Zero Mass Water -BUSTED!

Thunderf00t

AI-assisted summary of Zero Mass Water -BUSTED! — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2018-05-25

Key ideas

Zero Mass Water markets a $4,500 solar-powered hydropanel system producing roughly five liters daily, even though purchasing and trucking 10 tons of municipal water costs under $400. (3:08)
Under average global rainfall, placing a simple bucket under a passive surface equal to the panel's 3-square-meter footprint captures roughly 2.1 metric tons of water annually—exceeding the panel's active claim of 1.8 tons. (6:08)
Condensing water vapor requires overcoming the latent heat of vaporization (roughly 2.26 million joules per liter), an energy hurdle that far outstrips the device's modest ~100-watt solar panel output. (12:43)
Despite promotional campaigns spotlighting disaster relief and refugee camps, company leadership admitted to media outlets that the product is primarily pitched as a status symbol for wealthy homeowners. (15:40)

Detailed notes

## Background This video was published on YouTube by Thunderf00t on May 25, 2018. In the description, the creator expresses frustration over how frequently inventors repackage ordinary dehumidifiers with solar panels while the media uncritically celebrates them as world-saving innovations.

## TL;DR Thunderf00t debunks Zero Mass Water, a startup claiming to solve global water scarcity using solar-powered 'SOURCE' hydropanels that extract moisture from the air. By breaking down system costs, he illustrates that trucking clean municipal water is vastly faster and less than a tenth of the cost of a $4,500 two-panel array. Furthermore, he explains that fundamental thermodynamics—specifically the massive latent heat of vaporization—make extracting significant water from arid air mechanically impossible with low-wattage solar cells, concluding that the product is an over-engineered dehumidifier pitched as a luxury status symbol by uncritical journalists.

## Atmosphere & style The presentation is sharply satirical, exasperated, and intensely analytical. Thunderf00t combines back-of-the-envelope physics calculations with biting mockery of corporate promotional videos, tech journalists, and virtue-signaling cocktail party culture. The delivery feels like an impassioned scientific reality check, swinging between technical thermodynamics lessons and humorous disbelief at silicon-valley hype.

## Bulletin - [03:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg&t=188s) Zero Mass Water markets a $4,500 solar-powered hydropanel system producing roughly five liters daily, even though purchasing and trucking 10 tons of municipal water costs under $400. - [06:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg&t=368s) Under average global rainfall, placing a simple bucket under a passive surface equal to the panel's 3-square-meter footprint captures roughly 2.1 metric tons of water annually—exceeding the panel's active claim of 1.8 tons. - [12:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg&t=763s) Condensing water vapor requires overcoming the latent heat of vaporization (roughly 2.26 million joules per liter), an energy hurdle that far outstrips the device's modest ~100-watt solar panel output. - [15:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg&t=940s) Despite promotional campaigns spotlighting disaster relief and refugee camps, company leadership admitted to media outlets that the product is primarily pitched as a status symbol for wealthy homeowners.

## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg&t=0s) Zero Mass Water promotes its SOURCE hydropanels as a breakthrough clean water solution, repeating the uncritical media hype cycle that previously surrounded the debunked WaterSeer. - [03:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg&t=188s) A standard two-panel residential setup costs $4,500 ($2,000 per panel plus a mandatory $500 installation fee) and nominally produces around five liters of water per day. - [03:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg&t=188s) Producing 10 tons of water with a single panel takes approximately 5.5 years, while hauling the same volume 1,000 miles by tanker truck costs around $350 to $400 in water and fuel. - [06:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg&t=368s) A passive 3-square-meter catchment area receiving average global rainfall collects roughly 2.1 metric tons of water per year, outperforming the hydropanel's active annual yield of 1.8 tons. - [06:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg&t=368s) Atmospheric water extraction creates an environmental paradox: regions with sufficient atmospheric humidity to operate already receive ample rainfall, while arid regions lack the moisture needed for viable output. - [07:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg&t=466s) A commercial desiccant dehumidifier yielding five liters daily requires roughly 400 watts of continuous 24-hour power, whereas the hydropanel's integrated solar module generates only about 100 watts during peak sunlight. - [07:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg&t=466s) Each hydropanel weighs approximately 275 pounds (130 kg), contradicting company narratives of quick, trivial residential and disaster-zone installations. - [10:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg&t=646s) Reservoirs sitting on hot rooftops present potential stagnation and contamination hazards, and promotional segments fail to clearly show direct indoor plumbing integration. - [10:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg&t=646s) The company's high-tech Network Operations Center (NOC) and cellular monitoring add unnecessary hardware overhead to watch water condense across only a few hundred deployed units. - [12:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg&t=763s) Phase changes of water are strictly governed by thermodynamics, requiring the removal of approximately 2,260,000 joules of latent heat per kilogram of condensed vapor. - [12:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg&t=763s) The ~2 million joules needed to condense one liter of water contains enough thermal energy to heat a one-kilogram bar of silver by roughly 10,000 °C, nearly double the surface temperature of the Sun. - [15:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg&t=940s) While public relations materials leverage images of impoverished children, company statements confirm the system is targeted at affluent buyers seeking cocktail party prestige. - [15:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg&t=940s) Softball tech journalism continually fails to interrogate basic physical and economic realities, repeating press releases rather than assessing fundamental feasibility.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg&t=0s) The "Water From Air" Hype Machine and the Ghost of WaterSeer

Operating out of an old car dealership in Scottsdale, Arizona, the startup Zero Mass Water claims to produce clean drinking water straight out of thin air using solar power, advanced material science, and data. Tech reporting presented by Lauren Goode in conjunction with Intel framed the startup as the next frontier of drinking water, touting its potential deployment to disaster and crisis zones such as Northern Lebanon for Syrian refugees, post-hurricane Puerto Rico, lead-tainted Flint, Michigan, and even residential markets like Berkeley and Oakland. Thunderf00t highlights how this concept is repeatedly regurgitated by a scientifically illiterate media cycle eager for clickbait, pointing out: “Honestly, it drives me crazy how many people have reinvented the dehumidifier, put a solar panel on it, and the media has danced around like they've just saved the world!”

