×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Graphene Membranes Superpermeable to Water

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the it-slices-it-dices dept.

Science 292

Dr Max writes "Not only is graphene the strongest, thinnest and best conducting material known to man, it is now shown to have superpermeability with respect to water as well. This allows a membrane made with graphene to pass water right through it (PDF), while another atom or molecule (even helium) gets blocked. 'The properties are so unusual that it is hard to imagine that they cannot find some use in the design of filtration, separation or barrier membranes and for selective removal of water,' said one of the researchers."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

292 comments

Does this mean... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38839531)

...you don't need a pressure source like you do for reverse osmosis?

Re:Does this mean... (4, Insightful)

imboboage0 (876812) | more than 2 years ago | (#38839591)

After reading the second article, I'm not sure. I didn't read in detail, but they did some experiments with a pump. I'm not sure if it's required, but that is how they did it to research it.

Re:Does this mean... (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#38840021)

After reading the second article, I'm not sure. I didn't read in detail, but they did some experiments with a pump. I'm not sure if it's required, but that is how they did it to research it.

Even sub um thick membranes were strong enough to withstand a differential pressure P up to 100 mbar.

Re:Does this mean... (5, Informative)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | more than 2 years ago | (#38839713)

...you don't need a pressure source like you do for reverse osmosis?

Even if it does not, I would think it would be much more resilient toward chlorine and iron. Perhaps it won't need as much pretreatment done to the water as a conventional film membrane requires. Currently most decent RO systems have a 10 micron sediment filter, followed by 5 and 1 micron carbon filters. If you have high iron content in the feed water, then you need a softener or some other way to reduce it prior to the sediment filter too. Since the three RO pre-filters typically need to be replaced every 6-12 months, they are the most frequent replacement item. A typical RO membrane last 2-5 years. Perhaps this would be lengthened too.

Re:Does this mean... (1)

trout007 (975317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38839735)

There has also been studies showing you can make a selective filter by making nanotubes with the right diameter to let water through but not larger molecules. In addition because the walls are so "smooth" there is much less pressure to flow the water through then expected.

Re:Does this mean... (4, Insightful)

chill (34294) | more than 2 years ago | (#38840129)

Yes, but here they're showing that the membrane allows WATER through but will stop HELIUM. If I'm not mistaken, helium molecules are smallerthan water molecules. That's the freakish quality.

Re:Does this mean... (3, Informative)

slew (2918) | more than 2 years ago | (#38840465)

There has also been studies showing you can make a selective filter by making nanotubes with the right diameter to let water through but not larger molecules. In addition because the walls are so "smooth" there is much less pressure to flow the water through then expected.

Although I doubt this orientation will allow for filtering out "helium" as the original posting.

The mechanims that the original posting paper is speculating, it that the way they made the graphene oxide (not pure graphene) membrane, it is has embedded capilaries which when wet (filled with water) allow for nearly unimpeded transport of water, but when these capilaries dry out, their diameter constricts so that nothing gets through (even helium).

So to contrast, the "tubes" are not rigid and the walls are not so "smooth" in this case, the "tubes" are sort of like chinese finger puzzles. When filled with water, allow water to pass easily, but when you try to pull the last bit of water out of them, the diameter constricts and nothing can get past.. Well maybe the chinese finger puzzle analogy was a bad one, but I couldn't think of anything else...

Re:Does this mean... (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#38839747)

Could you not use gravity? I have a filter on my counter that does just that.

Re:Does this mean... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38840315)

You're using energy to get that water higher than it's final location, just like a pump.

Re:Does this mean... (2)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 2 years ago | (#38840203)

You do, of course. Otherwise you'll be able to create a perpetum mobile by using this membrane to filter out pure water and then using pure water to dilute brine (it produces energy) on the other side of the membrane.

Geomembrane (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38839581)

Would be quite expensive, but letting water go thru and nothing else would save millons in remediation.

Re:Geomembrane (2)

TheLink (130905) | more than 2 years ago | (#38839707)

Would be quite expensive, but letting water go thru and nothing else would save millons in remediation.

The membrane replacement cost is one of the main costs in making RO water. Energy costs are high too, but about the same order of magnitude.

So to save money the graphene membrane has to be cheaper or it has to use less energy to filter water.

I'm wondering if there are other things it lets through and not just water. Ammonia? Acetone?

Re:Geomembrane (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38839975)

The membrane replacement cost is one of the main costs in making RO water. Energy costs are high too, but about the same order of magnitude.

So to save money the graphene membrane has to be cheaper or it has to use less energy to filter water.

Or it could be replaced less often.

Oil nets anyone? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38839601)

Possibly a new way to collect oil spills no? Interesting potential.

