times a day. The ultimate conclusion was that the evaporation rate had dropped over the last few decades, when adjusted for temperature and humidity. The conclusion was that there's been a subtle increase in high, thin clouds that reduced the amount of UV light reaching the surface. That light could break the bonds between water molecules. So thin clouds, barely visible, reduced the UV hitting the surface. That reduced the evaporation levels, and that in turn meant that the ranchers had to add less water. Those thin clouds were probably created by humans, e.g., perhaps from aircraft contrails. (We know that's a factor after air traffic was shut down after 9/11.) (We also know that the dirty fuel used by merchant ships was a huge factor after its use was banned a year or two ago.) Of course knowing that green light is enough, or that polarization is involved, is a big leap forward. It's one think to know that this happens with UV light, a very different thing knowing that it happens with relatively cheaply produced polarized green light.
@@donlars1 It may have been. I think they had two different ones. The one I remember more had russian scientists and various other ones from around the globe all talking about the same basic findings that less water was evaporating over the last few decades etc. Regardless of the reason it's a bit of a worry.
Water molecules have a 120 deg. angle bond so they can't form squares. Instead they actually form honeycomb hexagons, as Prof. Gerald Pollack has shown in his book, "The Fourth Phase of Water." There are several videos on TH-cam featuring Prof. Pollack discussing the fourth phase that he discovered about 12 years ago.
While I think heat causes the bulk of state changes of water to gas, there is a known phenomena in nature called osmosis (I believe) where matter attempts to enter equilibrium with its surroundings. Specifically gas and liquids. I'm not sure this new theory is relevant or needed to explain evaporation without heat.
I used a "Light powered clothes dryer" for many years. Just took longer to dry things when the temperature was way below freezing. Now most municipalities ban the use of clothes-lines.
this is very interesting, the key would be to collect as much electricity with band gap solar that allos allows the green through for some other effect. such fascinating potential!
photomolecular effect doesn't generate electricity though. but you could do the kther way around and have water on top of the solar cells rhat would evaporate and cool the cells and produce warer vapor at the same time. the problem is how to catch the water vapor on top of rhe cell Ithout obscuring the light. plus how to keep water on top if the cells are leaning towards light. you could use capilarity to slow down the water following gravity, and and a layer of air sandwiched between the layer of water + colar cells and a clear glass/poly panel, holding the vapor recirculated to condense into a distilled water container to make you solar panels produce electricity + drinking water. letting rhe solar panels flat would avoid the need to pump the water up the slope, but reduce the panels efficiency...also evaporating dirty water on top of a solar panel would quickly create residues that would block light so your water needs to be filtered first.
@@geemy9675 🤔 There's a new PlasmaChannel video where he moves water vapor around with static electricity. If you could get the system to naturally build up a static charge, maybe you could move the water vapor to the corners and collect it on mini fog nets? I am assuming the power it would take to power the static field from the solar collected would be more than a useful output of the panels. Water droplets generate a static charge, but would there be enough generated by the drips from the fog nets? And not be discharged every time a squirrel ran across it. Haha, maybe a wind powered wimshurst machine to power it 😁
@@colleenforrest7936 the static charge is not spontaneous but result of movement of falling droplets , it's only converting energy (potential >mechanic>electric). when you want to "produce" energy you actually have to wonder what energy you want to convert and what will supply this energy. thinking producing vapor will spontaneously generate electric energy is forgetting this basic principle
@@geemy9675 maybe even out the pulses with a supercap could you collect that charge in a supercap and then use that to power a battery that charges the static field on the solar panel. Granted, the math has to be done to see if it's a net positive system. Putting this all together, you'd have a rechargeable battery responsible to keep a steady static charge over its assigned cel. The battery is charged by a supercap, with some sort of distribution net to transfer excess static charge to other super caps (or electricity to the batteries if that's a better design) that are underpowered, and a sink to hold any excess charge above that for later use. The supercap is charged by droplets of water vapor condensing on a small fog net sitting sitting in the corner of a solar cel. This water is then channeled off to a freshwater holding tank. The water vapor is created by the evaporation of "dirty" by green light, with the rest of the light in the spectrum being allowed to reach the solar cel and generate electricity. The water vapor is moved to the corners of the solar cel and onto the fog nets by manipulating the static field, which is charged by the battery. As is current, there would be multiple cels on a panel, and multiple panels in the system. Questions as to wether the math works out on an ideal system, would the dirty water or water vapor reduce the charge to the solar panels... Gees, I watch too much TH-cam 😄
When 400% clickbait videos are not cringe enough, you turn to sudo science bs... Keep up the great work, if you work hard enough and produce a bunch of great vids like this, you may get a chance to promote some pump and dump nft or coins...That would really fit the picture.
Ever since i was a kid, i used to leave a light on in the laundry room at night, which helped my T-shirts dry out faster. But then, back in those days, we didn't use florescent but incandescent bulbs, which also gave off considerable heat.
Great video, ty. A suggestion... scientists need much more recognition for the value they are bringing to society. Contrast the attention actors and athletes get, it boggles the mind. I think you should promote the individuals responsible in your videos or at least cite them somewhere.
thank you for the comment and suggestion. We have some rules but what we need to do is create a standards format so we can do all the things in every video... you're 100% right, and we normally always do! but this one we started getting ahead of ourselves on research and missed this step. I have linked the original article from MIT in the description!
We've been doing it wrong. Our pool tiles/linings need to be emerald green, not white or light blue. TBH I may have seen one green pool in my life. It may take a culture shift. ✌️😎
I’d always put that down to the fact that I kept the pool clean, filtered and chlorinated during the summer months but let things go over the cooler months when the pool wasn’t in use. But hey, who knows 🤷🏼♂️
@@erinmac4750I’ve seen 2 green pools, both in architecturally designed homes. They look awesome. You would expect them to look like a pool that hadn’t been cleaned for 3 years, but they actually look nothing like that. The looking really cool, refreshing and inviting.
@@OttawaDN Hi Ottawa. Not necessarily. There's a vast difference between "wrong in magnitude" and "not relevant". But as you say, once this effect has been quantified under all real world conditions, climate models (which are only virtual computer models anyway), will need refiguring. Cheers, P.R.
It's absolutely not true that you must have heat for water to evaporate. Who told you that? It is true that adding heat to liquid water will cause evaporation in an open system, however, I can dry my clothes at night when the temperature is dropping i.e. declining heat so how does this happen? All liquids have a partial pressure equilbrium so when you have cool dry air this will draw water from liquid to gaseous phase until the partial pressure for that temp is reached which will never happen for clothes in dry air to they complete dry out. This is also why your food dries out in the refridgerator if you don't cover it. Yes, I'm just a dumb high school science teacher, but water can also be "boiled off" with electromagnetic radiation, specifically microwave radiation and this is how your microwave works and once again there is no actual heat applied to the water but rather radiation. I never heard anything about the quantum magnitude of this socalled photoelectric effect but it supposedly might be used for all sorts of amazing stuff. There are all sorts of weird phenomena but their net effect is so low or so energy inefficent that it is nonsense to even think about it as the basis for practical use and perhaps this is the case for water photoelectric effect? Unfortunately a lot scientific papers these days are more spin than science and it's the questions they don't ask that is the problem especially because they are often looking for funding to spin off the tech or on sell it so their "research" often is more like a startup blurb - and I say this having worked a very long time in Uni research earlier in life.
Then this means that the Green Pigment of the Chlorophyll from plants allows faster evaporation. This is quite revolutionary discovery, this unlock more topic in regards of Evaporative Cooling Effect and Water Evaporation. Basically, this solidifies that Trees brings more cooling effect and expells more moisture in the air than sea water of similar area.
You've got this completely backwards. The plants are green because they REFLECT the green light. If you provide plants with nothing but green light, they die. Because green light is the only colour they CAN'T use. Plants can use both blue and red light but NOT green. So reflecting the green light helps them PREVENT evaporation. After all, plants don't like to be desicated.
you made me suffer through thundershit video, just wanna ask, what do you know about him? is he a scientist? or just a clickbaiter? does he put any articles or sources in the description? or just his patreon? Does he explain anything scientific or just calls bs on what is convenient for him? really i would like to know what makes you believe in thunderfoots clickbait bs more then in real article from MIT?
Because TFoot is Phillip Mason, a very successful scientist (physical chemist) who's published extensively in some of the best academic journals in the world. And, more importantly, because he actually breaks down physics and chemistry in his videos to back up exactly what he says.
@@daesu3236 I've watched thunderf00ts videos for a decade now, and i can tell you that no other youtuber comes even close to having as good of a bullshit-detection track record as him. Like him or hate him, he is right. You can watch his videos from 5-10 years ago, and see how everything turned out. He is yet to be wrong, and it says something about his methods. These "davincy" youtubers are just youtubers. They do zero research and just copy paste blog posts, to get views. Also, schools like MIT and Harvard post shit all the time. To answer your question: "does he explain anything specific..." yes...he goes out of his way to show how something is bullshit. He does the math, gives the formulas and mathematical proofs. He isn't as popular as these "davincies" because people want to be spoon fed easy answers and turn away from numbers and math.
