Well this concept is based on superhydrophobicity. I do not know the working of this coating particularly, but it seems to be superhydrophobic. A superhydrophobic surface(SHS) is one where water has very high mobility i.e. an extremely water repelling surface. Is is due to a surface having low surface energy and a textured topography. They hold very high commercialization potential. Lotus leaf is one natural occuring example of this phenomenon. The research into this field started extensively in 1997. SHS can be employed in variety of applications theoretically i.e. cars, windshields, toilets, ketchup bottles, kettles, phones, power lines, preventing ice accumulation, on boat hulls, on shoes in rain, fabrics, solar cells, around sinks, shower curtains... the potential is unlimited. Many researchers are working on making it possible, and they are very good ones too.
So after you have been primed about the subject, what is preventing their wide spread usage? Durability. Not a single one of them is able to sustain mechanical duress. And one of the most widely used chemical is Teflon, which is expensive. Hence, reapplication is not possible time and again. Many researchers are working on it, but a solution remains elusive until now. These sprays are nice such that they open the field, but much more still needs to be done in this field, since these sprays have been in market for at least 5 years now.
What no one seems to think about is the potential health consequences of this application of nanotech.
This is basically something made with particles that are much smaller than your cells. The material can probably get into your body by osmosis alone. Will the materials affect your body? Cause cancer? Get stuck in your lungs? Do something else that we don't know? There has been very little research on this area, and the little research that has been done is worrying. Putting this in consumer products is a very large and uncontrolled experiment.
We should be careful of starting to use materials like these with no further study or testing. There is a risk we might end up looking like the guys who brushed their teeth with radium or used a portable x-ray video machine to examine their kids' feet at the shoe store.
I agree with the call for caution regarding nanotech safety in general.
Firstly, as a technical nitpick, osmosis by definition is the diffusion of water across semi-permeable membranes. Stuff that is not water cannot move by osmosis. What you are worried about is stuff like the coating being able to just diffuse through your skin.
That said, having trawled through the companies literature [1], they actually only claim micron scale particles. For reference, your cells are typically 70-100 microns in diameter, so these particles are still comparatively huge. They are likely larger than most bacteria you will see.
Furthermore, since they are both hydro and fat phobic, they'd almost certainly have a very hard time diffusing your your skin, since your live cells have membranes made of (basically) fat, and then enclose a space that is mostly water.
From Wikipedia: "Osmosis is the net movement of solvent molecules through a partially permeable membrane into a region of higher solute concentration, in order to equalize the solute concentrations on the two sides." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmosis)
From dictionary.com: "
the tendency of a fluid, usually water, to pass through a semipermeable membrane into a solution where the solvent concentration is higher, thus equalizing the concentrations of materials on either side of the membrane." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/osmosis?s=t)
Nanoparticles would be the solute in this case. (If a foreign substance, and not water, were the solvent, you'd have problems regardless of how tiny the solent's particles were.)
Excellent points, and well explained. People who are smarter and more knowledgeable than I are certainly better qualified to put context around the significance of nano-tech. Regardless, It seems as though we are at or near a new nano-technology frontier.
I confess to knowing absolutely zero about it, but I also think the possibilities are fascinating, and worthy of both tremendous skepticism and awe at the same time.
It is a better approach when one knows nothing of a subject to rather ask questions than make statements (bordering on sensationalism). I don't disagree that one needs to be skeptical.
> The material can probably get into your body by osmosis alone.
Correction: only water can get into a cell through osmosis; the term you're looking for is actually passive transport.
Apart from semantics, nanoparticles are known to cause serious health problems. Asbestos fibers, which are very thin and on the same scale as the nanosilicate shown here, have been all over the news for causing cancer due to disruption of normal cell activity. Fiberglass, which is insulation made of very thin silica fibers, can cause lung problems.
Although I do think nanotechnology can have some benevolent effects in the future (think about this: what if tiny, very tiny nano-cells entered the bloodstream, and attached onto cancerous cells and killed them? The possibilities are so vast) the tech just isn't there yet in terms of health safety.