This pattern mirrors earlier viral water-harvesting gadgets like the WaterSeer, which major outlets like the BBC continued to uncritically promote in late 2017 even after it had been thoroughly debunked. The original WaterSeer pitch claimed that an unpowered, $130 underground condensation chamber driven by a simple wind turbine would collect gallons of water day and night without external energy. By the time it underwent redesigns, it had ballooned into an almost $1,000 unit requiring roughly 200 watts of power while continuing to promise unrealistic yields. People fell for it, handing over roughly a third of a million dollars in crowdfunding for what amounted to nothing more than burying an off-the-shelf dehumidifier in a backyard garden.

- Startup location: Former car dealership in Scottsdale, Arizona. - Target marketing scenarios: Northern Lebanon (Syrian refugees), Puerto Rico (Hurricane Maria), Flint, Michigan, and California cities (Berkeley, Oakland). - Media coverage: Tech segment hosted by Lauren Goode, partnered with Intel; BBC promotional coverage of WaterSeer. - WaterSeer comparison: Claimed zero-power passive condensation for $130, later morphed into a ~200 W device costing close to $1,000 after raising over $300,000.

---

[03:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg&t=188s) The Crushing Economics: Panels vs. Tanker Trucks

Extracting moisture from air via dehumidification has never been a technological mystery; it is simply an absurdly expensive way to source water. Thunderf00t argues that virtually anywhere on Earth, dispatching a tanker truck filled with municipal water is vastly faster and cheaper than attempting to extract it from the ambient atmosphere. A basic residential installation from Zero Mass Water requires a minimum two-panel setup priced at $2,000 per panel, alongside a mandatory $500 installation fee, bringing the base entry price to $4,500. While promotional materials sow confusion over whether each panel produces five liters daily or whether the combined two-panel array produces five liters, Thunderf00t grants the generous assumption that a single unit yields five liters per day.

At five liters per day, filling a standard 10-ton (10 cubic meter) water tanker truck would take approximately 2,000 days—about five and a half years, representing more than half of the array's estimated 10-year operational lifespan. In contrast, 10 cubic meters of tap water in the United States costs around $50 to $60 (or about £3 per cubic meter in the UK, roughly $5). Hiring a medium freight truck capable of carrying 10 tons at an average of 10 miles per gallon would consume around 100 gallons of fuel to travel 1,000 miles (2,500 km), costing roughly $300 in fuel. Thus, buying clean water and trucking it halfway across the continent costs less than a tenth of what the Zero Mass Water array demands.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Sourcing 10 Tons of Water Comparison accDescr: Compares the cost and timeframe of trucking water versus harvesting it with a Zero Mass Water panel.

subgraph Truck["Tanker Truck Transport"] T1["Buy 10 m³ (10 tons) municipal water Cost: ~$50 - $60"] T2["Ship 1,000 miles by truck Fuel: ~100 gal (~$300)"] T3["Total Cost: ~$350 - $400 Timeframe: Days"] T1 --> T2 --> T3 end

subgraph Panel["Zero Mass Water Array"] P1["Purchase & install 2 panels Cost: $4,500"] P2["Production rate: 5 L/day (Generous single-unit estimate)"] P3["Total Volume: 10 tons (10,000 L) Timeframe: ~2,000 days (~5.5 years)"] P1 --> P2 --> P3 end ```

- Minimum array cost: $4,000 for two panels plus $500 installation fee ($4,500 total). - Generous output estimate: 5 liters per day per unit. - Time to yield 10 metric tons (10,000 liters): ~2,000 days (~5.5 years). - Lifetime of array: Estimated by manufacturer at approximately 10 years. - Municipal residential water cost: ~$50–$60 per 10 m³ in the US; ~£3 ($5) per m³ in the UK. - Long-distance transport cost: ~10 mpg truck running 1,000 miles consumes ~100 gallons of fuel (~$300).

---

[06:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg&t=368s) The Bucket Test and Environmental Catch-22

The fundamental flaw of atmospheric water extraction becomes stark when evaluated against natural rainfall. Earth's average land rainfall is approximately 0.7 meters per year. Each Zero Mass Water panel measures roughly 1 meter by 3 meters, establishing a surface footprint of about 3 square meters. If the array were used as a passive roof funneling into a bucket, average annual rainfall alone would deliver approximately 2 cubic meters (2 tons) of water. Under optimal conditions, the active Zero Mass Water technology promises 5 liters per day, amounting to only 1.8 tons per year. Thunderf00t emphasizes this irony: “In fact, hell, here's a fun fact for you: these panels would on average produce more water if you just stuck a bucket under them.”

When pushing comparisons to the best-case scenarios for both methods, extreme rainfall regions can reach 10 meters of rain annually, which would capture roughly 30 tons of water per year on that same surface area. More crucially, the underlying physics creates an unavoidable paradox: in climates where high relative humidity makes dehumidification somewhat viable, precipitation is already abundant, rendering the machine redundant; in arid environments where clean drinking water is actually needed, the air lacks sufficient moisture for the desiccant to capture meaningful quantities.

- Average global land rainfall: ~0.7 meters per year. - Panel physical dimensions: ~1 m by 3 m (~3 m² footprint). - Passive rainfall capture on 3 m²: ~2.1 metric tons per year. - Active Zero Mass Water yearly yield: ~1.8 metric tons per year (at 5 L/day). - Maximum passive capture in wet climates: ~10 meters/year of rain yields ~30 tons/year.

---

[07:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg&t=466s) Thermodynamic Realities and Underpowered Hardware

The core operational principle of Zero Mass Water relies on desiccant dehumidification—a decades-old technology that relies on absorbent materials to grab airborne water vapor before applying heat to drive it off into a condensation loop. However, moving water between vapor and liquid states is fundamentally constrained by thermodynamics, a scientific reality completely overlooked in glowing media profiles. Promotional interviews gloss over technical trade-offs while advertising swift disaster response capabilities, claiming that three people can install a two-panel array in about an hour, with the bulk of the effort going toward routing the water line to a sink or refrigerator.

