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."

36 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 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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...

    4. 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).

    5. 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..
    6. 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.

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

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

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

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

  7. 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...

  8. 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
  9. 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

  10. 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.

  11. 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
  12. 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?
  13. 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?

  14. 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...

  15. 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.

  16. 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 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.

  17. 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 ;)

  18. 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.

  19. 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

  20. 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
  21. 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

  22. 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?

  23. 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?
  24. 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.