Slashdot Mirror


Spray-On Liquid Glass

bLanark writes with news of a new substance that can be sprayed on for a durable, easy-to-clean film on almost any substance, hard or soft. The liquid glass is essentially pure silicon dioxide, and it goes on in a layer 15 to 30 atoms thick. It is breathable and flexible, but waterproof and resistant to bacterial growth. The patent is held by a German company, Nanopool, which is in discussion with many parties about a wide range of uses: keeping public spaces sanitary, keeping restaurants clean, and keeping cars or trains clean. "The spray forms a water-resistant layer, meaning it can be cleaned using only water. Trials by food-processing companies showed that sterile surfaces covered with a film of liquid glass were equally clean after a rinse with hot water as after their usual treatment with strong bleach."

293 comments

  1. bleach is great but focus on antibiotics by digitalsushi · · Score: 0

    we pour a gallon of that crud down the sink to kill 16 germs. not that a strong base like bleach is great for mother earth either.

    --
    slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
    1. Re:bleach is great but focus on antibiotics by bakawolf · · Score: 1

      Because you really want to breed super germs on your counter top.

    2. Re:bleach is great but focus on antibiotics by bistromath007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think that was his point and he's just not incredibly competent at communicating it.

    3. Re:bleach is great but focus on antibiotics by vlm · · Score: 4, Informative

      we pour a gallon of that crud down the sink to kill 16 germs. not that a strong base like bleach is great for mother earth either.

      Uh... OK.

      So, first of all, silicon dioxide (the subject of the article) is soluble in strong bases. So it won't take long for your "strong base" to dissolve this stuff away. Or any strong base. Heck bird poop would probably suffice.

      Secondly, bleach is primarily an oxidizer, secondarily it is somewhat basic but not impressively so. Perhaps you're thinking of some other strongly basic solution you pour down the drain, like, maybe lye based drain cleaner?

      Thirdly as far as mother earth vs sodium hypochlorite, its ridiculously unstable and decomposes away before it even hits the sewage treatment plant. I suppose that by Environmentalist Religion "original sin" doctrine it is bad, in that everything any human does is always inherently bad. But compared to most things poured down drains, bleach is rather harmless. You can drink it when highly diluted as a water purifier.

      It "sounds good", but it indicates a lot of weird ideas about basic chemistry (basic, get that pun?)

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:bleach is great but focus on antibiotics by ceoyoyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bleach is the nuke that people who are serious about killing bacteria use to clean their counters with. Antibacterial cleaners are the things the amateurs at home use.

      If you can satisfy the pros that they don't need to use bleach on their counters then the only remaining reason for anyone to use an antibacterial cleaner on his counter at home is superstition.

    5. Re:bleach is great but focus on antibiotics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, chlorine bleach (NaOCl - sodium hypochlorite) breaks down to NaCl (salt) and H2O (water), and O2 (Oxygen).

      As far as industrial cleaners go, it's pretty much as good for the environment as you're going to get.

    6. Re:bleach is great but focus on antibiotics by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 3, Funny

      He's pretty much credibly incompetent at it, in fact.

    7. Re:bleach is great but focus on antibiotics by bronney · · Score: 0, Troll

      I used to pour strong base down the drain in my basement every night. Now I got older, less often.

    8. Re:bleach is great but focus on antibiotics by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      SO, he was likely bullied as a kid, eh?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    9. Re:bleach is great but focus on antibiotics by Dudeman_Jones · · Score: 1

      uh no. we should avoid antibiotics as much as possible except under strict circumstance, or else we'll breed a super bug that antibiotics can't kill.

    10. Re:bleach is great but focus on antibiotics by Zapo_Verde · · Score: 3, Informative

      It seems like people often confuse antibacterial agents with antibiotics. Antibiotics you have to use correctly in order to prevent breeding super germs. The point of an antibiotic is to kill the germ without hurting the person receiving the antibiotic. It generally takes a few days/weeks for the antibiotic to wipe out an infection. Antibacterial soaps and solutions will never create super-germs because they are the equivalent of a nuclear bomb to germs. These are never used internally because they will kill your body's cells as easily as they kill the bacteria. For countertops or handwashing they are perfect though because they are effective sanitizers. A few seconds/minutes is enough to kill the germs.