Re:Oil nets anyone? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#38839773)

No, it would strip out -everything- except the water. Including the salts, I expect.

Re:Oil nets anyone? (1)

Hamsterdan (815291) | more than 2 years ago | (#38840145)

Wouldn't it be less harmful to put non-salt water back in than leave oil in the water? Depending on the size of the spill, it might just dilute salt concentration a little (amongst other things).

Re:Oil nets anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38840487)

So we end up with tons of salty oil. I'm thinking it's time to add some popcorn!

Used to collect gifts from Shai-Hulud (5, Insightful)

geekopus (130194) | more than 2 years ago | (#38839603)

Now we know what the water receptacles in Dune were made of.

Super desalination? (5, Interesting)

Draconi (38078) | more than 2 years ago | (#38839607)

Press and squeeze a hydraulic press of water through a few layers of graphene = no more salty water?

Re:Super desalination? (1)

felipekk (1007591) | more than 2 years ago | (#38839993)

Better yet, no more polluted water!

Re:Super desalination? (1, Informative)

Adriax (746043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38840281)

Water so completely pure you'd have to introduce contaminants just to make it safe to drink.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication [wikipedia.org]

Re:Super desalination? (2)

Chuckstar (799005) | more than 2 years ago | (#38840511)

You won't get water intoxication merely by drinking pure water. Regular drinking water contains such low proportions of minerals that, from a physiological perspective, drinking water is effectively pure water. The main problem with pure water is that it doesn't taste "right". If you've ever tried drinking distilled water... yuck.

Re:Super desalination? (1)

Tim4444 (1122173) | more than 2 years ago | (#38840573)

I understand that one of the current problems with desalination filtering is that the salt left behind clogs up the filter fairly quickly. Hopefully researchers will test to know for sure, but this may well suffer from the same problem. The other problem is that the water wants to be with the salt - ie. it's an energetically stable state. You have to put in some energy (usually via pressure) to get it through a filter and away from the salt. Compare that to simply filtering out fine particulates that might settle out on their own given enough time. I would imagine a more practical use might be in prepping water for chip (read IC) fab plants where the water used must be extremely pure. I'm just guessing here - it may still not meet the requirements with filtration alone.

Fresh water? (5, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#38839615)

So you could pass thru i.e. ocean or contaminated water and get fresh, drinkable, pure water on the other side? If that could scale could be great.

Re:Fresh water? (1)

Dave Whiteside (2055370) | more than 2 years ago | (#38839663)

Recycled water never tasted so good. [or at all]

Re:Fresh water? (3, Informative)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#38839901)

All water is recycled. Every water molecule on the planet is at least 4.5 billion years old. All the dinosaur turds and spuge have been filtered out.

Re:Fresh water? (3, Insightful)

tzot (834456) | more than 2 years ago | (#38839989)

The atoms might be at least 4.5 billion years old, but not *every* molecule of water is of that age.

Re:Fresh water? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38840059)

Im pretty sure the atoms are alot older...

Re:Fresh water? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38840003)

In fact, I might have been pissing in your water bottle right....... now...........

Re:Fresh water? (2)

felipekk (1007591) | more than 2 years ago | (#38840011)

Not literally every water mollecule. There's A LOT of chemical reactions that produce water as a product or byproduct. If I remember my chemistry classes correctly, these water molecules were possibly created.

Re:Fresh water? (4, Insightful)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#38840131)

Water is formed from hydrogen and oxygen. It is not inert, it decomposes and reforms constantly. So, no, water molecules are not at least 4.5 billion years old.

The hydrogen and oxygen atoms that make up water, or at least most of them, may well be much older than that. Particularly the hydrogen, which may be over 13 billion years old.

Re:Fresh water? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38840183)

Everyday I jackoff into the ocean. No matter how you recycle the water be it with molecular cracking or not, those atoms have been enchanted with my penis. It's magic I tell a. My the essence of my penis be forever with you!

Re:Fresh water? (1)

CSMoran (1577071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38840375)

Every water molecule on the planet is at least 4.5 billion years old.

Are you sure?

I disinctly remember lighting up a test-tube full of hydrogen during chemistry in seventh grade. The water that this brief explosion produced could be seen on the walls of the test-tube. This happened some 20 years ago, not 4.5E9.

Re:Fresh water? (0)

ruf10 (961050) | more than 2 years ago | (#38839717)

You can't drink pure H2O - it disrupts ionic balance, you could probably die from drinking too much pure water.

