Something doesn't seen internally consistent in this article. We read about a device, that can be locally assembled, that, can draw up to 25 gallons of water a day (I would have been impressed with 1 gallon a day) - and, "In all, it costs about $500 to set up a tower...His team hopes to install two Warka Towers in Ethiopia by next year and is currently searching for investors who may be interested in scaling the water harvesting technology across the region. "<p>Why would "two Warka towers" be a target for a year, when, on the surface, reading this - it would make sense to go install a thousand of them and see how they played out over a year. If this device really could pull, even 10 gallons of water a day for $500 cost, it would have zero problem attracting funding on that kind of tiny pilot scale.
Here's a link that describes the technology behind it:
<a href="http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2013/how-to-get-fresh-water-out-of-thin-air-0830" rel="nofollow">http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2013/how-to-get-fresh-water-out-of...</a><p>...and one showing the structure in detail:
<a href="http://www.architectureandvision.com/projects/chronological/84-projects/art/492-073-warkawater-2012?showall=&start=1" rel="nofollow">http://www.architectureandvision.com/projects/chronological/...</a><p>TLDR: Great for pulling moisture out of the air if the air already has a really high moisture content. Pretty much useless in other circumstances.
So does this one:<p><a href="http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/File:LukeMoistureVaporator-MOSW.png" rel="nofollow">http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/File:LukeMoistureVaporator-MO...</a><p>The ones in the article look like they're cheaper, possible to construct with local materials, and importantly: more user friendly - you don't even need a droid that understands the binary language of moisture vaporators.
I am curious how a project like this, which has been around since July of 2012 [1], gets such an intense amount of media coverage all in a the last two weeks: Wired, Daily Mail, Smithonian, Engaget, Huffington Post, and now HN. [2]<p>[1] <a href="http://s831.us/1qr8eNO" rel="nofollow">http://s831.us/1qr8eNO</a>
[2] <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=WarkaWater" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.com/search?q=WarkaWater</a>
The concept of air wells has been around for awhile, but it's good that they're able to keep the costs low and build it from local materials with local labor.<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_well_(condenser)" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_well_(condenser)</a>
Isn't the generated/collected water like <i>condensed water</i> free of any kind of salts etc. that would naturally occur in ground/drinking water, so shouldn't it be unsafe to drink large amounts of it (much like it is unsafe to drink large amounts of salt/sea water due to the saline imbalance)?<p>I wonder how/if they address this?
I don't agree with not having local repairmen as being a real showstopper. Any new system requires training: fire building, hut building, brick making. They need to factor training into the roll out of the technology, and don't focus on training men, take the women and grandmothers, train them first. RE: The barefoot movement in India: <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/bunker_roy" rel="nofollow">http://www.ted.com/talks/bunker_roy</a> Tell a mother she doesn't have to walk 6 hours for dirty water, she will learn to fix whatever is necessary given the right training and availability of tools/material.
Has anyone tested the long term viability? Contamination, dust, mildew, flies etc.? Seems like a good idea but I venture the water would need further processing. Still, looks like a better starting point than where many communities are now.
Seems like something that just needs to be 100% open source, with designs freely available to the public. If it works so well, it really ought to be utterly free to construct, since it will have such a significant impact on peoples lives to be able to have such access to fresh water.<p>So whats the problem here? Isn't this science free, already?
notice the design/idea is, AFAICT, from 2012<p><a href="http://www.architectureandvision.com/projects/chronological/84-projects/art/492-073-warkawater-2012?showall=&start=5" rel="nofollow">http://www.architectureandvision.com/projects/chronological/...</a>
This is a nice read on the subject: <a href="http://www.calvin.edu/academic/engineering/2011-12-team5/downloads/Team_5_Design_Report.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.calvin.edu/academic/engineering/2011-12-team5/dow...</a>
Anyone know if anything became of this? The linked pdf 404's :/<p><a href="http://www.gadgetnutz.com/2006/10/09/wind-traps-become-reality/" rel="nofollow">http://www.gadgetnutz.com/2006/10/09/wind-traps-become-reali...</a>
I think there's probably some big issues with this article.<p>For $500 for 24+ Gallons a day even from a commercial perspective it'd have value in first world city settings during droughts for pretty gardens etc.