Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Coating Promises Scratch-Proof CDs, DVDs, LCDs

Posted by timothy on from the data-retention dept.

13.7BillionYears writes "NewScientist reports that TDK has developed a transparent polymer for LCD screens and optical media that is impervious to general neglect and abuse. Quoth the reporter, 'In one of the most convincing technology demonstrations this reporter has witnessed, I was handed a CD, a wire-wool pan scourer and some permanent marker pens, and invited to scratch or mark the discs. Hard as I tried, I could not make a single mark on the disc with the scourer. And the ink simply wiped off.' The coating is apparently responsible for Blu-Ray's new caddy-less form factor."

93 of 542 comments (clear)

  1. For cars too? by fembots · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If this can be applied to cars when coming out of factory, it'll save a lot of 'disagreement' with supermarket trollies.

    There's no mention of price, and more importantly, the ease of removal if this protective coating is somehow scratched. I find the current PDA sheet very difficult to remove (as if you're about to pull the LCD out).

    And will record companies do more to prevent "backup" copies now that you simply can't scratch your CDs anymore??

    --
    Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
    1. Re:For cars too? by UWC · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And will record companies do more to prevent "backup" copies now that you simply can't scratch your CDs anymore??

      I imagine the coating won't put up much of a fight to simple breakage of the disc. Though I suppose such occurrences are less frequent than severe scratching, it's still a valid concern for someone who travels with or otherwise moves their media about frequently.

      --
      Honor Among Slackers. A veri
    2. Re:For cars too? by thedillybar · · Score: 3, Insightful
      >And will record companies do more to prevent "backup" copies now that you simply can't scratch your CDs anymore??

      From what I've seen, they're already do as much as they possibly can.

    3. Re:For cars too? by DoubleD · · Score: 3, Insightful
      And will record companies do more to prevent "backup" copies now that you simply can't scratch your CDs anymore??

      Ah but what about:
      • Accidental microwavings
      • 2 Year olds
      • Scratches from the other side of the disk ;)
      --
      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he cannot lose."
    4. Re:For cars too? by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      to hell with consumer uses.

      why has this not been applied to aircraft? the plastic windows and canopies on aircraft are notorius for being super easy to scratch and always having some kind of scratches in them even when the utmost care is taken with them.

      Hell, a car windshield made out of plastic would be far superior to the glass we have today. It would revolutionize the automotive industry in designs alone! a wrap around "jetsons" type of car would be possible.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:For cars too? by jxs2151 · · Score: 4, Funny
      ...Sony-Ericsson released a similar plastic coating for the screen of their new phones...

      So does that mean that I can take that plastic cover off now?

    6. Re:For cars too? by CajunArson · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dude... They already did that back in the 80's.
      See, there was this guy who looked a lot like David Hasselhoff, and he had this sweet camaro dipped in this stuff that made it impervious to any attack. I think the car's name was KITT or something. Anyway, they had many interesting adventures but while KITT was never scratched on the outside, they never could get Hasselhoff's perma-whitefro shedding out of the upholstry.

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    7. Re:For cars too? by karnal · · Score: 4, Informative

      camaro

      You mean Firebird, or more specifically, a Trans-Am. From what I remember reading, they had 13-some cars just in case they broke one... which did happen.

      Did you ever notice that for the "car action" scenes, most of the footage was re-used ("turbo boost" stuff)...

      I am somewhat sad at myself for still having a weak spot for a shiny black T/A - especially those model years. My friends call me white trash because of it.

      --
      Karnal
    8. Re:For cars too? by Open_The_Box · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The aircraft thing is probably a good idea - depends how the coating responds to extremes of cold. The last thing you want is for your windows suddenly to turn opaque at 30000 feet. But, y'know, if it passes this basic test...

      Plastic windows on your car... probably not such a great idea - the problem with car windows is that they are designed to shatter into tiny pieces rather than large jagged chunks that can rupture organs and generally shred the passengers in the event of a crash. Glass is cheap and does the job well. Cool as it would be to have wrap around windows, I reckon the auto companies will be unlikely to shell out the development cash.

      --
      If you can't think of something nice to say then don't say anything at all. No, REALLY.
    9. Re:For cars too? by dykofone · · Score: 3, Interesting
      That's where the 50 mph winds come in.

