The name calling is unnecessary and beneath you.
It was not directed at you. The prior poster has earned the title.
The authors simply assert that water will condense onto a heat sink without considering the energy the heat sink is required to dissipate.
Just because they do not calculate that energy does not mean they haven't considered it! Again, this is NOT an engineering paper. Any junior engineer can do that calculation.
The authors' entire argument ignoring the latent heat of vaporization is presented as:
They haven't ignored anything. It's implicit in their methods and data. Surely you can see this.
The condenser plate in their "practical device" CANNOT remain at a constant temperature.
I'm sure the authors would agree. Again - that's an obvious point, implicit in their methods and data. They made it clear why
for data collection purposes, they did so in their device.
A heat sink at ambient temperature dissipates no power. Thermodynamics tells us this, full stop.
Well yes. Are you arguing that the authors imply otherwise? Again, this is not an engineering paper but it seems pretty obvious they assume that the reader can grok that there would be a temperature differential across the heat sink (i.e. hot condenser chamber on one side, cooler ambient air temp on the other side). Surely you can too..
nowhere in the article or the supplementary materials is the heat flux required to maintain the condenser at ambient temperature presented
If this were an engineering paper that might be necessary but it's not.
The bottom line is that the requirements for passive heat dissipation for such a device is a relatively trivial engineering problem. Are you arguing that it's not?
You need to keep in mind that
Science publishes noteworthy research in a very condensed form. Much more abbreviated than what a field specific journal might publish. The editors are not going to allow material that are tangent to the research findings.
For someone coming from a strictly engineering background, this may not be obvious. An engineers mind is going to jump to the practical questions that arise in building a usable product. That is not what a research paper is about. And despite your protests, that is what this is.
Forgive me if this is already common knowledge here but research papers are pro forma divided into specific sections: (though in
Science they are abbreviated and not clearly delineated due to its condensed, non field-specific format).
Introduction: Presentation of an idea (hypothesis) and brief review of the question and previous relevant research. - In this case MOF-801 might work well as an adsorbent to harvest water in an arid environment.
Material and Methods What they did. Ideally in enough detail for others to replicate their experiment. (Science's abbreviated format often skimps on this)
Results Experimental Data and if appropriate, statistical analysis
Discussion The authors interpretation of their data and it's implications, direction for further research.
I think the inclusion of a small "proof of concept" device in this paper has confounded both the media reporters and some here to think they were trying to demonstrate a prototype meant to be used in the real world. That is the challenge for the engineers to take on.
That's the process, isn't it? Science ---> Engineering ---> Product. Sometimes (often) the engineering problems prove too difficult to solve or uneconomical but that is no reason to fault the science.
Once again, I submit that critiquing the paper, peer-reviewed as it may be (for what, grammar, science, we don't usually know), is valid.
Well, I didn't catch that you'd submitted this before, since previously you seemed to be critiquing the media reports. But yes, of course I agree that critiquing a research paper is valid. A large part of a scientists time is spent doing exactly that. I appreciate the chance to do that here with you.
And FWIW - peer review of research papers is about review of the science - the material and methods, the data and the authors conclusions. It's done by experts in the field - often rivals of the PIs who in many cases have much to gain from finding fault with the research. That may not be something you know but anyone who has been involved in research and the publication knows this. It is an integral part of the scientific process!