Taking a closer look at the manufacturer's own spec sheets reveals glaring practical and physical contradictions:

1. **Physical Bulk:** Each panel weighs an unwieldy 275 pounds (roughly 130 kilograms), making manual installation on roofs far from trivial. 2. **Desiccant Power Requirements:** A standard commercial desiccant dehumidifier purchased from Amazon that extracts around 5 liters of water daily requires roughly 400 watts of continuous electrical power running over 24 hours under ideal humidity and temperature conditions. 3. **Inadequate Solar Supply:** The solar panel mounted across the face of the Zero Mass device measures roughly 48 inches by 24 inches (just over 1 meter across). A comparable commercial panel of that surface area produces around 100 watts in full sunlight. Because the panels remain stationary rather than tracking the sun, they collect peak light for at most 12 hours a day.

Even assuming the surrounding collectors harvest ambient solar thermal energy to assist the desiccant desorption cycle, the entire setup could optimistically muster the equivalent of perhaps 400 watts exclusively while the sun shines. Thunderf00t concludes that under real-world conditions—especially in an arid test environment like Arizona—the unit would struggle to generate more than a fraction of a couple of liters daily: “I'd be surprised if they get a tenth, which is probably why they're so tight-lipped about this little thing and only stress what they'll produce in the best case scenario.”

- Stated panel weight: 275 lbs (~130 kg) per unit. - Installation claim: 3 people can install two units in ~1 hour (mostly plumbing routing). - Amazon desiccant dehumidifier benchmark: ~400 W continuous (24 hours) for ~5 L/day output. - Photovoltaic output on panel face: ~48" × 24" footprint yields ~100 W for ~12 hours of fixed sunlight. - Realistic desert yield estimate: Significantly below nominal rating, likely only a fraction of a liter to a couple of liters daily.

[10:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg&t=646s) Plumbing Doubts, Stagnant Roof Water, and the "NOC"

Thunderf00t examines a media segment highlighting Zero Mass Water's SOURCE hydropanels, pointing out subtle skepticism from the visiting reporter. While the company claims the rooftop panels take moisture out of the air, concentrate it, and dispense drinking water straight to a building's tap, the reporter explicitly notes having zero visibility into how the water actually travels from the rooftop reservoir into the faucet. Thunderf00t remarks that not drinking it direct might actually be a relief: leaving water sitting on a hot roof inside an unsterilized collection system creates an obvious contamination risk rather than a clean drinking supply. He also catches an inconsistency in the marketing: if the water is supposed to be plumbed directly inside to replace municipal pipes, it makes little sense that video demonstrations show people grabbing standalone bottles from under outdoor collectors.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Zero Mass Water System Overview accDescr: Diagram showing how Zero Mass Water collects air moisture, sends telemetry to a Network Operations Center, and dispenses water. subgraph Collection["Rooftop Generation"] A["Ambient Air Moisture"] --> B["SOURCE Hydropanels"] B --> C["Rooftop Reservoir"] end subgraph Monitoring["Telemetry & Control"] B -->|"Wi-Fi / Cellular Data"| D["Network Operations Center (NOC)"] end subgraph Output["End User Delivery"] C -.->|"Unverified Plumbing"| E["Indoor Tap / Bottled Water"] end ```

The tour moves to the company’s high-tech control center, dubbed the "NOC" (Network Operations Center), where massive wall monitors track hydropanels deployed around the world. Thunderf00t mocks the room as a wildly over-engineered way to watch water condense. Adding network chips, Wi-Fi hardware, and sensors to each unit inflates the price tag past $2,000 per panel simply to feed unnecessary data back to headquarters. Despite the elaborate setup, the narrator points out that the grand map only accounts for a few hundred panels across eight countries.

- “While I was able to see the Zero Mass panels and taste the water, I didn't have much visibility into how the water actually runs from the reservoir to a faucet,” the reporter observes. - “Seriously, that's one of the most pointlessly, massively over-designed control centers ever,” Thunderf00t comments regarding the NOC.

---

[12:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg&t=763s) Grand Humanitarian Aspirations vs. Thermodynamic Reality

The video cuts to a company representative waxing poetic about how their breakthrough entitles them to be “aspirational,” listing off major global crises they plan to solve: Syrian refugee camps in northern Lebanon, hurricane recovery in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria, the contaminated tap water crisis in Flint, Michigan, and even replacing single-use bottled water in wealthy cities like Berkeley, Oakland, and Scottsdale. Thunderf00t ridicules this as empty posturing from someone who ignores basic physics. He notes that an ordinary plug-in dehumidifier can produce ten times the water for a tiny fraction of the cost, but consumers are dazzled because Zero Mass Water slaps a solar panel on top.

The presenter turns to the fundamental science that dooms atmospheric water generation: thermodynamics. Changing water from liquid to gas—or vice versa—demands enormous amounts of energy due to strong intermolecular hydrogen bonds. Breaking those bonds requires latent heat of vaporization amounting to roughly 2,260,000 joules per kilogram (approximately 2 million joules per liter). Boiling an electric kettle consumes massive power just to evaporate a few drops, and reversing the process requires removing that exact same staggering quantity of heat from the air.

To illustrate the sheer scale of 2,000,000 joules, Thunderf00t provides a comparison using a solid one-kilogram bar of silver: - Silver has a low specific heat capacity, requiring only about 235 joules to heat one kilogram by 1 °C. - Pumping 2,000,000 joules into that one-kilogram silver bar would increase its temperature by roughly 10,000 °C. - That calculated temperature is nearly double the surface temperature of the Sun (approximately 5,500 °C).

Because cooling air to condense water requires extracting such massive amounts of thermal energy, running the process mechanically via small localized solar panels is inherently inefficient. On Earth, phase changes of water at that scale occur naturally only through the colossal energy flux of the atmosphere.

- “And it's a profound thing to say, and I recognize it sounds profound, but this technology entitles us to be aspirational,” the Zero Mass Water spokesperson claims. - “The fundamental reason why this will never be viable is because of thermodynamics,” Thunderf00t argues. “To change the phase of water from liquid to gas requires an obscene amount of energy.”

---

[15:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg&t=940s) Cocktail Party Marketing and Softball Journalism

Thunderf00t targets the demographic Zero Mass Water is actually pitching to. While company PR films impoverished children standing around panels to tug at heartstrings, spokespeople admit to tech publications like *The Verge* that the ultimate goal is status signaling among wealthy homeowners. Their ideal scenario is a dinner party where someone says they have rooftop solar, prompting the response: “Do you mean solar electricity or solar water?” Thunderf00t stresses that the product is built for affluent virtue-signalers who want bragging rights at cocktail parties rather than impoverished communities who desperately need cheap, abundant clean water.

