Slashdot Mirror


Evaporation Prevention Using Molecular Blankets

Makarand writes "According to this article in the New Scientist, a Canadian company is testing a technology to reduce water evaporation from reservoirs by spreading an ultra-thin blanket of organic molecules on the surface to block the escape of water molecules into the air. Trials conducted in India and Morocco showed between 30 and 45 per cent reduction in evaporation using this method. However, the long term ecological effects of reducing evaporation in lakes or reservoirs is not yet clear as evaporation prevention can increase water temperatures and affect the exchange rates of gases such as oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide."

223 comments

  1. Algae population ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting


    won't this increase the algae population ?

    the problem with water is distribution not evaporation

    1. Re:Algae population ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      distribution and purification.

      In theory with enough energy (fusion based nuclear power plants?) You can build massive canals into all the major deserts of the world .. and provide them with water pumped and filtered from the oceans.

    2. Re:Algae population ? by Illbay · · Score: 1
      Well, this sounds all very "high tech," I guess (throwing in words like "molecular." Isn't EVERYTHING "molecular"?)

      But when you cast a concrete slab, for example, it is typical to spray a "curing compound" on the surface of the concrete--usually an oil-based product--to provide a thin layer that retards the migration of moisture and keeps the slab from drying out.

      --
      Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
    3. Re:Algae population ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like putting the water in a plastic bottle. Since it will prevent aeration of the water, it will basically kill all the life there, algae and all (remember plants need oxygen at night). You can try it yourself by putting out a bowl of water with a thin layer of oil on top.

    4. Re:Algae population ? by ddimas · · Score: 1
      Great. Now we revive the old notion of pouring oil on the water to seal it. Ok so it's a waxy detergent.

      No this won't increase the algae population. It will stop all air -water gas exchanges and kill everything living in that body of water.

      This method was used in ancient days to seal wine casks. Of course back then they used olive oil.

  2. interesting by geekoid · · Score: 1

    see with this level of molecular technology, we can easily tap into the.. hey! whats that over there?

    I rally shouldn't post after reading PA.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:interesting by Glonoinha · · Score: 1, Troll

      DAMN!

      Am I the only one to see this from the other side?

      Conversation 50 years ago:
      Scientist1 : Nice theory, that uranium fusion and plutonium fission, but where could we possibly test it?
      Scientist2 : I dunno, somewhere real far away.
      S1 : Japan?
      S2 : Hmm it could get ugly if it works ...
      S1 : Bah, I say we go for it.

      Conversation Today :
      S1 : Nice theory, spreading a thin layer of carbon tetrachloride over a lake to keep water from evaporating. What could go wrong?
      S2 : Umm I dunno, that's a pretty delicate ecosystem you are talking about. Could kill everything in the lake, stop rain from coming down destroying livestock and crops for years.
      S1 : I know, India! They don't eat the cows anyways so no worries if we kill their livestock.
      S2 : (boggle)
      S1 : Bah, I say we go for it.

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    2. Re:interesting by Funkitup · · Score: 1

      Who knows....

      Isn't a reservoir/dam a massive ecological upset?

  3. Great, the next "The Core" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Scientists working to stop evaporation accidentally unleash it on the world's ocean. This causes weather around the world to go crazy, and only a group of scientists doing something bizarre can fix it.

    1. Re:Great, the next "The Core" by Illbay · · Score: 1

      They should have learned their lesson from "Ice 9."

      </Obscure Literary Reference>

      --
      Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
    2. Re:Great, the next "The Core" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when is Vonnegut obscure?

  4. Hey... by hazman · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's not a environment destroying oil spill, its a high tech water evaporation prevention film.

    1. Re:Hey... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like the captain of the Exxon Valdez was ahead of his time.

    2. Re:Hey... by 4of12 · · Score: 1

      oil spill,

      Actually, we kind of want some evaporation from salt water, where the oil supertankers ply.

      It's the fresh water we want to keep around.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
  5. Just pour oil/petroleum in the lake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful


    same result, you get a nice film on the surface and damages the local ecology plus you can get it from your local gas station

    how about spending money on better infrastructure or de-salination plants first ? then you wouldnt need to stop evaporation, remember 80% of the globe is covered with H2O so evaporation is not the problem

    1. Re:Just pour oil/petroleum in the lake by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "same result, you get a nice film on the surface and damages the local ecology plus you can get it from your local gas station"

      Except that heavy hydrocarbons aren't something you want to drink (or breathe, for that matter). Or would you mind of I add a little 92 octane to your drinking water? The idea of this film is to prevent evaporation and only evaporation, with negligible effects on the human body upon ingestion and (as a secondary goal) having as small a footprint on the local ecosystem as possible.

      "how about spending money on better infrastructure"

      What's going to flow through the pipes?

      "or de-salination plants first ?"

      Where are you going to put it once you desalinate it?

      "then you wouldnt need to stop evaporation,"

      Salt water evaporates too, ya know...

      "remember 80% of the globe is covered with H2O so evaporation is not the problem"

      Ignoring drought for the moment (like you seem to be doing), even without RTFA I can tell you that these tests were conducted in Morocco. Morocco as in "middle of the freakin' Sahara" Morocco. "80% of the surface" is all well and good until you recall that the distribution is far from homogeneous.

    2. Re:Just pour oil/petroleum in the lake by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "Ignoring drought for the moment (like you seem to be doing), even without RTFA I can tell you that these tests were conducted in Morocco. Morocco as in "middle of the freakin' Sahara" Morocco. "80% of the surface" is all well and good until you recall that the distribution is far from homogeneous."

      yes I'm sure this is really going to help the rainfall in morocco which is already critically low.

  6. I'd just like to know by FrankoBoy · · Score: 1

    Why do we have to control evaporation on large bodies of water already ?

    1. Re:I'd just like to know by geekoid · · Score: 1

      to prevent evaporation, guh.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:I'd just like to know by core+plexus · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The places mentioned in the article (yes, I admit, I actually read it first) are very dry, except for certain times of the year. Not losing water to evaporation, well I'm sure the benefits are obvious. It may be handy for terraforming as well.

      -cp-

    3. Re:I'd just like to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't they just put a big tarp over it?

    4. Re:I'd just like to know by glenebob · · Score: 1

      Just put it all in Evian bottles.

    5. Re:I'd just like to know by crabpeople · · Score: 1

      thats the canadians for you. always thinking 20 years ahead. canada has the most fresh water (in the world?) certainly north america... reasonable to plan ahead.

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
  7. Weather too by BWJones · · Score: 4, Insightful

    However, the long term ecological effects of reducing evaporation in lakes or reservoirs is not yet clear as evaporation prevention can increase water temperatures and affect the exchange rates of gases such as oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide."

    Don't forget possible changes to the weather. For instance, there are a number of areas whose climate and micro-climate are influenced by nearby bodies of water.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Weather too by sl0ppy · · Score: 1

      as long as the molecular shield stays put, this really shouldn't affect much. these are reservoirs we're talking about, typically a man-made body of water. whatever changes to the environment that happen will be changes back to the environment that was there before the man-made reservoir was added.

    2. Re:Weather too by glenebob · · Score: 1

      Reservoirs are made from rivers. I can't back this up with hard data, but I'd bet the slowing of water to form deep reservoirs has already slowed evaperation quite a lot, since a swirling river should have a very high evap. rate due to surface agitation. This will just make it worse.

      Cleary I just pulled that out of my ass, but it makes at least a little sense :-)

    3. Re:Weather too by sl0ppy · · Score: 1

      the reservoirs around here (portland, oregon) are all man-made, cement holes. :)

    4. Re:Weather too by SEE · · Score: 1

      Actually, conversion to resivoirs generally increases evaporative loss, at least as far as people have been able to tell.

    5. Re:Weather too by pipingguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't forget possible changes to the weather. For instance, there are a number of areas whose climate and micro-climate are influenced by nearby bodies of water.

      Were you envisioning covering the Great Lakes with this stuff?

      I'd be willing to test the product in my toilet based on the assumption that it'd reduce the atomized crap on my toothbrush due to flushing.

    6. Re:Weather too by TheLink · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While the film reduces evaporation, I doubt it reduces aerosolization significantly.

      Still, as long as its your crap or someone close to you (family) it shouldn't matter that much in most cases.

      Coz either the germs are yours or you're going to get them from other routes anyway. e.g. if you and your family are healthy, then small amount of aerosolized germs are unlikely to kill you - your immune systems already know how to deal with em. However your germs may kill/sicken strangers, and theirs might do the same to you.