      Like putting on a coat of hydrophobic Rain-X, the water will bead up (as described in the article) instead of sticking to the surface. It's the streaking water being splashed about in the rain that causes the greatest distortion when looking through the windshield. With that hydrophobic layer, the water almost instantly collects into large drops with plenty of space to see between them clearly, which are then pushed off by the wind.

    10. Re:For cars too? by marktaw.com · · Score: 3, Funny

      I wonder if they'll finally take the "breakage" clause out of record contracts now that they're touting a new indestructable form factor. That became obsolete when we went from records to CD's anyway.

    11. Re:For cars too? by System.out.println() · · Score: 4, Funny

      Accidental microwavings
      Well, accidental? I always microwave them on purpose.

      2 Year olds
      Apply the coating to condoms.

      Scratches from the other side of the disk ;)
      Apply the coating to the other side of the disk? (this answer is serious :P )

      --
      I've got more mod points and GMail invi
    12. Re:For cars too? by RebelWebmaster · · Score: 3, Informative
      If this can be applied to cars when coming out of factory, it'll save a lot of 'disagreement' with supermarket trollies.
      ...which is great until you're in an accident and a part needs to be stripped and refinished. Having worked in the coatings division of a major US chemical company, I can tell you that there are coatings in the lab which are very scratch resistant, but there has to be tradeoffs so they aren't completely impervious to scratching.
    13. Re:For cars too? by Woody77 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My experience with Rain-X on three different vehicles is that you don't need wipers at anything over 45mph, and below that, it depends on how hard it's raining, and how recently you applied it.

      A fresh coating, in light rain should collect into drops you can see around, and in heavy rain, it will streak down so fast it won't be a problem.

      Misting is the only problem I've had, where it tends to form "microdrops" that aren't large enough and close enough together to clump into a larger drop and fall, but are difficult to see around, but it's not much worse than a problematic defogger.

    14. Re:For cars too? by stinkfoot · · Score: 5, Funny

      > From what I've seen, they're already do as much as they possibly can.

      ...like filling most of them with material that isn't worth backing up...

    15. Re:For cars too? by Woody77 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, what you're referring to is the side and rear windshield tempered safety-glass, which breaks into small squarish pieces with any sharp impact.

      The windshield is actually layers of glass and a clear plastic, which holds the glass together as it shatters.

      Safety glass breaks into cubes, but normal glass spiderwebs.

      As a volunteer firefighter, and not only being trained on how to remove automotive glass expediently, but also having seen "forehead dents" in windshields (luckily no full-ejection of occupants out the windshield), I can attest to how it actually breaks.

      BMW is putting Polycarbonate windows in the 740 series cars. You can't break those with a sledgehammer (I know someone who tried, our instructor on jaws of life tools).

    16. Re:For cars too? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, yes, quite true, but the windshield glass seems to break up quite a bit, while the plastic layer (which yes, I was aware of - it gives the windshield a lot of its shock resistance as well) holds it together to keep it from entering your eyes at top speed.

      Unbreakable windows worry me, unless there's some easy way to remove them from the car from the inside even in the case of an accident. I hope that if the window's shape is deformed, the windows are designed to pop out of the vehicle. Otherwise, it'll make it all too easy to get trapped inside, especially if you start your experience in the back seat.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:For cars too? by nolife · · Score: 3, Informative

      I second your Rain-X findings but I'd like to add some more negatives. It seems to provide a glare at night with or without rain for a few days after applying it. Another negative is once the Rain-X starts to wear off and you need to use the wipers again, they do not work very well. I guess the Rain-X adheres to the blades and probably something that could be cleaned off with some rubbing alcohol. Even with the negatives, I still use Rain-X on all of the cars windows including the side mirrors.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    18. Re:For cars too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      True, no protective coating can be considered proven for the home until you play baseball with it as the ball. And the bat is a 6 foot long sword. On fire.

    19. Re:For cars too? by cloudmaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The top side doesn't need to resist surface scratches, so it can be textured to allow marking. It just needs to be durable enough to resist scratching *through* the surface. It's the bottom that needs to be optically clear as well as durable. Besides, most disks I get have a writable surface chemically bonded to the polycarbonate, much like paint bonds to primer. I'd bet that something coul dpretty easily be made that would bond itself to the new hard coating, and would allow permanent marking...

    20. Re:For cars too? by Curtman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I was most impressed by the small scale sparkling and fireworks.

      Surprisingly, grapes are a lot of fun too.

    21. Re:For cars too? by HyperCash · · Score: 4, Funny

      "My friends call me white trash because of it."

