Start with a candidate. Follow its full test.
Diagnostic method — Study A · Water protection — Study F · Spacer-aligned membrane — separate proposed test
The complete A–H methods below retain the broader study options and their independent qualification requirements.
Choose a study to read its full methods, references and decision rules. All eight use one shared budget methodology.
Study A / Mineral buildup
Diagnose the cause of mineral buildup
Can separate tests of process liquid and reused gypsum seeds choose corrective actions more economically than calibrated crystallization kinetics and a tuned operating rule?
Comparison and qualification
Candidate decision-method contribution; novelty unresolved. Proposed work; no experimental result is assumed.
The unresolved question
Can separate tests of process liquid and reused gypsum seeds choose corrective actions more economically than calibrated crystallization kinetics and a tuned operating rule?
What earlier work establishes
Antiscalant removal, seeded precipitation, seed reuse, kinetic diagnosis, dual-probe monitoring and seed attrition have precedents. The proposed contribution is the incremental value of a specific crossed assay in an operating decision. N03 N04 N05 N06 N07 N08 N09 N10 N11 N01 N02
The comparison
- C0: tuned host treatment and seed-management rule
- C1: calibrated kinetics and practical seed-state rule
- T: C1 with the crossed liquid/seed assay
A crossed liquid-by-seed response informs a frozen action table. Its own water, analysis, delay and handling costs are charged to the proposed policy.
What determines the decision
Operating burden per qualifying volume of treated concentrate at matched throughput, plus downstream RO compatibility.
72 development assay vessels; 36 confirmation campaigns of three decision cycles; 216 diagnostic vessels within the proposed-policy campaigns; 18 downstream RO compatibility runs. 1,368 principal panel equivalents.
Before confirmation
A gypsum-limited brackish RO concentrate, interpretable liquid/seed reference assay, different feasible best actions, and a qualified host are required.
Study B / Water reuse
Make reuse decisions reliable
Does a consistency check across flow, pressure and salt measurements improve accepted-water operation under unseen faults beyond a tuned normalization-based controller?
Comparison and qualification
Candidate control contribution; novelty unresolved. Proposed work; no experimental result is assumed.
The unresolved question
Does a consistency check across flow, pressure and salt measurements improve accepted-water operation under unseen faults beyond a tuned normalization-based controller?
What earlier work establishes
RO normalization, predictive maintenance and automatic quality diversion are established. A prediction score or the use of AI is not the proposed contribution. N01 N02 N09 N12 N32 N33 S06 S07
The comparison
- C0: tuned operating rules
- C1: mechanistic, normalization-based control with fault fallback
- T: C1 plus the prespecified joint consistency rule
A frozen joint consistency rule decides whether the controller can trust its state estimate or must use a conservative fallback.
What determines the decision
Qualifying delivered water per calendar operating time under the same quality and resource limits.
18 development runs and 54 held-out confirmation runs across three controllers, three challenge families and six feed/time blocks; 288 principal panel equivalents.
Before confirmation
A defined reuse service, authorized operating data, independent nonsalt quality methods and representative fault opportunities are required.
Study C / Useful heat
Find when recovered heat earns its place
Which qualified membrane and source/sink conditions can deliver the same useful water and cooling service at a lower whole-system burden?
Comparison and qualification
Comparative validation and operating-envelope research. Proposed work; no experimental result is assumed.
The unresolved question
Which qualified membrane and source/sink conditions can deliver the same useful water and cooling service at a lower whole-system burden?
What earlier work establishes
Waste-heat desalination and Janus membrane architectures are established. Combined oil/surfactant exposure also appears in later public research; it is not by itself an originality claim. N13 N14 N15 N24 S24 N34 S09 S22
The comparison
- Qualified conventional MD material
- Best feasible electric treatment plus equal cooling service
Measure the boundary at which a material’s stability, absolute throughput, cleaning burden and cooling demand change the preferred process.
What determines the decision
Accepted water and equal cooling service with absolute flux, maintenance, heat and electricity separately accounted.
48 material screens, 72 equal-service comparisons and six 30-cycle endurance campaigns; 972 principal panels.
Before confirmation
Use a measured source/sink envelope, available qualified specimens and a question beyond repeating established material performance.
Study D / Material value
Choose a useful recovery service
For one native feed and one product or removal service, does the proposed recovery route outperform the strongest conventional route after regeneration, material loss and finishing?
Comparison and qualification
Conditional target-specific validation; material novelty not defined. Proposed work; no experimental result is assumed.
The unresolved question
For one native feed and one product or removal service, does the proposed recovery route outperform the strongest conventional route after regeneration, material loss and finishing?
What earlier work establishes
Magnetic sorbents, selective resins, boron pretreatment and magnesium precipitation have precedents. No exact new material composition is supplied or presumed. N16 N17 N29 N30 S23 S13 S14
The comparison
- Best feasible selective resin or precipitation route
- Proposed route at the same native feed and acceptance specification
A target-specific comparison of cumulative qualifying output and total capture/regeneration/finishing burden, including lost support material.
What determines the decision
Cumulative qualifying product or treated volume, with whole-composite and target inventories and complete service cost.
Up to 24 development runs and six campaigns of up to 100 cycles; 2,202 principal panels at the full ceiling.
Before confirmation
Choose one native target, an obtainable material/process and an accepted service specification; complete an element-level comparison before any invention claim.