Re:Fresh water? (3)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 2 years ago | (#38839801)

nonsense, that (water intoxication) only happens if you drink too much water (whether 100% pure or not)

Re:Fresh water? (1)

WillgasM (1646719) | more than 2 years ago | (#38840057)

It's easier to overdose on distilled water than regular tap water. From what I've read, this process seems to make Ultra Pure Water (UPW) which leeches minerals even faster. UPW is often used in manufacturing electronics. Currently, the process for making UPW starts with RO filtered water then subjects it to 12 more steps of filtration with the last step being a 20nm filter. Drinking a glass of the stuff won't kill you, but over a prolonged time it almost certainly would.

Re:Fresh water? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#38840387)

Nope. There's a whole load of new-agers out there who drink nothing but distilled water. Google "water distiller" and you'll see.

The secret is that almost all foods have a lot of water in them - with some diets you might not even need to drink extra water!

The water in the food isn't distilled. Some foods even have their own minerals, too...

Re:Fresh water? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38840133)

Pure(distilled) water tastes metallic. An "ionized" flavor/feeling. I hate it.

Re:Fresh water? (4, Informative)

rmstar (114746) | more than 2 years ago | (#38839815)

You can't drink pure H2O - it disrupts ionic balance, you could probably die from drinking too much pure water.

What you need is to make sure you obtain the electrolytes and minerals from some other source to avoid insufficiency. Other than that, pure water is safe to drink.

Re:Fresh water? (0, Troll)

chainsaw1 (89967) | more than 2 years ago | (#38840263)

Spectroscopy grade [~99.9999%] water does leeches ions & salts from your blood into your throat, stomach, etc. via osmosis. This does not feel pleasant (i.e. you may puke). You won't be able to drink much

Not saying how I know this...

Re:Fresh water? (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | more than 2 years ago | (#38839831)

You can't drink pure H2O - it disrupts ionic balance, you could probably die from drinking too much pure water.

Yes you can. You can also die from drinking too much tap water as it also upsets the ionic balance. I would guess that this would occur with very slightly less pure water. I used to keep coral and other saltwater invertebrates, so I have a pretty good filtration system that uses a combination of carbon filtration, reverse osmosis and cation/anion deionization resins. I've been drinking it for 25+ years and so has my family. I'm pretty certain that we're all alive and well.

Re:Fresh water? (2)

RussellSHarris (1385323) | more than 2 years ago | (#38839833)

You can't drink pure H2O

Stop spreading the FUD.

it disrupts ionic balance

If you're eating properly you will get plenty of electrolytes from your food.

you could probably die from drinking too much pure water

And you could probably die from drinking too much pure Gatorade. Your point?

Re:Fresh water? (2)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | more than 2 years ago | (#38839923)

And you could probably die from drinking too much pure Gatorade. Your point?

That sounds like something that Brawndo can use in a future advertising campaign.

Re:Fresh water? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38840085)

He's not spreading FUD. Pure H2O is possibly the most corrosive chemical in the universe and IS certainly the most corrosive chemical in the known universe. The second the stuff hits your mouth it'll leech all the minerals from your teeth. God only know what it would do to the soft tissues, but you can be certain the sodium will be gone and the cell membranes will collapse due to the saline imbalance. Nerves would certainly be rendered useless in the vicinity of the water contact as well. It would literally be safer to drink lye.

I remember in college a problem we had in the physics department, they were using super clean water because they needed to minimize diffraction through it, and within a couple hours the vessel holding the water shattered because the water had sucked all the minerals out of the glass.

Don't underestimate the power of the hydrogen bond.

Re:Fresh water? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38840467)

I remember we left the water on for a few months this one time. You know what happened? The motherfucking Grand Canyon.

Re:Fresh water? (1)

Russ1642 (1087959) | more than 2 years ago | (#38839995)

Are you kidding? Really? I must know. I know people will go for oxygenated water and such so someone thinking that they can't drink pure water wouldn't surprise me. It'd upset me though to know there are such stupid people out there.

Re:Fresh water? (1)

chichilalescu (1647065) | more than 2 years ago | (#38840229)

if you only drink pure water, and you only use pure water for cooking (with otherwise normal ingredients for a reasonably healthy diet), you will be perfectly fine.
if you're talking about a specific scenario (i.e. running a marathon or something similar), I would have to ask a doctor, but you should also mention this in your post.

Re:Fresh water? (1, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38839733)

If it's really only letting water through, you'd still have to add minerals in at the other end. Last I checked, drinking distilled pure water is probably as bad as drinking salt water.. With salt water your body accumulates too much salt. With distilled water. all the minerals (that your body needs to function) get picked up by the water. However it it works well, it would be simple to add minerals back in after everything had been extracted.