      Are you sure it doesn't have anything to do with the mulletsgalore.com website?

      --
      So I'm jump'n up and down screaming show me the money.
    22. Re:For cars too? by adolf · · Score: 5, Informative

      Re: Automotive windows

      The whole point of tempered automotive glass is to minimize injury to the heads of the passengers. Windshields use multiple layers of glass with a plastic film in between, to keep broken bits from flying into the vehicle's occupants. Side and rear windows are designed to break into small enough peices that lacerations are minimized, and lack stabilizing layers.

      Contrast this with a plastic window. Most plastics are not very sharp when broken. The windows can be designed to bend outward easily. And they don't weigh anywhere near as much as glass, lessening the problems of momentum.

      And since plastic doesn't have the inherent problem of normal glass (big, heavy, jugular-slicing chunks of razor-sharp material being flung about at incredible speeds), it doesn't need to have the same safeguards. To state otherwise is an example of FUD.

      The safety problem, then, is easy to quantify:

      Using your head at a velocity of 60MPH, does it hurt more to hit a 40lb glass windshield which will shatter (but maintain its mass and inertia) on impact, or to hit a 10-pound shatterproof plastic window which is flexibile enough to absorb your forward energy, and will remove itself outward from the vehicle on impact?

      I don't have the solution to that problem, but I'd say that it's close.

      On with the anecdotes:

      Plastics (Lexan, in particular) have been used in race car windows for a Really Long Time Now. And since dead/blinded drivers can't win races, the people involved in selecting said windows have a rather vested interest in making sure that they're safe. So far, they've done just fine.

      I'm guessing that if the automobile industry is keen enough on saving weight and materials that they're seriously discussing increasing voltage to reduce the weight of electrical wiring, that they'd really appreciate windows that aren't as heavy as the glass that they've been using forever.

      If only Lexan didn't scratch so easily, I'm sure they'd jump all over it.

      Oh, wait, I almost forgot. Lexan == polycarbonate == the stuff CDs are made of. Didn't TDK recently develop a coating to solve that problem?

      --
      Kid-proof tablet..
    23. Re:For cars too? by Mant · · Score: 3, Funny

      You don't understand, they are actually making it easier for you. Really.

      Just back up one song from the album, and a text file that says "more shit like this". Think of the space you save.

    24. Re:For cars too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I have experience with plastic aircraft windows. Canada's National Research Council has a pneumatic bird gun that can fire 8 lb. birds up to mach 1.5.

      A 4 lb bird at mach .2 goes right through polycarbonate, and it does shatter. Unfortunately for the pilot, the edges of shattered polycarbonate are sharper than razor blades, certainly sharper than the edges of shattered glass. The canopy for the F-5 is about the worst design from this standpoint.

      As far as I know, the problem with aircraft applications is that the set of requirements is lengthy:

      - nearly shatterproof at high speed.
      - impervious to cold, changes in density, including fogging.
      - able to withstand repeated pressurization/depressurization
      - ability to resist bird strikes.

      Tall order. Most modern aircraft (both civil and military) use a poly/glass/poly sandwich, with a thin wire mesh for increased stability.

      Other problem is from bulletproofing -- polycarbonate loses its strength over time. I think it's offgassing. Anyway, for this reason, bulletproof glass loses its rating after some time, and has to be replaced. I've seen a .22 cal go right through 15-year old bulletproof glass. So polycarb gets brittle when exposed to air, hence the sandwich approach used by aircraft manufacturers. Car windows would have to be done this way too.

      Yes, the muzzle area for the birdgun is a mess of vaporized bird. and it smells funny.

    25. Re:For cars too? by jonadab · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Umm wouldn't windhisled that don't break cause more fatalities? I'd imagine
      > that doing a header through breakable glass is much more desirable than
      > through jaws of life proof brick wall like polycarbonate.

      Statistically, if you go out through the windshield, you're pretty much dead,
      no matter what the windshield is made of. Even if the windshield were made
      of air, whatever you hit outside isn't bloody likely to be significantly
      softer than a brick wall. Asphalt is the most likely thing. The steel of
      another vehicle is second-most-likely. If you're worried about dying of
      deceleration trauma in this situation, there's a nifty safety device built
      into most newer-model vehicles called a "seatbelt", which if used properly
      will generally prevent you from going through the windshield. HTH.HAND.

