weatherhill
weatherhill/Atlas / evidence and questions
Atlas / evidence and questions

Evidence.
Then the next question.

Observed, modeled, unresolved. Eight cases across scales, with the conditions and sources that make each finding useful.

Atlas purpose and navigation

Evidence across scales · 2026-10-13

Explore what has been measured, what remains uncertain, and the next investigation that could change our understanding. A discovery belongs here before its application is known.

8evidence cases

17source works

20bounded claims

8research directions

Independent-study total: uncomputed. Cases, papers and experiments are different units.

The scientific landscape

Ten domains. A first slice.

Coverage describes this release, not the existence or quality of research in a field.

D01

Atomic and electronic structure

CASE-001

D02

Molecular water and confinement

CASE-003 · CASE-006

D03

Surfaces and geometry

CASE-003 · CASE-005 · CASE-008

D04

Electrical droplets and aerosols

CASE-007

D05

Phase transitions and sorption

CASE-003 · CASE-008

D06

Optical, radiative and thermal processes

CASE-006 · CASE-008

D07

Acoustic and mechanical control

CASE-004

D08

Biology and living systems

not yet reviewed in this release

D09

Flow, clouds and atmospheric systems

CASE-002 · CASE-004 · CASE-007

D10

Measurement and computational discovery

CASE-002 · CASE-003 · CASE-004 · CASE-006 · CASE-007 · CASE-008

Read the evidence at its scale

Eight evidence cases.

Each finding keeps its source, tested conditions and limitations close at hand.

CASE-001 / fundamental research

An electronic discovery, before an application

Start at the atomic interface. Keep a new electronic state scientifically interesting while asking what, if anything, connects it to water or an instrument.

Functions: fundamental research; sensing/measurement

observation

An interfacial electronic state

Spectroscopy supports hybridization between substrate conduction states and Yb orbitals; this is a fundamental electronic result.

Setting
Prepared YbCu2/Cu(111) solid interface
Key limit
No water exposure, droplet mass or Weatherhill application established.

Source
Interfacial heavy fermion formation in a two-dimensional Kondo lattice YbCu2 on Cu(111) substrate · selected main text and supplement

Reading record
Reported result
Interfacial and intralayer heavy-fermion states distinguished.
Method
ARPES, supported by STM and DFT
Conditions
Sputtered/annealed Cu; Yb deposition at 650 K.; Key ARPES maps at 7 K; STM at 80 K in ultrahigh vacuum.
Comparison
Clean Cu(111); layer-resolved calculations.
Units / denominator
Not numerical / Unknown / not established
Result state
positive
Result direction
positive within tested regime
Source locator
Results, Figs. 2–3; Methods: Sample preparation and Experiments
Source version
Published article, 6 October 2026; retrieved 13 October 2026
Reading depth
selected main text and supplement
Access limitation
Raw datasets and a complete supplementary review are outstanding.
Study episode
STU-001
Independence
ARPES, STM and calculations belong to one publication; do not count methods as replications.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13
Usable for a numerical decision
No
Correction references
Unknown / not established

Read the original source ↗ · Source and access details

observation

Temperature belongs to the state

The cited coherence temperature concerns the intralayer 2D state; it is not a measured universal cutoff for the interface.

Setting
Same prepared solid interface
Key limit
Interfacial transition temperature not assigned here.

Source
Interfacial heavy fermion formation in a two-dimensional Kondo lattice YbCu2 on Cu(111) substrate · selected main text and supplement

Reading record
Reported result
Intralayer coherence temperature; interfacial temperature dependence differs. 30 K.
Method
Temperature-dependent ARPES
Conditions
Supplement Fig. S5 spans 6–80 K.
Comparison
C1 versus C2 momentum trends.
Units / denominator
K / Intralayer electronic state
Result state
positive
Result direction
state-specific
Source locator
Results, Fig. 4; Supplementary Note 5, Fig. S5
Source version
Published article, 6 October 2026; retrieved 13 October 2026
Reading depth
selected main text and supplement
Access limitation
Raw datasets and a complete supplementary review are outstanding.
Study episode
STU-001
Independence
ARPES, STM and calculations belong to one publication; do not count methods as replications.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13
Usable for a numerical decision
No
Correction references
COR-001

Read the original source ↗ · Source and access details

Next question →
CASE-002 / water collection / forecasting

A site measurement is not a regional forecast

Keep the unfavorable observations in view. They change the disposition of the tested sites without eliminating an unvalidated resource lead at higher elevations.

Functions: water collection; resource assessment

observation

The monitored sites collected little water

Santa Rosa observations show poor collection at the tested locations.

Setting
Low/High Santa Rosa, Alto Hospicio
Key limit
The paired local modeled bound also differs: <1 L/m²/day in 3.2 versus <0.2 in 4.2.2. Definitions/averaging need the underlying series; no bound is selected for numerical decisions and no annual measured yield is reconstructed.

Source
Unlocking the fog: assessing fog collection potential and need as a complementary water resource in arid urban lands–the Alto Hospicio, Chile case · selected main text

Reading record
Reported result
High-site observed bound is <0.2 L/m²/day in section 3.2 but <0.1 in 4.2.2; Low is reported null. Section 4.2.1 reports a June peak monthly total of 2.5 L/m².
Method
One-square-metre double Raschel SFCs; ten-minute logging
Conditions
Low: 572 m; High: 683 m ASL.; Table 1: Low Sep 2023–Oct 2024; High Oct 2023–Oct 2024.
Comparison
Two sites; no randomized intervention.
Units / denominator
L/m²/day; L/m²/month / Collector mesh area; daily rate and monthly total are distinct
Result state
adverse
Result direction
low/near-null
Source locator
Sections 3.1–3.2; Table 1; 4.2.1–4.2.2 and Fig. 6
Source version
Published HTML, 20 February 2025
Reading depth
selected main text
Access limitation
Raw monitoring series, complete calibration record and AMARU companion methods not audited.
Study episode
STU-002
Independence
Low and High Santa Rosa share regional weather; model comparison uses these observations.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13
Usable for a numerical decision
No
Correction references
COR-002

Read the original source ↗ · Source and access details

model

Regional potential is a model

The regional daily yield used in the planning example is modeled, not measured urban production.

Setting
Higher-elevation areas surrounding Alto Hospicio
Key limit
Transfer from a site 65 km away remains uncertain; installation and storage forecasts need site data.

Source
Unlocking the fog: assessing fog collection potential and need as a complementary water resource in arid urban lands–the Alto Hospicio, Chile case · selected main text

Reading record
Reported result
Illustrative modeled annual-average daily rate. 2.5 L/m²/day.
Method
AMARU with satellite/topographic constraints
Conditions
2018 airport/Alto Patache meteorology; 25% efficiency assumption.
Comparison
Alto Patache calibration and Santa Rosa comparison.
Units / denominator
L/m²/day / SFC mesh area; modeled daily rate averaged over a year
Result state
positive
Result direction
modeled potential
Source locator
Section 3.2; Figs. 8–9; section 5.1 and Conclusion
Source version
Published HTML, 20 February 2025
Reading depth
selected main text
Access limitation
Raw monitoring series, complete calibration record and AMARU companion methods not audited.
Study episode
STU-003
Independence
AMARU uses 2018 airport/Alto Patache inputs and is compared with Santa Rosa observations.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13
Usable for a numerical decision
No
Correction references
COR-002

Read the original source ↗ · Source and access details

Next question →Related site resource →
CASE-003 / fundamental research

Same mineral family. Different physical tests.

