Talk:Atmospheric water generator

Reference Validation procedure
By pure coincidence I checked the history and stumbled upon a reference case (08:27, 5 December 2023‎) which was removed (18:10, 5 December 2023) due to failure of the editor to provide a link. However, I noticed he did provide a DOI reference code which is in fact a pseudo link in and of itself. There might be a need for a new checking rule regarding verification for such cases? Mightyname (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism
This page has been vandalised a number of times within the last few weeks which have included the addition of material which is based on original research, advertising/spam, etc. This page will remain under constant watch by myself with any changes falling in this category to be revered as soon as possible. Should continued changes to this page occur, I will be forced to request the page is protected and editable by registered users only. thewinchester 16:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)!

(It looks like the advertisers have struck again... I'm going to remove some of the obvious advertising material, and try to return the article to something closer to Wikipedia format. Pconrad0 (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This page is nothing more than a commercial for these products. Are you kidding me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.183.145.89 (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a copywriter infringement here.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Atmospheric_Water_Generator_diagram.jpg

My original file has been remade and reposted without my permission! Matey Ahoy  04:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Manufacturers list
NOW CORRECTED: SOME GUYS ON PURPOSE ARE SPOILING THE WRITEUP. I THINK I HAVE CORRECTED IT TO ITS OPTIMUM. I HAVE ALSO ADDED ALL MANUFACTURERS AND STATED A DISCLAIMER THAT THE ABOVE LISTING IS NOT INTENDED FOR SALES PROMOTION ETC. THE MAIN REASON I THINK FOR ADDING SUCH A LISTING IS TO FACILITATE INTERESTED READERS TO HAVE A LOOK AT THE ACTUAL MACHINE AND NOT JUST TEXT ABOUT ITS WORKING ....YADA YADA. Ashvidia 08:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The manufacturer list would fit to Open Directory Project much better than to Wikipedia, we could just link to that then. I didn't find relevant category there, though, so I just added the template in case someone else knows how to go about adding one. 82.103.215.236 15:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The closest relevant category in dmoz is http://dmoz.org/Business/Food_and_Related_Products/Beverages/Water/Tools_and_Equipment/ . A subcategory for Atmospheric water generators can be created there. A few links are already listed in the existing category. --orlady 21:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've started working on building built such a category. I'll I've put a link to it here when I'm done . I'll leave it to others to remove the list of manufacturers. (Just trying to stay aboveboard.) &mdash;Wrathchild (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wrathchild. I've cleaned this all up after another spam link was added this morning. thewinchester 00:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Clean up
My god this article read(s) like an ad. I've removed or changed a lot of the ad-like language, as well as the various Indian references. I've converted the prices to US$, which are much more universal (at least in the English-speaking world) than Indian Rupies. I also cleaned up a few links and added more. More needs to be done to make this a good article. Imroy 15:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but it needs more than a re-write to comply with CSD G11. Flagging for deletion. Thewinchester 06:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I seem to have managed to re-write it so it doesn't read like advertising copy. --Carnildo 07:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that looks a whole lot better. Will try and watch this for a while myself to see if we can keep it clean Thewinchester 08:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

NOW CORRECTED: SOME GUYS ON PURPOSE ARE SPOILING THE WRITEUP. I THINK I HAVE CORRECTED IT TO ITS OPTIMUM. I HAVE ALSO ADDED ALL MANUFACTURERS AND STATED A DISCLAIMER THAT THE ABOVE LISTING IS NOT INTENDED FOR SALES PROMOTION ETC. THE MAIN REASON I THINK FOR ADDING SUCH A LISTING IS TO FACILITATE INTERESTED READERS TO HAVE A LOOK AT THE ACTUAL MACHINE AND NOT JUST TEXT ABOUT ITS WORKING ....YADA YADA. Ashvidia 08:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Developing countries, categories
The article said it was targeted for use in developing countries (among other applications). I removed this, as it's clearly a fairly high-tech, expensive device relying on electricity or fuel, and isn't an appropriate technology for a poor community.