Study E / Mineral washing
Control the water cost of mineral washing
Does an impurity- and inventory-aware wash/purge rule reduce total external freshwater use on real concentrate beyond optimized conventional recycled or countercurrent washing?
Comparison and qualification
Candidate operating-rule contribution; novelty unresolved. Proposed work; no experimental result is assumed.
The unresolved question
Does an impurity- and inventory-aware wash/purge rule reduce total external freshwater use on real concentrate beyond optimized conventional recycled or countercurrent washing?
What earlier work establishes
Displacement, recycled-brine and countercurrent washing already exist, including lithium-rich brine patents and industrial practice. Two wash stages alone are not a contribution. N18 N19 N20 N29 N30 S23 S10 S11 S14
The comparison
- B0: strongest optimized conventional wash and purge policy
- T: same selected topology with the proposed inventory/impurity decision rule
On a common wash topology, a frozen inventory/impurity rule selects reuse, fresh makeup or purge while meeting the same product and residual limits.
What determines the decision
Total external freshwater makeup, product qualification, native lithium retention and downstream scale burden.
Up to 42 development runs; 24 confirmation campaigns of ten cycles; 2,820 principal panels.
Before confirmation
A real concentrate/product need, measurable native lithium and complete compatible-fraction balances are required.
Study F / Water protection
Protect delivered water during faults
Does a transport-aware routing rule reduce actual off-spec water entering the accepted tank beyond competent early-warning and diversion controls?
Comparison and qualification
Candidate system-control contribution; novelty unresolved. Proposed work; no experimental result is assumed.
The unresolved question
Does a transport-aware routing rule reduce actual off-spec water entering the accepted tank beyond competent early-warning and diversion controls?
What earlier work establishes
Conductive-spacer wetting sensing, threshold alarms, salinometers, dump valves and persistence delays have precedents. Neither early detection nor automatic diversion is new as a broad concept. N21 N22 N23 N24 N32 N33 S24 N34 S06
The comparison
- C0: optimized conductivity routing
- C1: early sensing plus tuned threshold/persistence and fault fallback
- T: C1 plus a transport/inventory model
A frozen residence-time and contamination-inventory estimate controls routing and safe recovery on matched hardware.
What determines the decision
Absolute off-spec volume accepted, good water diverted and recovery time at the delivered-water boundary.
12 commissioning runs and 108 confirmation runs; 864 principal plus 96 commissioning panels.
Before confirmation
Independent delivered-water truth, calibrated latency/mixing, an equipped MD host and a nontrivial baseline error or good-water-loss opportunity are required.
Study G / Cooling + water
Test the full cooling and water balance
When do source interruption, hot sinks and real demand make heat-assisted recovery better or worse than conventional cooling plus water treatment?
Comparison and qualification
Equal-service integration validation with a conditional control question. Proposed work; no experimental result is assumed.
The unresolved question
When do source interruption, hot sinks and real demand make heat-assisted recovery better or worse than conventional cooling plus water treatment?
What earlier work establishes
Data-center heat-driven desalination, telemetry scheduling, RO preheating and seawater cooling have precedents. Building an isolated coupling is a validation task, not a first-invention claim. N13 N14 N15 N24 S09 S20 S22
The comparison
- B0: best feasible conventional cooling plus treatment
- B1: simpler recovered-heat use, including qualified RO preheating
- T: isolated MD with a prespecified bypass/dispatch rule
Map failure and benefit boundaries at equal cooling reliability and accepted-water service; advance a new controller only if an explicit difference survives existing scheduling prior art.
What determines the decision
Freshwater consumption and auxiliary electricity at equal cooling and delivered-water service, including downtime.
54 six-hour trajectory runs and three paired seven-day campaigns; 288 principal panels across 324 platform hours and 42 configuration-days.
Before confirmation
Actual source/sink and demand traces, feasible host cooling alternatives and an absolute freshwater-saving opportunity are required.
Study H / Water from air
Collect water when heat and cooling are limited
Can a controller that accounts for uncertain forecasts and stored moisture avoid wasted regeneration while delivering more qualifying water than a tuned adaptive controller under the same resource limits?
Comparison and qualification
Candidate constrained-control contribution; novelty unresolved. Proposed work; no experimental result is assumed.
The unresolved question
Can a controller that accounts for uncertain forecasts and stored moisture avoid wasted regeneration while delivering more qualifying water than a tuned adaptive controller under the same resource limits?
What earlier work establishes
Weather adaptation, condenser control, forecast-assisted energy management and battery-constrained water generation already appear in research and patents. Adding a forecast or heat budget alone is not a defensible novelty claim. N25 N26 N27 N35 N36
The comparison
- C0: tuned fixed timing
- C1: competent weather/condenser-aware, forecast-assisted feasible schedule
- T: C1 plus the registered inventory/uncertainty rule
A prespecified moisture-inventory and uncertainty-aware run/wait/stop rule is compared on equal hardware and forecast access.
What determines the decision
Qualifying collected liquid over complete 24-hour periods at identical heat, electricity and cooling limits.
Nine independent beds and 54 chamber bed-days; six paired field units over two 14-day windows, totaling 168 unit-days; 222 principal water panels.
Before confirmation
An actual sorbent and usable heat grade, climate/resource profiles, a strong adaptive baseline and an unresolved forecast/error decision are required.
Generated concept artwork illustrates the research themes; it does not depict tested equipment.
Download the planned allocation register · Download the full protocol book