21 Jan 15
http://www.piercepioneer.com/new-laser-technique-makes-metals-water-repellant/37104
It all looks great till you come to the part where it says, right now it takes one hour to make one square inch hydrophobic🙂 Lets see, with one million of these lasers we can do 1 million square inches per hour, a bit over 80 square feet per hour. Why at that rate, you could do the metal roof's for a house in only a few days for one house.
Makes you wonder why they would make such a big deal out of this report.
28 Jan 15
Originally posted by sonhouseIts not time that matters so much as power requirements. If you are making non-stick cooking equipment, the time factor would not be such a big issue unless either the lasers themselves are expensive to manufacture, or the power used is excessive.
It all looks great till you come to the part where it says, right now it takes one hour to make one square inch hydrophobic🙂 Lets see, with one million of these lasers we can do 1 million square inches per hour, a bit over 80 square feet per hour. Why at that rate, you could do the metal roof's for a house in only a few days for one house.
Makes you wonder why they would make such a big deal out of this report.
28 Jan 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf all things were linear, it would take a single laser 1 million times stronger than the ones used in this experiment to do that 80 square feet per hour.
Its not time that matters so much as power requirements. If you are making non-stick cooking equipment, the time factor would not be such a big issue unless either the lasers themselves are expensive to manufacture, or the power used is excessive.
I suppose stuff like that will come on line eventually.
Till then though, this is a back burner. Proof of concept only.
28 Jan 15
Originally posted by sonhouseThe article you linked says nothing about how long it takes or why.
If all things were linear, it would take a single laser 1 million times stronger than the ones used in this experiment to do that 80 square feet per hour.
I suppose stuff like that will come on line eventually.
Till then though, this is a back burner. Proof of concept only.
It does talk of femtosecond pulses which suggests they may have fairly low power requirements.
I don't think you need stronger lasers to go faster, merely more lasers, or lasers with a larger coverage area.
I also don't see why you insist on its first application being someones roof. Why not use it for much smaller objects?
28 Jan 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadHere is the report that says the times: I had read several ones, I should have posted this one in the first place:
The article you linked says nothing about how long it takes or why.
It does talk of femtosecond pulses which suggests they may have fairly low power requirements.
I don't think you need stronger lasers to go faster, merely more lasers, or lasers with a larger coverage area.
I also don't see why you insist on its first application being someones roof. Why not use it for much smaller objects?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/22/us/feat-metal-repels-water-rochester/
28 Jan 15
Originally posted by sonhouse
Here is the report that says the times: I had read several ones, I should have posted this one in the first place:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/22/us/feat-metal-repels-water-rochester/
But Guo is optimistic about ramping up the process for industrial use, and he says the goal for the sanitation project is to "really push the technology out" in the next two or three years.
So no major obstacles it seems.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
28 Jan 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadPeople are always optimistic when looking for research investment, whether that optimism is justified or not.But Guo is optimistic about ramping up the process for industrial use, and he says the goal for the sanitation project is to "really push the technology out" in the next two or three years.
So no major obstacles it seems.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
28 Jan 15
Originally posted by KewpieMy problem with arguments like that is that sometimes [often] there are physical/economic
The first computers were room-sized. If they'd decided it was pointless then, life might be much different now.
factors that can be foreseen ahead of time which mean that a technology will never get of
the ground commercially.
I was reading an article recently about all the whacky 'futuristic' transport systems people
dreamed up for 'the future' in the 50's and 60's. Most of which have never been adopted,
despite actually working, because they either can't be practically mass produced or they
just are not economic.
Some technologies will follow a similar path to computers, and some will follow a path like
the jet pack.
Both had people claiming that they were the future, and both had detractors saying they
were impractical and would never be anything but a niche product.
I don't know the details of this project and have not yet read the article/s, so can't currently
comment on which side this technology comes down on...
But I do know that there are a number of projects working on making surfaces hydro- and oleo-
Phobic... Some of which involve spray depositing a special coating on the surface.
A process which is a quick, low energy use, reliable technology.
Now that coating might well not be as hard wearing as this technology, but then many/most
applications might not need to be so hard wearing.
If these methods are 10th the price [which given we are comparing sprays with lasers is not
an unreasonable assumption] and last 5 years before needing to be re-applied, then you are
looking at the surface needing to last more than 50 years to recoup the difference...
assuming that even nano-etchings in titanium last that long.