      (Yes, the glass of the windshield would slow you down a bit going through
      it, but since it doesn't have a lot of give, it doesn't do so gently. If
      we made windshields out of two-foot-thick foam rubber (SPF), that might
      help a bit, but it would also have the negative side-effect of reducing
      visibility too much. The airbag is an attempt at a compromise partial
      solution to this problem -- it only reduces visibility when it activates,
      and in those cases it presumbly is needed rather more than visibility, or
      so goes the theory.

      The point of the unbreakable windshields is presumably to prevent injuries
      (or fatalities) from outside objects coming in through the windshield and
      whacking the occupants. If the occupants go out through the windshield,
      there isn't a great deal that can be done for them. That's a DOA scenerio.
      So instead of making soft windshields, it's better to _prevent_ people from
      going there in the first place -- hence seatbelts and airbags.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  2. Coasters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    But where am I going to get my coasters from then?

    1. Re:Coasters? by the_other_one · · Score: 5, Funny

      AOL

      --
      134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
  3. Uh-oh.. by Mechcommander · · Score: 5, Funny

    Indestructable AOL disks.. *Shivers*

    1. Re:Uh-oh.. by Ride-My-Rocket · · Score: 3, Funny

      Thermite.

    2. Re:Uh-oh.. by Carnildo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Indestructable AOL disks.. *Shivers*

      I've heard people have good results with the application of Tesla coils to the problem.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    3. Re:Uh-oh.. by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Indestructable AOL disks.. *Shivers*

      No, Good! We then have free roofing "tiles" that last forever. You know how much roofing tiles cost?

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    4. Re:Uh-oh.. by pHatidic · · Score: 4, Funny

      Mount Doom.

    5. Re:Uh-oh.. by LordLucless · · Score: 5, Funny

      Let me know how that turns out. Me, I'm rather suspicious of a roofing tile that comes with a hole in the middle.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  4. Hmm.... by JoeLinux · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I *ALWAYS* wondered why people whose buildings get tagged wouldn't spray teflon on the side of their building...now I will wonder why they don't use this stuff.

    Sounds pretty cool

    Joe

    1. Re:Hmm.... by danlor · · Score: 5, Funny

      You try spinning your building at 8000 RPM for the "spin application" process.

    2. Re:Hmm.... by shigelojoe · · Score: 5, Funny

      You try spinning your building at 8000 RPM for the "spin application" process.

      There's a "screwing in a lightbulb" joke in there somewhere...

    3. Re:Hmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I looked into anti-grafitti treatment for my fraternity house in Boston several years ago. Even targeting just the worst spot (~35x10ft brick wall) was excessively expensive compared to renting a sandblaster every three months and spending a Saturday morning cleaning it and paying for repegging the mortar every other year.

      Granted, the level of grafitti problems we had were only only 'nuisance level', the cost of treating the wall astounded me. Even with the treatment we still would have had to rent a pressure washer to clean it and have to redo the teflon every few years. It was much cheaper to sandblast and repair the damage.

      The teflon isn't really a miracle solution.

      I wish I'd caught some asshole tagging the house, but it's probably best that I didn't...I got pretty angry over the thing. We did set up a camera for a while and gave the cops the video, but that had no noticable impact.

    4. Re:Hmm.... by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Funny

      What a stupid insight. I doubt I would fit in a lightbulb... much less my wife AND me.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    5. Re:Hmm.... by chochos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      plus, if some vandal sprays the house and sees the paint just slid away, next day you'll find the house tagged... with a screwdriver instead of spray paint.

      --
      Go hug some trees.
    6. Re:Hmm.... by mlynx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've used a laminate coating created by GBC for an application similar to this. The product isn't teflon, it's Tedlar(tm). It's grafiti and chemical proof (also incredibly thin). I was however able to scratch it. As I understand it, it was developed for outdoor graphics used on bus stops and other public locations. As a test, I coated my ID badge. I can now "alter" my identity with a sharpie at any time.

  5. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  6. PSP by Mekabyte · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The PSP could really use this.

  7. I guess the real question is by ProppaT · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can they still be nuked??? Nothing's more entertaining than going to town with a crappy old microwave and a stack of AOL discs....

    --
    Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
    1. Re:I guess the real question is by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 4, Funny
      Fun to watch, but the smell - yuck.

      I don't know which is worse - AOL raw or cooked!

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    2. Re:I guess the real question is by nomadic · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't know which is worse - AOL raw or cooked!