Holy crap! My mind is absolutely blown! Why isn't everyone talking about this? My first thought was water desalinization and I'm so glad you mentioned it. This is a HUGE problem we will face in the near future, and solving it before a crisis could potentially save billions of lives.
It is not a problem per se, this process is happening every second everywhere. Dew, clouds, rain, rivers. Artificial desalination is useful in some parts of the earth, but its is easy to implement without external energy in sunny areas. If engineers don't already do that way, or are not allowed to do - that's different issue - man made.
Woo! I was stationed on 2 aircraft carriers and never quite understood the desalinization process (didn’t try too hard due to doing surgeries while underway) but you made me understand this potential new process. Thank you!
Love your work dude. How does this change our understanding of evaporation rates from plants? Does the green pigment filter out green light wave lengths or reflect them?
Maybe I'm just weird, but one of the first thoughts I had was 'could this be usable to increase efficiency in the production of stem for power generation? '.
Brilliant, as long as the energy from making steam this way is greater than the energy from the light source. It could work, maybe, especially if the light is from a renewable source.
The efficiency issues with steam power pretty much all lie in the conversion of the energy in the steam to useful energy like motion or electricity (It's still the best option we have, but the Carnot limit sets an absolute limit on the efficiency with which the energy in the steam and be made into useful work). The steam needs to enter the system with the correct amount of thermal energy and since this new discovery doesn't contradict conservation of energy, there's no reason to think it has any chance of being more efficient than the 90+% efficient boilers already in use.
@@peglor The real question is how the 2 processes would interact. There isn't any data related to that or any indication that it has yet been explored.
A few years ago, there was news in print and on television, about Cal Tech, or some college of that sort making a great breakthrough in Cold Fusion. People got very excited, as the tests seemed to indicate that this could solve the world's energy problems! But since then, there seems to have been nothing said about it. Has it been silenced?
Superb presentation. One of the best cutting edge science explanations I have ever heard. I live in the humid south. I have always admired arid western "Swamp Coolers" which cool air through evaporation. Drying humid air with light to cool it, has major potential.
thank you Chris for the kind words.... swamp coolers ... now that's interesting... because of the potential for cooling there's some synergy, but it would increase humidity and in the south you definitely don't want that. Capitalizing on this phenomenon would be great in dry warm places like the southwest
@@TwoBitDaVinci I listened closely to your discussion starting at TM 9:30. Yes, the resulting air is cooler and more humid. For humid climates, all that needs to be done is to use an air-to-air heat-exchangers. Depending on the Delta-T, cooling the incoming outside air should cause condensation. Thanks Again.
Green light evaporates water more? Is that why plants went from wine-colored leaves to green? The old explanation is that there is more green light, so plants that didn't reflect it died off when the climate got too extreme. But this never made much sense to me, since the light that reaches Earth is clearly more yellow. But if green light is itself, regardless of how much of it there is, particularly harmful in that it might dry out foliage, then selecting for green reflectivity works, even in yellow -dominant light.
Considering that I learned of this phenomenon 47 years ago in school, I’m guessing that this new explanation for it won’t really solve the world’s water problem.
This is groundbreaking. To think that we could still learn about something as common and mundane as water evaporation... Can't wait to see how they turn this into actual technology.
Aren't photons passing through the Earth, through humans, animals, etc. killing us? And is one of the reasons we grow old and die so relatively 'young'?
If the evaporation from light causes groups of water to evaporate instead of single molecules, would that cause salt trapped in that group to be carried over as well, or does the salt get excluded?
@@davidmccarthy6061 Use it to make Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH). Use NaOH in water to strip the Oxide layer from aluminium. Aluminium reacts with water creating an electric current, sensible heat and pure hydrogen gas. That makes aluminium a perfect source for seasonal energy storage and on-demand hydrogen production.
@@davidmccarthy6061 there are plenty of uses for salt, and brine. We have plenty of tapped out salt mines we could store the new salt supply in. But I understand your sentiment, we (as a society) are often finding solutions either "in the nick of time" or after the disaster has already happened. Then someone sees an opportunity to exploit the disaster for billions of dollars, setting the situation up for the next foreseeable and preventable disaster.
1:392:14 "Light can breakdown water faster than heat alone." 2:45 Photo molecular effect the same as the photoelectric effect. 5:40 Light is more efficient in evaporating water than heat. 6:45 Some wavelengths are better than others. ROY G BIV
I see the discovery but I don't see a cost effective use. I must be missing something. Creating polarized wave lengths of light cheaply would be a great discovery. Knowlege is knowledge and I can't diminish the discovery. I see this as a discovery that may... lead to incremental improvement in some functions. Understanding how something so common works is only useful if there is some beneficial use. Is polarized light more efficient to produce than simple heat? When you scale this, I would think it might be doubtful. Great presentation. I am curious to learn more and see where this discovery leads to more.
Louis, this idea is something I can't stop thinking about! On the surface it makes sense that plants would be green to reflect that wavelength of light to minimize water loss... how crazy exciting is that... I'm going to look into this further!!!
It could be a factor but I would be careful about jumping to that conclusion. This explanation would only make sense if reflecting the green light decreases the likelihood of this interaction occurring on the plant. Given that it is a surface interaction (i.e. the effect happening further inside the plant would not cause evaporation because the water is not in a position where it can leave the plant) reflecting the green light rather than absorbing it may actually increase the incidence of this effect (absorbing the light with a pigment would reduce the number of times the light passes through the surface of the plant). Compound this with the information that: - Not all plants (or more generally green photosynthetic organisms) are in areas where transpiration is a negative thing--thus this selection pressure would not be present for aquatic plants or ones with excess or sufficient water supply. We know that there are shallow water green alges that have been around for a long time (which would never have a reason to limit transpiration because they are literally swimming in water). - There are other fairly well researched reasons that plants may avoid using green light. For example that structures that absorb it (with green being the peak output of the sun for terrestrial/shallow water) would have harvest too much energy which could cause damage or disruptions (basically over charging things which is dangerous). This research that looked into this model of 'moderating energy capture' and it apparently fit even with things like purple photosynthetic bacteria (because the spectrum of light reaching them was different). tl;dr there may be some connection in some places, but I don't think this is anywhere near enough evidence to come to that conclusion especially given there are already other models that seem to fit more universally.
This is the type of information that the media should make viral instead of violence, hate, and gossip.
I pray we end Nixon's War On Blacks - now that you mention it.
Stop watching that kind of content. Problem solved
agree, but this will only be of interest to people that have some intelligence..sadly a lot of us dont seem to have much.
O yeah ma racism always one @@msimon6808
Unfortunately, people can't virtue signal and show they are part of the "team" by just reading about green light.
Makes complete sense why plants hate green light. Green light evaporates water so plans reflect it away to reduce water evaporation.
Dude, that's right! Also probably why chlorophyll evolved to absorb everything BUT green light. Nice catch!
holy crap! I hadn't thought about that, but it does make perfect sense! need to look into this more!
This is so cool. Got me thinking. Could be why temperatures are cooler around plants, too. They reflect the green light so there is more free green light in the vicinity to evaporate water in the air. Maybe the evolution wasn't just to conserve water for the plant, but a symbiosis between the plants to keep each other cool.
-clorophyl does't evolve theres only two types a/b and they have been the same since...a very long time ago
-photosynthesis uses 1/ red and blue light 2/water captured by the ROOTS 3/ C02 from air
and it produces 1/ carbs that store energy or let the plant grow 2/ O2 released 3/ the green light not used is reflected
-leaves have "pores" that can close to block C02 and stop photosynthesis if the plant lacks water
so if plants could evolve to process green light they would probably do and would have darker, less colorful,
almost black leaves and would grow faster/require less light. light is a scarce ressource in dense primary forest and creates strong competition between plants to grow quickly and reach rhe canopy. plants able to process green light too would have a buge competitive advantage.
if dew is on the surface of the leaves it has more chance to be evaporated by the white light from the sun + green light reflecred ny the leaves
@@geemy9675 Fine, it's an accidental side effect of a random mutation that proved advantageous over time. :)
A large scale Australian study on evaporation found that light had a significant impact on evaporation that was not modelled and they had to adjust evaporation models to include amount of light to get accurate predictions (the trend in data correlated "Global dimming"'s effect on evaporation). The exact mechanism was not studied but the effect was identified. Good to see this is all tying back to the fundamentals
They also found the by product of desalination was killing ocean life when disposed into the ocean. Read the articles. it shocked them they love the oceans. But were killing it with out of control balances of the by products removed from the ocean water History read articles
Fantastic. Science will save the world.
H2O is the largest greenhouse factor much more than CO2, I wonder if they can update their greenhouse warming models to account.
@@brasidas2011🤦it's already in the models. Not unlike how water vapor has already been in the atmosphere for hundreds of thousands of years, relatively unchanged - unlike CO2
@@Cyrribrae I doubt it.
I think the comment section is about to get lit up... don't say nobody warned you.
Yeap, it’s crazy, but also lots of new views. 🙌🏻 everyone has the right to have an opinion.
What am I missing?
@@blackedmirror5073a certain YTer who specialises in debunking bad science did a video on this yesterday.
@@blackedmirror5073a certain YTer who specialises in discrediting bad science put out a response to this video yesterday...