Partly for the same reason I removed the "Category:Environmental engineering" (I can't see how it fits there), and tried to put it just in the relevant categories. --Singkong2005 04:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Go back in the history a few versions, and you'll see the original laundry list of categories. --Carnildo 07:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Developing countries
I strongly disagree after doing some amount of in-depth research on this new concept. On inquiring a few manufacturers (links provided in the article itself) I found out that a home/office unit is available for as low as US$ 400. That’s reasonable and according to almost all these manufacturers the cost of producing a litre of drinking water is as low as 9 cents. Now that’s cheap!!!

I hence would strongly recommend my fellow user that before making any comments one should do ones home work on the topic under discussion. 59.182.16.244 11:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What?

 * Another company is involved in making a machine that extracts water from car exhausts.

Are they nuts? Water from car exhausts? -- Toytoy 08:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How so? Water is water -- NASA even developed a system to distill the water out of urine. Btyner 20:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I imagine that they were having problem with petroleum products that distill out along with the water instead of "just" the water.


 * Why not? Assuming complete combustion, burning a liter of gasoline produces almost a full liter of fairly pure water. --Carnildo 20:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Simple, no car is one hundred percent efficient in combustion. Otherwise you wouldn't have petroleum waste products at all. Unfortunately this is far from being the case, most cars don't burn the gasoline completely, in favor of getting more efficiency in terms of fuel to power. Burning off the rest reduces the amount of power you've got going toward propulsion. -- Kuroji 03:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I still don't see what's nuts about condensing water out of car exhaust. --Carnildo 03:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Details

 * The cost effectiveness of an atmospheric water generator depends on the capacity of the machine as well as on humidity and temperature conditions.

and
 * The cost of producing 1 litre of water will typically range from $US0.03 (85-100% RH) to $US0.06 (40-50% RH).

This needs a source citation, and the more of these I see the more this looks like blatent advertising.

thewinchester 06:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Considerations

 * "The Current Global Atmospheric Problems-to much Water Due to Global Warming" Says Aqua Physicist at TeraLab, U.S.A.

This needs a source citation, and the more of these I see the more this looks like blatent advertising.

thewinchester 06:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Reads like an advertisement
The AWG article reads like promotional text lifted from a company's product brochure. More than half of it has nothing to do with AWGs and just explains why it's so important to have clean water (d'uh), a point form description of a single proprietary system, and WTF, a list of patent numbers? This is not useful. I added the newsrelease template and then decided to rework the article myself. I left the pictures though, because they are good visual aids.

I'm watching this article now, and you can bet that any advertising being replaced will be removed promptly. GreyWyvern (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank You What a Great Job
I have read this article before and it never made any sense. The new information was very useful to help me really understand the AWG. Thanks for your time to do a proper edit, I tried but am not the best at editing. It makes the best sense now. I did like the point form information on how the machine works but the picture by itself makes it pretty clear and your short explanation is probably all thats needed. I am watching this page also, some people keep trying to put up the old info that made no sense at all. Thanks Again and keep up the good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.140.156.143 (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