      The worst is installed.

  8. CD Rot by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder if they apply this coating as a complete shield, would it prevent CDs rotting?

    Remember, theres two sides to every coating.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
    1. Re:CD Rot by TheMediaWrangler · · Score: 5, Informative

      Often, CD rot is due to poor evacuation of oxygen between the layers of the CD during manufacture. If the O2 is already present, a new coating won't help much.

      --
      People should not fear what they do not understand; people should fear because they do not understand.
  9. *Yawn*... by the+pickle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Call me when they have a transparent industrial diamond coating.

    Until then, don't call it "scratch-proof."

    Because it isn't. And it wouldn't be then, either.

    p

    --
    In Korea, long hair is for old people!
    1. Re:*Yawn*... by geordieboy · · Score: 5, Funny

      You have very stringent anti-scratch requirements. I salute you.

      --
      The world is everything that is the case
    2. Re:*Yawn*... by dedeman · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why? Are all of your diamonds somehow coming in contact with your CD collection? Maybe "very very very very very scratch resistent" would better suit your stringent product definition requirements?

  10. Will this defeat the marker DRM exploit? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No more marking the edge of CD to defeat the copy protection?

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  11. Dude, I want that coating by geordieboy · · Score: 5, Funny

    I would chew my own nuts off to get my hands on a Powerbook dipped in this shit

    --
    The world is everything that is the case
    1. Re:Dude, I want that coating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think that says something about the Mac userbase...

    2. Re:Dude, I want that coating by ColaMan · · Score: 4, Funny

      Unix? Probably not even circumcised. Savages.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
  12. I want! by RealAlaskan · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I want this for my plastics. I mean, my glasses with the plastic lenses which aren't quite as clear as they used to be. This would make life significantly better for all us glasses wearers!

    I just wonder if it's antireflective, too?

    --
    See what I've been reading.
    1. Re:I want! by riprjak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      See my post somewhere else here :)... Polymer opthalmic lenses have carried (or have had the option to carry, depending on how cheap you are) scratch resistant coatings for a VERY LONG time... Anti reflective coatings too, tho these are not chemical "films" applied as liquids (as per scratch resisiting) but are thin layers of metal applied using PVD (Physical Vapour Deposition).

      Most of the "hazing" would be due to build up of oils or fluids leaching in from the exposed edges when they are cut for framing.

      Of course, scratch resistant is NOT scratch proof. Not now, not ever.

      Err!
      jak.

  13. Odd... by Ibanez · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You'd think that if we had the capabilities to make something like this, it would have been done...

    A coating that is (I assume) optically perfect enough to not mess up something as sensitive as the laser in a CD, and that durable, would be a boon for a huge number of industries.

    I'll have to see it before I believe it, and then, if its true, someone's probably gonna make a good bit of money...:D

    Blake

    1. Re:Odd... by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      You are making the invalid assumption that the surface of a CD has to actually be highly optically permissive. It doesn't. The laser is out of focus when it passes through the surface of the disc, and in focus when the laser strikes the metal layer of the CD. The greater the distance between the surface and the metal, the more scratch-tolerant the optical media. This coating could be utterly unsuitable for coating, say, eyeglasses, yet be ideal for CD, DVD, et cetera.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  14. Re:Finally... by UWC · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can take my CDs to the beach!

    I can hear your CD player's various moving parts whimpering in fear.

    --
    Honor Among Slackers. A veri
  15. What is so horrible about caddies? by amorsen · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "The consortium is pleased because no consumer optical disc that uses a caddy has ever been a commercial success."

    I don't find the caddies around 3 1/2" floppies a significant hassle. Why can we deal with caddies on magnetic media, but not on optical media?

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    1. Re:What is so horrible about caddies? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Arguments about the usefulness and modern cost of floppies aside, they'd still be cheaper if you didn't need the caddy.

      --
      tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
    2. Re:What is so horrible about caddies? by Dynedain · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's because the caddie was a part of the media, just like Zip disks.

      When the caddy sits on your desk, and you have to put the media in it in order to insert it into a drive (like early CD-ROMs and DVD-RAM) it becomes much less consumer-friendly.

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    3. Re:What is so horrible about caddies? by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd actually prefer something along the lines of some of Panasonic's drives (both standalone and integrated into set-top DVD recorders) that will accept both caddied and bare DVD-RAM discs. Most of the modern caddied DVD-RAM media can actually be de-caddied and vice-versa.