A molecular model, a cryogenic surface experiment and a powder assay ask related questions at different scales. Their differences are useful experimental targets.

Functions: fundamental research; sensing/measurement

model

A simulation identifies a candidate face

The v4 model favors microcline (110) as an ice-nucleating template with initially cubic-rich clusters.

Setting
Hydroxylated, flat model surfaces in water
Key limit
Model melting point is not an experimental water phase boundary; cubic-rich nuclei do not redefine bulk equilibrium ice.

Source
Molecular mechanism of ice nucleation on feldspar · selected main text

Reading record
Reported result
A mechanistic prediction for targeted experimental comparison.
Method
SCAN-trained machine-learning potential; enhanced sampling and seeded MD
Conditions
Multiple crystallographic terminations compared.; Model melting point 308 K; results expressed as supercooling.
Comparison
Other modeled faces/terminations.
Units / denominator
Not numerical / Simulation trajectories and critical clusters
Result state
positive
Result direction
positive modeled
Source locator
v4 Results: seeding and Fig. 3; Conclusions; Methods
Source version
arXiv:2511.13402v4, 25 June 2026; first posted 17 November 2025
Reading depth
selected main text
Access limitation
Supplementary calculations and earlier version text not reviewed or compared.
Study episode
STU-004
Independence
All arXiv versions are one work, not new experiments.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13
Usable for a numerical decision
No
Correction references
Unknown / not established

Read the original source ↗ · Source and access details

observation

Terraces nucleate in a different regime

Microcline (001) terrace nucleation occurs in cryogenic vapor deposition; sanidine shows a stronger step-edge preference.

Setting
Cleaved (001) microcline and sanidine in UHV
Key limit
Actual surface may be warmer than holder. Source data/supplement not reanalysed; not an atmospheric powder replication.

Source
Ice nucleation on microcline (001) in the absence of active sites · selected main text

Reading record
Reported result
Ice appears at both steps and bare microcline terraces.
Method
In-situ dynamic AFM; repeated deposition/desorption
Conditions
Samples degassed, cleaved in situ; measured holder temperature 145 K.; Microcline water-vapor saturation ratio approximately 2–5.
Comparison
Sanidine (001); random spatial-distribution reference.
Units / denominator
Not numerical / Observed nucleation positions; repeated surface cycles
Result state
positive
Result direction
positive, regime-specific
Source locator
Results, Figs. 2–4; Methods: AFM experiments
Source version
Published article, 25 August 2026
Reading depth
selected main text
Access limitation
Supplementary results and source data have not been independently audited.
Study episode
STU-005
Independence
Repeated deposition/desorption on a surface does not establish independent crystals.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13
Usable for a numerical decision
No
Correction references
Unknown / not established

Read the original source ↗ · Source and access details

observation

Powders add composition and microtexture

Six feldspar powders show differing freezing spectra despite similar warm onset in concentrated suspensions.

Setting
Milled natural perthitic/anti-perthitic powders
Key limit
Mineralogy, accessible surface and concentration co-vary; this does not isolate crystal-face causation.

Source
Measurement report: Ice nucleation ability of perthite feldspar powder · selected main text

Reading record
Reported result
Texture/composition associations merit matched comparisons.
Method
TINA immersion-freezing assay
Conditions
3 µL droplets; cooling 0 to −30 °C at 1 °C/min.; 96 droplets per concentration; triplicate independent batches reported.
Comparison
Pure-water controls; concentrations and mineral compositions.
Units / denominator
Not numerical / Droplets nested in prepared batches; no independent total derived
Result state
mixed
Result direction
heterogeneous
Source locator
Abstract; Experimental sections 2.1–2.4
Source version
Published article, 24 April 2026
Reading depth
selected main text
Access limitation
Supplement and complete freezing spectra not reanalysed.
Study episode
STU-006
Independence
Triplicate batches reported; wells within each batch are nested measurements.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13
Usable for a numerical decision
No
Correction references
Unknown / not established

Read the original source ↗ · Source and access details

Next question →Related site resource →
CASE-004 / intervention / sensing

From chamber response to atmospheric attribution

Optical recovery, droplet-size redistribution and rainfall are different outcomes. A credible connection needs control of the physical exposure and the measurement.

Functions: physical intervention; sensing/measurement

observation

Optical recovery, with unresolved endpoints

The repository manuscript reports faster chamber optical recovery for selected acoustic frequencies.

Setting
1 m chamber; 1.2 m optical link
Key limit
Endpoints/time origins not reconciled. Unopened repeats accumulated humidity; vibration can perturb optics.

Source
Mitigating Fog Attenuation with Acoustic Waves in Free-Space Optical Systems · selected manuscript text and figures

Reading record
Reported result
Abstract: 180→11 dB/km at 450 Hz in 7 min of acoustic action. Results/Fig. 5 describe an initial peak near 300 dB/km and a minimum of 8.5 dB/km after clearing; time and endpoint definitions remain unreconciled.
Method
Received optical power; derived 835 nm attenuation and 2% contrast-range estimate, not standard photometric MOR
Conditions
835 nm light; 115 dB SPL; fans stop before acoustic exposure.
Comparison
No acoustics; 50, 450 and 1200 Hz.
Units / denominator
dB/km / Derived path-normalized attenuation, not water delivered
Result state
positive
Result direction
positive report; numerical discrepancy unresolved
Source locator
Manuscript Abstract; experimental setup/results pp. 4–5, Figs. 2–5
Source version
Glasgow repository manuscript 389759/2; PDF metadata 10 August 2026
Reading depth
selected manuscript text and figures
Access limitation
Journal-version text not compared. Abstract/result time origins and attenuation endpoints remain unreconciled.
Study episode
STU-007
Independence
Sequential repeats used an unopened chamber; humidity accumulation reported.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13
Usable for a numerical decision
No
Correction references
COR-003

Read the original source ↗ · Source and access details

observation

Droplet response inside a chamber

The authors report droplet-size responses that depend on frequency and sound level.

Setting
Cylindrical chamber at 20 °C
Key limit
Abstract reports 1,680 sets; Methods 2.3 reports 840 groups and >300,000 readings. Their accounting relationship is unresolved; none is accepted as independent n.

Source
Investigation of critical response characteristics of micro-droplets under the action of low-frequency acoustic waves · selected main text

Reading record
Reported result
Reported response thresholds support further metrology review, not rainfall efficacy.
Method
Laser particle sizing and acoustic exposure
Conditions
30–280 Hz; 70–130 dB.
Comparison
With versus without acoustic action.
Units / denominator
Not numerical / Size-distribution measurements; independent runs unresolved
Result state
positive
Result direction
positive report
Source locator
Abstract; Methods sections 2.1–2.3
Source version
Published HTML, 30 September 2022
Reading depth
selected main text
Access limitation
Run allocation, independent preparations, serial dependence and the relation between abstract sets and methods groups are unresolved.
Study episode
STU-008
Independence
Reported groups/readings are not an established independent sample size. Shared authors with SRC-008 do not prove shared data.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13
Usable for a numerical decision
No
Correction references
COR-005

Read the original source ↗ · Source and access details

observation

Rainfall attribution remains unresolved

Field observations cannot fully separate acoustic response from naturally changing precipitation.