@blackedmirror5073 Thunderfoot which imo is known for mixing truth with disinfo. They made a video "debunking" this.
On the other side of the coin, this shows how important it is to shade/protect reservoirs and waterways from the sun.
I remember a couple years ago they were dumping tons of black balls into reservoirs to prevent evaporation. I finally understand why it worked.
@@gregjackson4117 Exactly. I was thinking about that when I made my comment. I also wonder if there's a way to plant canopies over the waterways...or at least plant trees on both sides.
And if you are going to build canopies over canals you may as well make them solar panels. This is being done in parts of India.
@@gregjackson4117I saw that too. In California. Very interesting.
@@gptiede YES!
Why is MIT so slow, or am I showing my ignorance? As a retired Professional Brewer, we've known about this for a long time. We just call it "Sun Struck". How to evaporate without heat - Only Photons from the Sun. Heineken beer is notorious for getting "Sun Struck" and evaporating a Skunk Sulfur smell without heat. This is why most beers are bottled in a dark brown bottle to filter out all sunlight aka: Photons. But now Heineken is known for their green bottles and refuses to go to brown bottles, even if it will get rid of the Skunk Problem. But that's another story... From a Retired Professional Brewer here in Las Vegas, Cheers...
Yes this has been discovered VERY long ago! The water in the air is a water molecule that has been hit by a photon or cosmic ray and has gone up in the air (essentially evaporating but not evaporating, it just remains suspended! This is how we have humidity and torrential rains when your window is cracked open but your room floor is totally wet... They are rehashing old news!
You’re thinking of UV light here. In the video it’s green wavelength specifically that’s creating this effect, which the green Heineken bottles would reflect away.
i think you're confusing the discovery of a phenomenon with fully understanding why it happens. there have been many cases where we've known things for thousands of years, but never knew *why* until recently.
@@cinebenjamin I was told the green is not dark enough to filter out the sun. Thus brown bottles for all except Heineken. So why hasn't Heineken switched over to brown bottles to keep their beer from being "Sun Struck"? Product Recognition. Heineken refuses to give up their famous green bottles because the green Heineken bottle is known worldwide. How do I know this? The guys at Heineken told me. I do love being a retired Professional Brewer...
@@TheShizzlemop Well, in this case, it sure sounds like they didn't know it was happening at all, not just why. They said evaporation rates are faster, evaporation happens without heat, etc. These all imply they didn't know it was happening. Either there's a misunderstanding or someone didn't do their research before doing their research.
There's a yellow bus outside waiting to take you to school, @thunderf00t is driving...
lol
@@john_tann vid just dropped 😂😂
LOL, yep. Thunderf00t saves my insanity.
Thunderf00t for the win
you made me suffer through thundershit video, just wanna ask, what do you know about him? is he a scientist? or just a clickbaiter? does he put any articles or sources in the description? or just his patreon? Does he explain anything scientific or just calls bs on what is convenient for him? really i would like to know what makes you believe in thunderfoots clickbait bs more then in real article from MIT?
It seems odd to me that this hadn’t been discovered long ago. I wonder how many other important discoveries are staring us in the face.
Chances are the effect is negligible and can only be seen because the technology is accurate enough to measure it. I don't see it changing any industrial process, but if it has an effect on weather forecasting, it might still be very useful.
That's what's most fascinating about this! It's not even a minor effect, it's just small under sunlight because only a small fraction of the spectrum is green and the light is randomly polarized (or unpolarized, which is the same thing). I think it's one of the best discoveries since stuffed-crust pizza.
Now guess how long it will take this to be presented as a rock solid counterargument to the greenhouse effect and climate change in general, because SEE we don't understand it AT ALL - that kind of ignorant bs is already on the way.
Now to be honest this is agreeably a bit concerning, if there's even a 0.1% difference in the effects of solar radiation to what was understood before, that can quickly accumulate into massive divergences in the applied models, so yeah, what the hell..
Is this really a brand new discovery in 2024? Also seems to be not too subtle, so after decades of precise measurements, how such a thing gets missed for so long? And if this really is the case, what the hell do we actually know, what else we missed, damn this raises a number of rather uncomfortable questions...
What is odd is that we are told how evolution, the big bang, quantum particles, dna and many other things work but we don't truly know how many basic things work.
Much to my dismay, I've recently discovered most of my farting would be best done on the toilet.
I don't understand something, why is no one talking about the differential water vapor pressure? I was taught this was the main contributor to water evaporation under regular conditions (20°C, 1 atmosphere).
Seems like you need to clarify your question.
I assume the thermal limit he discusses at the beginning of the video is for a dry atmosphere where the vapor pressure is lowest. He says that this research is showing evaporation due to the photomolecular effect can reach even higher evaporation rates.
pV=nRT
and furthermore... what about sublimation with light ?
@@oldarisso6819 - Sublimation with light seems like a reasonable hypothesis to look into. It will likely require photons of higher energy, or more arriving simultaneously (and perhaps coherently).
But what is your point about the very basic pV=nRT? How do you figure that Ideal Gas law applies to a polar opposite situation, namely, Phase Change?
That is a very valid question, and I’ll try to answer it as best I can as a professor of thermodynamics: What you’re referring to about water vapor pressure is related to something called spontaneity.
Water’s vapor pressure is the pressure of gaseous water you’d need in the air for both liquid and gas to be at equilibrium, in other words, for evaporation and condensation to balance each other out and for the bulk of the water NOT to evaporate.
When the pressure of water molecules in the air is lower than water’s vapor pressure for that given temperature (which is the pressure differential you’re talking about), the bulk of the water will spontaneously (naturally) evaporate until the air is saturated with water (the pressure reaches water’s vapor pressure), or until it completely evaporates.
In short, water (and all liquids and solids) is always evaporating and always condensing. The pressure differential only tells you which of the two processes wins over the other and whether you see a puddle dry up, get bigger, or simply stay as it is.
This discovery is about HOW water evaporates, not about what happens when it does or in which way the liquid-vapor equilibrium tilts. That’s why no one is talking about differential water vapor pressure. I hope that answers your question.
I live in a cold climate in Canada. I watch ice shrink in the winter in conditions of -40° . I have always been told this is sublimation. We hang wet clothes outside and they become dry.
Back in the 40s and 50s, my grandmother used to hang the clothes too dry in Chicago winters and occasionally, break a corner off. They dried in the cold too.
This (the video topic) is not sublimation. This is a light hitting the surface of the water causing the formation of a mist (i.e. tiny droplets of liquid water) which drift off and later evaporate in the air.
The higher rates of evaporation here are not really anything special it is just a result of more surface area and interaction with the air. You would get a similar effect agitating the water in some other way. They just happen to be doing it using light here.
Since sublimation is literally a solid changing to a gas without existing in an obvious liquid state in between, it is sublimation.
@@nwchrista Cold air can't hold as much humidity. Winters are always drier than summers.
Like many have said already, I wouldn't be surprised with how dry the air is to pull moisture out of the clothes.
While heat and (apparently) light can cause evaporation, water evaporates in the dark and cold as well. Water can even evaporate while frozen as ice…it’s called sublimation.
Never use the observable and testable reality on this channel.
Makes sense, this is why shade from tree cover is so good at maintaining moisture in the soil. Also explains why all plants have a green colour, to reflect the evaporating light back!
Also mowing the grass taller . If an area is too wet we mow it shorter. If it's very sandy soil we mow it at least 3" to help keep the water vapor in the soil.
Well bless your heart ❤. I guess any color other than green would dry out the leaves more quickly.
I think the green color has more to do with the absorption spectrum of chlorophyll. The job of the leaf is to reduce CO2 to more energetic molecules like sugars. The chlorophyll absorbs blue and red light, leaving the green light to be reflected, so the leaf looks green. The absorbed photons provide the energy to run the process of photosynthesis. Since there's not liquid water on the surface of the leaf most of the time, I doubt the photomolecular effect is doing all that much to cool it.
tree shade is trapping moisture because there's not that much energy input compared to lit area. red beach umbrella will have the same effect. plants are usually (but not always) green, because genetically its more efficient to evolve into something that matches quantum efficiency of photosynthesis, more electron transfers happen in the blue and red frequency bands just due to energies involved in excitation of electrons in carbon dioxide and water bonds. carbon dioxide's excitation peaking at blue color and water's at red. if simpler genome has same fittness, it will reproduce more just because it needs less resources. I'm pretty sure you've seen more than negligible amount of red trees with same if not damper soil underneath them just because more reflection in close infrared band, to return to the first idea. but cool study indeed.
There is no other reason that chlorophyl would be green. Think about it deeper. His theory makes sense.
The problem with complex machines to do simple tasks like desalination is that they are complex machines, I am a wastewater engineer and oil chemist. I have read hundreds of patents of supposedly better ways to accomplish tasks like this that never pan out. The simplest machines work the best because their maintenance is low. Less moving parts means great longevity. Complexity weakens efficiency. You end up losing the money you would have otherwise saved because you saw it was more efficient in the lab. When you try to scale it up is when you see all the holes in the science. Then again I love to be proven wrong.
The most exciting phrase in science is far more likely to be "That's odd" than it is to be "Eureka"! *8')
And "What the hell am I going to do for a PhD thesis?" is pretty common.