      --
    7. Re:Weather too by WhiteBandit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well it was a good try :)

      A big part of evaporation is surface area. The more surface area exposed to the sun and heat, the greater amount of water you will have leaving the system.

      In fact, slowing a river down doesn't help this either, as there is no water to replenish what evaporates. Perfect examples of this are: Mono Lake, Owens Lake, and the Aral Sea.

    8. Re:Weather too by frycarson · · Score: 1

      But we're covering those with something to prevent terrorists AND evaporation

    9. Re:Weather too by dotwaffle · · Score: 2, Funny

      But you're American... Surely you're not suggesting you care about the environment of other countries? Nah....

    10. Re:Weather too by hazem · · Score: 1

      I don't know what it is with our mayor and covering things.

      Yes, we're covering the reservoir, but only to build a pond on top of it. It's brilliant! Better than building a cover over the freeway (I-405)!

      Maybe we can build a cover over PGE park and put a new stadium on top of that!

    11. Re:Weather too by heironymouscoward · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but over-clean households have the ironic effect of reducing the strength of our immune systems. Dirt is actually good for us, we're evolved to handle it, even if now and then we tend to die from its extremes.

      Bleaching one's bathroom and kitchen probably does more harm than good.

      Related note: use of antibiotics in childhood have now been confirmed as a cause of allergies and asthma in later life. We actually _need_ exposure to those bugs if we're to remain healthy.

      The toilet aerosol and kitchen sink are possibly the reasons why westerners are still reasonably healthy despite living in otherwise sterlized environments.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature
    12. Re:Weather too by Nucleon500 · · Score: 1

      Or, you could close the lid before flushing and keep the toothbrush on the opposite side of the sink. Say, that gives me an idea - put a sensor in the toilet seat so it flushes whenever you put the seat down, unless you hold down the override button. (There'd still be a manual flusher.) This way, no crappy toothbrushes, no females complaining about the seat being up, and no females leaving the seat in the middle.

    13. Re:Weather too by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      You mean I should stop letting strangers use my toothbrush?

    14. Re:Weather too by LordNimon · · Score: 1
      I'd be willing to test the product in my toilet based on the assumption that it'd reduce the atomized crap on my toothbrush due to flushing.

      Why don't you just lower the toilet bowl lid before you flush???? Leaving the lid open all the time is just uncouth, anyway.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    15. Re:Weather too by ddimas · · Score: 1
      Actually you're incorrect. Evaporation rate depends on the following factors

      1. Ambient temprature.
      2. Air pressure (total).
      3. Partial pressure of water in air(% humidity).
      4. Area of the Air/Water interface.
      5. Time water spends in the system.
      6. Surface characteristics (agitation, biofilms, vegetative cover, ...).

      The first three items are relatively unchanged by creating a reservoir.

      Reservoirs increase the surface area of the body of water (depth is not important). Also since the flow rate of the system as a whole remains unchanged and the water ends up spending more time in the sytem due to the large reservoir you created. The (absolute) rate of evaporation increases when you make a reservoir.

      Decreased agitation is more than offset by the increase in surface area. Agitation actually is another way to increase surface area. So what you lose from agitation you gain by spreading out.

      The good news is you still have more water available than you did before.

    16. Re:Weather too by sl0ppy · · Score: 1

      makes me really miss bud clark :(

      i used to live in goose hollow, mz katz seemed to have a vendetta against goose hollow -- elimination of a psu parking lot for a psu housing building, to be replaced with yet more psu housing == no parking for those that live in the neighborhood -- then came the low income housing -- we moved.

    17. Re:Weather too by XenonChloride · · Score: 1
      [...] test the product in my toilet [...] reduce the atomized crap on my toothbrush
      Then you might want to have a look at Applied Fartology. Happy brushing ;-)
    18. Re:Weather too by LifesABeach · · Score: 0

      where i live, southern california, is basically a desert with ALOT of water pipes/ditches to fresh water sources.

      in southern california one can see a desert able to support 27 million people. this is done by NOT allowing trees and other large plants to grow in the water shed areas. what has happened is that the desert has 'shifted' to other areas where water flowes.

      i think this topic could be submitted to the researchers at the lowerence livermore labs for some real computer muscle analysis.

      memo to the 'lowerence livermore labs':

      congratulations on the new computer system; coooool. i've got a project idea that does not involve measuring radioactive holes in the ground.

      could your researchers develope a model for generating fresh water from sea water that 3rd, and 4th world countries could use; in other words, to cheap to be exploited. the saline content has to be constructively removed. are there ANY manufacturing processes that could use the salt and 'other' dehydration byproducts?

      consider: water, food, clothes, and shelter still make the best anti terrorist weapon to date, 'bar none'.

  8. Swimming pools too by LinuxGeek · · Score: 1

    If it also slows down the rate that water can give off heat energy as well as slow the evaporation rate, this would be great for extending the usable season for outdoor pools.

    If this prevents evaporation, does it also increase the surface tension of the water? That could make diving into a treated lake a painful proposition.

    --

    Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
    1. Re:Swimming pools too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      these sort of products have been available for swimming pools for a fair while now afaik

      eg

      http://www.adirect-energy-source.com/pool/poolco ve r/liquid-blanket/liquid-blanket.htm

      and http://www.flexiblesolutions.com/products/heatsavr /

    2. Re:Swimming pools too by Jodaxia · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually creating monolayers of organic molecules reduces the surface tension of water.

      Water with its strong tendency to hydrogen bond has a greater surface tension than that of an eight carbon simple alcohol. These alcohols form monolayers by hydrogen bonding with the water molecules. The hydrophobicity of their carbon chained tails creates an excess surface concentration, which at a great enough concentration forms a monolayer.

      --
      crowbar??
    3. Re:Swimming pools too by Arcturax · · Score: 1

      I've already seen stuff in the store which claims to do this. It's called "Liquid solar blanket" or some such thing.

      I haven't tried it myself yet, well my dad hasn't, he's the pool owner *grins*

      --

      --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
  9. This should be fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just wait until they make a version that replicates.. so you can pour 1 cup in a lake and in a few days it covers the lake....

    Then wait until someone pours a cup of this into the oceans.

    Then wait when it stops raining and we all die.

    YAY

    1. Re:This should be fun by Exiler · · Score: 1

      Organic != living.

      --
      Banaaaana!
    2. Re:This should be fun by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

      He was saying that since water won't evaporate that no rain will be produced. Not that it would eat the water.

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    3. Re:This should be fun by gpig · · Score: 2, Informative
      Just wait until they make a version that replicates.. so you can pour 1 cup in a lake and in a few days it covers the lake....

      Then wait until someone pours a cup of this into the oceans.

      Then wait when it stops raining and we all die.

      J.G. Ballard wrote a (fictional) book about this.

      It is called 'The Drought'.

      It is not a happy book.

    4. Re:This should be fun by Spunk · · Score: 1

      Not quite the same thing, but it's also like Ice-9 in Kurt Vonnegut's "Cat's Cradle".

    5. Re:This should be fun by Exiler · · Score: 1

      I was refering to it being self-replicating

      --
      Banaaaana!
  10. Is this Really New?? by RMacolyte · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What's the difference between this "new" system for evaporation prevention and the Liquid Solar Blankets sold in Pool Supply stores? This tech has been used for years!! Course this company has probably jacked up the pricing since this is supposedly "new" once again...

    1. Re:Is this Really New?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA. This is the SAME company that makes the active ingredient in those liquid solar blankets.

    2. Re:Is this Really New?? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      I'd mod u informative, but no points today..

      --
    3. Re:Is this Really New?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cetyl alcohol has been used for decades to retard evaporation in reservoirs in India, but it's not really very effective. Wind, leaves, insects, etc break the film very easily.

      I'd say that it would reduce evaporation by not more than 5 to 10%.

    4. Re:Is this Really New?? by intertwingled · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I think something like this was also tried at Arizona State University. Unfortunately, the ducks loved whatever they were using and would scoop the stuff up and get tipsy on it.

      --
      -- SKYKING, SKYKING, DO NOT ANSWER.
  11. doesn't this happen naturally? by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    No natural body of water has wter on the surface. its all coated by oily or other hydrophobic molecules lighter than water. I guess I dont understand what they are proposing to do differently. do their molecules cross link to each other forming an actual blanket that is kinetically impermeable at natural temperatures.