New section
This seems to revive. Having added the paragraph on Desiccation and Pressure Condensation technology, a veteran of this game (Mateyahoy) removed it claiming it was "Removal of misinformation". I wonder how information about a relevant patented technology can be considered as "misinformation" - looks to me more like a defensive move from a commercial stakeholder.--Luttinger (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because you have a patent doesn't make it a practical machine. I know enough about dehumidifcation to know what you are promoting is not a practical machine, as a dehumidifier or an AWG. The pressure vessel required and the energy needed to condense water in the manner you have described would make a very expensive machine that would have no commercial value. The AWGs we are describing here have sold in the 10s of thousands. Cheers Mateyahoy  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateyahoy (talk • contribs) 04:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not have a patent and this is not my property. I am a business person and industry analyst, and I studied the domain for over 6 months now. I have talked with customers who installed machines based on the Dry Desiccation with Pressure Condensation principles and all the presentations made in my contribution are verifiable. The fact that this technology has so far not been implemented in the US does not make it less real. Here's a link to a SKY NEWS report from Greece that presents a relatively small model used by one such customer: http://www.skai.gr/player/TV/?MMID=100574. Still want to dispute its reality? So before bluntly deleting this input, you'd better bring some tangible proof that supports your argument. And your claim that many machines based on Cooling Condensation were sold does not invalidate the interest in alternative technologies or their ability to coexist with the one you are advertizing or promoting. I was very ethical and did not remove any of your contribution - I expect from you a similar conduct.--Luttinger (talk) 07:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Luttinger, a patent is not a valid source. And your second source at ewa-tech.net did not validate any of the claims and numbers mentioned in the paragraph above it.  If you wish to insert this information again, you will need to reference valid sources.  You are also getting close to 3RR here.GreyWyvern (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. My valid source is a personal visit I made to the EWA-Tech factory and a verification I carried out of the numbers stated, in particular relating to energy consumption and water quantities. I saw the thing working in accordance to the description in the article. In between this and other third party sources, you need a better reason than heresy to delete this addition. I fail to see the reason for this opposition, except for commerical interests.--Luttinger (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Luttinger, you just admitted your addition to the article was a result of original research. Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia, only information which can be readily verified by third parties.  You are free to add the information I deleted back to the article, but it must be the result of verifiable third-party references and not your own experiences and research. GreyWyvern (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why you are continuously trying to distort what I write and confuse the issue with disinformation. Do you claim that alternative technologies to Cooling Condensation do not exist? Well, you may need to understand Greek for that but I suggest that you watch the Sky News broadcast that I referenced above, interviewing a user of a machine constructed according to the alternative technology that I describe in my contribution. To the point, I wrote above that I personally VERIFIED the information - and before that I wrote that it WAS NOT MY RESEARCH nor that I had a stake in that patent. As a responsible contributor, I report about third party research for which I already witnessed third party references, and further verified it myself. Now what you are doing is abusive - rather than following your own preaching ("result of verifiable third party references") and go verify the information and eventually prove that it is fake, you prefer to make it disappear. If this continues, I would escalate it to the a formal dispute resolution.--Luttinger (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Luttinger. The News broadcast you referenced was not in English, and you did not add any further references to your edits.  You may believe in this new technology with all your heart, but unless there are concrete third-party English references (see RSUE) to back up your information, it cannot be added to Wikipedia.  I don't care whether or not you have a stake in these machines; I know I certainly don't, I'm just a web developer working for an electronics company which has nothing to do with water generation machines.  The only thing I care about here is the integrity of Wikipedia.  Verifying the information yourself does not count; neither is the burden of proof on us to disprove your claims.  I have given you your last warning on your talk page.  You need to post verifiable sources for your edits or you will be blocked from further edits to this page; it is as simple as that.  I hope you realize that it's nothing personal, I am just doing my duty as a good editor. Regards. GreyWyvern (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Grey, you are abusing and distorting wikipedia rules. The rule you refer to (RSUE) only states that "English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that readers can easily verify the content of the article. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available.". You have no grownd to remove this edit, and each time you try yet another trick. I'm escalating this now fo formal dispute resolution.--Luttinger (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Link to escalation

I added several US based references supporting the existence and productive use of desiccation technology based AWG's. I hope that this further clarifies and substantiates my contribution and settles the reproaches made by GreyWyvern and Mateyahoy--Luttinger (talk) 07:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Luttinger. I read through you references and they show that the technology exists and justifies its inclusion in the article.  I think you misunderstand why I have been reverting your previous edits though.  These references only show that the technology exists, they do not document how it works, and indeed most of your references say that the details (beyond a hygroscopic generation mechanism) are trade or military secrets.  The entire section Principle of operation - Dry Desiccation with Pressure Condensation (DPC) technology is thus completely unreferenced by your articles.  Wikipedia is not a platform for you to explain how this proprietary technology works, unless it has been documented by someone other than their corporate websites.  For instance, if a group of university students had built the machine and put it on display at a show, that would be a valid reference for this section.  As it stands, this section should not be included, but I will refrain from removing it (more likely merging it with a pared-down version of the section above it) until your dispute against me has been resolved.  Until then, you would be wise to find valid references for that section.  Regards. GreyWyvern (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm
This is different from a commercial dehumidifier how? Most of this technology is like 50 years old. -- King Öomie 13:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Its different in that some large scale dehumidifiers do use dessicants but they remove the water from the dessicant by blowing hot dry air over the dessicant then exhausting the air. Also some systems remove the dessicant and bake it in an oven to heat the water past boiling point so as steam it will leave the dessicant. To try and capture the moisture, while possible by saving it in a still as distillation does would be difficult and very expensive. I am sure someone may build something like this and may even sell one or two but lets see them sell thousands. These are not practical AWG machunes or even dehumidifiers for that matter. If Luttinger is so set on this technology he should create a new page on it instead of trying to include it here.