Major league source of gen-you-whine mediocrity, stupidity, and half-wit pseudo-science.
"I can make money from that."
@@brodriguez11000 a real scientist isnt concerned about being rich
@@incriptioneww
Is that star a mustache, the 8 nerdy glasses, and the comma an eyebrow?
__ ---
(---[ ] _ [ ])
Right up there with solar roadways...
Don't you mean SOLAR FREAKIN ROADWAYS?!
Solar FREAKIN Desalination!
Yup. Nonsense
😂😂😂😂
Such an underrated comment 😂
This actually makes a lot of sense. Why we get heavy evaporation on both snow and water when the temperature is near freezing. We get these heavy ground fogs at first light that hold until the day warms up at around 10am…then the evaporation is no longer visible.
Evaporation caused by the photo electric effect occurs at any temperature including below freezing.
@@kennethhawley1063 That's what he's saying.
Also the 10am sun, forget the DST stuff, is around 45 degrees so optimal for the light based evaporation model. Also it's green light and plants leaves are generally green - seems nature pointed the way on that (reasoning is that plants do photosynthesize but also require water to do so - reflecting the green light reduces water loss smart plants.)
its called sublimation in frozen water...evaporation only happens to liquid water
fog is not evaporation its condensation. the cold air sinks and where it meets the warm air above it causes the water held in the warmer air to drop out causing fog.
Ricky! Run! Thunderf00t just published his rebuttal to this video! Run!
LOL, Poor thunderfoot. Really made a fool of himself on this one. I wonder if he'll accept Ricky's invitation to talk about their opposing views. You'd think that being a PhD and all, he wouldn't be scared, but... you know how these faceless channels are.
All warriors behind a keyboard
Or just ignore the bee hermit
❤I studied with Horace McCracken in the late 80s. He was a champion of solar water distillation. I own one which has seen continuous use for 30 years. There are no filters and uses sunlight and the photo molecular effect to cause water in a shallow trough the vaporize and condense on the underside of shower door glass. It makes RO quality water with no filters. There is a fill up irrigation valve which lets in a small amount of water every night. A overflow lets out the excess. This makes a 2-3" shallow pond of water.
This all makes perfect sense. Sunlight is very reactive and interacts with anything exposed to it like my skin! Beautiful work to discover this photo molecular effect I knew it could not be heat alone which makes a solar still work so good!
What please is ro quality water?
@@jeffbybee5207 Reverse Osmosis
In 1988 Horace McCracken had a fancy scientific instrument called a Total Dissolved Solid meter. It was pricey and had a analog needle $500 in 1988 bucks. It was merely a resistance meter calibrated for TDS. Now they are digital and are very cheap. Water with low TDS is very pure. RO water when its working good will deliver water with ,0-4 PPM. The TDS measurement can't tell what's in the the water but how much is in it. Good question!
MIT didn't discover anything, anymore than Christoper Columbus discovered "america" even though there were already 50 million people living there. All this and many more properties of water are described in The Fourth Phase of Water by Gerald Pollack, been out for over a decade now.. I guess someone at MIT decided to buy and copy .. they "discovered" the book
I’ve long wondered if, in the long stretches of undeveloped land in CA, they could create long (switchbacked) solar still type water troughs on the valley side to desalinate agricultural water.
Pump (slightly inland for sand prefilter) ocean water up the mountain into one trough with a clear cap (this video suggests it should be a polarized cap that condenses into an adjacent trough. Have a couple iterations if need be. Truck or pipe the excess brine back over or through the hill, collect the evaporated water for agriculture. There’s lots of hilly land with lots of sun and the biggest cost is probably pumping the water up & a return for the brine.
Aside from the pump nand an occasional scrub down, it’s filter free with no moving parts and low maintenance.
Wow! this is even better news that that LK-99 room temperature superconductor bullshit video you put out!
Yeah, about that...
I remember watching that "debunk" video where old Philly's key takeaway was that, even if LK-99 was a room-temperature SC, it wouldn't change a thing because it's a ceramic and there's NO WAY YOU COULD POSSIBLY MAKE A PRACTICAL POWER LINE WITH A CERAMIC because how brittle it is. Phill was very, very categorically emphatic about that key point. But I did one Google search, just one, and I found that a Korean utility company already built and is operating the world's first commercial 1.1 km-long power line made of a high-temperature (that's liquid nitrogen temperature or 77K) ceramic superconductor.
All it took was just one little google search to find a single piece of evidence that big bad thunderfoot was as wrong as a flat earther. You really need to stop taking his every word as the bible. Do your own research, and always have a critical mindset. You'll make less a fool of yourself in the future
@@ipp_tutor i would like to know where you find the article for the powerline, i only found one link at ubergizmo and nothing else.
ok I found out its from Kepco, HTS wire but nothing about ceramic. Couldnt find results at first cause I searched for room temperature initially.
On further investigation the cable was supplied by SuNam so Ive been browsing through their HTS wire catalogue and I still couldn’t find mentions of it using ceramics?
Stable-stagnant, flowing water and mist interaction with photons could be the different tests to understand this phenomenon further for applications.
It is wrong that heat is the source of evaporation. Actually, it is the saturation deficit that drives evaporation. This is also why clothes will also get dry in winter.
WhenI heard the initial claim that we thought it was heat, I was taken aback because I did not learn HEAT, I learned evaporation.
Enthalpy is what you are taught. Not heat.
Ice evaporates in my freezer.
@@freefall9832 That's not evaporation, that's condensation of the air's water. Like the one that happens in the outside of a bottle filled with cold water.
@magscorp13 Thanks, wouldn't condensation add ice.
lack of high school physics knowledge in this video makes an almost perfect vacuum and if released - it could decrease overall atmospheric pressure and evaporate even more water without any additional energy input
Maintaining a vacuum costs non trivial amounts of energy. And the water that evaporates immediately reduces the vacuum.
If there's a cheap way to do this it would be very valuable.
My undergraduate degree is in physics and my graduate thesis was on this very proposed effect. I don’t think it exists, but the actual physics proposed by Gang’s group is feasible. My research demonstrated (although not entirely conclusively) that this effect either does not exist or is completely dominated by lower-order effects.
I learned in school, and has observed myself how ice/snow can go straight from solid to gas phase - even at night.
So the MIT discovery must be an addition.
Water doesn't only evaporate due to heat. All molecules try to obtain a balance reaching a certain saturation in oaetial pressure.
"In this house we obey THE LAWS THERMO DYNAMICS" - Homer Simpson
But apparently not the laws of grammar or proofreading. 😂
@@mjt1517 Dude, its a quote from Homer Simpson, help me jebus.
@@publicdomain3378- no it isn’t, it’s a misquote because Homer said “laws OF thermodynamics”. Homer Simpson understood grammar even if you don’t.
Bart - What are the laws of thermodynamics?
Homer - D'oh!
the laws of thermo dynamics were proven wrong and are completely flawed, the black box experiments emitting radiation only worked if the box was made of pure carbon. And this evaporation effect was all figured out long ago, it was called polywater in the 70s and was discredited, plus there is far more to the effect, which Gerald Pollack wrote a book about The Fourth Phase of Water. What's next, is MIT going to go watch the Thunderbolts channel and claim that they figured out that stars are externally powered and steal all Wal Thornhill's work? And then read The Nature of the Atom by Edo and steal his work as well, claiming they figured out the neutron doesn't exist? Why was this covered up for decades and just now the media is announcing some truth? Plus they left out a lot more that goes along with structured water including that is has memory, it self purifies, it generates electric, and it can transmit complex DNA patterns. Seems like this "release" of information is just a limited hangout.
Makes sense, my thoughts went to watching snow melt on a day where that day's temprature is below freezing but still melts under sunlight
Same with clothes drying in the sun even when temperatures are low...
Exactly.
I've always observed back when I was a kid, if I left the light on in the washroom overnight, my t- shirts especially, dried out by morning time..Other heavier fabrics like my jeans would be damp, but the cottons were dry.
But that days temp is measured in the shade , it does not mean it is below freezing out of the shade
Sunlight also produces heat by infra red frequencies ...
@@richardstubbs6484 ~45% of the solar spectrum is IR, infact.
Holy moses! That is why blue and red LED lights are used to grow plants in underground farms instead of the green LED.
Green spectrum is reflected from plants. So no use.
😂
Damn, a science channel that will not work for anyone with just a high school education.
It seem this also gives a better answer to the very simple question: Why are most plants green?
We know that most forms of chlorophyll absorbs mainly blue and red light for photosynthesis; but they reflect green light
So, this is cool. By reflecting light in the 520nm range (green), they would greatly reduce the photomolecular effect and better retain water.
Plants have other means of protecting themselves from evaporation, such as waxy coatings on their leaves. The ancestors of plants also evolved in the oceans where evaporation wouldn't have been much of an issue.
A more widely accepted idea for why plants are green is the Purple Earth Hypothesis. The basic idea is that photosynthesizing organisms that use chlorophyll evolved after and had to compete for light with earlier organisms that did absorb green light (and were thus purple). We don't see that state of affairs today because most of the purple photosynthesizers were killed off by all the oxygen that chlorophyll-based organisms eventually produced.
