> successive improvements from previous work
The first iteration produces 0.5 units. The next produces 0.75. The third produces 0.875, then 0.9375 and so on. Each iteration improves on the previous, but no engineering will surpass the 1.0 limit set by fundamental physics.
> may make gathering energy from the environment in creative ways practical and useful.
There's no end of crappy ways to produce electricity. Get electricity from walking across the floor? Yep [1]. Get electricity from exercise bikes at the gym? Yep. Get electricity from plants? Yep [2]. "Solar Freakin Roadways"? Yep. [3]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavegen#Criticism
[2] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181212093308.h...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_highway#Solar_road_panel...
> it's more than just 'will this technology easily solve global energy demands'.
You know how I know it's not a "potentially game-changing breakthrough in energy harvesting"? The best place to use this is not in extracting power from rainfall but in ultra-low-head hydropower energy production. Let the water fall on the panel as drops, and extract power.
The energy involved corresponds to a head of about 3m, so it needs to be more efficient than other ULH methods, which already exist.
Yet there's no mention of that application in the article. It's not like I'm an expert on the topic, so I conclude this is a solution in search of a problem.