See http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbon-nano... for evidence that carbon nanotubes duplicate the dangers of asbestos. And the duplication is by mechanical means - so a large collection of machines around the same size is likely to cause similar effects on our lungs.
While you are absolutely correct that nanoparticles need to be used with caution, it might be difficult for a superhydrophobic particle to enter a body that it is so repulsed by. But I can imagine them being quite harmful when they nevertheless find a way in.
An interesting consideration: testing potentially harmful products on the public is done with many technologies. I am guessing the public benefits from this often enough to justify continuing the practice. Compare this "easier to ask for forgiveness than permission" style to the public utility lost by performing rigorous governmental approval and costly testing of the likes that pharmaceutics pass through before market entry.
"x-ray video machine to examine their kids' feet at the shoe store"
Except there's no real evidence this ever hurt anyone?
And xrays are an incredible medical marvel that has saved millions of lives.
Fear hurts more than it ever helps, if they had delayed xrays for even a few years imagine how many more deaths there would have been.
The precautionary principle is a dangerous idea that has somehow has gotten mainstream acceptance. It regularly kills people, people somehow think it's a safe concept when it's not.
> Except there's no real evidence this ever hurt anyone?
According to Wikipedia, "monitoring of American salespersons found dose rates at pelvis height of up to 95 R/week, with an average of 7.1 R/week. (Up to ~50 mSv/yr, avg ~3.7 mSv/yr effective dose) A 2007 paper suggested that even higher doses of 0.5 Sv/yr were plausible." There were a number of cases affecting salespeople that were linked to the use of shoe-fitting fluoroscopes.
OP was criticizing irresponsible use of X-rays, not dismissing X-rays altogether. Given what we know about X-rays today, shoestore fluoroscopes seem an incredibly bad idea in hindsight. And given what we know about nanoparticles today, this nanotech seems like an incredible bad idea right now. Not bad enough to ban, but bad enough to regulate.
You're posing a false dichotomy, in that we either use X-rays for everything, or nothing. Using X-rays for medical imaging is worth the risk, using them to try on shoes isn't.
Consequently, using this material to avoid getting your boots soaked and freezing to death on a mountain might be worth the risk, but using it on your coat isn't.
The truth is that, indeed, we don't know the health risks. Fear has saved more lives than taken, I suspect.
Through the magic of hind-site you can claim there is no dichotomy.
xrays could have given cancer to the people conducting the treatments. Using fear, xrays should have never been used for anything.
Is it worth the risk that doctors using xrays might get cancer to save some patients?
Is it worth the risk of giving a patient cancer just because they might have a 10% chance of a life threatening injury.
If you look at all clichéd stuffups with technology their kill rates are tiny, often like DDT they saved many many lives.
Now take all the things people get scared of - TV, Mobile phones, electricity towers, chemicals(What ever this means).
Mobile phones perhaps should only be used for emergencies in case they are cancer causing. Imaging how many 3rd world people would die if we made the decision.
Apart from the radium toothpaste and giving kids in development unnecessary, dangerously large radiation doses, you have a point about excessive caution being problematic.
But there is a NIMBY-like concern here: I don't want to be in the early adopter group of a technology like this unless my life depends on it. Others are free to go ahead as they choose, and it is nice if this quickly reveals the picture of danger and helps create beneficial technology. But I won't be on the bleeding edge of this development.
I guess my point is that there is a middle ground between jumping in headfirst (radium on your teeth, nano-coating on your cutlery) and being excessively careful and always covering your ass (contemporary life-saving experimental medical treatments).
Excessive use of X-rays and CT exposure have been linked to increased cancers, especially in occupational contexts. That's why there are safety protocols when you get an x-ray.
I'm sure the safety standards at a shoe store were less than robust.
This is a very valid point. There could be a risk that we will pollute our environment with nano particles that we can't get rid of, that will not break down due to their physical properties, and that accumulate inside us over time.