Media coverage surrounding the tech is criticized for fawning, softball interviews. Thunderf00t highlights a promotional clip where an interviewer frames hydropanels as an obvious, triumphant third pillar of rooftop solar—following photovoltaic and solar thermal—and asks what kind of homeowner should buy it. Thunderf00t compares this to the classic *Simpsons* parody where a journalist asks Montgomery Burns: *“Your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?”* Rather than asking whether generating water from dry air makes thermodynamic or economic sense, journalists uncritically parrot marketing slogans. He concludes that because the fundamental thermodynamics make the cost-per-liter exorbitant, Zero Mass Water is completely busted.

- “If you're at a cocktail party, you say, 'Well, I've got solar on my roof,' people think, 'Oh, electricity.' In a small number of years, people will be saying, 'Oh, you have solar on your roof, forgive me, do you talk about electricity or water?'” the company representative tells *The Verge*. - “That, I think, more or less establishes who the prospective customer of this thing is: it's not the impoverished kids that they cluster around this thing so they can sell it, it's folks who can brag about their solar water at their cocktail parties,” Thunderf00t states.

## Notable quotes > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg&t=0s) Honestly, it drives me crazy how many people have reinvented the dehumidifier, put a solar panel on it, and the media has danced around like they've just saved the world! — Thunderf00t

> [12:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg&t=763s) To change the phase of water from liquid to gas requires an obscene amount of energy. — Thunderf00t

## Mentioned Thunderf00t, Zero Mass Water, SOURCE hydropanels, WaterSeer, Lauren Goode, Intel, BBC, The Verge, The Simpsons, Montgomery Burns

## Video description Honestly, it drives me crazy how many people have reinvented the dehumidifier, put a solar panel on it, and the media has danced around like theyve just saved the world!

If you want to support this work directly https://www.patreon.com/Thunderf00t

or visit my amazon store: https://www.amazon.com/shop/thunderf00t

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg)

中文简报

Zero Mass Water骗局被揭穿！ Thunderf00t揭批了初创公司Zero Mass Water，该公司声称利用从空气中提取水分的太阳能“SOURCE”水力电池板来解决全球水资源短缺问题。通过细化系统成本，他指出用卡车运输干净的市政自来水速度要快得多，且成本不足一套售价4500美元双板系统的十分之一。此外，他解释称基础热力学原理——特别是巨大的汽化潜热——决定了利用低瓦数太阳能电池在干燥空气中机械化提取大量水分在物理上是不可能的，并得出结论认为该产品不过是一个被不加批判的记者包装成豪华身份象征的过度设计除湿机。 Zero Mass Water推销一套售价4500美元的太阳能水力电池板系统，日产水量约5升，而购买并用卡车运输10吨市政自来水的成本还不到400美元。 (3:08) 在全球平均降雨量下，只要在一个相当于该面板3平方米占地面积的被动收集表面下放一个普通水桶，每年就能收集约2.1公吨水——超过了该面板主动宣称的1.8吨。 (6:08) 凝结水蒸气需要克服汽化潜热（每升约226万焦耳），这一能量门槛远远超出了该设备约100瓦的微薄太阳能面板输出功率。 (12:43) 尽管宣传活动大肆强调救灾和难民营应用，但公司高管向媒体坦承，该产品主要是作为富裕业主彰显身份的象征来进行推销的。 (15:40)

Reading summary

Thunderf00t argues that Zero Mass Water's solar hydropanels represent an economically absurd and thermodynamically unviable approach to water generation, relying on uncritical tech media coverage to market an overpriced dehumidifier under the guise of humanitarian aid. Thermodynamic Limits and Hardware Shortfalls (7:46) Phase-changing water from vapor to liquid is strictly bound by thermodynamics, requiring the extraction of latent heat of vaporization amounting to roughly 2,260,000 joules per kilogram (liter). To illustrate this energy threshold, Thunderf00t calculates that applying 2,000,000 joules to a one-kilogram silver bar would increase its temperature by roughly 10,000 °C—nearly double the surface temperature of the Sun. Reversing evaporation mechanically demands extracting this vast quantity of heat from the air. The hardware deployed by Zero Mass Water cannot support these energetic requirements. Standard commercial desiccant dehumidifiers require approximately 400 watts of continuous 24-hour electrical power to produce 5 liters of water daily. In contrast, the stationary solar panel mounted on each 275-pound (130 kg) Zero Mass unit measures 48 by 24 inches, yielding around 100 watts for at most 12 peak hours. Even when augmenting electricity with ambient solar thermal heat, Thunderf00t contends the system would struggle to produce more than a fraction of a couple of liters daily in arid desert environments. Prohibitive Economics Compared to Water Transport (3:08) Extracting moisture from air represents an exceptionally costly method of sourcing potable water. A minimal residential installation from Zero Mass Water requires two panels priced at $2,000 each plus a mandatory $500 installation fee, totaling $4,500. Under the generous assumption that a single unit yields 5 liters per day, producing 10 metric tons (10,000 liters) of water would require roughly 2,000 days—around 5.5 years, consuming more than half of the array's estimated 10-year lifespan. In contrast, 10 metric tons of municipal tap water costs approximately $50 to $60 in the United States (or about £3 per cubic meter in the UK). Sourcing that volume and trucking it 1,000 miles via a 10-ton freight truck averaging 10 miles per gallon consumes roughly 100 gallons of fuel, adding approximately $300. As a result, trucking clean tap water halfway across the continent costs between $350 and $400 and arrives in days, costing less than a tenth of the hydropanel installation while delivering immediate volume. The Rainfall Paradox and System Design Doubts (6:08) Atmospheric water extraction suffers from a geographical contradiction. With average global land rainfall at roughly 0.7 meters per year, placing a bucket under a passive 3-square-meter surface—matching the footprint of a single 1-meter by 3-meter Zero Mass panel—would collect approximately 2.1 metric tons of rainwater annually. By comparison, the active Zero Mass panel promises only 1.8 metric tons per year at 5 liters daily. In wet climates receiving up to 10 meters of rain, passive surface catchment delivers roughly 30 tons. Consequently, the technology functions marginally well only where rain is already abundant, and fails in arid regions where water is actually needed because the air lacks sufficient moisture. Operational transparency and hygiene also raise significant doubts. During a media facility tour, an Intel-partnered reporter noted having zero visibility into how water traveled from rooftop panels into the indoor faucet. Thunderf00t cautions that holding unsterilized water inside rooftop reservoirs under hot sun poses serious contamination risks, while noting inconsistencies between marketing claims of integrated home plumbing and promotional footage showing outdoor bottled collection. Media Gullibility and Elite Status Signaling (15:40) Zero Mass Water repeats a pattern established by previously debunked devices such as the WaterSeer, which raised over $300,000 through uncritical press coverage before escalating from a $130 passive unit into an almost $1,000, 200-watt machine. Mainstream tech journalists uncritically repeated claims that Zero Mass hydropanels would resolve humanitarian crises in Puerto Rico, Flint, Michigan, and Lebanese refugee camps. Thunderf00t criticizes reporters for lobbing softball questions rather than interrogating basic physics, while dismissing the company's multi-monitor Network Operations Center (NOC) as an over-engineered spectacle tracking merely a few hundred panels. While corporate promotions feature impoverished children to elicit emotional sympathy, company representatives admitted to The Verge that their real target market is wealthy suburban homeowners seeking cocktail-party bragging rights. Thunderf00t concludes that the system is fundamentally designed not as an efficient humanitarian intervention, but as an expensive novelty for affluent virtue-signalers wanting to discuss 'solar water.' Thunderf00t concludes that Zero Mass Water is fundamentally unviable due to the immutable energetic costs of condensing vapor into liquid. Because desiccant phase-change demands massive power, rooftop hydropanels cannot compete economically, environmentally, or practically with conventional water distribution and passive rainwater collection.