    I would think that if water cant get out kinetically then air and nitrogen cant get in. so you can kiss all fish and algea goodbye.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:doesn't this happen naturally? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do their molecules cross link to each other forming an actual blanket that is kinetically impermeable at natural temperatures.

      why do people insist on not using question marks when posing a question. It makes me imagine your voice is very monotone.

    2. Re:doesn't this happen naturally? by line.at.infinity · · Score: 1

      > I would think that if water cant get out kinetically then air and nitrogen cant get in. so you can kiss all fish and algea goodbye.

      There are substances that can allow gas in but keep water out. That's basically what gills are, and since organic molecules are being used, I don't think it's too unfeasible to think that it can do this.

    3. Re:doesn't this happen naturally? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No natural body of water has wter on the surface. its all coated by oily or other hydrophobic molecules lighter than water. I guess I dont understand what they are proposing to do differently.

      They are attempting to reduce water evaporation.

      I would think that if water cant get out kinetically then air and nitrogen cant get in. so you can kiss all fish and algea goodbye.

      By the same logic (or lack thereof), I guess we'd also have to kiss land animals and trees good-bye, too!

    4. Re:doesn't this happen naturally? by An+dochasac · · Score: 1

      Not much is new since this 18th century scientist investigated thin films on a pond: http://www.chem.brown.edu/chem12/Avogadro/BenFrank lin.html

    5. Re:doesn't this happen naturally? by misterpies · · Score: 1

      >>No natural body of water has wter on the surface. its all coated by oily or other hydrophobic molecules lighter than water.

      Either you've never left New Jersey, or you're living on a different planet to the rest of us. Possibly both.

      --
      The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
    6. Re:doesn't this happen naturally? by goombah99 · · Score: 1
      There are substances that can allow gas in but keep water out. That's basically what gills are,

      were talking about passive systems here, not gills which actively transport disolved gasses but keep LIQUID phase water out (not gas phase water).


      the system under discussion is a two-molecule layer. h20 and o2 and c02 gas molecules are all about the same size. The h20 molecules are present in concentration thousands of times hire than the air. it would take an ubnelievable amount of discrimination to keep water in but let air through.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    7. Re:doesn't this happen naturally? by ndinsil · · Score: 1

      No, they're right. Rotting leaves and other processes tend to leach small amounts of hydrophobic substances into surface waters, where they collect in a skim on the surface. This time of year in northern Minnesota, many creeks and ponds in the woods are covered with a silvery irridescent skin.

  12. other uses by distro+stu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm sure they could use this in the Ural Sea (or whats left of it). Could animals drink through it? If they could I can imagine this being very useful for the thirsty animals during dry seasons in Africa's national parks.

    1. Re:other uses by dreadnougat · · Score: 1

      Those animals not dying in the dry seasons could upset the ecosystem. Unless of course it was only used in periods of drought.

    2. Re:other uses by darkwhite · · Score: 1

      Aral Sea.

      --

      [an error occurred while processing this directive]
  13. Need more research by whereiswaldo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    However, the long term ecological effects of reducing evaporation in lakes or reservoirs is not yet clear as evaporation prevention can increase water temperatures and affect the exchange rates of gases such as oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide.

    This seems like a pretty critical area of the research. If the water becomes stagnant and full of algae or dead fish, what good is it?

    This could have unforeseen effects on the local ecosystem.

    Unforseen? Maybe if you have your eyes and ears taped shut? Forgive me for being cynical, but it seems so many scientists are out for a little fame and don't see the big pictures.

    1. Re:Need more research by smchris · · Score: 1


      Oh, you just aerate.

      The federal contracts will be worth billions.

    2. Re:Need more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, you just aerate.

      Do you know how to aerate an entire lake?

    3. Re:Need more research by deek · · Score: 1

      • Forgive me for being cynical, but it seems so many scientists are out for a little fame and don't see the big pictures.
      Well, the way I look at it, at least the question has been raised. That's a very important step, and is certainly _not_ indicative of the search for glory at the price of environment.

      I would distrust a project more, if it listed only positive effects, rather than positive and possible negative. Now that is cynicism.
    4. Re:Need more research by Persecuted_Telemarke · · Score: 1
      Forgive me for being cynical, but it seems so many scientists are out for a little fame and don't see the big pictures.

      What? You don't know any scientists, do you? Trust me on this, fame and fortune is not the reason a person goes into that business.

      --

      Persecuted Telemarketers Unite!

    5. Re:Need more research by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      ...it seems so many scientists are out for a little fame and don't see the big pictures.

      It's not scientists. It's companies that seek to capitalize on the fruits of science that you're looking to blame. Real scientists seek to understand the big picture. Companies look for new ways to make money.

    6. Re:Need more research by bhima · · Score: 1

      in my experience, most scientists are much, much more interested in being right, it's an ego thing.

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    7. Re:Need more research by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful
      in my experience, most scientists are much, much more interested in being right, it's an ego thing.
      And your experience is?

      I'm sorry, I have to ask this. Working in biotech as I do, I deal with scientists on a daily basis. (I'd like to call myself one, but honesty won't allow me to do so until I get my PhD.) In my experience, they're human like anyone else -- and like anyone else, of course they'd prefer to be right than wrong; but the nature of the profession is that it ultimately rewards those who check their data carefully and accurately forecast the consequences of their actions, and punishes those who don't.

      The idea that scientists are egotists who refuse to acknowledge their failings is a vile stereotype, with no more basis in fact than the idea that they're cold and unfeeling, or sexless geeks, or unable to appreciate art and culture, or ... well, you get the idea. So you'll understand if I have my doubts that such a slur comes from someone with much real experience of science and scientists at all. If I'm wrong, please let me know.
      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    8. Re:Need more research by bhima · · Score: 1

      My experience is 15 years in research and development of various diagnostic analyzers. Just because it is not nice, doesn't mean it's wrong. In fact it doesn't mean it doesn't apply to me! It's hard to work on something for a long time with out coming to believe it's the most wonderful thing on earth. And marketing pressures tend to send products out before they are quite ready or sometimes when they should have at all.

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    9. Re:Need more research by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      as I recall they fairly heavily aerata the river thames in London (using the aptly names Thames Bubbler). Aerating a medium sized river can't be much different from doing a lake, surely?

    10. Re:Need more research by mlush · · Score: 1
      in my experience, most scientists are much, much more interested in being right, it's an ego thing.

      In my experience a scientist who is not interested in being right, is not a very good scientist. The ego comes in when scientists disagree what is right

    11. Re:Need more research by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

      as I recall they fairly heavily aerata the river thames in London (using the aptly names Thames Bubbler). Aerating a medium sized river can't be much different from doing a lake, surely?

      Interesting. Granted, it seems that aeration would decrease the effectiveness of the solution, since the air bubbles would create areas where there is no protective film. Is that not so?

    12. Re:Need more research by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Okay, fair enough. Like I said, I don't deny that scientists can fall victim to the right-at-all-costs failing -- what bothers me is the implication that it's a failing of scientists in particular. It's a human failing -- and at least in science, as in few other areas of human endeavor, there is a definite standard for determining whether someone is right or wrong.

      What company do you work for? It's quite possible that I've used some of your analyzers. I'll let you know if they don't work. ;)

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    13. Re:Need more research by bhima · · Score: 1
      It is a human failing! And I believe the smarter you are the more susceptible you to that sort of thing. I've seen good scientists react quite differently to challenges to it. Some find not understanding a problem with a product a personal affront and put amazing efforts and time into their resolution. Unfortunately others, having expending what resources they had, lost all vestiges of ethics and responsibility. I must emphasize these people are good people, I'd be glad for my kids to be in school with theirs or to go to there house for a dinner party, I just won't hire them. In the meanwhile I'm glad to have a very competent QC staff behind to keep me honest! It all a balance between the extreme pressure to release devises quickly and the unbelievable (to me) stupidity to release a product that is not ready (and repeating the Apple Newton fiasco).

      Who do I work for... Well, I don't exactly sing praises of the company I work for (or other big businesses) with this moniker, I sort of like the anonymity afforded by it. However evidently it is not too hard to figure if you are sufficient pissed at me, my ex didn't have too much difficulty. Anyway suffice it to say, you won't see me posting pictures of my competitors equipment lab on the internet, sure every serous company has one, but we don't exactly advertise the fact!

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    14. Re:Need more research by sgtrock · · Score: 1
      (I'd like to call myself one, but honesty won't allow me to do so until I get my PhD.)


      That's odd. Some of the best theoretical and lab work has been done by scientists who didn't have PhDs. If you work in research (even as a grad student), why shouldn't you call yourself a scientist? Afraid of what your peers might say?