I just mean that our cells are very large, compared to what other materials are made of.
How about bleach? Sand? Dirt? Soap? Lotion? Bug spray? Makeup? Our skin is a pretty good barrier. Not saying that this stuff is safe, of course, but I don't think you can say it's unsafe because it's made of molecules that are small.
I think the concern isn't over particles that are just smaller than our cells; it's over particles that are _significantly_ smaller that our skin cells.
The idea being the particles have to be small enough to diffuse across the cell membrane to be a concern. Something half the size of a cell is going to have a very hard time permeating a cell membrane.
That send, another commenter (far more knowledgable on the topic than I) above points out that these aren't actually nano-scale particles. They are roughly on the same scale as a cell, and thus your point may hold in this context.
Good point. One of the recent Duke Startup Challenge winners was a company called Nanoly, which is developing a nanoparticle shield for vaccines, so that they can be delivered without refrigeration and safely. According to their website, they are careful to mention that they are using non-toxic nanoparticles, which makes sense as their work is health-centric.
I think that it is prudent to evaluate the safety of any new material, not just nanotech. I don't think that there is any risk to this material vs. any other new substance that is created.
Coating millions of cars, computer monitors and clothes means hundreds of gallons of this solution being applied in warehouses all over the country. Disposal alone is a huge concern. What happens when it is time to throw away those boots? What happens when there's an accident and suddenly all of this stuff is now connected to bits of glass on the highway?
Hell, what happens when a truck carrying this stuff gets in a collision and suddenly a few thousand gallons of it is spilling down a city street?
It's a really cool demo but it makes me think of the times we used to spray swimming holes with DDT or build houses with asbestos... I feel it'll be a few years after mass production then we'll have the next big "Radium Girls" story.
this depends entirely on what the nanoparticles are composed of.
gold nanoparticles and carbon nanotubes are materials known as being very active and toxic in certain living systems, and the sort of thing that you describe as having very little research.
metal oxide nanoparticles (entirely likely in a superhydrophobic/oleophobic product) on the other hand, we have ample, ample research on, because volcanoes have been spewing them out of millions of years and we've been breathing them in.
This stuff seriously seems like a game changer. Could be all hype but if it's legit I think it'll be huge.
Never having to clean the toilet again in itself would be amazing. Cost reductions in business here alone is significant.
Anti graffiti capabilities would make it huge for government applications. On park benches etc keeping communal equipment from ageing. The whole cleaning industry could be changed.
Anti-graffiti use is the first thing that sprung to my mind as well.
As you said, it may all be hype- but if it delivers, I suspect that the company making it (UltraTech?) is going to have a nice few years ahead of it :)
An art student I know did this at my school (U of Calgary) about three years ago. The design is invisible unless it rains or you splash a bucket of water on the wall. It's also in a low-traffic area, so I don't think very many people know about it.
Technically, 'taggers' refers to spray-paint only. You're referring to 'scratch.' This is because a 'tag' indicates a spot on the complexity level of the graffiti, and it's impossible to make a throwup or piece via scratch.
I'd love to coat my toilet with this, so I never have to scrub it again. And also the insides of the plumbing pipes, so nothing gets stuck in there... :)
That's how structural unemployment works; as I recall economists are pretty sure it's a good thing. Unfortunately because its positive effects are general (everyone gets slightly better off) and the negative effects are local (a few people don't have careers any more), nobody else seems to see it that way.
It should. The appearance of a new technology creates value which will be shared by society in some way. If a solar breakthrough removed the need for gasoline, oil workers would lose out in the short run, but every car owner would have more money to spend on other things, so jobs would be created elsewhere. Whereas if oil just disappeared, value would be lost overall.
Indeed! But it makes a lot of difference to whichever schmucks who had to pay that person, too. Perhaps a few million homeowners spending a few hundred dollars less on painting services every year could buy something more meaningful than a guy standing around on a ladder fixing paint jobs that don't need to be broken.