When I was in school back in the 1970s, I asked my teacher if air movement made water evaporate and he told me that water didn't need air, heat, or light to evaporate. Water evaporated even in a vacuum, even when cold (with even frozen water sublimating under low pressure), and even in the dark. Apparently, he was decades ahead of the "conventional wisdom" you described here?
Exactly, heat was the obvious one but my school also taught that lowering pressure (which reduces temperature) absolutely vaporises water! Ask a cloud .
Those properties of water were well known by the 1970's.
Freeze drying depends on evaporating water in a cold vacuum. The Inca freeze dried potatoes as far back as the 13th century, and modern freeze drying to the 1890's.
And that's just freeze drying - our understanding of that bit of water's behavior is even older.
The great problem with "conventional wisdom" is that the convention is we reward ignorance and showmanship over facts and careful research.
yes, all substances do that. As long as the whole system has enough energy to knock a single molecule off (minus a bit of quantum tunneling), it will do it at some point (although ofc the probability of that happening is low then).
Even nuclear fusion happens at ambient conditions and even near absolute zero, but ofc it's incredibly rare then. Heat helps increase the probability (in both cases, evaporation and fusion).
Ofc, the higher the temperature and lower the pressure, the more likely a molecule is to break off. The less molecules are directly above the surface (being able to condense), the more likely the substance is to evaporate faster, where air movement comes into play. (Liquids are always fully saturated just above their surface, so removing that layer is key in fast evaporation)
You are correct. Vapor pressure is a key factor. Lots of people know this but not the author of the video.
I always knew that because I always seen water evaporate when it's cold
When we discovered the photoelectric effect, that spawned hundreds of new technologies we rely on today, like LEDs, solar cells, light sensors and detectors and, by extension, fiber optic communications and electronics like what powers the internet. Can you imagine what could come out of the photomolecular effect? Perhaps even new ways to etch transistors onto semiconductors and other crazy stuff that could change the way the world works!
In a related matter, I've often wondered why cool humid air feels colder than dry cool air - while warm humid air is the opposite. I speculate that near the freezing point, many of those clusters are actually ice clusters, and it takes a lot of heat energy to melt and vaporize the clusters. Regardless, I think water vapor in cool air is in the form of tiny, tiny water droplets and it takes heat energy to evaporate them.
@@FLPhotoCatcher ice clusters? Like microscopic slush? So, clumps of inert, bonded, water molecules that aren't plentiful enough to form a visible ice crystal?
@@Arthurians Maybe not the most scientific terminology, but it could happen.
During one of the last storms we had here in NorCal, I was sitting in my car gabbing on the phone because I forgot my umbrella, and I noticed that mixed in with the rain was tiny micro hail, a mm or smaller. The lighting conditions just happened to be perfect for me to see these baby hailstones bouncing off the hood of my car. 🍀
@@FLPhotoCatcher I think it's more like that humid air is just better at conducting heat which would make cold air feel colder and warm air feel warmer as it's more efficiently pulling away or depositing heat energy onto your skin which would make it feel colder or warmer.
Thanks!
ideas:
* it could make wet coating of battery cells more energy efficient because the solvent needs to be evaporated after coating the surface with the black slurry.
* if there are two different liquids like alcohol and water to be needed to evaporate (destillery), but not at the same time, the photomolecular effect could be a better way of separation by finetuning the wavelength to a different molecule. this for me would be the real game changer because it goes beyond just saving energy, it might offer you a new function/tool.
* improving the efficiency of water electrolysis but you probably need higher frequencies which means a shorter wavelength to help breaking up the bonds between oxygen and hydrogen. the resulting effect might be a cooler H2 gas which saves you more energy in cooling/compressing.
on the other side, hot water might not need that much extra energy to be split up in H2 and O, so when compressing hydrogen in tanks, you could use the resulting heat to heat up the water.
I agree.... you cannot understate the economic impact to manufacturing. This is a multibillion dollar discovery.
the solvent is different from water, the photon basically rips the bond between the rest of the water with high energy, like twisting a water bottle and shooting it makes water vapor, the photon ripping it so fast causes it to evaporate, which means this most likely wouldnt work on highly structured compounds like a solvent. unless its alcohol, just blow hot air onto it from your mouth will do the trick.
Fascinating, Two-Bit Da Vinci. Explain to me again how sheep's bladders may be used to prevent earthquakes.
MIT = My Imaginary Technologies
You got the wrong channel. That's what Thunderfoot is for
"New Discovery"? I remember reading about how light impacting on water causes it to absorb without it needing to heat up over a decade ago in college. Is it just have have done more testing to further confirm it?
This isn't absorption. Bulk water doesn't absorb green visible light. In fact, green is the part of the visible light spectrum that water absorbs the least. This is different
@@PyroMancer2k a decade ago, I watched a talk by Jerry Pollack on “EZ water”, where he hinted about interaction between light and water, and he used this effect for nifty experiments, making small pumps which were running on light. So yes, this has been around for a long time. The smart people at MIT figured out the theory behind it.
Fog Curtains, Fresnel lens, steam gates, syphon tubes should be taught in high school.
It's not JUST about heat; it's also about atmospheric pressure and relative humidity. And "light" and heat are just different wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. From everything I've ever heard, or read, the water molecules don't care whether the energy comes in the form of light or heat. It's the total energy applied to the water molecules. I'd like to see more on this.
Yep, water does not care ithe energy comes from heating, or from hitting ;) hitting it with a photon.
Theoretically if one had really small hands, they could grab these bundles of water-molecules themselves and throw it up in the air.
It can even come from kinetic energy. Cigar stores have rooms where fans slam air molecules into a container of water. The air has sufficient kinetic energy to break the surface tension of the water and to force it upwards into the surrounding air.
@@chrisfleischman3371 Absolutely. drying my bathroom (sometimes full of wet clothes lines) is the most efficient when I put a fan in there. I have a fan in the wall pushing out the moist air, but that air flow is to small to be of huge help. The big table fan flapping the clothes around does the job ten times faster. But is ten times more powerful. So in the end the question is about how much energy requires every method? boiling?, filtering, or evaporating with wind light or whatever. By now the filtering, I mean reverse osmosis, at large scale is quite cheap. I hear that is 50 cents per ton. In my region the official price of water is about ten times higher, even the water is collected from a river and filtered with standard method, like sand filters, and chlorinated. So, in the end, here making the water cheaper for the consumer is about better administration, not better technologies. I mean getting rid of corruption. So yeah, new technologies may be just interesting and fun to discover, but not so helpful unless are really huge breakthroughs.
@@chrisfleischman3371 "The air has sufficient kinetic energy to break the surface tension of the water and to force it upwards into the surrounding air." I believe that's called "splashing" 🤣
I found myself googling the thermodynamics of all this and then you started explaining it! And that's why I love your videos. Keep em coming!
What's super cool about this is that we can engineer this effect to make evaporation (which is VERY energy intensive) require much less energy input, and more efficient by not wasting energy as heat.
I mean, can you imagine a lamp that you just point it at your clothes and they dry up almost instantly without even warming you up? And it's green visible light so it's totally harmless!
I'm imagine friends visiting, wondering why the green light is on..."Oops, I was just drying my clothes!" ✌️😸
The video literally said you can't do this - conservation of energy is not broken, you're just getting the energy from a different source. Anyone claiming to have invalidated conservation of energy (Unless they're talking about red shifting light due to the expansion of interstellar space, which does appear lose energy rather than conserving it), is either a con artist preying on the scientifically illiterate, scientifically illiterate themselves or both.
Another advantage seems like it could work on flowing water since the light is targeted on the molecules it interacts with at the surface, whereas heat needs to dissipates throughout the bulk of the water before evaporation can reach its equilibrium. This also implies that the initial energy savings is even greater.
@@riderpaul No it doesn't evaporation always happens at the surface of a liquid. Just blow dry air over it and it'll evaporate room temperature water all day. Make the air warm for even higher effectiveness - you know, like a hand dryer...
I literally can't stress enough that there is no energy saving in this. Whatever method you use to evaporate a certain mass of water will require exactly the same energy because this value is literally a fixed property of water.
I could imagine a Green Laser or LED set up to replace electric dryers... maybe even something 'powered' by firefly light [luciferin]. ;-)
Just picture a stream running through a forest on a warm sunny day and you have got exactly this setup.
It's very important to notice that the molecular weight of water is substantially smaller than the molecular weight of the gases in the atmosphere. It is already remarkable that water is a liquid at room temperature. This suggests that you don't really need much energy to liberate water molecules from their aqueous environment. You just need to disrupt the hydrogen bonding in some way.
Water has a molecular charge orientation which makes it align in a very strong way. This makes it denser than air which compared to water is more charge balanced in relation to its peers. Denser of course means it tries to push lower in the gravity field. But, that is an interesting observation none-the-less.
@@gonegahgahclouds are water vapor and they are certainly not denser than air. What am i missing?
I believe there is additional energy needed to heat the water. It will be cooling while the laser evaporate the water. The air cools then that also cools the water. 9:30
The uneven charge across the water molecule causes the molecules to bond together far more strongly than molecules with a similar atomic weight but more even charge distribution. The OH group that defines alcohols also creates this dipole, keeping alcohols liquid at room temperature too. Water requires a huge amount of energy to evaporate (It take far more energy to convert a kg of water at 100 C to steam than it does to heat the same kg of water from 0 to 100 C). That's why steam is such a good way of transporting heat energy for power generation.