    11. Re:bleach is great but focus on antibiotics by pinkushun · · Score: 1

      You can drink it when highly diluted as a water purifier.

      At a dilution of 8 drops of bleach to 3.8 liters (1 gallon) of water, that ratio should give you some idea of how 'harmless' it is, for us organics at least. -- http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw000/faq/emerg.html

    12. Re:bleach is great but focus on antibiotics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      No one has yet noted that this stuff will be a cheap and easy way to create aerosolized anthrax, which previously required special silicon coating equipment, that only the military had, to cover anthrax bacteria to keep them from clumping. I think this is bad news because it makes it a lot easier to make bioweapons.

    13. Re:bleach is great but focus on antibiotics by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      Bleach is the nuke that people who are serious about killing bacteria use to clean their counters with. Antibacterial cleaners are the things the amateurs at home use.

      I've heard that no common bacteria survives bleach, but many survive antibiotics, and more gain the ability every day.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    14. Re:bleach is great but focus on antibiotics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, since germs are reduced by using this stuff does this mean what I'm really doing is this.
      Oh, some germs...Hmmm, I'll just spray 30 atoms of this stuff over the germs and now I'm germ free.
      Repeat and rinse! Then to scrap the layers of this stuff off the covered over green or blank mold, II get out my all purpose easy-off oven cleaner and wipes the stuff away to start all over. :)

    15. Re:bleach is great but focus on antibiotics by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      It depends on the concentration of the bleach, and the concentration (and type) of the antibiotics.

      Bleach has the advantage that it's very, very unlikely any bacteria will develop a serous resistance to it. It's kind of like how you might be more resistant to a particular virus than someone else but everyone is pretty much equally vulnerable to being shot.

    16. Re:bleach is great but focus on antibiotics by jbeaupre · · Score: 2, Informative

      Antibacterial soaps and solutions will never create super-germs

      Those chowderheads at the CDC must not have figured that out yet: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no3_supp/levy.htm
      But give them time, and they will see the wisdom of your words.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    17. Re:bleach is great but focus on antibiotics by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      sodium hypochlorite ... You can drink it when highly diluted as a water purifier

      As a matter of fact, our water treatment plant uses sodium hypochlorite for our fresh water supply.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_purification#Chlorine_disinfection
      Cheaper and safer than using chlorine gas.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    18. Re:bleach is great but focus on antibiotics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Cheaper and safer than using chlorine gas.

      That is a matter of scale.

      The water treatment plant at which I work treats between a hundred million and a quarter of a billion gallons of water per day. We purchase liquefied chlorine gas in railcars. Bleach would cost far more.

      The only reason bleach is cheaper for your utility is because maintaining a chlorine gas system of any size is an expensive overhead cost which vastly outweighs the fact that bleach is much more expensive, in terms of cost per volume of available active chlorine.

    19. Re:bleach is great but focus on antibiotics by budgenator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Antibacterial soaps and solutions will never create super-germs because they are the equivalent of a nuclear bomb to germs.
      Current research would disagree with that point of view, see Disinfectant could increase antibiotic resistance of bug. Also remember there is a big difference between a consumer grade "sanitizer" and a Hospital Grade Disinfectant, on an otherwise clean hard surface 1 cm^2 contaminated with 1M "germs" the consumer grade sanitizer kills 99.9% of the germs leaving 1000 on the surface, the hospital grade kills 99.999% leaving only 10, both require a minimum 10 minutes of contact time; when is the last time you've seen anybody allowing 10 minutes of contact time. For grins and giggles try washing your hands for the recommended 30 seconds, as measure by a clock, 10 seconds will seem like a long time.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    20. Re:bleach is great but focus on antibiotics by budgenator · · Score: 1

      That's what I use at work, 10% bleach solution, cheap effective hospital grade disinfection without turning your counter tops into goo. Everything else that works as well seems to either soften plastics or embrittles them, and dissolves paint.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    21. Re:bleach is great but focus on antibiotics by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I would think (and be wrong) that liquid chlorine gas would be more expensive than hypochlorite. The production equipment, distribution, and cost of handling such hazardous material has to be more expensive, so maybe it must come down to energy required.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  2. winshield repair? by ak_hepcat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Can I now avoid costly windshield replacements by simply spraying this stuff on my windshield after a ding storm, or crack?