Setting
Source region of the Yellow River; monsoon precipitation
Key limit
Authors call for more randomized comparisons; wind and terrain affect observations.

Source
In Situ Experimental Study of Cloud-Precipitation Interference by Low-Frequency Acoustic Waves · selected main text

Reading record
Reported result
No systematic cloud-system change; local droplet/rain variations reported.
Method
Radar, radiometer, disdrometer and rain-gauge monitoring
Conditions
Forty-minute before/during/after windows described.
Comparison
Allocation procedure described; adequate randomized comparison evidence not established here.
Units / denominator
Qualitative / Unknown / not established
Result state
inconclusive
Result direction
mixed/inconclusive
Source locator
Section 3.1; Conclusions (i)–(iii) and final paragraph
Source version
Published article, February 2023
Reading depth
selected main text
Access limitation
Full allocation history and independence from related field reports not resolved; supplement not reviewed.
Study episode
STU-009
Independence
Overlap with earlier Shi field publications unverified; no independent-study total.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13
Usable for a numerical decision
No
Correction references
Unknown / not established

Read the original source ↗ · Source and access details

Next question →Existing tool: extinctionExisting tool: bias budgetExisting tool: sample planner
CASE-005 / water collection

Test the geometry, measure the delivered water

Pin the correct spiral-collector paper, then separate a design idea from the evidence required to choose a collector.

Functions: water collection

observation

A bounded collector lead

Publisher excerpts report improved laboratory collection from a spiral/fractal-inspired structure with surface modification.

Setting
Laboratory; exact fog-flow conditions unknown
Key limit
Coating, geometric dimensions, projected versus actual area, replication and delivery-to-storage losses unknown.

Source
Biomimetic high-efficiency fog collector based on fractal spiral structure · publisher-indexed abstract and excerpts

Reading record
Reported result
Abstract reports up to 4.53× the plane and 1.81× the unmodified structure; headline maximum is unverified for design use. 0.29 g/min/cm².
Method
Collection-rate measurement; complete method unavailable
Conditions
Unknown / not established
Comparison
Authors’ equivalent plane and unmodified structure; matching/area definitions unresolved.
Units / denominator
g/min/cm² / Unknown / not established
Result state
positive
Result direction
positive attributed laboratory report
Source locator
Publisher-indexed Abstract and Conclusions; JCIS 683 Pt 2, 39–48
Source version
JCIS 683, Part 2 (2025), 39–48; PMID 39721406
Reading depth
publisher-indexed abstract and excerpts
Access limitation
Complete methods and supplements were unavailable. The collection area, geometry, surface treatment and independent sample count remain unverified.
Study episode
STU-010
Independence
Relationship to SSRN manuscript not checked; distinct from the 2021 leaf-skeleton paper.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13
Usable for a numerical decision
No
Correction references
COR-004

Read the original source ↗ · Source and access details

Next question →Related site resource →Existing tool: airflow
CASE-006 / fundamental research / measurement

A null result is a boundary worth mapping

An experiment that does not detect the proposed response narrows the next question. Keep the detection limit and tested system attached to the finding.

Functions: fundamental research; sensing/measurement

observation

A detectable enhancement was absent

Flat neat water showed no detectable evaporation enhancement under the tested visible illumination.

Setting
Milli-Q water, approximately 22.1 °C
Key limit
Not proof of zero effect or a universal statement about porous media; SI/raw-data audit remains outstanding.

Source
Visible light leaves evaporation and interfacial structure of neat water unchanged at the air–water interface · selected main text

Reading record
Reported result
No detected change; main text reports approximately 4.8% relative slope detection limit.
Method
Confocal interface-height tracking; supporting HD-SFG
Conditions
450/532/635 nm; about 1000 W/m²; p-polarized, 45° incidence.; Dry <0.1% RH and ambient ~27–36% RH.
Comparison
Paired 30-minute off/on/off windows.
Units / denominator
Relative change / Evaporation slope normalized to dark baseline
Result state
null
Result direction
null within sensitivity
Source locator
Results: Macroscopic evaporation; Fig. 2; Methods
Source version
Published article, 14 September 2026
Reading depth
selected main text
Access limitation
Supplement download returned challenge HTML, not a PDF. Raw data and independent preparations not audited.
Study episode
STU-011
Independence
Light-off/on/off windows on one sample are paired measurements, not independent samples.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13
Usable for a numerical decision
No
Correction references
Unknown / not established

Read the original source ↗ · Source and access details

Next question →Existing tool: bias budgetExisting tool: paired analysis
CASE-007 / physical intervention / measurement

Electric charge: droplets, light and rainfall

Charge can alter small-droplet populations and optical signals. Rainfall attribution is a separate, model-dependent question; collected fog water needs its own evidence.

Functions: physical intervention; sensing/measurement

observation

Small droplets responded to charge

Negative charge injection increased the reported mass concentration in the 1.1 µm droplet bin by 95.3% during one natural-fog event.

Setting
Sonning Farm, Reading, UK; natural fog on 15–16 March 2020
Key limit
One event and one size bin; this is not a total-water, visibility or harvested-water gain. Fig. 4 shows bootstrapped off-condition median intervals, not an interval on this percentage.

Source
Modifying natural droplet systems by charge injection · main text and figures

Reading record
Reported result
Bin-specific median mass-concentration comparison in Fig. 4; the abstract rounds the diameter to 1 µm. 95.3 %.
Method
LOAC size distributions during alternating emitter-on/off windows; inner five minutes used to limit clock-drift effects.
Conditions
Four negative corona emitters; combined nominal current −2 nA.; Ten-minute switching windows; detailed event drawn from a longer campaign.
Comparison
Emitter-off size-bin mass concentration during fog.
Units / denominator
% / Increase relative to emitter-off mass concentration in the 1.1 µm size bin
Result state
positive
Result direction
increase in the stated quantity
Source locator
Results, pp. L022050-3–4; Fig. 4, p. L022050-5; Table I
Source version
Published article, 31 May 2022
Reading depth
main text and figures
Access limitation
Supplement and raw data not reviewed; no independent reanalysis.
Study episode
STU-012
Independence
One detailed fog event; within-event scans and cycles are not independent field replications.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13
Usable for a numerical decision
No
Correction references
Unknown / not established

Read the original source ↗ · Source and access details

observation

A transient optical response from a drone

Charge release during the fog flight was followed by an approximately 2% maximum increase in reflected light.

Setting
UK field flights in February–March 2021; the fog flight occurred on 27 February
Key limit
One fog flight with repeated sequences; reflectivity is not transmission, meteorological visibility, water collection or rainfall.