@@swarsi12 They don't stay as vapour. "Rain" is what you're missing... What causes them to gather as droplets?
You failed to take into account sublimation. Notice the effect of meat drying out in a freezer. No heat or light is needed. When the vapor pressure of water is higher than its surroundings it continues to evaporate until it reaches the saturation point.
MIT took the into account
I have access to a freeze dryer that uses heat (conductive and radiant) to sublimate water vapor from ice surface contained in the food. The freeze dry industry has a strong interest in this technology.
You missed the fact that large scale desalination of water is done in the absence of air. The water is vaporized to separate it from the nonvolatile salt then the vapor (steam) needs to be re-condensed. This new process appears to be more of a microscopic mist generation (like a nebulizer). This mist is generated in a subsaturated atmosphere of air and the micro droplets are further evaporated by drawing heat from the air. Without air it does not work.
You are right, for example the evaporation of water in a pond in the summer is most dependent on the relative humidity and of course the wind speed.
Here too, the vapor pressure is an important factor in the same way and only a higher temperature has less effect.
I would like to see the experiment showing that photons alone make the water evaporate much faster, so how exactly did they compare this evaporation.
This man says that with the same amounts of energy of light compared to "heat", the water evaporates 4 times faster.
If you want to evaporate 1 liter of water on a stove, you would have to compare that with photons that hit a very large surface of water. Photons
have much less energy per m2.
I'm curious what this experiment looked like.
I’ve never thought about this. So a pressurized freezer would preempt meat from this?
I dry clothes with the sun sometimes; much faster than just hanging them up indoors. I always chalked up the speed to heat from the sun. Having learned the common wisdom stood in the way of receiving lessons from my own experience.
It's far better outside. I agree. Love sun dried clothes cause they are naturally soft and smell fresh and NOT like some perfume crap like Febreze or Gain. Yuck!!!
more dryer air more moving outside
@@orangestoneface Here in Vegas, with 2% - 6% humidity, by the time you finish hanging the last of the wet clothes out to dry, you can take down the already dry clothes that were hung first.
Leave them out there too long and they spontaneously combust!!!
(Fancy werds for: catches on fire)
@@BirdHugsAreTheBest I need to try that, I have a perfume allergy so it's gotten pretty tough to find ways to keep my clothes fresh beyond unscented laundry detergent
I always put that down to better ventilation. Evaporation will occur faster in low humidity. If you're not providing sufficient movement of the air then the air immediately around the clothes will become much more humid. If it reaches 100% humidity evaporation will stop completely. But this effect may be playing its part too.
This reminds me of something my dad told me when I was a kid. He said my wagon should have bigger wheels on the back and smaller ones on the front so it would always be rolling down hill.
@@yelwing
🤣
The science is never settled. Any expert that says otherwise is either intentionally or unintentionally wrong.
every climate change alarmist ever
This one of the most irritating phrases (the science is settled) to me because it’s the equivalent of saying we know everything there is to know and that is ridiculous, and smacks of pride and ego beyond comprehension.
Only a fool would think that
‘Settled’ just means that ignorance is at a local minimum.
that's what makes science so useful, by design, it asks to be challenged and to dig deeper, rather than be punished for refusing to change the reasons for a thing when better (more comprehensive/more accurate) reasons/theories are presented.
Tbh the entire thing is basically "oh hang on, we found another discrepancy between our model and reality".
That's all this "maximum rate" really is. It's not even about the model that describes the basic process, but about an applied spreadsheet.
The assumption in the applied model was not entirely correct. Whoopteedoo.
As for the explanation, liquid water is not a rigid unmoving structure, and the overall rate of evaporation in general is a balance between rates of evaporation and condensation at the surface, plus more distribution shenanigans at the boundary area.
So basically the whole explanation shows why we don't often hire US students for hard science.
If you really are about science you would watch thunderf00ts videos and put another video out explaining how you got this video so wrong,
He's about the clicks......and many people are dumb....they don't get the connection....
MIT or part time TH-camr ….I know where my money would go
@IverKnackerov
he's also a phd and practicing chemist who published papers on the evaporation of water. funny how you leave that out
has thunderf00t ever proposed anything on his own? or does he just dedicate his platform for debunking, because building something requires more effort and merit than simply destroying things.
@@cannabico6621 It would have taken less time to go on his channel and find out the answer. Yes, he has published many papers and has at least one scientific discovery, of which I know of, that was made possible do to crowd funding by his TH-cam followers and others.
This effect is very intuitive. When we say "the fog is burning off" we are not saying it evaporates, but that the sunlight is affecting it. I'm surprised this was discovered recently and not 200 years ago or more.
It seems the effect has been known for a while, but just recently have measurements been made which concretely define the mechanism. That deeper understanding can open the door to intelligent technology development. I doubt thisll be used for desalination though, the energy needed to power massive lasers (or laser arrays) to bulk desalinate water in this manner would be too costly id think.
Perhaps the video is making the process sound much easier to understand than it actually is, but why wasn't this discovered much sooner? Was it really a matter of no one thought to ask the question until recently? Or is this massively more complicated that it appears?
if you put ice cubes in a freezer and never touch the ice cubes for a long time you will see the ice cubes shrink because of it turning from solid straight into a gas. so there is almost no light hitting the cubes. could be something to do with pressure, but not sure.
That's sublimation....
Modern freezers are actually highly efficient dehydrators. Cooling is the effect of dehydrating. When you get frost build-up in your freezer, your condenser is overheating, say when the door is left open or not enough air gap is left between the freezer and the wall/floor etc.
Usually to get rid of frost, close the door. Dehydrating evaporates water.
This is shown in backyard clotheslines. Clothes dry very much faster in sunshine. This happens even in cold air.
Because you have warmth from the light including IR and UV and wind, it doesn't work in damp air. 😂 This why you get sunburnt on snow, the light is reflected and burns you, this has been known for centuries.
Oh clothes lines are illegal in California.;-) if you nice in all too common neighborhood with nasty homeowners association.
@@grumpystiltskin the land of the free
Given that it happens. it certainly would happen on a clothes line, but there are many other factors at play in those cases. I would hardly call a clothes line a controlled enough environment to tease out the relative effects of different evaporative processes (especially when they inherently are linked--sun light also heats clothes which would increase thermal evaporation as well).
@@grumpystiltskin simples, don’t live in California. Physics and science work better outside Newsom’s head
I've been telling people for decades...I actually feels cooler under the sun in Taiwan during summer when humidity is maxed out and there's no wind and I'm soaked in sweat than under the shade....everyone thought I was crazy. And boom, this backs up my claim
Being involved with steam generation, I always wondered why it's evaporating without boiling. Thank you for randomly answering this question today.
I love that we are always learning new things about the world we live in by science. The science is never settled! We are always refining it and fine-tuning things. We try to find the most obvious explanation for things that we observe in the natural world. But later on, we often discover our initial explanations were wrong or incomplete. That is why it is so dangerous to use the phrase "the science is settled" to enforce the will of the government onto the people.
👍
Just have think with Matt Farrel just did a video where MIT used this process to desalinate water.
I was going to that one next!✌️😎
Just have a think is not Matt Farrel
As a chemist, who was awarded a PhD in 1991, albeit not in this field, I'm astonished that this is a new discovery. Once you think about it, it makes total sense.
As a chemist, I skipped the PhD part. But once I thought about it, it still makes no sense. And the only thing I am astonished at is, is how much BS this guy spouts and a PhD chemist is still going give this any credence. Anyway, this is another channel for my block list. Always keep your porch clean and don't let bulls shit all over it.
missing from this 'explanation' is what/how the salts and other contaminates are bound in H2O, and how they may not be carried into the air also. You have shown the evaporation of pure water, not saline. ?? that is a big omission.
I thought the general idea was known for some time - I remember watching a documentary on climate change and possible causes besides human CO2 emissions and one of the data points was records of how much water was added to the water basins on ranches. I think these basins were only used to monitor how fast the water in basins used by the ranch animals would evaporate. The ranchers would know how much water the herd would consume (given weather conditions) that would help them avoid having those basins run dry without requiring someone to physically check the water levels several times a day.
The ultimate conclusion was that the evaporation rate had dropped over the last few decades, when adjusted for temperature and humidity. The conclusion was that there's been a subtle increase in high, thin clouds that reduced the amount of UV light reaching the surface. That light could break the bonds between water molecules.
So thin clouds, barely visible, reduced the UV hitting the surface. That reduced the evaporation levels, and that in turn meant that the ranchers had to add less water. Those thin clouds were probably created by humans, e.g., perhaps from aircraft contrails.
(We know that's a factor after air traffic was shut down after 9/11.)
(We also know that the dirty fuel used by merchant ships was a huge factor after its use was banned a year or two ago.)
Of course knowing that green light is enough, or that polarization is involved, is a big leap forward. It's one think to know that this happens with UV light, a very different thing knowing that it happens with relatively cheaply produced polarized green light.
Also called pan evaporation. It's been a thing since the 80s/90s. BBC panorama did a documentary on it.
Think you watched BBC's "Global Dimming". Great documentary!