Not necessary unemployment, maybe conversion. Perhaps cleaning industries will take care of providing and deploying hydrophobic substances in toilets, firms, public services etc.
Or maybe as you suggest it will create a completly new market. It depends entirely on the ability of these companies to move forward.
"[0025] As used herein, the term "keratin fiber" includes hair of the scalp, eyelashes, eyebrows, facial hair, and body hair such as hair of the arms, legs, etc. Keratin fibers are not limited to humans and also include any keratin fibers from a mammal, such as, for example, pet hair and mammalian fur."
The demo at about the 1:50 mark with the liquid gathered in the center of the glass pane is mindblowing. The firs thting I thought of was using the hydrophobic stuff as a mask for pcb fabrication using a copper sulphate solution for the hydro part. That's probably pointless for the purpose, but it seems like this would be an insanely useful manufacturing technology.
Because its not easy, and we just got started. And in research, this is not a long time. I told the timescale on the higher end of spectrum, and i'm sure lots of momentum will be added once first publication is out.
Useful for surfaces which only come in contact with liquids. Not so much for a lot of stuff they demonstrate though, like hammer, gloves, boots, or generally anything where the coating would rub off in less than half a day's work.
Also, how many construction workers are concerned with keeping their work boots and gloves free of dirt stains? lol.
how many construction workers are concerned with keeping their work boots and gloves free of dirt stains
Many actually, especially toward the completion of projects when interior decorations are starting to be installed and the architect/owner/designer may demand removal of boots to prevent workers from tracking dirt on freshly laid carpet and flooring (I've seen this mostly on high-end residential but it also happens on commercial projects).
That sounds odd (removal of boots) to me since it compromises safety and creates liability. Hardware and paint supply stores sell tough fabric bootees that fit over regular workboots for this sort of situation.
i would imagine the boot removal would be required regardless in these situations. i doubt this hydrophobic coating can withstand being walked upon and thoroughly abraded by a 200lb worker after being applied to the soles of the boots - the part that actually tracks mud.
Yea, you're right it wouldn't be useful for much since it doesn't have any durability.
But if they ever get around to making this durable in a construction environment it would save tons of money. Having done the bookkeeping for a small concrete construction firm I can tell you the glove expenditure alone can be several hundred dollars in just one season. Might not sound like a lot, but to a small business it really adds up.
how many construction workers are concerned with keeping their work boots and gloves free of dirt stains?
They may not think about it, but dirt particles can shorten the life of many materials. Particles that make their way into fabric damage the fibers. I forget what mud does to leather, but I'm pretty sure there are deleterious effects there as well.
How many construction workers get in trucks and drive home and go into houses? How many have to clean their trucks and garage floors because of the dirt they track in?
Why do you think construction workers are so different from others?
Was curious what happened if you inhaled it. Nothing specific on their site, but it does say:
The coating has been found to be safe for use in nonfood contact areas
of food processing plants. The coating meets FDA and USDA regulations for those
types of applications.
I am surprised no one has linked to the youtube video provided by the manufacturer about application of the product[1]. They recommend the use of a respirator during application; this doesn't necessarily mean anything, you won't get sued for telling someone to use a respirator when a product is safe, but it at least indicates they aren't comfortable yet to tell people to apply this without protective equipment. Like many things that require a respirator to apply, it likely becomes much safer once dry (the carrier solvent evaporates away, making the actual coating nonvolatile)
I remember seeing old videos of this tech used inside a ketchup bottle. I wonder if we're going to see food-safe versions soon on products like toothpaste and peanut butter :)
I remember reading it's already food-safe, as in if you scraped it with a knife and munched on it, it'd still pass through you without any effects, but sorry, I don't have a source for that.
Watching the video one wonders whether they sprayed the "untreated" side of the tests with a hydrophilic coating, to actively attract more liquid. Some of those looked a bit too sticky.