精炼阅读摘要

科普评论者 Thunderf00t 指出，初创企业 Zero Mass Water 宣称利用太阳能从空气中直接提取饮用水的技术，在热力学和经济学上均不成立。该系统本质上是一台严重缺乏电力驱动的昂贵除湿机，媒体大肆鼓吹其解决人道主义水危机的潜力，完全脱离了高昂成本与物理规律的现实制约。巨额购置成本与水车运输的经济学对比 (3:08) 从空气中冷凝水分并非未解的技术谜题，而是一种成本极高的取水方式。Zero Mass Water 基础家庭套装强制要求购买两块面板，每块售价 2,000 美元，加上 500 美元的基础安装费，入门价格高达 4,500 美元。即使按照极度宽容的单板日产 5 升水来计算，该设备产出一辆标准水罐车所容纳的 10 吨（10 立方米）水需要约 2,000 天（约 5.5 年），耗时超过了厂商宣称面板 10 年使用寿命的一半。与此形成鲜明对比的是传统物流与市政供水的经济效益。在美国，10 立方米自来水费用仅约 50 至 60 美元（在英国每立方米约 3 英镑，即 5 美元）。若雇佣一辆中型货车以每加仑 10 英里的油耗运输 10 吨水行驶 1,000 英里，燃油消耗约 100 加仑，油费开支仅约 300 美元。购买市政自来水并用卡车跨越半个大陆的总成本仅约 350 至 400 美元，不到这套空气集水设备采购价格的十分之一，且供应速度远快于数年之久的漫长冷凝过程。自然降水测试与环境适用性悖论 (6:08) 将该面板与自然降雨收集进行对比，其效率缺陷更加显现。地球陆地年平均降雨量约为 0.7 米，而单块面板尺寸约为 1 米乘 3 米，占地 3 平方米。如果仅把面板当作倾斜屋顶在下方放置水桶收集天然雨水，该面积每年平均可接纳约 2.1 吨雨水；相比之下，设备即使在最理想工况下维持日产 5 升的峰值，全年主动收集的水量也只有 1.8 吨。在年降雨量达 10 米的极端多雨区，同等面积自然承接的雨水甚至可高达 30 吨。这种机制催生了一个无法回避的环境悖论：在空气相对湿度足够高、机器能勉强冷凝产水的地区，自然降雨本身就极其充沛，安装昂贵设备的意义微乎其微；而在真正深陷清洁饮用水危机的干旱少雨地区，环境空气中严重缺乏水分，机内干燥剂根本无法吸附并解析出有实际意义的水量。相变热力学限制与硬件功率短板 (7:46) 水分子由气态转变为液态受到严格的热力学能量守恒定律限制。水的汽化潜热约为每千克 226 万焦耳（每升约 200 万焦耳），为了直观说明这一惊人能耗，Thunderf00t 指出将 200 万焦耳热量注入一块比热容仅约 235 J/(kg·°C) 的一千克银条，能使其温度骤升约 10,000°C，接近太阳表面温度（约 5,500°C）的两倍。在没有自然界宏观气候能量驱动的情况下，依靠小型人造装置冷却空气抽取如此庞大的潜热极其困难。设备规格与其宣称的产能存在严重硬件矛盾。市售可在理想温湿度下日产 5 升水的除湿机，通常需要 400 瓦电力进行 24 小时连续运转。然而 Zero Mass 单块面板自重达 275 磅（约 130 千克），其表面搭载的固定式光伏板尺寸仅约 48 英寸乘 24 英寸，在不追踪太阳的情况下全天最多提供约 12 小时、峰值仅 100 瓦的电力。即便算上周围热收集材料对吸附剂解吸的辅助，整个系统在阳光下乐观估计也仅相当于 400 瓦功率。在亚利桑那等干燥测试环境中，其实际产水量可能大幅萎缩至几分之一升或一两升。公关炒作套路与鸡尾酒会目标群体 (15:40) 此种商业炒作模式与此前已被彻底揭穿的 WaterSeer 众筹陷阱如出一辙——后者最初宣称凭借 130 美元无动力装置即可日夜冷凝出水，筹集逾 30 万美元后蜕变为售价近 1,000 美元、需 200 瓦电力的地下除湿机。缺乏科学批判能力的媒体将 Zero Mass Water 描绘为解决黎巴嫩叙利亚难民营、波多黎各飓风灾区以及密歇根州弗林特铅水危机的技术先锋。公司甚至建立了拥有大型监控墙的网络运营中心（NOC），耗费高额成本为每块面板集成联网芯片与传感器，但屏幕上监控的实际设备仅有分布在 8 个国家的区区数百块。媒体现场探访同样暴露出工程疑点，记者明确表示无法看到屋顶蓄水箱究竟如何通过管道输送至室内水龙头，而屋顶静止储存的水体在高温下还存在微生物污染隐患。尽管对外宣传紧扣人道主义议题，公司代表在接受科技媒体《The Verge》采访时却直言，其核心目标是让高端住宅业主在鸡尾酒会上攀比自己拥有“太阳能水系统”。Thunderf00t 批评科技媒体放弃专业审查，协助企业以慈善幌子向富裕阶层兜售缺乏实用价值的虚荣溢价商品。 Thunderf00t 总结认为，脱离了基础热力学定律与现实经济考量的空气集水技术注定无法落地。在灾区救援与干旱地区供水场景中，采用卡车运输市政自来水在成本、速度和可靠性上均彻底碾压此类高价低效的太阳能除湿装置；媒体与公众应当摒弃对包装概念的盲目追捧，正视基本的物理限制。