Source
Ionic Charge Emission Into Fog From a Remotely Piloted Aircraft · main text and figures

Reading record
Reported result
Maximum response was delayed by about 25 seconds; the paper relates roughly 0.5 W/m² to a 31 W/m² background. 2 approximately %.
Method
Downward photodiode sampled reflected solar radiation during repeated charge sequences from a circling remotely piloted aircraft.
Conditions
Aircraft circled at about 20 m height.; Positive, negative and bipolar emission sequences; nominal emitter currents were not accurately balanced.
Comparison
Pre-activation light level and non-fog flights.
Units / denominator
approximately % / Reflected-light change relative to the background light level
Result state
positive
Result direction
increase in the stated quantity
Source locator
Table 1; Sections 3–4; Figs. 3–4
Source version
Published article, 5 October 2022
Reading depth
main text and figures
Access limitation
Supplement and raw time series not reviewed; charge currents were not accurately balanced in the experiment.
Study episode
STU-013
Independence
One fog flight plus non-fog comparison flights; repeated charge sequences are nested within flights.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13
Usable for a numerical decision
No
Correction references
Unknown / not established

Read the original source ↗ · Source and access details

model

The original Oman estimate has a specific statistic

The original Oman working paper reports positive rainfall attribution, with a 16.23% bootstrap mean in its headline analysis.

Setting
Hajar Mountains, Oman; 2013–2018 ionization trial
Key limit
Working-paper version checked; final-journal equivalence remains unverified. A bootstrap mean is not directly comparable to the reanalysis point estimate.

Source
Nudging a Pseudo-Science Towards a Science — The Role of Statistics in a Rainfall Enhancement Trial in Oman · selected original manuscript text and tables

Reading record
Reported result
Table 5 gives a bootstrap mean of 16.23%, with 2.5th–97.5th percentiles of 10.10–23.09%; these are not a directly measured regional rainfall gain. 16.23 % (bootstrap mean).
Method
Mixed-model attribution and bootstrap inference applied to positive-rainfall observations from the ionizer trial.
Conditions
Daily randomized on/off operating schedule; exposure assigned using wind-dependent downwind corridors.; 4,168 downwind gauge-day observations with positive rainfall in the headline model.
Comparison
Estimated natural rainfall without ionizer influence, constructed statistically.
Units / denominator
% (bootstrap mean) / Attributed rainfall as a percentage of estimated natural rainfall
Result state
positive
Result direction
increase in the stated quantity
Source locator
NIASRA Working Paper 21-21, Section 5; Tables 4–5, manuscript p. 39 (PDF p. 40)
Source version
NIASRA Working Paper 21-21 (2021), predecessor to the 2022 journal article
Reading depth
selected original manuscript text and tables
Access limitation
Published journal full text unavailable in this check. Working-paper and final-journal equivalence has not been established; underlying trial data not reanalyzed.
Study episode
STU-014
Independence
Same Oman 2013–2018 trial data and overlapping authorship. The 2026 analysis is not an independent field replication.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13
Usable for a numerical decision
No
Correction references
COR-006

Read the original source ↗ · Source and access details

model

Reanalysis reduces the estimated attribution

The 2026 reanalysis estimates 6.68% attribution, compared with 12.52% from the earlier estimator applied within the same analysis.

Setting
Reanalysis of the same Oman 2013–2018 trial
Key limit
A preprint reanalysis with overlapping authorship, not an independent trial or a guaranteed regional gain. Spatial dependence and model misspecification remain open sensitivity questions.

Source
Bias-Adjusted Attribution Estimation for Rainfall Enhancement Trials · selected main text and tables

Reading record
Reported result
Point estimate 6.68%; bootstrap 95% interval 2.21–12.88%. Both estimators indicate a positive effect under the model. Table 3 separately lists a 7.36% bootstrap mean for the new estimator. 6.68 % (point estimate).
Method
Observation-specific adjustment for back-transformation bias; PREB bootstrap uncertainty for a linear mixed model.
Conditions
4,168 positive-rainfall downwind gauge-day observations.; Gauge-day observations are clustered within days; exposure and natural rainfall depend on the statistical model.
Comparison
Earlier attribution estimator recomputed on the same analysis data.
Units / denominator
% (point estimate) / Attributed rainfall divided by modeled natural rainfall over the analyzed positive-rainfall observations
Result state
positive
Result direction
increase in the stated quantity
Source locator
arXiv v1, Section 2; Section 5 pp. 13–14; Table 3 p. 15; Discussion
Source version
arXiv v1, 24 July 2026; preprint, not journal peer reviewed
Reading depth
selected main text and tables
Access limitation
Historical trial data not independently reanalyzed; spatial dependence and model misspecification remain limitations discussed by the authors.
Study episode
STU-014
Independence
Same Oman 2013–2018 trial data and overlapping authorship. The 2026 analysis is not an independent field replication.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13
Usable for a numerical decision
No
Correction references
COR-006

Read the original source ↗ · Source and access details

Next question →Existing tool: paired analysisExisting tool: bias budget
CASE-008 / fundamental research / water collection

Light and dew: cooling a surface, condensing vapor

A surface can reflect sunlight and radiate heat to the sky. If it cools below the dew point, water vapor can condense—even without fog.

Functions: fundamental research; water collection

observation

A surface stayed cooler in direct sun

A photonic surface stayed 4.9 °C below ambient air temperature during the reported midday interval in direct sunlight.

Setting
Stanford, California; clear winter day
Key limit
Cooling was measured, not water production. Condensation also needs the surface below the dew point and sufficient heat rejection during condensation.

Source
Passive radiative cooling below ambient air temperature under direct sunlight · main result and methods

Reading record
Reported result
Reported temperature difference 4.9 ± 0.15 °C; Methods state ±0.15 °C sensor accuracy. This is not a confidence interval from independent rooftop replications. 4.9 °C below ambient.
Method
Multilayer radiative emitter with a reflective solar response, measured by resistance temperature detectors inside a wind-shielded rooftop apparatus.
Conditions
13:00–14:00 local time; solar irradiance 800–870 W/m².; An infrared-transparent film and insulated air pocket limited nonradiative heat gains.
Comparison
Shaded ambient-air temperature; aluminium and black-paint samples in equivalent apparatus.
Units / denominator
°C below ambient / Ambient-air temperature minus sample temperature
Result state
positive
Result direction
lower surface temperature than ambient
Source locator
Main text p. 542; Fig. 3; Methods: outdoor thermal measurement
Source version
Published Nature article, 27 November 2014, with Methods and Extended Data
Reading depth
main result and methods
Access limitation
Raw data and independent sample hierarchy not audited. Energy-saving projections are outside this case.
Study episode
STU-015
Independence
Continuous temperature readings in one illustrated rooftop run are not independent devices or sites.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13
Usable for a numerical decision
No
Correction references
Unknown / not established

Read the original source ↗ · Source and access details

observation

Day-and-night condensation in a humid chamber

A 24-hour rooftop chamber run averaged 19.3 g/m²/h of condensation, equivalent to about 0.46 L/m² over that run.

Setting
ETH Zurich rooftop; 26–27 August 2019; controlled-humidity chamber
Key limit
Humidity was controlled; this is not an ambient-air daily yield or a measurement of water drained into a reservoir. Do not extrapolate the run to annual output.