 * Cheers
 * Mateyahoy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateyahoy (talk • contribs) 07:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You'll need a reference to show that the desiccant technologies (which are removing water from the atmosphere) are not the same type of thing. T34CH (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Global revision by Mateyahoy
Wikipedia is not about what you believe is true. There are references which show that this technology exists, therefore it should be mentioned. By all means, edit out the parts of the existing article which imply that this method is efficient and practical, but many references preclude removing mention of the technology from the article altogether. Please consider undoing your global revision and editing the existing article to better describe the efficiency of the technology, by backing up your revisions with references. Out of courtesy I am refraining from editing the article myself until Luttinger's (talk) issue with me has been resolved. GreyWyvern (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed and reverted. The revision to your preferred version, Mateyahoy, is poor judgment on several counts.  It removes referenced material, restores images which I believe are copyright violations, and argues with a consensus of three other editors.  You'll need to discuss here why you did that and create consensus for such sweeping changes.  T34CH (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The Truth about AWGs

 * I could put up all kinds of AWG nonsense that people have patented and claim to work.


 * I will put up the proper info along with a section on desiccants and will try and edit the desiccant section at some time in the future. The only desiccant system proven to work well is built by Aqua Sciences, it was deployed in Iraq and worked well in humidity as low as 15%. They dont say to much about their technology on their website but it is a true desiccant system. I can post more info on it when I have time, if its of interest.


 * The images are posted as public domain within Wikipedia, please do not delete them unless you have proof they are not :)


 * Cheers
 * Mateyahoy
 * Mateyahoy (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read wp:TRUTH. Thanks for the tip on Aqua Sciences.  I have added the sourced material I could find to the article.  The images are used on a commercial website with no indication that they are public domain... therefore it is assumed that they are copyrighted until proven otherwise.  This is how the burden of proof works.  If you have questions you can address them to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems.  T34CH (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually if you are the creator of an image you have to sign a waiver to Wikipedia that you are giving them to public domain.

Cheers Mateyahoy (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Food For Thought!
By the way calcium and magnesium are often added to AWG water but not because AWG water is so pure, its added for an entirely different reason.

Cheers Mateyahoy (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC) )

An alternative AWG technology using desiccants
Please confine desiccant edits to this section in the article. Thanks Mateyahoy (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Desiccant Systems
Desiccants can be used to draw moisture from humid air just as standard vapor compression does, the problem is to remove the moisture from the desiccant.

Large scale dehumidifiers use a standard vapor compression system combined with a desiccant wheel. The first stage V/C removes as much moisture as it can and then the wheel removes even more moisture. The hot dry air coming off the Condensor of the V/C unit sucks the moisture out of the desiccant and is then exhausted. This is very effective for large scale dehunidifiers.

The problem with an AWG is to collect the moisture.

If a pressure system is used as is being suggested then when it is built commerially it will be rated as a pressure vessel and fall under those guidelines which will make building a small system cost prohibitive. The desiccant could be heated to boiling point and the resulting steam captured but the energy required to heat water to boiling is immense and the cost of such a machine and the cost per gallon to run it will again make it not commercially feasible.

Aqua Sciences has built a succesful wet dessicant AWG but this is only viable for large systems. It is the most effective dessicant system for an AWG but their cost per gallon is 25 cents as compared to 10 cents for standard vapor compression.

I have built both Vapor Compression and desiccant systems and besides what Aqua Sciences is doing there are no other commercially viable desiccant AWGs.


 * The first AWG was built in 1946 by Grandville, it was hand cranked!
 * The first commercially produced Machine was built at the Yuxin factory in China by Liquid Air an American company.
 * Decrtron Int built the first large scale units used by Exxon on their oil platforms.
 * Hyflux a Fortune 500 company builds AWGs.
 * Munters the largest dehumidification company in the world built its first unit with a combination of desiccant and V/C and has since removed the desiccant and is strictly Vapor Compression.