      Ideally they'd make the drive mechanism accepting a disc in a caddy the standard, but make the caddy itself optional for the media. People with a penchant for caddies could buy caddies and caddy their media as appropriate.

      This way you could keep your most frequently used media in caddies (games, OS media, whatever), but buy cheaper decaddied media and store less frequently used media bare in binders or other storage systems.

      I can appreciate mandating that all media be caddied would crank up the cost of media, but negating caddies completely doesn't make sense, either.

  16. Childproof? by sugarbabe · · Score: 4, Funny

    I want that coating on my pocket pc! Current screen was destroyed by my three year old using the original plastic stylus. I never imagined it was possible :(

    --
    Seattle Eastside Math & Science Tutoring
  17. Oh yeah? by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 4, Funny
    Can it stand up to the Samsonite gorilla???

    Withstand that, and then you may color me impressed.

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
    1. Re:Oh yeah? by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

      Can it stand up to the Samsonite gorilla???

      Our tests found that they do, but with one caveat: you have to wait for disks to pass through the ape's digestive track to get them back.

      -- Somesonite Researcher

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  18. What about the other side? by Sargondai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I thought CDs these days tend to get scratched more on the 'label' side? And that's only since a price-saving move was made to remove an extra protective layer in modern CD manufacturing. Is this (or will it be) cost-efficient enough to add the protection back in?

  19. I can do it.... by evanbd · · Score: 3, Funny

    I have some thermite in the other room. I'll be right back :)

  20. hardness vs. brittleness by morcheeba · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You might as well go all the way and demand something as hard as carbon nanotubes.

    Of course, the penalty of extra hardness is the fact that it becomes brittle. Glass CD's wouldn't scratch, but I'd prefer soft plastic over them any day.

    I've got a synthetic sapphire crystal on my watch, and the rest of it is made of a hardened titanium, and 4 years so far without a single scratch. It's obvious that I've never whacked the crystal hard against a rock.

    --
    HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
  21. Get RID of disks! by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We need a medium that is smaller and covered except for the terminals (wires) that connect. In other words, kind of like a USP flash "card". The problem with a disk is that the content itself is exposed. If it is an enclosed chip, then the content itself is protected by a shell.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  22. Burning? by Rew190 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I RTFA, but a question popped in my head. Do any of you optical gurus have any idea if this can be used with writable media?

    1. Re:Burning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to TDK's site, they already have DVD-R media with that coating.

    2. Re:Burning? by Stripsurge · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well since DVDs use visible light lasers (650nm) to both write and read, and you since you can see through the plastic to the recording surface, there's no reason it shouldn't work.

  23. What about finger prints? by BrewerDude · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Sounds like it would make a great coating for sunglasses, too.

    And, if it makes fingerprints stick less, then that'd be an added bonus. I wonder whether the ink-resisitant properties have any effect on oily or gummy buildups.

    Anyone care to speculate?

  24. other applications might be even more profitable by Bilestoad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Great - when can I get this coating on my glasses?

  25. CD ViceVersaReversa by Mulletproof · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm hoping they're going to use this stuff as an under/over finish. I've more CDs die from label damage- the least protected side of a CD -than outright read side abuse. All it takes is a minor scatch to that area and the CD becomes an unreadable coaster. ...Which makes it all the more funny to watch people set it on that side, thinking they're protecting the read surface.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
  26. Re:You are not 1337 enough by Owndapan · · Score: 5, Funny
    Slight correction: Give your most valuable data CD / favourite music CD / utterly irreplaceable CD and equipment to said 2-year old, and they will find a way to wreak said death and/or destruction upon the CD.

    Kids are very discerning, they won't just break anything. It has to be important. Otherwise a large proportion of my collection could have been saved by keeping a stack of AOL's handy ;)

  27. Re:Pirates Beware? by technopinion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, Disney DVDs need to be ripped and re-burned so that we're not forced to sit through 10 minutes of trailers and ads (for which they've so kindly disabled ff/next chapter) every time we want to watch the movie.