Re:Fresh water? (3, Insightful)

cunniff (264218) | more than 2 years ago | (#38840035)

Spend a little time thinking about it, and you will realize that distilled water urban legend is silly. In your mouth, it is mixed with saliva and mucous and whatever else is stuck to your teeth, gums, and tongue. The instant it hits your stomach, it is mixed with stomach acids and whatever you ate recently. I.e. it is no longer pure distilled water. From there, the molecules wander through your body like any other water molecule. Distilling water does not give its component molecules magic properties.

Re:Fresh water? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#38840483)

Last I checked, drinking distilled pure water is probably as bad as drinking salt water.

Where did you 'check' that? Maybe you need better sources.

There's loads of people out there who drink nothing but distilled water believing it's healthier - Google "home water distiller" for proof.

Re:Fresh water? (1)

MikeyC01 (231948) | more than 2 years ago | (#38840501)

Back in the 70s my grandfather's doctor told him he should start drinking distilled water. Sparkletts (http://www.sparkletts.com) delivered (and still delivers) 5 gallon bottles of distilled water so it certainly can't be *that bad* for you. Given our litigious society I would imagine that distilled water at the grocery store would either be plastered with warning labels or only available behind the counter with proof of ID :)

Re:Fresh water? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38840329)

Reverse Osmosis already does this.

wonder substance (2)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 2 years ago | (#38839641)

But can it be used as a dessert topping?

Re:wonder substance (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 2 years ago | (#38840437)

But can it be used as a dessert topping?

It's probably delicious, and cures cancer too. Seriously, this substance is getting ridiculous... what miraculous property will be discovered next?

Re:wonder substance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38840497)

Actually, very much like asbestos, it very likely rather causes cancer!

Important detail (4, Informative)

zAPPzAPP (1207370) | more than 2 years ago | (#38839643)

It's not mentioned in the opener, but the article says it lets water "evaporate" through it.
So it's not like you can just pour water on it, and let it drip through.

I wonder if this just means steam can pass through it, or if it has to evaporate on the graphene for it to get through?
If it was the former, then why are they wording it so complicated?

Re:Important detail (1)

Suigintou (1115117) | more than 2 years ago | (#38840515)

In the PDF they say that if the filter gets too hot it becomes impermeable to water. So I guess if the steam is too hot it wouldn't work. On the other hand, if you just let any aqueous solution sit for a while in a container sealed with the filter on top, you get a stronger solution over time. They say they tried it with booze and yes, it works. Useful if your end product will evaporate quicker than water.

Re:Important detail (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#38840577)

It's not mentioned in the opener, but the article says it lets water "evaporate" through it.
So it's not like you can just pour water on it, and let it drip through.

It says they sealed some water containers with graphene and the water evaporated as if the graphene wasn't there. They didn't heat/boil the tubes, they just let them stand for several days.

It doesn't say what happens if you pour water on it. It might drip...maybe they're waiting for more funding so they can perform such a complex experiment.

graphene oxide, not graphene (5, Informative)

THE_WELL_HUNG_OYSTER (2473494) | more than 2 years ago | (#38839679)

The material they used was NOT graphene. It was graphene oxide.

Re:graphene oxide, not graphene (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 2 years ago | (#38839951)

The material they used was NOT graphene. It was graphene oxide.

Graphene monoxide or graphene dioxide?

Re:graphene oxide, not graphene (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38840245)

That's okay, the substance it filtered was dihydrogen monoxide.

Re:graphene oxide, not graphene (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#38840441)

That's okay, the substance it filtered was dihydrogen monoxide.

that shit is DEADLY.

Journalist != scientist (3, Interesting)

tomhath (637240) | more than 2 years ago | (#38839695)

graphene-based membranes are impermeable to all gases and liquids (vacuum-tight). However, water evaporates through them as quickly as if the membranes were not there at all.

Thanks for clarifying that. Anyway, this is a very amazing material.

Re:Journalist != scientist (1)

msheekhah (903443) | more than 2 years ago | (#38840251)

But this doesn't help us with desalination unless we do something like have a solar collector to cause evaporation... not nearly as cool or useful as if it could be used as a filter

Graphene condoms? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38839759)

"Like wearing nothing at all"...

Graphene Condom? (4, Funny)

swb (14022) | more than 2 years ago | (#38839777)

Lets all the delicious moisture through, blocks the stuff you want blocked???

At last no more Fluoride ! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38839783)

Finally we can have drinking water free from fluoride, chlorine and all the other poisons put in "for our own good".

Ethanol (1)

troylanes (883822) | more than 2 years ago | (#38839829)

Super still anybody :) ? I can see it now: BATF busts graphene lab in remote Kentucky hills. Moonshine operation shutdown.