      Seriously, I want to know.
    15. Re:Need more research by mlush · · Score: 1
      That's odd. Some of the best theoretical and lab work has been done by scientists who didn't have PhDs. If you work in research (even as a grad student), why shouldn't you call yourself a scientist? Afraid of what your peers might say?

      You can't go out and just call your self a scientist. Thats a judgement other people have to make, in the case of the PhD thats by viva. (Even after that one is still considered to be a traniee until you apply and gain first grant/perminant postion). In casual conversation I'd call my self a scientist, in professional life, I only rarely mention I have a PhD and thats normally when I'm cold calling someone I need to work with.

      In the case of the nonpostdoctoral workers. They have it tougher, it takes years of good work before they start to make an imperssion. Its a bit like enlisted me being promoted to officer, not many make it but the ones who do are good

      Now there are storys about company X looking at their patent list an realizing there mostly from non-PhD holders, and these storys may well be true, OTOH much of company research is a matter of banging through 100,000 chemicals looking for one with specific properties, you would not enploy a PhD to do that sort of work, supervise perhaps, not unless you want to keep them that is

    16. Re:Need more research by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      Ah, quite possible, not something I put any thought to, I was just extending what little knowledge I do have on the subject I'm afraid.

  14. The message is clear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Evaporation has failed!

  15. Can anyone say "Breaking the Cycle"? by atgrim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Call me silly... but, isn't water evaporation part of the cycle of weather? Take out one part and the machine doesn't work. I hope that this "technology" is not used on a large scale. The implications concerning local weather patterns could be devastating.

    --
    Your actions in life will determine your children's future.
    1. Re:Can anyone say "Breaking the Cycle"? by line.at.infinity · · Score: 1

      even if you prevented the great lakes from evaporating, the only difference that would make would be: no more lake effect snow. Since most of the moisture in the US midwest comes from the Mexican gulf to begin with, any lack of moisture given off lakes would be insignificant.

    2. Re:Can anyone say "Breaking the Cycle"? by tburkhol · · Score: 2, Interesting

      even if you prevented the great lakes from evaporating, the only difference that would make would be: no more lake effect snow

      Ever wonder why your local weather forecaster is wrong so often? Why he can't predict weather any further out that 3 days with better luck than my dog? Their climatological models ignore all the small stuff-like evaporation from small lakes--that end up having a distinct influence on climate, due to the nonlinearity of processes like evaporation and condensation.

      This is one of the big contributors to loss of rainforest: if you clearcut a swath through the forest, you raise local temperature and reduce local evaporation. Reducing local evaporation means there's less water in the air flowing over the adjacent rainforest, and it doesn't rain in the forest. The newly dehydrated rainforest dies, and fails to provide water to forest further downwind, which dies...

      If this stuff works as well as they claim, there will be huge incentives for every city, county and state (let alone desert country) to apply it to their watersheds. They may not be talking about literally covering the Great Lakes (although it would take only 130,000 gallons of this stuff to do so), but they are talking about covering vast and vastly distributed bodies of water.

    3. Re:Can anyone say "Breaking the Cycle"? by grouse · · Score: 1

      Call me silly...

      Ok, you're silly.

    4. Re:Can anyone say "Breaking the Cycle"? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      This is one of the big contributors to loss of rainforest: if you clearcut a swath through the forest, you raise local temperature and reduce local evaporation. Reducing local evaporation means there's less water in the air flowing over the adjacent rainforest, and it doesn't rain in the forest. The newly dehydrated rainforest dies, and fails to provide water to forest further downwind, which dies...

      So if the edges of a rainforest can't survive without protection, how did the edges of the rainforest survive before clearcutting?
      (not defending clearcutting; just interested in the climate modeling)

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    5. Re:Can anyone say "Breaking the Cycle"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because, dinkwad, the edge of the rainforest usually subtly transitioned with smalled species of plants. Tapering off, if you will. I don't expect a reject like yourself to understand that, bitch.

    6. Re:Can anyone say "Breaking the Cycle"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is way outside my area, but in a natural system the edges are not the same plants (ecosystem) as the center of the forest.

    7. Re:Can anyone say "Breaking the Cycle"? by liam_p · · Score: 1

      I had the feeling that difficulties in weather prediction were caused by something called chaos, and some other things called 'strange' attractors? And i'm sure there more accurate than your dog! Or have you conducted an experiment?

  16. You say Molecular Blankets by use_compress · · Score: 1

    I say Saran Wrap. What's the big difference?

  17. this is a BAD idea by c4ffeine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Last time I checked, something called "rain" is made possible by evaporation from lakes, resiorvoirs, etc. Wouldn't preventing evaporation prevent rain? Rain happens to be a great way to irrigate fields, and is very good for our environment...

    --
    "73% of quotes on the Internet are made up" -Ben Franklin
    1. Re:this is a BAD idea by glenebob · · Score: 1

      Tell you what... if your rain fall rate gets too low, you can have as much of ours as you want, we here in WA have plenty to go around.

    2. Re:this is a BAD idea by helix400 · · Score: 1

      It's still a good idea. Rain clouds have no problem forming over the middle of a barren desert, and they also used to form before the days of reservoirs.

      Generally, rain clouds develop from humid air, not because they happen to be over lakes. So reducing the evaporation from reservoirs or lakes by 45% won't necessarily change weather patterns. Even lake effect snow storms (found in cities next to the Great Lakes and the Great Salt Lake) should be ok, since I believe its the warm air of the lakes, and not the moisture from the lakes, that help storms form.

    3. Re:this is a BAD idea by gerardrj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If anything, this would help restore ecological balance in the areas around resivoirs. The resivoirs I've seen are human created, not natural. This actually causes an increase in humidity and perhaps rainfall in the areas around them.
      Decreasing the evaporation would bring things more in line with the "natural" state of the area.

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    4. Re:this is a BAD idea by l3prador · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Man-made reservoirs have been the major source of evaporation for at least the last couple billion years or so.

    5. Re:this is a BAD idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Generally, rain clouds develop from humid air, not because they happen to be over lakes. So reducing the evaporation from reservoirs or lakes by 45% won't necessarily change weather patterns.

      Where do you think humidity comes from?

    6. Re:this is a BAD idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! A 2 billion year old man-made reservoir! Where?

    7. Re:this is a BAD idea by isorox · · Score: 1

      Take the size of the worlds resovoirs.

      Take the size of the worlds oceans.

      Which is bigger

    8. Re:this is a BAD idea by scumdamn · · Score: 1

      Oceans?

    9. Re:this is a BAD idea by canadian_right · · Score: 1
      Actually, most rain comes from the oceans evaperating, not resevoirs behind dams, or lakes used for drinking water. This would have a barely noticiable effect on the weather. Its meant to preserve drinking water.

      This might have a small effect on very local weather, but it might have a big effect on anything living in the resorvoir due to the temperature going up, and the lack oxegenation at the surface.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
  18. Nice idea by helix400 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This would be great for those of us in the intermountain west.

    Our reservoirs lose tons of water over the long hot dry days of summer. Add that to the 5 year drought we're in....and it'd help enormously. Of course, that would probably mean boats and jetskis would be off limits during that time, but having water is more important that having fun.

    1. Re:Nice idea by helix400 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Heh, next time I'll read the article before commenting.

      Boating would be ok. Since this "blanket" isn't one physical object, but a collection of molecules...boaters could rip a path through the water, and these molecules would close off the exposed water. Wow, looks like the only hangup now is possible ecological issuegs.

    2. Re:Nice idea by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This would be great for those of us in the intermountain west.
      Our reservoirs lose tons of water over the long hot dry days of summer. Add that to the 5 year drought we're in....and it'd help enormously.


      After all your local bodies of water have been treated, you can change that to:
      "... the 15 year drought we're in..."

    3. Re:Nice idea by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      The shift towards a dryer western USA seems to be closely related to global warming. (I tend to that explanation because my part of the east has had rain like typical for Washington state rain forests this past year - at one point we were more than 20" over average - we're getting all the water you missed). That situation has been building over the last five years, with shorter and shorter August dry spells and such, but it's really taking off now. So if that explanation is correct, we are talking about treating only one symptom of a bigger problem, and possibly even making the opposite symptom bigger if this method isn't closely controlled. Hey, I really sympathise with you, and hope your part of the west isn't close to the forest fires that are the biggest crisis for right now, or even one of those regions that is shifting from "pretty" desert (with creosote bush and cactus anchoring the sands and some living animals) to bone dry desert. But I suspect this method is going to end up with your politicians fighting my politicians instead of really helping.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    4. Re:Nice idea by SEE · · Score: 1

      Water vapor is a greenhouse gas.