  28. Re:For those who did not RTFA... by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Informative

    A caddy is a protective cover for your disc that stays on the disc even when it's in the drive. A long time ago CDs used to come in caddys (or at least, I remember seeing a CD-ROM drive that used caddys when I was little). It's a stretch, but you could call the plastic parts of a floppy disc a caddy. The main reason you'd want to avoid them is that they add bulk to the disc.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  29. The real life test... by jmcmunn · · Score: 3, Insightful


    I take the CD, and use it in my car. After listening to it, I toss it on the passenger seat, where it will slide down onto the floor when I stop quickly. There it will sit, for a month or more until I decide to clean the car. If it plays after all of the foot traffic that has been in and out of the car....then it is worthy of the front page blessing it recieved here at Slashdot.

    Until then, it is hype. Let's get people using it and either proving its worth or its lack thereof.

  30. Re:Added cost? by DAtkins · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Another way CDs can become damaged is simple oxidation of the recording layer.

    But really all we are talking about is a possible manufacturing improvement in the mostly matured plastic film market. I would expect a number of these products to come out as different companies fight for market share. Until we get new polymers for the actual base material of the entire CD, this really isn't much different than that current press-on protector.

    I'll just keep etching my stone tablets until then...

    Also, I'd be happy if they simply replaced that super crappy plastic they use for the stupid CD cases. Whoever thought it would be a good idea to make a case that was more fragile than it's contents should be drawn and quartered.

  31. slick bricks.... by ecalkin · · Score: 5, Funny

    wouldn't it be kinda hard to build a building out of bricks that were coated with a non-stick substance? after all, mortar is designed to stick bricks together....

    just a though!
    eric

  32. Scratch resistant is good... by Thaelon · · Score: 5, Informative

    But I'm wary of anything touted as -proof. -proof smacks of marketing getting their grubby paws on it.

    Sure they gave you some steel wool to scratch the CD with, it's only a 3-4 on Moh's hardness scale, as in not very. I'll be impressed when it can withstand being tossed shiny side town on a little bit of sand on a hard surface and rubbed around vigrously. Quartz/glass/sand/silicon are a great deal more likely to encounter your CDs than steel wool is and they're a 7 or so on Moh's hardness scale.

    I picked Moh's because to explain because: Mohs hardness is defined by how well a substance will resist scratching by another substance. from: http://www.calce.umd.edu/general/Facilities/Hardne ss_ad_.htm#3.6.1.

    --

    Question everything

    1. Re:Scratch resistant is good... by stonecypher · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, steel and quartz are both Moh 7. Glass, on the other hand, is Moh 5. You should check your numbers before hitting submit. In fact, for the very reason that steel, quartz crystal and silica have the same Moh characteristics, the steel wool is a near-ideal example medium.

      Maybe more importantly, you can't bring old CDs within three feet of steel wool, or they catch fire, immediately destroying all other music within 10 feet and causing a Save Versus Nerd Jokes at dc40 to 50 feet for all non-magical non-living items in range.

      Mod parent down, metamoderate modders down.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
  33. iPod? by toolio · · Score: 4, Insightful

    how about this coating on the iPod?

    It seems a harsh wind can put a scratch on the display.

  34. I suspect this isnt a NEW development... by riprjak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As the opthalmic industry has applied scratch resistant coatings with matched refractive indices to polycarbonate lenses for many years now. Indeed, the "wire wool" test is a standard for scratch resistance.

    It seems just a new application of old technology, long overdue IMHO. When I used to work in R&D for one of the major opthalmic lens manufacturers (when they still had R&D) I recall the licensing of our scratch proof coatings to the optical storage industry was mooted on several occasions.

    As the cost of these coatings was prohibitive; often costing up to $12USD per application, I suspect they may have found ways to reduce the cost or they could afford to sacrafice matching of RI or some degrees of scratch resistance.

    Furthermore, I recall an undergrad student doing work with Diamond Like Carbon coating of optical media at a local university several years back. Althought the differing refractive indices of media and coating led to problems.

    Id love to see some REAL detail about this technique and hear if it is possible to apply to existing CDs/DVDs... although back at aforementioned opthalmic R&D lab I coated all of my own CDs/DVDs that I owned at the time... Since the coating was RI matched, it even repaired scratches :)

    err!
    jak.

  35. degradability? by billy+reuben · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How degradable is this supertough coating? How hard will it be for you to get rid of it when you want it to go away? Remember that one of the main selling points of CFC's was that they were very unreactive. As we've all learned within the past couple decades, this was also a bad thing about them, since they were found to be associated with ozone layer depletion. I'm not saying unmarkable AOL CD's will destroy the ozone layer, but I'm thinking that disposal of items covered with this new coating might be a bit more complicated than it would be with conventional, noncoated objects. Thoughts?