Source quotes

[0:00] Thunderf00t: Honestly, it drives me crazy how many people have reinvented the dehumidifier, put a solar panel on it, and the media has danced around like they've just saved the world! [12:43] Thunderf00t: To change the phase of water from liquid to gas requires an obscene amount of energy.

Original transcript

[0:00] this is zero mass water it's a water [0:02] startup operating out of an old car [0:04] dealership in Scottsdale Arizona is this [0:07] the next level of drinking water guys [0:11] I'm kind of thirsty come check this out [0:13] my money so we're here with zero mass [0:17] water that the company that invented [0:19] solar panels apparently creates drinking [0:21] water from thin air it's actually water [0:26] vapor or moisture in the air how cool [0:30] would it be if you could take that [0:31] moisture and turn it into clean drinking [0:33] water well I found a company here in [0:36] Phoenix that claims that they can do [0:37] exactly that what if you could produce [0:39] clean drinking water right out of thin [0:41] air and without using electricity that's [0:44] what one Arizona based startup is trying [0:46] to do using a combination of solar [0:48] energy material science and data 0ms [0:51] water the next level [0:53] presented by Lauren good in conjunction [0:56] with Intel so you know this is gonna be [0:59] really well researched and I got so many [1:03] requests to debunk this crap because you [1:06] know it's gonna give water took places [1:09] that have no water because of the fact [1:11] that we can say okay yep there's Syrian [1:13] refugee issues in northern Lebanon let's [1:15] go there [1:15] yep Maria hit Puerto Rico yep let's go [1:18] there hey there's issues in Flint let's [1:20] go there hey by the way you're buying [1:22] what ought of water in Berkeley [1:23] let's displace that same in Oakland same [1:26] in Scottsdale so reducing this free [1:28] water from the air junk science has [1:31] become part of the junk news cycle but [1:34] scientifically illiterate journalists [1:36] pimping out clickbait like this one from [1:38] the BBC who even late last year in 2017 [1:43] were promoting the waters here even [1:47] after it had been thoroughly debunked [1:49] which is somehow changed is design from [1:53] the one that I add Leedy bunked water [1:55] Sara uses the environment around it to [1:58] extract water from the atmosphere [2:00] the water seer device is planted about [2:02] six or more feet into the ground the [2:05] metal sides of the underground chamber [2:07] are cooled by the surrounding soil wind [2:10] spins a helical turbine direct air into [2:13] a condensation chamber clean safe pure [2:16] water can be extracted from the [2:18] reservoir through a simple hose and pump [2:20] because the sights of the underground [2:23] chamber are always cooler than the air [2:24] water seer is always collecting water [2:27] day and night even without wind it was [2:31] gonna need no external power it was [2:33] gonna make gallons of water per day and [2:35] it was only gonna cost a hundred and [2:38] thirty dollars how it's gonna cost the [2:40] best part of a thousand dollars somehow [2:42] need 200 watts of power to do it and [2:45] still claims it's gonna make gallons of [2:47] water per day and people heat that [2:48] you'll believe anything [2:50] cuz all I've done is bury a regular [2:52] dehumidifier in their garden but I'll [2:55] cover the cataclysmic failure of the [2:57] water see it another day of how they [2:59] managed to convince people to give them [3:01] a third of a million dollars just a [3:05] barrier dehumidifier in their back [3:06] garden yeah a dehumidifier water from [3:10] air has always been possible like this [3:14] the only reason that we don't get our [3:15] water from dehumidifiers is because it's [3:19] a ludicrously expensive way of getting [3:21] water to the point where no matter where [3:24] you live on earth it's almost always [3:27] going to be cheaper and quicker to just [3:30] get a tanker truck and drive it there [3:32] rather than relying on the free water [3:35] from the air don't believe me let's take [3:38] a look at some numbers optimistically an [3:41] installation costs four thousand dollars [3:44] and five hundred dollars to install the [3:47] kids there is still the cost to consider [3:49] each panel costs $2,000 plus a $500 [3:52] installation fee so $4,500 total for a [3:55] two panel array and if you check out [3:57] that website you'll see that's the [3:59] smallest number they'll sell you an [4:01] average each panel is supposed to [4:03] produce five litres of water per day but [4:06] it is safe to assume that if you're in a [4:09] less humid climate or more dry climate [4:11] that your water output could be less yes [4:13] so some confusion here are the one unit [4:16] makes five liters per day or whether two [4:18] units make five liters per day and [4:20] according to their website it looks like [4:22] two units the one that cost four and a [4:25] half thousand dollars makes about five [4:27] liters of water per day but whatever for [4:31] this example I'm going to be generous [4:32] and say that just one of their units [4:35] makes five liters of water per day [4:37] so to fill say ten ton tanker truck [4:41] would take about two thousand days five [4:44] and a half years which is good because [4:47] that's getting on for the lifetime of [4:49] this solar panels with their website [4:51] claiming that the expected lifetime this [4:54] unit is about ten years [4:55] so what's the cost of ten cubic meters [4:58] of residential water well in America if [5:01] you go through the calculations it [5:03] chalks in at about fifty sixty dollars [5:06] that sort of thing [5:07] or if you won't have the easier [5:08] conversion in England a cubic meter of [5:10] water costs about three pounds about [5:12] five dollars so ten cubic meters of [5:14] water cost about the same sort of fifty [5:17] sixty dollars that sort of thing and yep [5:19] it's that easy a cubic meter of water [5:22] weighs almost exactly a ton 10 cubic [5:25] meters 10 tons and what's the cost of [5:27] shipping that water well a medium truck [5:30] can hold about 10 tons and gets bound 10 [5:33] miles per gallon that sort of thing [5:34] meaning if you wanted to ship it a [5:36] thousand miles two and a half thousand [5:38] kilometres you would need about a [5:40] hundred gallons of fuel costing about [5:42] three hundred dollars so it's you're [5:45] cool you can buy the water and ship it [5:47] halfway across America for about [5:51] one-tenth the cost or