    5. Re:Nice idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't mean to get off on a rant here, but..

      I live in Boulder, Colorado and I'm sick of the people who assume that watering their lawn is a god-given right. Before people moved here there wasn't a single tree in the entire county. It was scrub grasslands. Every tree here was planted by man.

      And when people moved in they started pumping water out of the ground faster than it could be replenished naturally. The underground water supply has been devastated and one of the ballot issues is talking about spending money to "stop the drought". Yeah - stop pumping water out of the ground to water your fancy waste-of-space gardens. Dumbasses.

      I was up in Ft Collins last summer (when they had a hosepipe ban) and somebody was ignoring it anyway because they had a well drilled in their back lot. (They literally had a sign up that said "well water"). Which was utterly retarded - as if it didn't all come from the same place.

      It's totally stupid to think that you can move in, drill holes in the ground and do whatever you want without disrupting the ecosystem. Same goes for covering reservoirs with oil slicks to prevent water evaporating into the atmosphere.

  19. Re:Getting slow, mirrored in case of slashdotting. by c4ffeine · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    In case there are people that like to be warned, goatse troll...

    --
    "73% of quotes on the Internet are made up" -Ben Franklin
  20. Positive spin? by gerardrj · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...by spreading an ultra-thin blanket of organic molecules on the surface to block the escape of water molecules...

    Are they trying to place a positive ecological spin on oil spils/slicks? Oil is organic, and it does prevent the evaporation of the underlying water.
    I recall seeing/reading elsewhere that a few millileters is enough to create a minute slick over several square kilometers.

    --
    Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    1. Re:Positive spin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I can just imagine oil tanker routes on man-made reservoirs...

      Unless they plan to extend the technology to slow the evaporation of oceans! Yeah, that's it!

    2. Re:Positive spin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      millileters

      OK, I am confused. You use the word, but you misspell it. What country are you from?

    3. Re:Positive spin? by Ibag · · Score: 1

      Are they trying to place a positive ecological spin on oil spils/slicks?

      They don't need to put a positive spin on that! If you watched fox news, you'd know that "Oil slicks found to keep seals young, supple..."

      Or, at least, I thought it was fox news...

  21. the REAL story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:the REAL story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dumb... like a fox!

    2. Re:the REAL story by October_30th · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      The latest violence comes amid increasingly bleak assessments from Washington, where the latest attacks have been compared in the media to Vietnam's 1968 Tet Offensive against US forces

      That is, actually, an interesting quote although in a different context than the author of the article intended.

      The Tet Offensive was an unmitigated military disaster by the NVA. All attacks were repulsed by the US troops at a horrible cost to the attackers. It was also a major disaster when it came to politics. North Vietnamese leaders wished to raise a nationwide popular uprising that would drive the capitalists and their South Vietnamese "puppets" into the sea.

      Why was it such a turning-point then? Because of the media - both international and US. The Vietnam war was the first televised war. When the audience saw young soldiers exibiting the signs of combat stress, crawling in dirt and dying, it gave the impression that the US forces were losing the war. In fact, the reverse was true. Before the Tet offensive the NVA was almost smashed and the casualties inflicted by the Americans during Tet made it even worse.

      What broke was the morale at home and it was broken by the sensationalistic media. Even worse, something similar is certainly happening in Iraq as we speak.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    3. Re:the REAL story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      it gave the impression that the US forces were losing the war. In fact, the reverse was true.

      A war that many Americans thought was a farce, a war that was not really a war, as Congress ignored their duty to declare war. A war that we should not have been fighting, that was not worth 50,000 American lives, that was not worth 1 American life. That had a bit to do with morale as well, the whole "our children are dying for nothing" thing is a bit hard on a country.
      Even worse, something similar is certainly happening in Iraq as we speak.


      Yes, the report that came in that the Iraqis bombed a convoy and then shot a Chinook helicopter out of the sky causing 20 casualties is sensationalism. I'd rather hear about how the search for WMD is going... oh I mean how things are returning to normal... oh I forgot that today doctors and children stayed away from schools and hospitals because of the day of resistance and fears of bombings.

      We were led to believe that the Iraqis would be welcoming us as conquering heroes and dancing in the streets. Instead we got a small group of Iraqi dissidents tearing down Saddam's statue and media spin that hid the dead Americans from our televisions. Now there are Americans being killed every single day and more and more bombings. Is is sensationalism to report on the deaths of our children?

      Millions of Americans were against the war. We were told it was about WMD, then liberation. Now we hear that we cannot simply pull out of Iraq because it will be seen as a sign of weakness, no wonder Novak and McCain start the Vietnam comparisons. Even fucking Rumsfeld in his memo acknowledges how fucked we are. It's all been a big lie friend.

      Time for my friends in the Guard to be called up for another tour of duty. Damn media manipulating me. If it weren't for them I'd be all for this farce.

      Demand the withdrawl of our troops.
    4. Re:the REAL story by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      Obviously, someone's read "Towards a Citizen's Militia"! I'd have put a link but the text isn't available online. Pity really, it's interesting reading.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    5. Re:the REAL story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why don't you go back to woodstock you hippie

  22. Old hat by njh · · Score: 5, Informative

    We studied this in school. They use large alcohols as the skin (as covered in this article). The point is that it's usually distribution rather than storage that is the problem. (In Melbourne.au the annual evaporation rate is 3m - on a shallow 30m deep dam this means that it would take 10 years to evaporate the water away, assuming none is added. I have some old papers here from the 60s by the then Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works about this idea.

    If you are having problems keeping water due to evaporation then you need to choose a better dam site.

    More interesting is a proposal to store stormwater underground. Firstly, the land area and evaporation issues disappear (to be replaced by similar issues :) but more importantly, the water is actually cleaned by the action of anerobic bacteria on the water.

    1. Re:Old hat by Ignis+Flatus · · Score: 1

      Why not just create the next reservoir by digging a big hole before flooding the site? You could store the same amount of water with less surface area, which would not only reduce evaporation, but also reduce heating of the water from the sun.

    2. Re:Old hat by OmnipotentEntity · · Score: 1

      The obvious problem with that is the sheer amount of dirt that must be moved somewhere. Not to mention rock that must be broken etc. Just not ecomonically feasible.

      --
      "Build a man a fire warm him for a day, set a man on fire and warm him for the rest of his life."
    3. Re:Old hat by njh · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, for drinking water you want it to be deep anyway because the UV gets down a long way and sterilises the water. The problem is that a reasonable reservoir might be 1km^3, which is about as big as the argyle diamond mine. It's taken 20 years to dig that out, and there has been diamonds to make it worthwhile. Another problem is supporting the sides - if you want it to be steep sided you either need reinforce with concrete, which is expensive, or find somewhere with good solid rock, which is hard to then dig.

    4. Re:Old hat by khallow · · Score: 1
      If you are having problems keeping water due to evaporation then you need to choose a better dam site.

      Fortunately, we all live in areas with a plentiful supply of good dam sites to chose from.

      More interesting is a proposal to store stormwater underground. Firstly, the land area and evaporation issues disappear (to be replaced by similar issues :) but more importantly, the water is actually cleaned by the action of anerobic bacteria on the water.

      Well, except for the anerobic bacteria and whatever they just injested, that is. OTOH, you can employ or pipe UV light so that's not a particularly terrible issue. And you don't have to worry so much about stuff sliding in. Hmmm, solves your dam site problem too since you can put an underground tank just about anywhere (assuming it has positive pressure so that nothing can leak in).

  23. Re:Getting slow, mirrored in case of slashdotting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no need to deter people from a perfectly good mirror. The mirror is fine people, ignore this troll.

  24. Re: Sequels, MMORPGs, and merchandising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait, you mean a big media company is not going to kill off a franchise? OMG!!! Wow!!!

  25. To my fellow Canadian scientists.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop playing with the weather and thinking you are God. We have Americans for that.

    Easy knee-jerkers, it was a joke.

  26. your sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    spells "flamebait" wrong.

  27. More research? by mschaffer · · Score: 2, Funny

    How is this different than having suntan lotion come off in the pool?

    Isn't there alot of data on that?

    Geez! What are these researchers thinking about.

    Then next thing you know, Exxon will be dumping oil from their tankers to mitigate "global evaporation".

  28. Look out above...goatse.cx alert by yosemite · · Score: 0, Troll

    From a trolls point of view, that image must never get old!