@@donlars1 It may have been. I think they had two different ones. The one I remember more had russian scientists and various other ones from around the globe all talking about the same basic findings that less water was evaporating over the last few decades etc. Regardless of the reason it's a bit of a worry.
Water molecules have a 120 deg. angle bond so they can't form squares. Instead they actually form honeycomb hexagons, as Prof. Gerald Pollack has shown in his book, "The Fourth Phase of Water." There are several videos on TH-cam featuring Prof. Pollack discussing the fourth phase that he discovered about 12 years ago.
I love how photomolecular effect also helps use transition into advertisement so smoothly.
That must be why the color of money is green!
That may be related to the way that the funding of research tends to flow toward whatever justifies the establishment's domination of the people.
While I think heat causes the bulk of state changes of water to gas, there is a known phenomena in nature called osmosis (I believe) where matter attempts to enter equilibrium with its surroundings. Specifically gas and liquids. I'm not sure this new theory is relevant or needed to explain evaporation without heat.
Probably my most important chemistry lesson for many decades - keep on rockin' here at Two Bit da Vinci 🙂
Whoever took notes better buckle up because professor thunderf00t just put on a clinic 😅
Its been many decades from my education but wasn't there something about the vapor pressure involved in this little circle
I used a "Light powered clothes dryer" for many years.
Just took longer to dry things when the temperature was way below freezing.
Now most municipalities ban the use of clothes-lines.
Why is it banned
@@aurorapaisley7453People don't like seeing others airing dirty laundry.
@@edeaglehouse2221 if it's on the clothesline it's clean dopey
@@GRAYgauss Hi GRAYgauss. Birdstrike's the problem. Cheers, P.R.
@@edeaglehouse2221 Hi Ed. I agree. Unmentionables must also be invisible. Cheers, P.R.
This perhaps explains why on a cool/cold morning wet surfaces start 'steaming' as soon as the sunlight reaches them.
Could we make a solar cell that lets the green light pass through and generate electricity from the rest of the spectrum?
this is very interesting, the key would be to collect as much electricity with band gap solar that allos allows the green through for some other effect. such fascinating potential!
photomolecular effect doesn't generate electricity though. but you could do the kther way around and have water on top of the solar cells rhat would evaporate and cool the cells and produce warer vapor at the same time. the problem is how to catch the water vapor on top of rhe cell Ithout obscuring the light. plus how to keep water on top if the cells are leaning towards light. you could use capilarity to slow down the water following gravity, and and a layer of air sandwiched between the layer of water + colar cells and a clear glass/poly panel, holding the vapor recirculated to condense into a distilled water container to make you solar panels produce electricity + drinking water. letting rhe solar panels flat would avoid the need to pump the water up the slope, but reduce the panels efficiency...also evaporating dirty water on top of a solar panel would quickly create residues that would block light so your water needs to be filtered first.
@@geemy9675 🤔 There's a new PlasmaChannel video where he moves water vapor around with static electricity. If you could get the system to naturally build up a static charge, maybe you could move the water vapor to the corners and collect it on mini fog nets? I am assuming the power it would take to power the static field from the solar collected would be more than a useful output of the panels.
Water droplets generate a static charge, but would there be enough generated by the drips from the fog nets? And not be discharged every time a squirrel ran across it.
Haha, maybe a wind powered wimshurst machine to power it 😁
@@colleenforrest7936 the static charge is not spontaneous but result of movement of falling droplets , it's only converting energy (potential >mechanic>electric). when you want to "produce" energy you actually have to wonder what energy you want to convert and what will supply this energy. thinking producing vapor will spontaneously generate electric energy is forgetting this basic principle
@@geemy9675 maybe even out the pulses with a supercap could you collect that charge in a supercap and then use that to power a battery that charges the static field on the solar panel. Granted, the math has to be done to see if it's a net positive system.
Putting this all together, you'd have a rechargeable battery responsible to keep a steady static charge over its assigned cel.
The battery is charged by a supercap, with some sort of distribution net to transfer excess static charge to other super caps (or electricity to the batteries if that's a better design) that are underpowered, and a sink to hold any excess charge above that for later use. The supercap is charged by droplets of water vapor condensing on a small fog net sitting sitting in the corner of a solar cel. This water is then channeled off to a freshwater holding tank. The water vapor is created by the evaporation of "dirty" by green light, with the rest of the light in the spectrum being allowed to reach the solar cel and generate electricity. The water vapor is moved to the corners of the solar cel and onto the fog nets by manipulating the static field, which is charged by the battery. As is current, there would be multiple cels on a panel, and multiple panels in the system. Questions as to wether the math works out on an ideal system, would the dirty water or water vapor reduce the charge to the solar panels...
Gees, I watch too much TH-cam 😄
When 400% clickbait videos are not cringe enough, you turn to sudo science bs...
Keep up the great work, if you work hard enough and produce a bunch of great vids like this, you may get a chance to promote some pump and dump nft or coins...That would really fit the picture.
This whole theory sounds like a setup to me.
Ever since i was a kid, i used to leave a light on in the laundry room at night, which helped my T-shirts dry out faster.
But then, back in those days, we didn't use florescent but incandescent bulbs, which also gave off considerable heat.
Great video, ty. A suggestion... scientists need much more recognition for the value they are bringing to society. Contrast the attention actors and athletes get, it boggles the mind. I think you should promote the individuals responsible in your videos or at least cite them somewhere.
thank you for the comment and suggestion. We have some rules but what we need to do is create a standards format so we can do all the things in every video... you're 100% right, and we normally always do! but this one we started getting ahead of ourselves on research and missed this step. I have linked the original article from MIT in the description!
Probably explains why my pool evaporates less water when its green than the need to keep topping it up when it's clear??
We've been doing it wrong. Our pool tiles/linings need to be emerald green, not white or light blue. TBH I may have seen one green pool in my life. It may take a culture shift. ✌️😎
I’d always put that down to the fact that I kept the pool clean, filtered and chlorinated during the summer months but let things go over the cooler months when the pool wasn’t in use. But hey, who knows 🤷🏼♂️
@@erinmac4750I’ve seen 2 green pools, both in architecturally designed homes. They look awesome. You would expect them to look like a pool that hadn’t been cleaned for 3 years, but they actually look nothing like that. The looking really cool, refreshing and inviting.
@@erinmac4750 Lets do it, every day will be St. Patrick's Day down by the river and the pool.
It's going to be interesting when they account for this effect in the climate models.
Exactly, simply put EVERY single weather model and study is totally and undeniably wrong.
Climate models will always indicate that you need to give more money to the government….
@@jasonborne5724 Oh. Ok, whateveryousay, I guess.
@@OttawaDN Hi Ottawa. Not necessarily. There's a vast difference between "wrong in magnitude" and "not relevant". But as you say, once this effect has been quantified under all real world conditions, climate models (which are only virtual computer models anyway), will need refiguring. Cheers, P.R.
@@OttawaDN its right if it fits a narrative though huh?
It's absolutely not true that you must have heat for water to evaporate. Who told you that? It is true that adding heat to liquid water will cause evaporation in an open system, however, I can dry my clothes at night when the temperature is dropping i.e. declining heat so how does this happen? All liquids have a partial pressure equilbrium so when you have cool dry air this will draw water from liquid to gaseous phase until the partial pressure for that temp is reached which will never happen for clothes in dry air to they complete dry out. This is also why your food dries out in the refridgerator if you don't cover it.
Yes, I'm just a dumb high school science teacher, but water can also be "boiled off" with electromagnetic radiation, specifically microwave radiation and this is how your microwave works and once again there is no actual heat applied to the water but rather radiation.
I never heard anything about the quantum magnitude of this socalled photoelectric effect but it supposedly might be used for all sorts of amazing stuff. There are all sorts of weird phenomena but their net effect is so low or so energy inefficent that it is nonsense to even think about it as the basis for practical use and perhaps this is the case for water photoelectric effect? Unfortunately a lot scientific papers these days are more spin than science and it's the questions they don't ask that is the problem especially because they are often looking for funding to spin off the tech or on sell it so their "research" often is more like a startup blurb - and I say this having worked a very long time in Uni research earlier in life.
Then this means that the Green Pigment of the Chlorophyll from plants allows faster evaporation.
This is quite revolutionary discovery, this unlock more topic in regards of Evaporative Cooling Effect and Water Evaporation.
Basically, this solidifies that Trees brings more cooling effect and expells more moisture in the air than sea water of similar area.
You've got this completely backwards. The plants are green because they REFLECT the green light. If you provide plants with nothing but green light, they die. Because green light is the only colour they CAN'T use. Plants can use both blue and red light but NOT green.
So reflecting the green light helps them PREVENT evaporation. After all, plants don't like to be desicated.
Thunderf00t brought me here to see this bullshit.
Uh oh
you made me suffer through thundershit video, just wanna ask, what do you know about him? is he a scientist? or just a clickbaiter? does he put any articles or sources in the description? or just his patreon? Does he explain anything scientific or just calls bs on what is convenient for him? really i would like to know what makes you believe in thunderfoots clickbait bs more then in real article from MIT?