Re:Ethanol (1)

michael_cain (66650) | more than 2 years ago | (#38840409)

There are a variety of organic molecules that can be produced by fermentation (ethanol, butanol, etc) suitable for use as liquid fuels, that would be enormously more practical if the distillation process could be made more efficient. When the goal is water removal, this type of filter should be able to make industrial-scale vacuum distillation much simpler.

Writting Patent Applications as We Speak (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38839849)

I am writing patent applications for this material as we speak. Remember that thanks to our wise politicians it's who files first that counts, not who actually spent time and money inventing it.

Re:Writting Patent Applications as We Speak (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38840125)

I know you're trolling but just to be sure you're not just an ignorant person: public disclosure means patent has already been applied for and if not, no patent can be applied from now on on that invention because of said public disclosure ...

Does it erase the Water Memory? (2, Funny)

Belladora (1983922) | more than 2 years ago | (#38839869)

What about the Water Memory [wikipedia.org]? Does this membrane erase all this information or is a there a mechanism to determine which information to be deleted? Would be an invaluable Material for all that homeopathy stuff...

Re:Does it erase the Water Memory? (2)

Tassidus (2562187) | more than 2 years ago | (#38839931)

Seems a bit weird to respond to a scientific discussion, with scientific proof and evidence, with an article that says "No scientific evidence supports this claim". It's equivalent to sitting in an evolution debate and proposing the idea of creationism. :-p

Re:Does it erase the Water Memory? (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38840147)

What about the Water Memory [wikipedia.org]? Does this membrane erase all this information or is a there a mechanism to determine which information to be deleted? Would be an invaluable Material for all that homeopathy stuff...

Are you clinically retarded?

Re:Does it erase the Water Memory? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38840179)

Uh... For simplicity's sake, lets just say that water passed through graphene remembers just as much as it always has.

Re:Does it erase the Water Memory? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38840327)

What about the Water Memory [wikipedia.org]? Does this membrane erase all this information or is a there a mechanism to determine which information to be deleted? Would be an invaluable Material for all that homeopathy stuff...

Sorry, anybody who's knowledgeable enough about chemistry and physics to play with graphene is going to know that "water memory" is utter bullshit. Go peddle woo someplace else.

Re:Does it erase the Water Memory? (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#38840481)

Water has no memory. You are being lied to so people can make money off you.
If you want cheap homeopathic results just drink tap water and believe it is fixing you.
With the proper belief you will get the benefit of the placebo effect without paying extra and as a bonus you can believe that the water is doing a whole host of killer things for you.

This is a good material to... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38839925)

hey, this material is good to make a boat!

If it blocks Helium (4, Insightful)

DickBreath (207180) | more than 2 years ago | (#38839933)

If it blocks Helium this has very important applications.

Helium molecules are very small. It is difficult to contain Helium gas in cylinders.

There are even far more important applications for the global economy. It may finally be possible to make Helium balloons that don't leak the tiny molecules so quickly.

Re:If it blocks Helium (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38840425)

it would still need to be layered since it would let in humidity into the tank. Strange thinking about trying to block "water" from leaking into a tank full of compress helium.

More amazing uses for the miracle substance (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38839977)

So if people can make exotic materials like graphene, why can't my doctor make my low back pain go away?

Negative pressure at atomistic scale ? (1)

advid.net (595837) | more than 2 years ago | (#38840205)

Last pdf page:

The fact that the water fills the 2D channel even under a negative pressure in the left reservoir indicates [...]

I understand that sometime negative pressure means lower pressure than global/ambiant pressure.
But here in this 2D atomistic simulation I don't know what they mean.

Not the magic desalinization solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38840363)

From TFA:

However, Professor Geim adds ‘The properties are so unusual that it is hard to imagine that they cannot find some use in the design of filtration, separation or barrier membranes and for selective removal of water’.

Re:Not the magic desalinization solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38840453)

hard to imagine that they cannot find

NVM, double negatives.

Stillsuits!! (1)

BigBong (309376) | more than 2 years ago | (#38840403)

Now we have the perfect material with which to make stillsuits! Frank Herbert would shed a tear if he were alive.

Wait, what about pressure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38840581)

OK, they have a bottle of vodka, and it's sealed with this. As the days go by, it gets stronger and stronger.

But when a water molecule leaves the bottle, the number of molecules in the bottle gets smaller, and thus the pressure in the bottle decreases. Why would the next molecule leave? There's pressure pushing it back in.

If things worked the way they said, they would have to either keep opening the bottle, over and over during the day, or they heated the bottle, or there is something passing back into the bottle to replace the lost water molecules.

What am I missing?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...