    Because that'd be nice.

    --
    Support FSF: Stop thinking with your wallet, and think with your imagination. (cc/non-commercial)
    1. Re:winshield repair? by fuo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Probably not... unless you don't mind having having only 15 to 30 atoms between you and the outside world.

    2. Re:winshield repair? by Chyeld · · Score: 5, Funny

      Commando baby, it's the only way.

    3. Re:winshield repair? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 5, Informative

      Can I now avoid costly windshield replacements by simply spraying this stuff on my windshield after a ding storm, or crack?

      The problem with having a crack isn't the divot where the crack started, it's the leading end of the crack. When you apply stress to a material that has a crack, the force per unit area at the tip of the crack approaches infinity, so what you have to do to keep the crack from spreading is increase its area. That's why windshield repair people drill holes at the ends of the cracks and then fill them.

      Even if your intent is just to fill the much smaller divots in the glass, 30 molecules thick isn't going to make much difference. What you need is a material that has roughly the same index of refraction as the glass, that you can spread over the divots like makeup.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    4. Re:winshield repair? by jgtg32a · · Score: 2, Funny

      Can't you just spray more then?

    5. Re:winshield repair? by Parhelion · · Score: 0

      Silicosis anyone? Silicone Dioxide is silica - the stuff they remove from regular sand to make play sand, so kids don't inhale the stuff and get lung diseases!

    6. Re:winshield repair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait.. "Play sand"

      So.. Now we can't even take our kids to the freakin' beach??

    7. Re:winshield repair? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Um... and so are your windows, and your drinking glasses, and your computer and television screens, and mirrors, and a plethora of other items in the home.

      Your point? (I would assume that people would take precautions to avoid breathing the stuff as they spray.)

    8. Re:winshield repair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> roughly the same index of refraction as the glass, that you can spread over the divots like makeup

      What's the index of refraction of Tammy Faye Bakker?

    9. Re:winshield repair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're missing the point here:

      REVOLUTIONARY SPRAY ON CONDOM

      Just hope it doesn't shatter.

    10. Re:winshield repair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      YOU TAKE YOUR KIDS TO THE BEACH?!

      What about the:
      pedophiles
      dragons
      terrorists
      sex offenders
      gangs
      thieves
      nudism
      potential broken glass
      jellyfish
      wet material probably filled with all sorts of bacterial life, possibly even HIV, hep or any others.
      needles
      drugs
      BRIGHT FIRE BALL IN THE SKY

      Damn, beaches are dangerous. /paranoid parents

      I hate these past few decades, they need to die. :(

    11. Re:winshield repair? by mirix · · Score: 1

      There's a wee bit of a difference between pane glass, and an aerosol. One is slightly more prone to being inhaled.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    12. Re:winshield repair? by Turken · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, "play sand" is still almost entirely silicon dioxide, just like "regular sand."

      The only difference is that the play sand has been washed and screened so that it has less dust and a more uniform grain size. The fact is, "toxic" silicon dioxide is all around us, and we all breathe some amount of it in every single day. Silicosis only becomes an issue for people that breathe in large amounts of it on a regular basis - i.e. people who work 40+ hours a week in fine-dust-generating industries. If the silicon dioxide found in "regular sand" was truly a health hazard, then every beach in California would be outlawed (or at least coated in warning stickers) telling you to keep away. Hasn't ever happened, and never will, since casual exposure from playing in sand is not a silicosis hazard in any way.

      Another thing to consider is that given the typical chemical makeup of rocks and sand is that if it were even possible to remove all the "harmful" SiO2 from sand all you'd be left with was a fine dust of metals and trace elements which would be harmful if played in.

    13. Re:winshield repair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, then a bug could make a big hole...

    14. Re:winshield repair? by FlyMysticalDJ · · Score: 1

      I inhaled a window once... It wasn't a pretty picture.