Source
Exploiting radiative cooling for uninterrupted 24-hour water harvesting from the atmosphere · main results and supplementary methods

Reading record
Reported result
Table S1 reports 19.3 g/m²/h. Conversion: 19.3 × 24 = 463.2 g/m², approximately 0.463 L/m² using water density ≈1 kg/L. This is condenser-area normalization and mass formed on the surface. 19.3 g/m²/h.
Method
Balance measured condensate mass on the cooled emitter; chamber humidity maintained by salt solutions.
Conditions
High relative humidity above 90%, maintained inside the chamber; no fog required.; 24 hours starting 09:44; mean solar irradiance 273 W/m² in Table S1.
Comparison
Elapsed-time mass measurement; this run did not directly compare collected water with an ordinary dew collector.
Units / denominator
g/m²/h / Condensed mass per emitter area per hour, averaged over the measured 24 hours
Result state
positive
Result direction
increase in the stated quantity
Source locator
Main Fig. 3; Supplement: Procedure for dew harvesting experiments, Table S1 (ETH PDF p. 26)
Source version
Published article, 23 June 2021, and ETH supplementary materials
Reading depth
main results and supplementary methods
Access limitation
Raw data not reanalyzed. Chamber mass increase, modeled potential and ambient condensate collection are different measurements.
Study episode
STU-016
Independence
Table S1 and Fig. 3 describe condensation runs; the 24-hour integration is not 24 independent tests.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13
Usable for a numerical decision
No
Correction references
COR-007

Read the original source ↗ · Source and access details

observation

Ambient air also supplied collected condensate

A separate open-air test collected passively removed condensate through the night and into the following day.

Setting
ETH Zurich rooftop; 14 October 2020, 17:00 to 15 October, 11:00
Key limit
An 18-hour demonstration does not establish a 24-hour ambient yield, climatic reliability or drinkability.

Source
Exploiting radiative cooling for uninterrupted 24-hour water harvesting from the atmosphere · main results and supplementary methods

Reading record
Reported result
The supplement shows collected condensate from the 18-hour ambient run; no daily yield is inferred here.
Method
Coated underside exposed to ambient humid air; a dish beneath it received self-removed water.
Conditions
18-hour run; mean ambient relative humidity 83%.; Condenser was exposed through an opening in the supporting box; no supplied fog.
Comparison
Qualitative proof of collection in ambient air, not a matched comparative-yield trial.
Units / denominator
collected condensate / No area-normalized yield extracted for this proof-of-concept run
Result state
positive
Result direction
increase in the stated quantity
Source locator
Supplement: Proof-of-concept outdoor experiments; Fig. S12C–D (ETH PDF p. 24)
Source version
Published article, 23 June 2021, and ETH supplementary materials
Reading depth
main results and supplementary methods
Access limitation
Raw data not reanalyzed. Chamber mass increase, modeled potential and ambient condensate collection are different measurements.
Study episode
STU-017
Independence
The 18-hour ambient run differs from the controlled-humidity runs; both belong to the same publication.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13
Usable for a numerical decision
No
Correction references
COR-007

Read the original source ↗ · Source and access details

model

The collector comparison is calculated potential

At an assumed 90% relative humidity, the paper calculates 85% more potential dew than OPUR foil from measured cooling performance.

Setting
Rooftop cooling measurements used as inputs to a dew-potential calculation
Key limit
The advantage is modeled from cooling traces. It does not show 85% more water collected in an outdoor head-to-head trial.

Source
Exploiting radiative cooling for uninterrupted 24-hour water harvesting from the atmosphere · main results and supplementary methods

Reading record
Reported result
85% greater calculated condensate potential at 90% RH; the comparison is not measured collected-water output. 85 % calculated increase.
Method
Measured subcooling with condensation suppressed is converted to theoretically achievable dew using the heat balance and assumed humidity.
Conditions
Constant relative humidity of 90% for this comparison.; Underlying Fig. 2 measurements prevented condensation; latent heat had to be modeled.
Comparison
OPUR dew-collection foil under the same comparison framework.
Units / denominator
% calculated increase / Calculated dew potential relative to OPUR foil at assumed 90% RH
Result state
positive
Result direction
increase in the stated quantity
Source locator
Main text: Heat flux analysis and atmospheric radiation shield design; Fig. 2F–G
Source version
Published article, 23 June 2021, and ETH supplementary materials
Reading depth
main results and supplementary methods
Access limitation
Raw data not reanalyzed. Chamber mass increase, modeled potential and ambient condensate collection are different measurements.
Study episode
STU-018
Independence
The Fig. 2 comparison is calculated from subcooling, with condensation suppressed in the underlying measurement; it is not another water-collection experiment.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13
Usable for a numerical decision
No
Correction references
COR-007

Read the original source ↗ · Source and access details

Next question →Existing tool: bias budget
Possibilities, without a league table

Research directions
and next questions.

Scientific interest, evidence, tractability and readiness remain separate. These are proposals for inquiry, not approvals to conduct an experiment.

Q-001 / open question

Which measurable property could connect this interface to an external interface or instrument?

research lead

Possibility
Understand whether tunable electronic coupling yields a useful observable before proposing an application.

Established evidence
An interfacial electronic state, Temperature belongs to the state

Missing connection
No demonstrated coupling to water, ambient operation or sensing performance.
Next useful action
Review the remaining supplement and identify a candidate observable, its operating envelope and a falsifying control.
Research-direction record
Alternatives
Ordinary surface electronic structure or adsorption effects.; A simpler material with a measurable interfacial response.
Decision criterion
Continue only if a specific measurable coupling and an appropriate comparison can be articulated; otherwise retain as fundamental discovery.
Scientific interest
Interfacial correlations and state-selective behavior.
Evidence strength
Spectroscopy supports the electronic finding; transfer remains unevidenced.
Experimental tractability
Specialist surface-science review first.
Application readiness
No established Weatherhill application.
Implementation conditions
Qualified materials expertise and a bounded measurement proposal before any physical test.

Back to CASE-001 ↑

Q-002 / proposed transfer

Which observations are needed before an installation or storage forecast?

awaiting site-specific observations

Possibility
Test whether a higher-elevation resource survives a full seasonal measurement cycle.

Established evidence
The monitored sites collected little water, Regional potential is a model

Missing connection
Site-specific water delivered, downtime, seasonal availability and quality.
Next useful action
Prepare a site-monitoring specification covering a full seasonal cycle, calibration, mesh area, missing data, meteorology and storage delivery.
Research-direction record
Alternatives
Different elevation/exposure.; Conventional supply or demand reduction.
Decision criterion
Advance to forecasting only when representative site observations and uncertainty support the stated service requirement; otherwise revise or reject the site.
Scientific interest
Atmospheric resource heterogeneity.
Evidence strength
Direct unfavorable site evidence; regional model requires validation.
Experimental tractability
Standard monitoring is conceptually tractable; access/operator unresolved.
Application readiness
Tested points deprioritized; regional lead unvalidated.
Implementation conditions
Site permission, operator, water-quality plan, bounded resources and recorded approval.

Back to CASE-002 ↑

Q-003 / open question

Which matched comparison separates face, preparation and nucleation regime?

ready for deeper review

Possibility
Connect molecular templates to controlled nucleation behavior without erasing scale differences.