  29. Re: Sequels, MMORPGs, and merchandising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Neo is not the "One". He gives in to the dark side. However, he unknowingly fathers a child with Trinity, who will eventually defeat his father.

  30. Website URL and Possible Additional Application by pipingguy · · Score: 4, Informative


    Flexible Solutions

    This might also be useful for refineries/chemical plants, etc. that maintain large atmospheric pressure reservoirs of dihydrogen monoxide for fire-fighting purposes.

    1. Re:Website URL and Possible Additional Application by seanadams.com · · Score: 1

      dihydrogen monoxide

      Wow... that really sounds deadly. Like the sort of thing you'd find at a refinery or chemical plant.

    2. Re:Website URL and Possible Additional Application by Monkelectric · · Score: 1

      You should read about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide/a?.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    3. Re:Website URL and Possible Additional Application by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds pretty safe from the reading MSDS.

    4. Re:Website URL and Possible Additional Application by ddimas · · Score: 1

      HEY! Where's the toxicology data! Stupid stripped down MSDS!

  31. Home improvement? by Shoten · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ah, just what I need for my new swimming pool...on Arrakis!

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
  32. here are the details for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    Registrant:
    hektik.org
    69 coitus lane
    Salt Lake City, Utah 84103
    US

    Registrar: DOTSTER
    Domain Name: HEKTIK.ORG
    Created on: 09-SEP-99
    Expires on: 09-SEP-04
    Last Updated on: 11-JUN-03

    Administrative, Technical Contact:
    , nospam@hektik.org
    hektik.org
    69 coitus lane
    Salt Lake City, Utah 84103
    US
    (877) 836-2683

    Domain servers in listed order:
    NS1.CAFFINATED.NET
    NS2.CAFFINATED.NET
    NS3.CAFFINATED.NET

  33. Don't believe this Canadian plot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    At the right signal, this formula will cause all treated bodies of water to freeze into Ice9. Then Canadian strike groups will skate in with assault Zambonis.

    Sudden-death world conquest and no penalties. You didn't think this hockey thing was just a game, did you?

  34. Keep in mind... by Punchinello · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Russia, water evaperates you!

    --

    Remember... ZG9uJ3QgZm9yZ2V0IHRvIGRyaW5rIHlvdXIgb3ZhbHRpbmU=

  35. Maybe not so many dead fish by Sir+Holo · · Score: 3, Insightful


    My first thought was the same as yours -- oil on water and asphyxiating fish. But that might not be the case.

    They claim that their technique produces a monolayer on the surface. That's a layer one molecule thick. This would easily be disturbed by the slightest motion or breeze. The tiniest ripple would create local openings. In fact, this is probably why their reduction in water loss is so small -- only tens of percent. Lots of water gets out. This implies that lots of gases could also get in. (i.e., gas exchange with the atmosphere would perhaps be inhibited by tens of percent amount.)

  36. OB Simpsons Quote by benjamindees · · Score: 1

    Teen1: Oh, here comes that cannonball guy. He's cool.
    Teen2: Are you being sarcastic, dude?
    Teen1: I don't even know anymore.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  37. Prevent evaporation AND generate electricity? by BlueJay465 · · Score: 1

    Did they say what kind of thermal conductivity this layer would have? If it was low, then try this on for size:

    While having this layer of molecules on the surface, rig up an array of thermoelectric modules (Peltier elements) to conduct the heat that would be trapped on the water and use it to generate enough electricity to be able to drive the water pumps or whatever. I don't know how feasable this would be though since from what I hear the efficiency isn't the greatest in the world...

    No beowulf cluster jokes please...

  38. you think those are details? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    69 coitus lane
    Salt Lake City, Utah 84103

    Seriously, do you think that is an actual street in Utah of all places. You are an idioit.

  39. Have to say it... by metrazol · · Score: 2, Funny

    Okay, this sounds to me like vapor ware.

    Ok, sorry, had to...but really, doesn't this sound like the setup for a sci-fi world saving movie where the original cause of the disaster was something incredibly stupid a scientist (the one equipping the rescuers) did?

    "You bred the aliens on Earth?"
    "Doctor! You designed the Neutronomiconimeter Canon!?!"
    "My god! Humans spread the oil on the ocean, causing the sea monsters to attack from Atlantis!?!"

    --
    "Life's funny sometimes." "And sometimes it isn't." --Cat's Cradle
    1. Re:Have to say it... by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1
      Okay, this sounds to me like vapor ware.

      I think you meant to say water vapor ware....

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  40. Everything gets run through the green filter? by TheNarrator · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's kind of annoying that these days, when any new technology arrives, it is subject to a ridiculously paranoid environmentalism filter. Resevoir water is about .0001% of all water on the planet and people are worried about gas exchange and the temperature of it! Enough to deprive populations in the developing world of clean drinking water? I was suprised that the cost of the system wasn't mentioned in the header, only the environmental impact.

    1. Re:Everything gets run through the green filter? by greenstork · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're right, we should probably just implement new technologies without even considering the environmental consequences. Who needs the environment anyway, it's just the air we breathe and the water we drink, not really important. Blind acceptance of technology is a much wiser option.

    2. Re:Everything gets run through the green filter? by pherthyl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The percentage of FRESH water that goes through a reservoir at some point is much higher. (I don't know the percentage but I highly doubt your 0.0001% figure is from anywhere but your ass).
      Turns out, the drinking water for almost all larger cities is from reservoirs somewhere. Then there's the reservoirs for power generation. This is a significant percentage of major rivers. Rivers that many species depend on for survival.

      So yes, it does have to be run through the "green" filter. Otherwise you can claim that every activity is the same. "Oh hey, well because of our oil tanker crash we polluted 1000 km^2 of ocean but.. uh.. thats like 0.000001% of the earth so who cares right?"
      Sheeesh, get a clue.

    3. Re:Everything gets run through the green filter? by jonhuang · · Score: 1

      A tiny percentage, but closer to us. The water I'm most worried about is the .000000000000000000000000000001% that's in my body--don't be messing with any green filters there!

    4. Re:Everything gets run through the green filter? by Illserve · · Score: 1

      Many people are legitimately concerned about the negative impact on the reservoir. It will become a catastrophic mini ecosystem that might foul the water, making that reservoir temporarily useless.

      I agree though that we have nothing fear for the sake of the weather and global environment.

    5. Re:Everything gets run through the green filter? by okmijnuhb · · Score: 1

      Of course everything gets run through the green filter.
      DDT and lead paint seemed like great ideas at the time too.

    6. Re:Everything gets run through the green filter? by khallow · · Score: 1
      Of course everything gets run through the green filter. DDT and lead paint seemed like great ideas at the time too.

      I just wish people would think before they write stuff like this. I can think of environmental trouble if say a tanker of this surfactant stuff broke open at sea or perhaps the toxicity of the compound (which seems to be used in extremely small amounts). That could be a problem. We'll just have to figure out how to fix that. But what's the point of religiously invoking miniscule effects as if they were weighty issues? This isn't lead paint which has been shown to have harmed large numbers of children in the US, but the hypothetical impact of a decline in resevior evaporation isn't going to harm the mental development of children. Further, it's probably reverse the environment effects of the reservior in the first place. After all, the vast majority weren't there before!

      As an aside, the ban on DDT may have killed more people than it saved though I am dubious of the dumb kill everything approach that the sprayers of that time were using.

    7. Re:Everything gets run through the green filter? by TheNarrator · · Score: 1
      More people die of malaria annually than any other disease and DDT is the most effective and cheapest way to fight mosquitos. Of course DDT is very dangerous to radical environmentalists in developed countries who are concerned about people in sub-saharan Africa then they are about the miniscule environmental effect that spraying DDT on interior walls will have.


      For Example http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html

    8. Re:Everything gets run through the green filter? by TheNarrator · · Score: 1

      A reservoir and a human being are two completely different things. Anthropomorphizing everything is another screwy environmentalist habit.

    9. Re:Everything gets run through the green filter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure you want to use it as drinking water if, say, there is eventually a negative impact that happens to badly hurt the ecosystem of the reservoir, ending up with a lot of dead, rotting corpses in the water?

      I'm not saying that's likely, but that type of reasons are why you have to be very careful before deploying things like these on the large scale.

    10. Re:Everything gets run through the green filter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right, there have been a number of stupid posts worrying about the decreased evaporation for man made reseviors. However, yours is the stupidest post I've read on this article. Only a total fool would think worrying about the environmental impact of new technology is bad.