you can install [5:54] these paddle systems which in the best [5:57] case scenario produces five liters of [6:00] water per day and has with basically [6:02] ideal conditions for these panels you [6:05] know with a lot of sunlight and the [6:07] right humidity in fact help here's a fun [6:10] fact for you these panels would on [6:12] average produce more water if you just [6:15] stuck a bucket under them the average [6:18] land rainfall around the world is about [6:20] point seven meters per year and if [6:23] look at these panels they're about 1 [6:24] meter by 3 meters meaning they've got a [6:27] footprint of about 3 square meters so [6:29] the average rainfall on these panels per [6:32] year is going to be about 2 cubic meters [6:35] or 2 tons their orbital water production [6:39] is about 5 liters of water per day which [6:41] is about 1.8 tons per year that is the [6:45] best case scenario for zero mass water [6:48] it is about the same as the average [6:51] water yield if it was just used as a [6:54] piece of roof to catch water in a bucket [6:57] $4,500 for the two panels here you can [7:00] use it on a residential home they can [7:01] use it on schools and community centers [7:03] so let's compare best with best best [7:06] case scenario for zero mass water 1.8 [7:10] tonnes per year best-case scenario for [7:12] using it as a rain catcher mmm [7:14] tennis meters of water per year meaning [7:17] you would get about 30 tons of water per [7:21] year or we can simply use the average [7:24] numbers for using it as a water capture [7:26] versus more realistic numbers for this [7:29] zero mass water which is behind now a [7:31] half or a tenth because let's be real if [7:33] the humidity is high then the areas can [7:36] kept lots of rain anyway and these [7:38] panels are kind of pointless and if the [7:40] humidity is low then there's not much [7:43] water to pull out the air and these [7:44] panels are kind of pointless look all [7:47] these things are a basically desiccant [7:49] dehumidifiers which have been around [7:52] forever all it done is add a solar panel [7:55] to it however no one seems to have [7:57] worked out there that the reason why [7:59] it's so hard to get water from the air [8:02] he's because of thermo-dynamics [8:04] something the awesome science reporting [8:07] of Lauren could picked up on immediately [8:09] oh no hang sorry I got confused not [8:13] immediately the other thing up there [8:14] something she didn't mention at all but [8:17] of course they were happy to highlight [8:18] all the drawbacks of this thing let's [8:20] say there's an emergency situation [8:22] like with the recent hurricane in Puerto [8:24] Rico how quickly can you get one of [8:27] these set up like the thing that takes [8:29] the longest is installing the plumbing [8:32] so the three of us could install two of [8:34] these in probably an hour and so it [8:36] actually turns out that the thing that [8:37] takes the longest putting is in it's [8:39] moving that line down to the sink or to [8:42] the refrigerator that's right kids [8:45] you're paying $500 for having that [8:47] plumbing cable installed each panel [8:50] costs $2,000 plus a $500 installation [8:53] fee so the three of us could install two [8:55] of these in probably an hour all I gotta [8:57] say when you take a look at their [8:58] installation numbers the spec sheets on [9:00] these things get kind of a different [9:02] feel each panel they say weighs 275 [9:05] pounds I was like a hundred and thirty [9:07] kilos these things weigh an absolute ton [9:11] and I've gotta say at this point if you [9:13] take a look at their numbers [9:14] everything seems kind of off it looking [9:17] at a commercial desk and dehumidifier or [9:19] for Amazon that produces about the same [9:22] amount of water as these panels claim [9:25] per day about five liters or so and that [9:27] runs on about 400 watts so to run that [9:30] for a day you would need 400 watts for [9:33] 24 hours and ideal dehumidifier [9:36] conditions [9:36] well how much juice are they gonna pull [9:38] off their solar panels well if we take a [9:41] look at their spec sheets they say these [9:43] things have 48 inches across that's just [9:45] over a meter meaning these panels are [9:47] probably about 48 inches by 24 inches [9:50] that sort of thing one by two form [9:52] factor well a 40 by 28 inch solar panel [9:55] off Amazon pulls in about a hundred [9:57] watts so it looks like their solar panel [10:00] is maybe producing a hundred or so what [10:02] while the Sun is up if they're lucky [10:04] because these things don't track this up [10:06] so that's for maybe 12 hours or so [10:08] honestly it looks like their numbers are [10:11] way on the optimistic side even if [10:14] you're gonna say the panels on the side [10:16] harvest some useful heat you're probably [10:18] only looking at the equivalent of four [10:20] hundred or so watts optimistically while [10:23] the Sun is up so you probably be looking [10:26] at a couple of liters absolute tops on [10:29] this thing for their installation in [10:31] Arizona I'd be surprised if they get a [10:34] tenth [10:35] which is probably why they're so [10:38] tight-lipped about this little thing and [10:39] only stress what they'll produce in the [10:42] best case Inara in fact I got to give [10:45] the report or a little credit here for [10:46] slipping in a little skepticism in [10:49] significantly mentioning that while I [10:51] would given water to drink and were told [10:53] that it came off the roof they never [10:55] actually saw it plumbed into the roof so [10:59] the panels that produce this water on [11:00] the roof so we're taking the water vapor [11:02] out of the air concentrated in the [11:04] panels and then we're dispensing it to [11:05] the top while I was able to see the zero [11:07] mass panels and taste the water I didn't [11:10] have much of his ability into how the [11:11] water actually runs from the reservoir [11:13] to a faucet probably a good thing - who [11:16] knows how long that water could have sat [11:19] on the roof in a non sterile system yeah [11:22] just the sort of thing you want for a [11:25] drinking water supply and what was that [11:28] earlier in the video weren't you saying [11:29] that this was a little plumbed in so you [11:31] can actually drink the water in the [11:33] building so the panels that produce this [11:36] water on the roof so we're taking a [11:38] water vapor out of the air concentrated [11:40] in the panels and then we're dispensing [11:42] it to the town well bottles doing under [11:46] your