Established evidence
A simulation identifies a candidate face, Terraces nucleate in a different regime, Powders add composition and microtexture

Missing connection
A comparison holding mineral identity and preparation fixed across relevant conditions.
Next useful action
Build a source comparison sheet from supplements, then specify one matched face/preparation comparison with measured supersaturation and independent preparations.
Research-direction record
Alternatives
Step density and rare defects.; Surface hydroxylation, microtexture or accessible area.; Water model and supersaturation dependence.
Decision criterion
Prefer an explanation only if it predicts a discriminating contrast that remains after the principal confounders are controlled.
Scientific interest
Molecular ordering and heterogeneous phase transitions.
Evidence strength
Complementary observations and a versioned model; no single universal mechanism established.
Experimental tractability
Requires mineral characterization and qualified nucleation metrology.
Application readiness
No field intervention established.
Implementation conditions
Review phase/temperature comparability, measurement limits and independent-unit definitions.

Back to CASE-003 ↑

Q-004 / open question

What would separate an acoustic effect from natural clearing or instrument drift?

awaiting manuscript reconciliation

Possibility
Determine whether a local response persists with controlled exposure and mechanically isolated measurement.

Established evidence
Optical recovery, with unresolved endpoints, Droplet response inside a chamber, Rainfall attribution remains unresolved

Missing connection
Independent, randomized fresh preparations with measured acoustic field and direct endpoint.
Next useful action
First reconcile Cameron’s version and time axes; then draft a randomized acoustic/sham measurement-qualification plan with fresh preparations, blinded analysis and a physical endpoint.
Research-direction record
Alternatives
Natural settling or evaporation.; Humidity accumulation, airflow changes and optical vibration.
Decision criterion
Propose a test only after the optical instrument passes vibration/drift controls; advance a mechanism if a repeatable contrast survives sham and environmental controls.
Scientific interest
Coupled acoustic, droplet and optical dynamics.
Evidence strength
Chamber response reported; numerical discrepancy and field attribution unresolved.
Experimental tractability
Bounded chamber work is conceivable after measurement qualification.
Application readiness
No atmospheric rainfall or water-yield readiness.
Implementation conditions
Acoustic exposure review, qualified operator, bounded resources and recorded approval; WX-FOG-001 remains unchanged.

Back to CASE-004 ↑

Q-005 / proposed transfer

Does the feature improve water delivered to storage against a matched simpler structure?

awaiting full methods

Possibility
Isolate whether geometry changes capture, drainage or retained water.

Established evidence
A bounded collector lead

Missing connection
Complete methods, matched area/coating comparator and storage-delivery measurement.
Next useful action
Obtain lawful full-text/supplement access and extract geometry, treatment, airflow, area normalization and collection endpoint before specifying a factorial comparison.
Research-direction record
Alternatives
Simple wires or mesh with identical coating.; Coating effect, area convention or drainage losses rather than fractal geometry.
Decision criterion
Retain the feature only if a geometry effect can be distinguished from treatment and area conventions with a delivery endpoint; do not choose hardware from the abstract ratio.
Scientific interest
Branching, curvature and water transport.
Evidence strength
Publisher excerpt only; substantial method gaps.
Experimental tractability
Comparator cannot yet be specified responsibly.
Application readiness
Research lead, not a field-yield or procurement specification.
Implementation conditions
Access first; later disclosure/IP review of any proposed implementation; no patent clearance implied.

Back to CASE-005 ↑

Q-006 / open question

Does the null identify an operating limit or a measurement mismatch?

ready for deeper review

Possibility
Use a constrained null to design a sharper comparison of optical and thermal explanations.

Established evidence
A detectable enhancement was absent

Missing connection
Raw-data/supplement audit and comparison across interfaces with matched thermal and geometric boundaries.
Next useful action
Retrieve the SI and public dataset, check fit uncertainty and independent preparations, then compare illumination, heat balance and measurement geometry across the disputed literature.
Research-direction record
Alternatives
Photothermal or porous-geometry effects.; Effects below detection or outside tested timescales.
Decision criterion
Treat the finding as a useful bound if the detection limit and controls withstand review; a new experiment should resolve a stated discrepancy within measurable sensitivity.
Scientific interest
Light–water interaction and measurement sensitivity.
Evidence strength
Source-backed null in a defined regime; no universal zero-effect claim.
Experimental tractability
Reading/data audit precedes any optical test.
Application readiness
No evaporation-device performance claim.
Implementation conditions
Qualified optical metrology, thermal controls, laser review, bounded resources and recorded approval.

Back to CASE-006 ↑

Q-007 / open question

When does a charge response become a useful fog outcome?

source-backed; collection evidence still incomplete

Possibility
Connect charge, droplet size and optical measurements to a separately measured water or visibility outcome.

Established evidence
Small droplets responded to charge, A transient optical response from a drone, The original Oman estimate has a specific statistic, Reanalysis reduces the estimated attribution

Missing connection
The droplet and reflectivity responses do not establish collected water or improved visibility. The closest collection lead remains unread; rainfall attribution has a different scale and denominator.
Next useful action
Read the Cruzat paper once an authorized copy is available. Audit the Harrison data and Oman model sensitivity, keeping optical, collected-water and rainfall endpoints separate.
Research-direction record
Alternatives
Size redistribution or slower evaporation without useful water removal.; Changing background fog or illumination; instrument response to charged particles.; Statistical exposure or model assumptions affecting rainfall attribution.
Decision criterion
Choose a bounded next study only when the primary endpoint, comparator, independent unit and uncertainty can be measured without borrowing an effect size from a different endpoint.
Scientific interest
How electrical charge alters droplets across laboratory and atmospheric scales.
Evidence strength
Natural-fog responses and one rainfall-trial lineage; no transferable collection gain established.
Experimental tractability
Document and data review can proceed now; a controlled measurement proposal would require separate design review.
Application readiness
No Weatherhill charge system, field deployment or performance guarantee established.
Implementation conditions
Any later physical proposal needs qualified electrical and emissions review, environmental and site permissions, instrument qualification and explicit experimental approval.

Back to CASE-007 ↑

Q-008 / proposed transfer

How much condensate can be collected from ambient air reliably?

ready for a bounded measurement proposal

Possibility
Measure net drained water from a radiatively cooled surface while retaining a complete heat and moisture balance.

Established evidence
A surface stayed cooler in direct sun, Day-and-night condensation in a humid chamber, Ambient air also supplied collected condensate, The collector comparison is calculated potential

Missing connection
A chamber condensation rate and a modeled collector advantage do not establish sustained ambient-air collection across climates.
Next useful action
Review the underlying data, then define a side-by-side ambient-air measurement of net collected mass, dew point, sky conditions and total footprint against a conventional collector.
Research-direction record
Alternatives
Cloud cover, humidity or wind removes the cooling margin.; Condensate forms but remains on the surface or re-evaporates.; Large radiative shields reduce yield per occupied area despite favorable emitter-area normalization.
Decision criterion
Advance only if a measured net-water advantage survives matched conditions, independent-day analysis and separate accounting for condenser area and occupied area.
Scientific interest
Radiative heat rejection coupled to phase change and passive condensate removal.
Evidence strength
Measured cooling, chamber condensation and an ambient proof of collection; comparative yield remains modeled.
Experimental tractability
Temperature, humidity and gravimetric measurements are accessible; reliable controls and climatic replication remain necessary.
Application readiness
No annual water yield, potable-water claim or ready-to-sell Weatherhill device established.
Implementation conditions
A later proposal needs calibrated balances and thermal sensors, contamination controls, weather exposure assessment, site permission and approval of its experimental scope.