  36. WRONG! The top is FAR more vulnerable to damage. by Behrooz · · Score: 4, Informative

    Most CD/DVDs are FAR more vulnerable to damage by being scratched through the top side. The bottom side has most of thickness of the disc (clear, resilient plastic) between the surface and the data medium. The actual information is stored on the backside of the substrate at the TOP of the disk, and even a shallow scratch through that will destroy data.

    You can have a pretty massive scratch on the plastic side, and judicious application of nose grease and a high-quality reader will do just fine. Scratch the data layer, and you're screwed.

    They can still texture the top side, but *that* is the side that requires the best protection you can get on it, either way.

    --
    "We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
  37. Re: WRONG! -- Wrong again! by crazycrazy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not so for DVD's. All dvd's are "sandwiches." This is so that we can have double sided dvd's that aren't thicker than single sided ones.

    A typical dvd would look like this:
    Plastic coating.
    Side 1 Content.
    Back to back glue.
    Side 2 Content, or just a blank side.
    Plastic coating.
    (optional) Label (if not a 2 sided DVD)

    The total thickness is about the same as a CD tho, so only half as far to get through to the good stuff from either side. But as such both sides have some protection.

  38. Re:WRONG! The top is FAR more vulnerable to damage by reconbot · · Score: 5, Informative

    WRONG again. DVDs have the data in between two layers of plastic. So scratch the label as much as you want, it won't damage the data as long as you don't puncture the plastic.

    Fun Tip: Nuke a DVD for a minute or two and the two plastic disks will slide apart. Double the frisbees double the fun. ;-)

    --
    I'm just this guy, you know?
  39. True story by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 4, Funny

    2 Year olds

    When my son was 3 years old (1991), I saw a Fisher-Price CD player and thought "hey, these newfangled CDs are supposed to be indestructible, what a great idea for a Christmas present".

    Christmas morning, first thing as we are oohing and aahing over the cd player, a glass of milk gets tipped into it. No problem, quickly cleaned it out and it still worked.

    The kid grabs a cd and starts running across the room. He trips, falls, and breaks the cd in half.

    If you want to find new failure modes, just give something to a toddler...

    --
    A house divided against itself cannot stand.
  40. DVDs are "sandwiched", so they are quite safe by phoenix321 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Compare a DVD and a CD of yours and you'll see that the DVD is made of two plastic layers with the reflective surface between them, while the CD only has one with the reflective surface at max barely protected bv a coating.

    If you have an old or damaged DVD and CD, try scratching them from the label side. The CD will instantly have scratches that can be seen from both sides, but I'll bet you won't damage the reflective surface of the DVD if you scratch it with anything short of a box cutter. That's why the manufacturer logo and other preprinted text on the DVD-R label side appears a bit "fuzzy" sometimes - it is beneath 0,6mm a polycarbonate layer.

    This was the only drawing I found without searching too long. It pictures a dual layer DVD, but the general construction scheme is the same.

    Upper polycarbonate layer:
    Outer label (optional, mostly used on movie DVDs)
    Polycarbonate 0,3mm
    Data U-1 and semi-reflective layer upper side (optional for dual-layer, double-side discs, only with no outer label)
    Polycarbonate 0,3mm
    Data U2 and full reflective layer upper side (optional for double-side discs, only with no outer label)
    Inner label (optional, used on most DVD-Rs, only without label and not on double-sided discs of course)
    Bonding glue
    Lower polycarbonate layer:
    Full reflective layer down side and data D-2
    Polycarbonate 0,3mm
    Semi-reflective layer down side and data D-1 (optional for dual-layer discs)
    Polycarbonate 0,3mm

    Thickness total ~1,2mm. All DVDs have two layers of polycarbonate with the primary reflective surface sandwiched between them (the secondary, if present, is embedded within). You can scratch the underside, diffracting the laser but you cannot peel off the reflective coating anymore like you could with CD-Rs. That gives DVDs a better durability and theoretical aging resistance, but how fast the glue between the sandwiches dissolves or affects the refletive layer is yet to be determined.

    Each reflective surface has a capacity of ~4,7 GB, hence dual-layer discs have ~2x 4,7 and double-sided, dual-layer discs ~4x 4,7. (a little less due to longer pit lengths in dual layer recording) The rare "double-sided DVDs" actually have two sides of data like an old vinyl recording.