Because TFoot is Phillip Mason, a very successful scientist (physical chemist) who's published extensively in some of the best academic journals in the world. And, more importantly, because he actually breaks down physics and chemistry in his videos to back up exactly what he says.
@@daesu3236 he’s a nuclear physicist
@@daesu3236 I've watched thunderf00ts videos for a decade now, and i can tell you that no other youtuber comes even close to having as good of a bullshit-detection track record as him. Like him or hate him, he is right. You can watch his videos from 5-10 years ago, and see how everything turned out. He is yet to be wrong, and it says something about his methods. These "davincy" youtubers are just youtubers. They do zero research and just copy paste blog posts, to get views. Also, schools like MIT and Harvard post shit all the time. To answer your question: "does he explain anything specific..." yes...he goes out of his way to show how something is bullshit. He does the math, gives the formulas and mathematical proofs. He isn't as popular as these "davincies" because people want to be spoon fed easy answers and turn away from numbers and math.
Holy crap! My mind is absolutely blown! Why isn't everyone talking about this? My first thought was water desalinization and I'm so glad you mentioned it. This is a HUGE problem we will face in the near future, and solving it before a crisis could potentially save billions of lives.
I have been for the last 8 years......read my comment above
It is not a problem per se, this process is happening every second everywhere. Dew, clouds, rain, rivers. Artificial desalination is useful in some parts of the earth, but its is easy to implement without external energy in sunny areas. If engineers don't already do that way, or are not allowed to do - that's different issue - man made.
@@egria , oh no I mean the impending shortage of fresh water around the world.
Woo! I was stationed on 2 aircraft carriers and never quite understood the desalinization process (didn’t try too hard due to doing surgeries while underway) but you made me understand this potential new process. Thank you!
Love your work dude.
How does this change our understanding of evaporation rates from plants?
Does the green pigment filter out green light wave lengths or reflect them?
Reflect. When you see color from an object illuminated with light, not a light source, what you are seeing is the reflected light.
He's playing you with the nonsense he sells and you buy. That's sad that you'r gonna spread that "knowledge"
Maybe I'm just weird, but one of the first thoughts I had was 'could this be usable to increase efficiency in the production of stem for power generation? '.
oh now that's interesting!
Brilliant, as long as the energy from making steam this way is greater than the energy from the light source. It could work, maybe, especially if the light is from a renewable source.
Brilliant! Combine that with desalination and that would be pretty slick!
The efficiency issues with steam power pretty much all lie in the conversion of the energy in the steam to useful energy like motion or electricity (It's still the best option we have, but the Carnot limit sets an absolute limit on the efficiency with which the energy in the steam and be made into useful work). The steam needs to enter the system with the correct amount of thermal energy and since this new discovery doesn't contradict conservation of energy, there's no reason to think it has any chance of being more efficient than the 90+% efficient boilers already in use.
@@peglor The real question is how the 2 processes would interact. There isn't any data related to that or any indication that it has yet been explored.
"Two bit" sounds about right...
A few years ago, there was news in print and on television, about Cal Tech, or some college of that sort making a great breakthrough in Cold Fusion. People got very excited, as the tests seemed to indicate that this could solve the world's energy problems! But since then, there seems to have been nothing said about it. Has it been silenced?
It disappeared in the storage room between Ram Doubler and Theranos.
Thunderf00t brought me here to help you find your two braincells, da Vinci.
please, show us the way. :)
Superb presentation. One of the best cutting edge science explanations I have ever heard. I live in the humid south. I have always admired arid western "Swamp Coolers" which cool air through evaporation. Drying humid air with light to cool it, has major potential.
thank you Chris for the kind words.... swamp coolers ... now that's interesting... because of the potential for cooling there's some synergy, but it would increase humidity and in the south you definitely don't want that. Capitalizing on this phenomenon would be great in dry warm places like the southwest
@@TwoBitDaVinci
I listened closely to your discussion starting at TM 9:30. Yes, the resulting air is cooler and more humid. For humid climates, all that needs to be done is to use an air-to-air heat-exchangers. Depending on the Delta-T, cooling the incoming outside air should cause condensation. Thanks Again.
@@TwoBitDaVinciOf course in a race between evaporative cooling, AC, and heat pumps. At this time good heat pumps win.
Green light evaporates water more?
Is that why plants went from wine-colored leaves to green?
The old explanation is that there is more green light, so plants that didn't reflect it died off when the climate got too extreme. But this never made much sense to me, since the light that reaches Earth is clearly more yellow. But if green light is itself, regardless of how much of it there is, particularly harmful in that it might dry out foliage, then selecting for green reflectivity works, even in yellow -dominant light.
Considering that I learned of this phenomenon 47 years ago in school, I’m guessing that this new explanation for it won’t really solve the world’s water problem.
Thunderfoot debunk on this was wild 😂
What light wavelength was most efficient ??
The black one! He says it in the video! LOL. Just kidding.
This is groundbreaking. To think that we could still learn about something as common and mundane as water evaporation... Can't wait to see how they turn this into actual technology.
This could make for a cool school science project: All you would need is a few cheap green LEDs to see if water evaporates faster when lit.
He gets to the point @ 5:55
CSIRO literally were on ABC over a decade ago reporting this, how is this news?
I should add that Australian farmers for years have been covering water troughs because of this exact reason. It was literally a government campaign
And the thunder was deafening.
Aren't photons passing through the Earth, through humans, animals, etc. killing us? And is one of the reasons we grow old and die so relatively 'young'?
Desalination would be an extreme leap forward.
We should first figure out what to do with the waste brine. But of course we won't.
@@davidmccarthy6061 perhaps sodium batteries?
If the evaporation from light causes groups of water to evaporate instead of single molecules, would that cause salt trapped in that group to be carried over as well, or does the salt get excluded?
@@davidmccarthy6061 Use it to make Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH). Use NaOH in water to strip the Oxide layer from aluminium. Aluminium reacts with water creating an electric current, sensible heat and pure hydrogen gas. That makes aluminium a perfect source for seasonal energy storage and on-demand hydrogen production.
@@davidmccarthy6061 there are plenty of uses for salt, and brine. We have plenty of tapped out salt mines we could store the new salt supply in. But I understand your sentiment, we (as a society) are often finding solutions either "in the nick of time" or after the disaster has already happened. Then someone sees an opportunity to exploit the disaster for billions of dollars, setting the situation up for the next foreseeable and preventable disaster.
1:39 2:14 "Light can breakdown water faster than heat alone."
2:45 Photo molecular effect the same as the photoelectric effect.
5:40 Light is more efficient in evaporating water than heat.
6:45 Some wavelengths are better than others. ROY G BIV
Amazing! Great vídeo! Congratulations and thanks a lot!
Two bits seems drastically over-priced for this level of "thought".
Is the interdental lisp meant to be erudite?
I see the discovery but I don't see a cost effective use. I must be missing something. Creating polarized wave lengths of light cheaply would be a great discovery. Knowlege is knowledge and I can't diminish the discovery. I see this as a discovery that may... lead to incremental improvement in some functions. Understanding how something so common works is only useful if there is some beneficial use. Is polarized light more efficient to produce than simple heat? When you scale this, I would think it might be doubtful. Great presentation. I am curious to learn more and see where this discovery leads to more.
agreed, its not immediately obvious for me either, but I might try to build something to better understand it.
of course the video length is 11:33, as the light refraction index of water is 1.33 well done
Watching this at 5 a.m. with no sleep, and seeing that the video was posted just an hour ago, made me feel so happy that I hadn't gone to bed yet.
I saw it at 5:01 AM upon waking up, after prayer, mind you. o7
What is the formula for these 'air molecules' of which you speak at 9:33 ? Thanks.
The wavelength that is most efficient is the same as that of most plant leaves or algae. Is there a connection here?
Louis, this idea is something I can't stop thinking about! On the surface it makes sense that plants would be green to reflect that wavelength of light to minimize water loss... how crazy exciting is that... I'm going to look into this further!!!
It could be a factor but I would be careful about jumping to that conclusion.
This explanation would only make sense if reflecting the green light decreases the likelihood of this interaction occurring on the plant. Given that it is a surface interaction (i.e. the effect happening further inside the plant would not cause evaporation because the water is not in a position where it can leave the plant) reflecting the green light rather than absorbing it may actually increase the incidence of this effect (absorbing the light with a pigment would reduce the number of times the light passes through the surface of the plant).
Compound this with the information that:
- Not all plants (or more generally green photosynthetic organisms) are in areas where transpiration is a negative thing--thus this selection pressure would not be present for aquatic plants or ones with excess or sufficient water supply. We know that there are shallow water green alges that have been around for a long time (which would never have a reason to limit transpiration because they are literally swimming in water).
- There are other fairly well researched reasons that plants may avoid using green light. For example that structures that absorb it (with green being the peak output of the sun for terrestrial/shallow water) would have harvest too much energy which could cause damage or disruptions (basically over charging things which is dangerous). This research that looked into this model of 'moderating energy capture' and it apparently fit even with things like purple photosynthetic bacteria (because the spectrum of light reaching them was different).
tl;dr there may be some connection in some places, but I don't think this is anywhere near enough evidence to come to that conclusion especially given there are already other models that seem to fit more universally.
Not only that. It's also the wavelength that is least absorbed by liquid water. There has to be a connection.