Hope this helps your understanding I will add a bunch of this to the article when I have time.

Mateyahoy (talk) 06:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Mateyahoy, Wikipedia rules are that you cannot use "I am an engineer of 20 years standing" as a reliable source for anything. You must NOT carry out any more edits until you have some reliable sources to put in the article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Elen I am not adding any information at all. The page was created and edited by others The information I have been putting is their information and edits and comes with references, but I do agree with their edits.. Please check the version history. The information being added by T34CH is not accurate.

Mateyahoy (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC))

Do nothing now or you risk being blocked for edit warring WP:3RR as this is the third time you have done the same set of edits. In general, if information is wrong and unsourced you can delete it, but don't replace it with different unsourced information. If it is wrong and sourced, you have to discuss it to work out whether the source is wrong, or the editor's understanding of it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

All of the information that was there is sourced. It was all put up by very good editors. The new information is misinformation. I really don't see the sense of taking down accurate info and replacing it with misinformation. I really dont have time to put up a fully edited article right now but I will do so soon.

Cheers Mateyahoy (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC))
 * Guys, Mateyahoy hasn't been very amicable with his edits, but I have done a lot of searching and cannot find any references for this dry dessicant technology other than the two companies claiming to have built such a machine, EWA-Tech and ApolloTech systems. In addition to this, the news articles I found about these two companies selling these machines don't mention dessicants, not to mention the dry kind, or really anything about how these systems work.  For all we know, they may be normal condensation AWG or wet dessicant versions which already have a number of good references.  Because of this, and the many unsourced detailed claims in the Dry Dessicant area, I am deleting this section until sources can be provided which verify that this type of AWG is actually in use. We have no way of knowing right now if these corporate claims are true or false. GreyWyvern (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. T34CH (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

99.35.11.8 (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Tessera (?) exists but the scientist oft listed has no page per wiki:Prof Dr James D.Vagarasoto II The company does not list any gov work & has an ad for "Help Haiti" do they have any actual work in the field ongoing? White Buffalo Nation is the corp entity, per page

Sorry if I didnt seem amicable, I just dont have a lot of time right now. I will leave it to you to put up what you will and perhaps I will help again when I have more time in the future, but I am glad you have seen the light and got rid of some of the BS. Cheers Mateyahoy (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hyflux is not on any list of Fortune 500 companies I can source. Gnomatic (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC).

Please read: Those considering adding content to this article
This article has proven itself over and over again to be a spam magnet. Unless your content additions are meticulously referenced, chances are your edits will be reverted until you reference them.

Remember that references must be from reliable third-party news outlets or reputable journals. Company websites and promotional material do not count. Technologies which are in early testing or marketing phase may deserve a mention but only if they are properly cited.

I've just removed large blocks of unreferenced material relating to AWG "history" and a (previously discussed) dry desiccant technology that read like they were ripped directly from a promotional brochure. This article does not exist to promote any one method over another, but to describe the technologies currently in documented use.

Coles Notes: Due to a history of spam, uncited/unreferenced content additions to the AWG article may be removed/reverted with a little more impunity than the average WP article. Not a threat, just an observation; I am not an admin. Grey Wyvern ⚒ 19:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed papers relevant to AWG article
As one involved in research and development of practical water-from-air systems, I appreciate the work done by the editors on this article. I would dearly like to assist editing this page but will not after having read the conflict of interest guidelines. As an alternative, to assist the editors with scientifically accurate knowledge as they strive to improve the article's quality, I would like to mention three peer-reviewed academic papers relevant to AWGs I wrote and were published in journals and proceedings. These are: Wahlgren, R. V. 1993. Atmospheric water vapour processing, Waterlines, Vol. 12(2): 20–22; Wahlgren, R. V. 2001. Atmospheric water vapour processor designs for potable water production: a review, Water Research, 35(1): 1–22; Wahlgren, R. V. 2008. Water-producing greenhouses for small tropical islands: Ahead of their time or a timely solution? Proc. IW on Greenh. Environ. Control & Crop Prod. in Semi-Arid Regions, Eds.: C. Kubota and M. Kacira, Acta Hort. (ISHS) 797: 405–410. Please contact me by e-mail if you need help obtaining copies. Abstracts are available at. You may also be interested to read, as background knowledge about AWGs, the Technical Bulletins (free access, not peer-reviewed) available at. Technical Bulletin No. 5, for example, discusses "Environmental impact of widespread use of drinking-water-from-air systems".Rvwahlgren (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Eole Water Wind Turbine
Although a wind turbine has always been a potential power source for a water generator, this appears to be the first big effort to combine the two into a single unit! Seems promising and might justify a mention if not an article of its own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.100.30 (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Pressurizing the air.
At top: "Water vapor in the air is condensed by cooling the air below its dew point, exposing the air to desiccants, or pressurizing the air."