  41. Two molecules thick over a huge area= very little. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    From the referenced article: "... saving the water costs less than half the price of replacing it..."

    That means that the water-saving layer is VERY expensive, if it is only two molecules thick.

  42. Just add it to your jetski oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then you can make the environment human-friendly AND have fun at the same time. Heck, put it in your snowmobile, and then the runoff will be pre-treated. It'll be part of the new environmental enhancement program.

  43. Drinking? by Ledora · · Score: 1

    I really wouldn't want them to get to low and I end up drinking some of this goo. Might mess up some of the plumbing ya know?

    1. Re:Drinking? by carcass · · Score: 1

      Come on, it's not like reservoir operators haven't been dealing with this sort of thing forever, you know. Most reservoirs used for drinking water have multiple intakes (to a water plant or distribution system) at various depths. This is so that operators can avoid sucking subsurface layers of algae or iron and manganese that change position with the seasons. Nobody sucks the wter off the top of a reservoir, because that's usually on of the dirtiest parts of a lake.

  44. Re:crazy idea by hydrofilic · · Score: 0

    This idea has been around for ages here in Australia (at least 20 years). It never was adopted to my knowledge.

  45. Organic molecules by LauraW · · Score: 1
    > spreading an ultra-thin blanket of organic molecules on the surface to block the escape of water molecules

    Mmm..... Organic molecules.....

  46. Swimming pool? by ForestGrump · · Score: 1

    Don't they already sell stuff like this for swimming pools?

    Dump some chemical in the water, it creates a layer at the top to prevent evaporation.

    Oh well, exploiting something known for more profit...
    -Grump.

    --
    Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
  47. You Really did ask for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man I would like to see a beowulf cluster of these

  48. Prior art ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    by spreading an ultra-thin blanket of organic molecules on the surface

    Isn't this an Oil Slick, some complanies have been doing it for years.

    Oops ultra-thin obviously, given oil prices and shortages, they cant afford the old style heavy slicks any more.

  49. MOD PARENT UP PLEASE by boomgopher · · Score: 0

    Come'on mods.

    --
    Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
  50. Background information: Patents by XenonChloride · · Score: 2, Informative
    The interested reader might want to have a look at the US patents of Robert Neville O'Brien, the founder of Flexible Solutions:
    • PAT. NO. 6,303,133
    • PAT. NO. 6,558,705
  51. High tech or reprocessing bulk/waste chemicals by XenonChloride · · Score: 2, Interesting
    [...] its a high tech water evaporation prevention film.
    Melting 1-decanol with either calcium hydroxide or gypsum (adding sulfuric acid in the latter case) to obtain a fine powder which is distributable using dusting machines isn't what I'd call high tech but a way to re-market bulk and waste chemicals.
    1. Re:High tech or reprocessing bulk/waste chemicals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1-decanol. Yuck.

  52. Extending the snow season? How about the Ice caps? by phobonetik · · Score: 1

    So - can we now have longer snow seasons (Here in NZ we've got about a fortnight before closure) ... or how about preventing the ice caps from turning into giant island-drowning, ship marauding bergs? [ Me being the software programmer come snowboarder - not attempting to be a meterologist, ofcourse ]

  53. J G Ballard's "The Drought" by Dynamoo · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This is *exactly* the basis for the plot in J G Ballard's bleak vision of the future, "The Drought" where the oceans become covered in a thin molecular film which prevents evaporation of the seas, and hence no rain.

    In the book the film is caused by pollution, but it is almost impossible to disperse and remains resistant to the waves and man-made attempts to break up the film. In the end, humanity ends up clinging to life by the edges of the ocean, each person with their own solar-powered desalination plant.

    A sobering thought if you've read the book. Imaging what whould happen if this stuff got loose?

    --
    Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
    1. Re:J G Ballard's "The Drought" by khallow · · Score: 1
      A sobering thought if you've read the book. Imaging what whould happen if this stuff got loose?

      Ok, I imagined it. So what? This "stuff" isn't self-reproducing.

    2. Re:J G Ballard's "The Drought" by Dynamoo · · Score: 1
      True enough, but I do wonder how much surface area a supertanker of this stuff could cover.

      I guess it's not quite Ice 9 though.

      --
      Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
  54. Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I claim prior art on this technique. When I was ten years old I came up with a scheme to cover all the world's oceans with polythene in order to stop sea water from evaporating, and hence put an end to rain once and for all.

    I therefore demand that the patent rights and all monies earned by way of royalties be transferred to me. You owe me 699 pounds for every occasion on which you have thought of the idea or a vaguely similar idea. This is per instance, not per document. Postal orders will be accepted.

  55. One step at a time! by POds · · Score: 1

    "However, the long term ecological effects of reducing evaporation in lakes or reservoirs is not yet clear as evaporation prevention can increase water temperatures and affect the exchange rates of gases such as oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide."

    Yes and lets not wory about the small criters in our water ways. These resevoirs are filled with natice fish that are already under threat of other introduced fish and over fishing.

    If we want to preserve water we must first look at building the infrastructure to take water far inland where as know in many contrys they use open channel irrigation where ALOT of water evapourates. I've heard that only 20% of the water in open irrigation actualy absorbs into the ground.

    Also we must also make it compulsory for water saving devices, such as flow restricters.

    An interesting thing i saw on today tonight a while ago whilst in the middle of the last Aussie drought (which we're still pretty much in) was a guy who was using this left over laundry water and sink water and other waters to water his grass and gardins! Its that type of thinking thats going to save water. Things like that should be made compulsory. Some people with plenty of water such as the USA may be laughing, but this our local water resevour was bello 10% and maybe have infact reached 2% or 1%. Its backup resevour was at around 40%, so you could say that there was a few very nervouse people round!

    I agree, this seems like a good idea. but one step at a time please!

    --


    Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
    1. Re:One step at a time! by azaris · · Score: 2, Interesting

      An interesting thing i saw on today tonight a while ago whilst in the middle of the last Aussie drought (which we're still pretty much in) was a guy who was using this left over laundry water and sink water and other waters to water his grass and gardins!

      And what about the laundry detergents that get soaked into the soil and water reserves? It might not have an effect if one guy does it but what if everyone did it? I've lived in a place that had a natural water reservoir nearby and it doesn't take a lot to contaminate - the whole town spent several days without drinkable water when someone decided to dump some slaughter waste in the wrong place.

    2. Re:One step at a time! by carcass · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The answer is not to require water saving measures through legislation but to make people respect the water they have through prices. It's the perfect incentive for people to consider just how important water is to them.

      I work in the water treatment business, and I've visited water treatment plants all over North America. The thing that is common to all water supplies is that the customers think they have some sort of a "right" to unlimited clean water without sacrifice. They grumble and complain and write woefully misinformed letters to their newspapers when the local water company attempts to raise rates to cover infrastructure improvements or cost-of-living salary increases.

      What people don't see is that treating water to make it drinkable costs money. If you could see the way water infrastructure in the U.S. and Canada is degrading and how the water industry (especially production and distribution companies) are being forced to ignore staffing and capital improvement needs just because their customers vote for the government to force low rates, you'd understand.

      If water prices were allowed to fluctuate more realistically, people wouldn't waste so much of it. Really, in the U.S. and Canada, people pay over US$1.00 for a silly little bottle of water that isn't even guaranteed to have as good quality as tapwater, and then they balk at rate increases of a few pennies per thousand gallons!

      If water prices more accurately reflected the true costs of production and distribution, people would think twice about watering their desert lawns. They'd go out and buy water saving appliances on their own, since it would directly translate into savings on their next water bill.

      The only thing compulsory water conservation accomplishes is building a bloated bureaucracy of bill checkers, house inspectors and intrusions into the private lives of citizens. Realistic water rates encourage conservation, reduce the load on local governments who have to redirect resources from fire departments, roads, etc., to enforcement of water use regulations, and above all, give consumers more respect for the vital natural resource they've been pouring down the drain ever since Roman times.

    3. Re:One step at a time! by POds · · Score: 2

      Well theres very good water filters these days. Im sure if you ran the water from baths, showers, washing, sink etc (i think we can do with the tolite) you'd just pump it into a filter.

      there's people round Oz now that are putting in full water treatment plants under their gardens. Somethings gota be done. Maybe the goverment can do something similar to the PBS (pharasutical benefits scheeme) where they can bring the costs down of water saving devices.

      that way everyone can benifit from lower water consumption, not just the rich!