water collectors then but they've [11:48] thought ahead and they've got a [11:50] world-wide Control Center so they can [11:53] literally watch the water condense [11:55] I was however able to see the company's [11:58] Network Operations Center [11:59] we call it the NOC for short every panel [12:03] that we have ever deployed is [12:04] communicating with the server we have [12:06] here seriously that's one of the most [12:08] pointless ly massively over designed [12:10] control centers ever yeah no wonder [12:14] those units cost $2000 because they need [12:16] Wi-Fi and all sorts of action detectors [12:19] so they can relay their information back [12:21] to this control center every panel that [12:24] we have ever deployed is communicating [12:26] with the server we have here so far zero [12:28] that says hundreds of panels have been [12:30] set up in eight countries around the [12:31] world [12:35] so far zero math says hundreds of panels [12:38] have been set up in eight countries [12:39] around the world [12:43] and it's it's a profound thing to say [12:47] and I recognize it sounds profound but [12:50] this technology entitles us to be [12:53] aspirational actually let's just sit [12:55] around like a lemon while this person - [12:57] rattles off these completely unrealistic [13:00] aspirations because of the fact that we [13:03] can say okay yep they're Syrian refugee [13:05] issues in northern Lebanon let's go [13:07] there yep Maria hit Puerto Rico yep [13:09] let's go there [13:10] hey there's issues in Flint let's go [13:12] there hey by the way you're buying what [13:13] bottled water in Berkeley [13:15] let's displace that same in Oakland same [13:18] in Scottsdale hey I got a better idea [13:20] dude [13:20] my water catcher does ten times what [13:23] yours does for 100 the cost but I know [13:26] no one's gonna buy mine because it [13:28] doesn't have solar panels on it cuz you [13:31] know who cares about what's [13:32] operationally possible when you've got [13:34] aspirations hey forget about what's [13:37] operationally possible what about what's [13:39] thermodynamically possible okay so [13:42] anyway like I was saying the fundamental [13:44] reason why this will never be viable is [13:47] because of thermo-dynamics to change the [13:50] phase of water from liquid to gas [13:52] requires an obscene amount of energy and [13:56] the fundamental reason for this he's a [13:58] mind-blowing ly simple water is held [14:01] together by these really quite strong [14:03] hydrogen bonds and if you want to turn [14:05] it from a liquid to a gas you have to [14:07] supply enough energy to break all of [14:09] those hydrogen bonds how much energy is [14:12] that about two million joules per [14:14] kilogram kettles are high energy [14:18] appliances you really have to Google the [14:20] energy into those four minutes just to [14:23] boil off a tiny fraction of the water [14:25] this is you putting the energy into the [14:28] system to break the hydrogen bonds and [14:30] that takes a crazy amount of energy for [14:33] water two million joules per kilogram of [14:36] water that's about a liters worth is one [14:40] liter of water and the little [14:43] perspective if I were to get a kilogram [14:45] of silver one gram of silver and put two [14:49] million joules into it [14:51] so it takes about two hundred joules of [14:53] energy to heat up one kilogram [14:55] of silver by one degree which means that [14:59] for two million joules you could heat [15:02] this silver up this one kilogram of [15:04] silver by about ten thousand degrees [15:07] Celsius that's hotter than the [15:10] temperature of the surface of this Sun [15:13] the point is that actually boiling water [15:15] takes a colossal amount of energy and [15:19] the singers for condensing water you [15:21] have to get rid of a crazy amount of [15:24] energy to do it and cooling things down [15:26] takes energy indeed the only place this [15:30] sort of thing happens regularly on a [15:32] large scale is in the atmosphere whose [15:35] the energy flux in the atmosphere it's [15:38] just on a completely different level [15:40] oh and boy where there's some hard core [15:42] shells for this stuff I mean just listen [15:44] to what the promoter for zero mass water [15:46] had to say to the verge for zero mass [15:49] the company says the goal is to get to [15:51] the point where the idea of water from [15:53] thin air is just a part of people's [15:55] everyday conversations if you're at a [15:57] cocktail party you say well I've got [15:58] solar my roof yes well your cocktail [16:01] party and that I think we're more or [16:03] less established who the prospective [16:05] customer of this thing is it's not the [16:08] impoverished kids that they cluster [16:10] around this thing so they can sell it to [16:12] folks I've Hagen brag about their solar [16:15] water at their cocktail parties anyway [16:18] Oh was I oh yeah that's right how badly [16:20] some people was shilling for this thing [16:22] if you're at a cocktail party say well [16:24] I've got solar my root people think Oh [16:26] electricity in a small number of years [16:28] people saying oh you have so angry [16:29] forgive me talk about electricity or [16:31] water now just listen to this completely [16:33] random question from the future house [16:36] historically going at two options the [16:38] first option was generate electricity [16:40] with solar electric or photovoltaic the [16:42] second option was solar thermal dry [16:44] generating hot water domestic hot water [16:45] for showers and dishwashers but now you [16:48] guys are inducing a third technology to [16:49] generate clean safe drinking water so [16:51] what type of homeowner should consider [16:53] this type of technology mr. burns [16:55] your campaign seems to have the momentum [16:57] of a runaway freight train why are you [16:59] so popular a tough question but a fail [17:02] the question then doesn't seem to be [17:04] whether it's too good to be true [17:06] it's whether harvesting water from [17:07] the air is the most sustainable most [17:09] cost-effective solution for clean water [17:11] which means it's too good to be true and [17:15] the thermodynamics of why it's too good [17:17] to be true have been known about the [17:20] decades and that's why zero mass water [17:24] is and if you thought this was [17:26] an awesome source video give it a thumbs [17:29] up and subscribe and if you really like [17:32] this stuff you can support the work of [17:34] this channel directly from pigs run an [17:37] elite links below [17:39] [Music]