There may well be niche uses in industrial machines with high wear and tear that this would
be better for, but for [say] making hydrophobic cars and windows a 5 year coating for 1/10th
the price/energy cost spray looks like a much more practical solution.
Now of course I might wildly off on my numbers I pulled out of thin air... But my point is simply
that it is actually often possible to look at a new technology and reliably predict [if using
proper rational objective methods and accurate data] if that technology will actually be
scalable and economic against competitors.
Yes, sometimes those predictions can be wrong.
But while we all know the success stories of technologies people didn't think would be big but were.
We don't [often] hear the thousands of other stories of technologies that didn't work out where
people were right.
29 Jan 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeIf you could make superhydrophilic coatings on car windows, you might be able to do away with the windshield wiper or at least make it so the blades last ten times longer.
My problem with arguments like that is that sometimes [often] there are physical/economic
factors that can be foreseen ahead of time which mean that a technology will never get of
the ground commercially.
I was reading an article recently about all the whacky 'futuristic' transport systems people
dreamed up for 'the future' in the 50's and 60's. ...[text shortened]... r the thousands of other stories of technologies that didn't work out where
people were right.
29 Jan 15
5 edits
I had a thought:
I wonder if there is a way to make a road surface so superhydrophobic that it prevents any black ice from actually adhering to the road surface as the ice forms so that the ice can then be simply swept off by a road sweeper before it causes a problem?
Such a superhydrophobic surface would have to be designed so that it somehow maintains its extreme superhydrophobic property even with wear and tear with vehicle tires frequently doing microscopic damage to the surface -not sure if that is even possible.
29 Jan 15
Originally posted by humyWouldn't a road such as that also be more like a surface made of teflon? In other words, dangerously slippery as well as superhydrophilic?
I had a thought:
I wonder if there is a way to make a road surface so superhydrophobic that it prevents any black ice from actually adhering to the road surface as the ice forms so that the ice can then be simply swept off by a road sweeper before it causes a problem?
Such a superhydrophobic surface would have to be designed so that it somehow maintains i ...[text shortened]... cle tires frequently doing microscopic damage to the surface -not sure if that is even possible.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
29 Jan 15
Originally posted by sonhouseHydrophobic surfaces needn't also be anti-static/low friction surfaces.
Wouldn't a road such as that also be more like a surface made of teflon? In other words, dangerously slippery as well as superhydrophilic?
Many leaves [butterfly wings] are both hydrophobic and high friction.
I suspect the best way to create a hard wearing hydrophobic road
surface is to mix a hydrophobic chemical compound into the road surface,
so that the material [and any new exposed surface] is naturally hydrophobic,
which is a different approach from the one in the op where make surfaces
hydrophobic through carefully controlling their micro-structure.
The advantage of creating hydrophobic surfaces by altering the surface structure
is that you have a wider array of materials you can make the surface out of.
Including materials not naturally hydrophobic.
However for surfaces that undergo wear and tear [not to mention foreign matter
deposition] that might/would destroy the delicate micro-structure, it's probably better
to develop and use materials that are naturally hydrophobic.
29 Jan 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeEven if said hydrophobic coating was good to start with, running semitrucks and SUV's on the road would wear down the coating, I give it one day before it loses any such effect.
Hydrophobic surfaces needn't also be anti-static/low friction surfaces.
Many leaves [butterfly wings] are both hydrophobic and high friction.
I suspect the best way to create a hard wearing hydrophobic road
surface is to mix a hydrophobic chemical compound into the road surface,
so that the material [and any new exposed surface] is naturally hy ...[text shortened]... o-structure, it's probably better
to develop and use materials that are naturally hydrophobic.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
29 Jan 15
Originally posted by sonhouseI didn't say coating.
Even if said hydrophobic coating was good to start with, running semitrucks and SUV's on the road would wear down the coating, I give it one day before it loses any such effect.
I was envisioning the hydrophobic compound to be present throughout the materiel, so wearing down the surface has no effect.
Covering the materiel with other substances [mud, dust, leaves, rubber, oil, ect] would probably screw this plan up...
But simple erosion of the surface wouldn't.
I'm sorry if I didn't make this clear before.