Water vapor comes out of the air by REDUCING the pressure of the air, as when a pressurized soda is opened, and the 'cloud' of water is formed after the sudden depressurization of the air between the soda and the bottle cap.

71.139.161.224 (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Why is the part:
 * "...exposing the air to desiccants, or pressurizing the air."
 * still in the article? It's incorrect! Pressurizing the air will make the water vapor more soluble, not less. To extract water vapor, air needs to be depressurized. :Who is in charge of this article? Fix it! Seriously.
 * 71.139.161.62 (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

you need to read up on your thermodynamics! It is the other way around. The cloud in the soda bottle is because of the temperature drop from the expanding gas.

Copyright violation
There is a copywriter infringement here.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Atmospheric_Water_Generator_diagram.jpg

My original file has been remade and reposted without my permission! Matey Ahoy  05:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Matey Ahoy  05:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Please revert the cooling condensation picture back to my original or delete it altogether! Thanks Matey  Ahoy  05:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Matey Ahoy  05:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm sorry, but it would appear that this isn't a copyright violation. I'll explain in more detail on your talk page, but the short version is that you implicitly gave your permission for such modification and use when you uploaded it to Wikipedia. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 06:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merger of this article with Fog collection, Fog fence, Dew pond, Atmospheric moisture extraction and Air well (condenser)
I think it would be helpful for users to combine all these articles into a single one. They all focus on the subject of atmospheric moisture extraction and could be merged under that lemma or under the title of this article. None of the existing articles is very extensive yet. Combining the articles would make it easier to compare the different methods and to control redundancies.

best regards, KaiKemmann (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe Dew pond should not be merged as the primary source of water is from rainfall. --palmiped | Talk  19:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Proof of existing lest than zero energy cost a AWG technology reserch.
Please decide about correcting factual flaw in sentence: Research has also developed AWG technologies to produce useful yields of water at a reduced <<(but non-zero)>> energy cost.

Conciser erasing the <<(but non-zero)>> part since it's incorrect: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0704/0704.2571.pdf (Extraction of Freshwater and Energy from Atmosphere Alexander Bolonkin C&R, 1310 Avenue R, #F-6, Brooklyn, NY 11229, USA T/F 718-339-4563, aBolonkin@juno.com, http://Bolonkin.narod.ru)

I'm sorry for not complying fully to the standard editing/correction guidance for Wikipedia site. Because of this I leave the article without any changes, providing this section for the more advanced Wikipedia users to decide about its implementation.

Łukasz Szpak — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.65.172.98 (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Really should be merged with Air well (condenser)
This name would be a better main article with Air well (condenser) being a side-note. But that article has a great deal of good information (and not too much spam) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewoman27 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Advertising
This section sounds like an advertisement for "Source Hydropanels". It is the only commercial project being mentioned, despite there being more than a dozen similar projects with similar aspirations (all of which failing to meet their promises). Commercial projects should either be excluded or fully included without any bias, same for the sources in this section (not representative of scientific consensus). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unmatt (talk • contribs) 12:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I added that line because it added details on how they work; however, I specified that's how Source's panels work, because it was unclear from the source that all of them work the same way. But you have a valid point about it possibly seeming to promote Source so I've removed that sentence and the source. Schazjmd   (talk)  14:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I write on behalf of Source. Hydropanels as they are, are a technology developed and made by Source. I don't see a reason why our company shouldn't be mentioned when speaking about hydropanels. Or, alternatively, it would be very nice if you could mention us in cited sources as our website is a great resource on information regarding the technology. 89.74.33.255 (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)