      --


      Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
  56. A thin blanket of organic molecules? by porkchop_d_clown · · Score: 1

    I thought they called that "algae"?

  57. they're called Langmuir monolayers by whovian · · Score: 2, Informative
    As I recall correctly, this is not a new idea, but perhaps its implementation is. I had a professor who described this concept in the classroom over 10 years ago.

    People wanting more info should STF(ree)W for Irving Langmuir or Langmuir-Blodgett monolayers, e.g.,

    http://www.woodrow.org/teachers/chemistry/ institutes/1992/Langmuir.html

    The crowning achievement of any chemist's career must be the honor of winning a Nobel Prize. This accomplishment was realized by Irving Langmuir in 1932. Langmuir was fascinated with surface chemistry and it was for his efforts in this area that he became the first non-academic chemist to receive the Nobel Prize. Along with Dr. Katherine B. Blodgett, he studied thin films and how substances are adsorbed on surfaces. Through their efforts, surface chemistry became a full-fledged scientific discipline. In addition to their interest in these surfaces, they also wanted to know more about interfaces, where phases come together. The studies led to clarification of the true nature of surface adsorption and established the existence of monolayers. Monolayers are surface films a single atom or molecule thick which have peculiar, two-dimensional qualities. Thin layers on surfaces such as living membranes are important in the action of enzymes, toxins, antitoxins and other biological substances. Again turning to the practical, this discovery led to the possibility of measuring molecular sizes of viruses and toxins, a significant step forward in the eyes of biologists. Langmuir developed experimental techniques for the study of proteins. The studies on monolayers also led to the development of almost perfectly transparent glass, made by placing a thin film of a flourine compound on the surface.

    --
    To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
  58. morons: planet/population deletion/dissolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    buy use of georgewellian fuddite corepirate nazi devises of debt & destruction?

    that's not as far fetched as the ?pr? ?firm? hypenosys execrable is trying desperately to persuade US.

    consult with/trust in yOUR creator.... get ready to see the light.

    mynuts won: censoring/ignoring/criticizing/pretending is no means towards solution.

  59. Pioneers? by poolguy · · Score: 1

    "It's pioneering work," adds Moshe Alamaro, an atmospheric scientist and an expert on monolayer applications at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "They are the first commercial enterprise using monolayers [to retard evaporation]," he says. Oh... Solar Fish

  60. As always, SF got there first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The consequences of _accidentally_ doing this are explored in Michael Heim's excellent novel "The Waters of Aswan" - published in 1972. I guess it's more "thriller" than "SF" in genre, and I think it's out of print, but well worth checking out. It's a rich stew of Middle East Arab/Israeli geopolitics and high-tech action.

    This novel was written before the October war (what the Israelis call the Yom Kippur War), let alone all this 21st-century War On Terrorism fiddle-faddle. Yet it's still minty-fresh. I won't give away the final scene, but it's quietly chilling - almost an anticlimax. I had a few sleepless nights thinking about it when I was living in Cairo a few years back.

  61. Molecular Evaporation Reduction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oops, prior art over there at the Illinois State Water Survey, way back from the late 60's/early 70's. Patent held by Dick Semonin (later retired as Chief of the Survey) and two others (don't recall... it's been 12 yrs since I was scientist there.) We had boxes and boxes of the stuff in the attic of Bldg 6, the old q-hut out at the airport next to the meteorological radars... Probably still is, too.

  62. Re:Molecular Evaporation Reduction Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It came in small packets which could be tossed onto a lake/pond; it was intended to reduce the water loss from livestock ponds. (Gotta keep the cows juicy.) Consisted of a lipid soaplike organic; cows didn't seem to mind. Some farmers do toss in a half-cup of Tide for the same purpose...

  63. Tried every ten years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    History repeats itself as this concept is re-invented every 10 years or so. It turns out that evaporation has some exponential value depending on wind. Even a slight breeze with mix up the air/water surface layer and evaporation goes up greatly. More breeze and the water start to become "choppy". Thin oil slicks get pushed aside by the wind and/or mixed up in the "chop". This idea looks good on the SURFACE but on DEEPER thought DOESN'T HOLD WATER.

  64. India and Morocco? by Captain_Chaos · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I'm curious why this had to be tested in India and Morocco. I don't know if it's the case here, but I get really sick of things being tested in far away places, apparently because the lives of the people who live there are not valued as high as those of westerners. Remember Mururoa?

  65. ultra-thin blanket of organic molecules=oil slick by stankulp · · Score: 2, Funny

    Didn't we already try this with the Exxon-Valdez?

    --
    We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
  66. Re: Sequels, MMORPGs, and merchandising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    No way! I thought Trinity was his Sister!

    Matrix incest slash fics coming soon!!!

  67. VOTE PARENT UP!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he used the words dinkwad and bitch. Clearly, this is more needed on /. (Note sarcasm)

    1. Re:VOTE PARENT UP!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suck on the feces turtle-necking out of my anus you choad

  68. This could solve birth control... by UltimaL337Star · · Score: 0

    Imagine the condoms you could make....

  69. Psychological basis of Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Racism is the result of projected self-hatred.

    A racist cannot face or admit to himself how much he hates himself. So his subconscious projects this hatred and general lack of self-esteem and self-worth onto others.

    This is why the most racist of all people are poor American caucasians, along with certain wealthy American caucasians who only inherited their wealth and position but who know damned well deep in their hearts that if their ancestors hadn't handed them money on a silver platter, they would be trailer trash, too.

    One reason why poor American caucasians hate themselves is because they fall for the "if you are poor, its your own fault" that the race-baiting GOP trumpets as its philosophy. The poor caucasian then faces an inner conflict between wanting to believe his beloved GOP philosophy and not wanting to face that he is a "failure" according to his own GOP dogma. The psychological conflict is neatly resolved by projecting all anger at his own failure in life onto the Other, symbolized by the stereotype Black Man.

    Another reason for such American caucasian self hatred is the distorted philosophy of the majority religion Christianity, which teaches that we must seek a Savior, instead of teaching people to stand up for themselves. We are despicable sinners, with absolutely no power to help ourselves. We are left with the only option of accepting our complete inadequecy and begging for forgiveness. In psychological and logical terms, this is an institutionalized way of brainwashing people into enslavement. This process however, can only result in much repressed anger, which -again- is projected onto others, this time onto "enemies" of Christianity (because the Christian could never face the fact that his mind and spirit has been enslaved by much beloved but also demeaning and oppressive religion!) Islam carries the same inner process.

    This is why extremist Muslims like Osama can preach violence and hatred EXACTLY as extremist Christians preach violence and hatred (by advocating the placment of nuclear devices under the US State department, or shooting abortion doctors in their homes, through kitchen windows...)

    Don't get me started on Jewish extremism. It is the fountainhead and touchstone of all modern racial hatred and bloodthirsty zealotry.

    The violence in our world does not result from too little religion, but too much.

    Humanity was far more virtuous during Hellenistic times than it is now after the spread of Judeo-Christian based false-religions.

  70. Re:Getting slow, mirrored in case of slashdotting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who the hell modded this down? It was an actual goatse troll, and I clicked on the link -shudder- WTF?

  71. Exxon, Halliburton and Bush Inc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like a neat description of an oil spill to me!

    Petroleum byproducts are organic.

    YUMMY!

  72. Water Mains are the real problem by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 1

    far far more water is lost through leaky watermain systems. investing money in maintaining infrastructure would be far more effective.

    For Example in Montreal Canada, one of the largest cities in Canada, 40% of their drinking water is lost before it reaches the customers through leaky watermains!

    --
    George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
  73. Vegetable oil? by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

    Will good old corn oil do the same? I used to use it to insulate capacitors made with salt water - it prevented the ring of corona around the pickle jars. I suppose it may reduce evaporation too.

  74. Been there, done that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oil layers are already commonly used to reduce evaporation in major reservoirs. Heck, oil is a mixture of hydrocarbons, so it even qualifies as an organic molecule.

  75. And the point is.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, how fucking cool!!
    I can go down to my local pool store and buy a trippy little rainbow fish that does the same thing - leaves a microthick film on the pool to reduce evap and keep temperature warm.
    Wow...scientists are so smart, studying things that already exist and have been proven to work..

    Nothing to see here move along..

  76. Dune by orion67 · · Score: 0

    there's no need to develop this technology - just ask the Fremen how they are doing it...

  77. Not for nothing... by JutMan · · Score: 1

    OK, so we prevent all evaporation... Then we have no clouds... no rain... a huge ocean and all land mass is a desert. Nice!