Back to CASE-008 ↑

Trace every assertion

Sources & access.

Reading labels distinguish selected-text checks from abstract-level notes. Retrieval alone is not a completed review.

SRC-001 / Interfacial heavy fermion formation in a two-dimensional Kondo lattice YbCu2 on Cu(111) substrate

Nakamura et al.

Original source ↗ · DOI 10.1038/s43246-026-01332-5

Version
Published article, 6 October 2026; retrieved 13 October 2026
Reading depth
selected main text and supplement
Reading scope
Selected Results and Figs. 2–4 text/captions; Methods: sample preparation and experiments. Supplementary Note 5 and rendered Fig. S5 inspected.
Outstanding
Raw datasets and a complete supplementary review are outstanding.
Further reading needed
Read remaining supplement and available author/repository datasets.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13

Library record →

SRC-002 / Unlocking the fog: assessing fog collection potential and need as a complementary water resource in arid urban lands–the Alto Hospicio, Chile case

Carter et al.

Original source ↗ · DOI 10.3389/fenvs.2025.1537058

Version
Published HTML, 20 February 2025
Reading depth
selected main text
Reading scope
Methods 3.1–3.2, Table 1; Results 4.2.1–4.2.2 and figure descriptions; 5.1 and Conclusion. Selected original HTML passages read.
Outstanding
Raw monitoring series, complete calibration record and AMARU companion methods not audited.
Further reading needed
Obtain underlying site series and inspect the AMARU methods paper before forecasting.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13

Library record →

SRC-003 / Molecular mechanism of ice nucleation on feldspar

Zhou and Piaggi

Original source ↗ · DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2511.13402

Version
arXiv:2511.13402v4, 25 June 2026; first posted 17 November 2025
Reading depth
selected main text
Reading scope
v4 abstract, surface screening and seeding results, Fig. 3 text/caption, Conclusions and selected Methods; earlier versions not compared.
Outstanding
Supplementary calculations and earlier version text not reviewed or compared.
Further reading needed
Read the versioned supplement and compare earlier versions before resolving changes.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13

Library record →

Earlier versions (not separately counted): 2511.13402v1, 2511.13402v2, 2511.13402v3

SRC-004 / Ice nucleation on microcline (001) in the absence of active sites

Schneider et al.

Original source ↗ · DOI 10.1038/s41467-026-76548-7

Version
Published article, 25 August 2026
Reading depth
selected main text
Reading scope
Selected Results and Figs. 2–5 text/captions; AFM sample preparation and simulation Methods.
Outstanding
Supplementary results and source data have not been independently audited.
Further reading needed
Review cycle-level supplement and source data for independent surface preparations.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13

Library record →

SRC-005 / Measurement report: Ice nucleation ability of perthite feldspar powder

Canet et al.

Original source ↗ · DOI 10.5194/acp-26-5635-2026

Version
Published article, 24 April 2026
Reading depth
selected main text
Reading scope
Abstract and Experimental sections 2.1–2.4; material characterization.
Outstanding
Supplement and complete freezing spectra not reanalysed.
Further reading needed
Read supplement, raw spectra and batch-level preparation record.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13

Library record →

SRC-006 / Mitigating Fog Attenuation with Acoustic Waves in Free-Space Optical Systems

Cameron et al.

Original source ↗ · DOI 10.1109/JLT.2026.3704738

Version
Glasgow repository manuscript 389759/2; PDF metadata 10 August 2026
Reading depth
selected manuscript text and figures
Reading scope
Abstract; experimental setup and results on manuscript pp. 4–5; Figs. 2–5 inspected in rendered pages. PDF metadata checked.
Outstanding
Journal-version text not compared. Abstract/result time origins and attenuation endpoints remain unreconciled.
Further reading needed
Compare the version of record, figure source data and definitions through lawful repository/library access.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13

Library record →

SRC-007 / Investigation of critical response characteristics of micro-droplets under the action of low-frequency acoustic waves

Bai, Shi, Zhao and Wei

Original source ↗ · DOI 10.3389/fenvs.2022.972648

Version
Published HTML, 30 September 2022
Reading depth
selected main text
Reading scope
Abstract and Methods sections 2.1–2.3.
Outstanding
Run allocation, independent preparations, serial dependence and the relation between abstract sets and methods groups are unresolved.
Further reading needed
Review complete run-level data and statistical units before planning power.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13

Library record →

SRC-008 / In Situ Experimental Study of Cloud-Precipitation Interference by Low-Frequency Acoustic Waves

Shi, Qiao, Wang and Wei

Original source ↗ · DOI 10.3390/rs15040993

Version
Published article, February 2023
Reading depth
selected main text
Reading scope
Abstract, section 3.1 test procedure and section 5 Conclusions, including the final attribution limitation.
Outstanding
Full allocation history and independence from related field reports not resolved; supplement not reviewed.
Further reading needed
Inspect allocation, event selection and complete untreated-event data.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13

Library record →

SRC-009 / Biomimetic high-efficiency fog collector based on fractal spiral structure

Liubin Li; Yihang Zhang; Xiaobo Wang; Yuxuan He; Ben Huang; Zhiguang Guo

Original source ↗ · DOI 10.1016/j.jcis.2024.12.148

Version
JCIS 683, Part 2 (2025), 39–48; PMID 39721406
Reading depth
publisher-indexed abstract and excerpts
Reading scope
Publisher-indexed abstract/excerpts and PubMed bibliographic identity checked through search; no complete-method review.
Outstanding
Complete methods and supplements were unavailable. The collection area, geometry, surface treatment and independent sample count remain unverified.
Further reading needed
Use institutional library access or an authorized author manuscript. No purchase or author contact made.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13

Library record →

SRC-010 / Visible light leaves evaporation and interfacial structure of neat water unchanged at the air–water interface

Chen et al.

Original source ↗ · DOI 10.1073/pnas.2615377123

Version
Published article, 14 September 2026
Reading depth
selected main text
Reading scope
Selected Macroscopic evaporation results, Fig. 2 description and evaporation Methods; supporting interfacial discussion. No raw-data reanalysis.
Outstanding
Supplement download returned challenge HTML, not a PDF. Raw data and independent preparations not audited.
Further reading needed
Retrieve SI Appendix through a lawful repository/library route; inspect public dataset DOI 10.17617/3.Q2GHPJ.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13

Library record →

SRC-011 / Modifying natural droplet systems by charge injection

R. G. Harrison; G. J. Marlton; M. H. P. Ambaum; K. A. Nicoll

Original source ↗ · DOI 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.L022050

Version
Published article, 31 May 2022
Reading depth
main text and figures
Reading scope
Theory, field apparatus, on/off sampling, Results, Table I and Figs. 3–4; discussion and conclusion.
Outstanding
Supplement and raw data not reviewed; no independent reanalysis.
Further reading needed
Inspect the underlying time series and supplementary information before estimating a transferable effect.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13