Spray this inside your computer everywhere except at key places requiring cooling (like on the top of the CPU). Flood the computer with water. Passive silent cooling !
Heat dissipation issues can arise, besides with rising temperature the coating can lose integrity. Poor heat dissipation is the reason why smartphones don't use these coatings inside the chassis to protect electronics.
PS: I work on this topic, and that is why i keep replying to every post. I am not being facetious.
I don't know whether it's a good a idea or not, but my original thinking that you'd have enough water mass to diffuse the heat sufficiently fast so that the coating would not be be subject to very high temperatures at a given location.
Obviously the heat would have to transfer to the exterior environment in some way (e.g. through the floor) so this wouldn't work with smartphones.
Distilled water is a bad choice. While deionized water is non-conductive, it can act as a solvent for so many things that almost any impurities it comes in contact with will result in the water being made conductive.
It won't be safe long though, it'll slowly leach various chemicals out of the components. Eventually it'll form rust which will dissolve into the water and serve as an electrolyte, and then everything will go to hell in a hand basket quickly.
For reference, there's also NeverWet[0] (I recall seeing their ad a few years ago) and MIT's ‘non-stick coating’ (has an HN thread[1]).
Apparently a few superhydrophobic coating solutions exist already. On the first sight it looks like Ultra Ever Dry beat everyone in getting their product to consumer market, though.
Wear, tear and abrasions is what will certainly reduce the possible area of deployment.
Unless this materials happens to be very resistant to abrasions.
Something like that has been available for years in Germany. I'm wondering why it didn't have the success I expected it to. http://en.dienanoexperten.de/
When I first saw them (it must have been more than a year ago) there was an online shop, but I can't find it anymore. I also remember a discussion here in HN about the safety of the material (which is basically glass, but with a new configuration). I wonder what happened in the meantime.
Like the article mentioned, coating a boat seems like it could be awesome. No drag, zip through the water. If it does work like that, I'd imagine we'll also start seeing it in competitive swim suits.
Forgive me for not being able to find the link to reference, but this very same question came up on Reddit aswell.
The company replied to the suggestion saying yes, the technology has marine uses, and coating a boat with the compound does reduce the drag - the issue being the stability of the boat is reduced in turn which means the running speed needs to be increased to compensate.
Kind of like when the space shuttle re-enters the atmosphere, isn't a significant portion of the slow-down caused by the pressure of the water being displaced ahead of the boat? So even with no friction, you'd still be pushed around by this giant mass of water. I'd be curious to see what the contributions of the drag on the bottom and sides of the hull versus the water ahead of the bow are. Links, anyone?
If someone were to spray themselves with this and fall into a body of water (pool, lake, ocean) wouldn't they drown? I would imagine that it would be very difficult to swim.
When they stuck the work gloves into water, the effect of the treated glove looked exactly like Magic Sand. I loved playing with that hydrophobic stuff when I was a kid:
Only if you have a white car, though. From the specs, the color of the coating is a translucent white, so that pretty much eliminates possible use on any other paint than white.
Rain-X/Fox-X hardly eliminates the need to wipe windshields or clean bathroom mirrors, so my guess is that while it will reduce time between cleanings, it won't rid the need altogether.
So, we don't know what it is, how it works, or if the ad is fake, but this is worthy of the NPR banner? It's like they use the label "blog" to mean "BS link bait crap".
Robert Krulwich is one of their pop-science journalists/bloggers, this is pretty much what he does. He's one of the co-hosts of RadioLab, an entertaining pop-sci radio show on NPR. I think you're disappointed because this is the first time you've been able to recognize pop science reporting for what it is.
So after you have been primed about the subject, what is preventing their wide spread usage? Durability. Not a single one of them is able to sustain mechanical duress. And one of the most widely used chemical is Teflon, which is expensive. Hence, reapplication is not possible time and again. Many researchers are working on it, but a solution remains elusive until now. These sprays are nice such that they open the field, but much more still needs to be done in this field, since these sprays have been in market for at least 5 years now.