Library record →

SRC-012 / Ionic Charge Emission Into Fog From a Remotely Piloted Aircraft

R. G. Harrison; K. A. Nicoll; G. J. Marlton; D. J. Tilley; P. Iravani

Original source ↗ · DOI 10.1029/2022GL099827

Version
Published article, 5 October 2022
Reading depth
main text and figures
Reading scope
Aircraft and photodiode methods, Table 1, Sections 3–4 and Figs. 3–4; discussion and conclusions.
Outstanding
Supplement and raw time series not reviewed; charge currents were not accurately balanced in the experiment.
Further reading needed
Audit flight-level controls, cloud evolution and optical normalization using the supplement and data.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13

Library record →

SRC-013 / Nudging a Pseudo-Science Towards a Science — The Role of Statistics in a Rainfall Enhancement Trial in Oman

Ray Chambers; Stephen Beare; Scott Peak; Mohammed Al-Kalbani

Original source ↗ · DOI 10.1111/insr.12486

Version
NIASRA Working Paper 21-21 (2021), predecessor to the 2022 journal article
Reading depth
selected original manuscript text and tables
Reading scope
Trial design, Section 5 headline analysis, Tables 3–5 and conclusion; Table 5 visually checked on manuscript p. 39.
Outstanding
Published journal full text unavailable in this check. Working-paper and final-journal equivalence has not been established; underlying trial data not reanalyzed.
Further reading needed
Compare the accepted or published version and inspect trial data, exposure definitions and bootstrap code.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13

Library record →

SRC-014 / Bias-Adjusted Attribution Estimation for Rainfall Enhancement Trials

Zhi Yang Tho; Raymond Chambers; A. H. Welsh

Original source ↗ · DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2607.21991

Version
arXiv v1, 24 July 2026; preprint, not journal peer reviewed
Reading depth
selected main text and tables
Reading scope
Trial definition in Section 2, attribution discussion, Section 5, Table 3 and discussion of limitations. Numerical tables visually checked; derivation and simulation code not independently validated.
Outstanding
Historical trial data not independently reanalyzed; spatial dependence and model misspecification remain limitations discussed by the authors.
Further reading needed
Inspect code and data; compare exposure definitions and spatial/model sensitivity. Treat new versions as the same lineage, not another trial.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13

Library record →

SRC-015 / Electrostatic fog water collection

Diego Cruzat; Carlos Jerez-Hanckes

Original source ↗ · DOI 10.1016/j.elstat.2018.10.009

Version
2018 journal record; UC repository metadata only
Reading depth
not yet read
Reading scope
Bibliographic identity and restricted-access status only. No experimental result has been extracted.
Outstanding
Full paper not obtained. This is an access lead, not evidence for a collection gain.
Further reading needed
Obtain an authorized author copy or publisher access, then read the outdoor methods, comparator, normalization, uncertainty and energy accounting.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13

Library record →

SRC-016 / Passive radiative cooling below ambient air temperature under direct sunlight

Aaswath P. Raman; Marc Abou Anoma; Linxiao Zhu; Eden Rephaeli; Shanhui Fan

Original source ↗ · DOI 10.1038/nature13883

Version
Published Nature article, 27 November 2014, with Methods and Extended Data
Reading depth
main result and methods
Reading scope
Radiative balance, multilayer design, rooftop temperature results and Fig. 3; temperature-sensor and apparatus Methods.
Outstanding
Raw data and independent sample hierarchy not audited. Energy-saving projections are outside this case.
Further reading needed
Review independent climatic replication and a complete condensation heat balance before translating cooling into a water yield.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13

Library record →

SRC-017 / Exploiting radiative cooling for uninterrupted 24-hour water harvesting from the atmosphere

Iwan Haechler; Hyunchul Park; Gabriel Schnoering; Tobias Gulich; Mathieu Rohner; Abinash Tripathy; Athanasios Milionis; Thomas M. Schutzius; Dimos Poulikakos

Original source ↗ · DOI 10.1126/sciadv.abf3978

Version
Published article, 23 June 2021, and ETH supplementary materials
Reading depth
main results and supplementary methods
Reading scope
Main-text heat balance and Fig. 2 comparison; Fig. 3 condensation experiments; supplementary dew-harvesting procedure, Table S1 and Fig. S12 proof-of-concept tests.
Outstanding
Raw data not reanalyzed. Chamber mass increase, modeled potential and ambient condensate collection are different measurements.
Further reading needed
Audit field repeatability, net drained-water yield per occupied area and performance across humidity, wind and cloud cover.
Review
Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off · 2026-10-13

Original supplementary materials ↗

Library record →

Correction history.

  1. COR-001 / 2026-10-13

    corrected in this release

    State-specific coherence replaces the inherited blanket interface-temperature restriction. Main paper and Supplementary Note 5 checked.

    CLM-002

  2. COR-002 / 2026-10-13

    corrected; underlying bounds unresolved

    Separated measured collection from regional modeled potential and checked monitoring dates against Table 1. The different observed and modeled local bounds in sections 3.2 and 4.2.2 remain unresolved; none is selected as a numerical planning input.

    CLM-003, CLM-004

  3. COR-003 / 2026-10-13

    open discrepancy

    Inspected repository manuscript text and rendered figures. Abstract/result endpoints and timing remain unreconciled; no numerical performance input accepted.

    CLM-008

  4. COR-004 / 2026-10-13

    identity pinned; access gap open

    Pinned the exact spiral-collector DOI and kept the leaf-skeleton work distinct. Excerpt access is not a full-method review.

    CLM-011

  5. COR-005 / 2026-10-13

    sample accounting unresolved

    Recorded both the abstract’s 1,680 sets and Methods 2.3’s 840 groups. These may reflect different accounting units; their relationship and independent sample count are unresolved.

    CLM-009

  6. COR-006 / 2026-10-13

    statistic and lineage clarified

    The original manuscript’s 16.23% is a bootstrap mean. The 2026 reanalysis compares point estimates of 12.52% and 6.68%; its bootstrap mean is separately 7.36%. These must not be presented as a like-for-like 16.23% → 6.68% correction. Both papers analyze the same Oman trial lineage.

    CLM-015, CLM-016

  7. COR-007 / 2026-10-13

    condensation conditions and comparison clarified

    The approximately 0.46 L/m² conversion belongs to a 24-hour controlled-humidity chamber run. The ambient-air proof of collection lasted 18 hours. The OPUR comparison is calculated dew potential derived from cooling measurements, not a measured collection-yield advantage.

    CLM-018, CLM-019, CLM-020

Coverage & public records.

Eight selected cases across ten scientific domains. Seventeen source works include sixteen with scoped evidence notes and one unread access lead. Coverage is selective; a missing review is not evidence that a field is empty.

Source works are deduplicated by DOI. Study records identify provisional episodes; their independence is unresolved, so no study total is displayed. Observation, model, hypothesis and attributed operational report are evidence types; positive, null, adverse, mixed and inconclusive describe outcomes; positive means an effect was reported, not that it is beneficial or ready for application. “Not yet reviewed” describes coverage.

All seventeen sources have linked library records; the Cruzat record is an unread access lead. Source notes and Atlas findings are generated from the same claim records; the original papers remain the authority.

Review: Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off. Release 0.3.4. The public downloads contain the same nonconfidential records used to generate this page.

All public records ↓Source records ↓Claim records ↓Research directions ↓Access gaps ↓Corrections ↓

Research library → · Back to top ↑

Search weatherhill

Search papers, tools and the project.