    15. Re:winshield repair? by ArundelCastle · · Score: 1

      Even if your intent is just to fill the much smaller divots in the glass, 30 molecules thick isn't going to make much difference.

      I think Trojan might disagree with that.
      Going off on a tangent, I know, but exactly how flexible is that material? Lots of people have latex allergies. And if we leave the term "glass" off the packaging it could be appealing as an all-natural solution.

    16. Re:winshield repair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the silicon dioxide found in "regular sand" was truly a health hazard, then every beach in California would be outlawed (or at least coated in warning stickers) telling you to keep away.

      You mean there's actually something in California that DOESN'T have a sign on it saying that the state of California has found it to be a cancer risk?

    17. Re:winshield repair? by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can't believe that you forgot to mention these.
      dihydrousmonoxide
      silicone dioxide
      wind burn

    18. Re:winshield repair? by FrigBot · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's another difference between "play sand" in a sandbox, and "regular sand:" The urine content.

    19. Re:winshield repair? by cratermoon · · Score: 1

      and the biggie: ultraviolet RADIATION!

    20. Re:winshield repair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also hope that you can figure out how to get it off before you need to pee.

      Yes, that was intentional.

    21. Re:winshield repair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While this is true, the unfortunate part is that some fanatics somewhere will still try to use this to spread fear and other bullcrap like they always do. I mean change and new technology is evil after all =/

    22. Re:winshield repair? by sunderland56 · · Score: 1

      Silicosis only becomes an issue for people that breathe in large amounts of it on a regular basis

      Yes, but regular sand lies there on the ground - this stuff comes in an aerosol can. A layer of glass 20 atoms thick lining the inside of your lungs just can't be a good thing.

      The article says the stuff is "breathable" - but cyanide gas is breathable, too. It just isn't a recommended thing to do.

    23. Re:winshield repair? by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Anything in excess is harmful and can kill, including oxygen, water, bread, exercise, and so forth. Can you picture it?

      "It is known to the state of California that water can kill you."

      "It is known to the state of California that too much oxygen can kill you."

      "It is known to the state of California that eating too much of this bread can kill you."

      "It is known to the state of California that working out too hard at this gym can kill you."

      "It is known to the state of California that if you have latex allergy this condom can kill you."

      "It is known to the state of California that if you have certain heart conditions sex can kill you."

      "It is known to the state of California that impaling yourself on a steak knife can kill you."

      "It is known to the state of California that if you cut this glass, gather up the glass chips and dust and eat it, it can kill you."

      "It is known to the state of California that swallowing this undiluted bleach can kill you."

      "It is known to the state of California that sunbathing on this beach can cause cancer."

      What they ought to do is encapsulate the entire state in a huge (tinted and UV-blocking) dome, make sure all corners are covered in sponge rubber, and that all people are allowed to eat is that amino acid paste they had in the movie The Matrix, and allow sex only through permit. Then, maybe people will stop with the frivilous lawsuits prompting those fucking retarded warning decals.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    24. Re:winshield repair? by vikstar · · Score: 1

      How many atoms thick is a windshield crack?

      --
      The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
    25. Re:winshield repair? by X'16435934 · · Score: 0

      Right. Just try inhaling it.

      Then you'll feel the pane.

      --
      - Ecsad Essemal
      The Hexadecimal TV-REMOTE!
    26. Re:winshield repair? by mr_snarf · · Score: 1

      The article says the stuff is "breathable" - but cyanide gas is breathable, too. It just isn't a recommended thing to do.

      I believe it meant breathable as in "air can pass through it". As in "this shirt breathes well"

      --
      printf("Goodbye cruel world!\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b");
    27. Re:winshield repair? by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      > Hasn't ever happened, and never will, since that would ruin the tourist industry.

      Not saying you're wrong about the health details, just pointing out that monetary incentives have a history of being seen as rather more important.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    28. Re:winshield repair? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1
      Motorcycle racers use tear-off clear plastic strips on their helmets, maybe 20 layers deep. I've often thought that could be a possible solution to the divots-in-windshield problem. They're similar to the strip that people put over brand-new handheld electronics displays with pull-tabs on one edge.

      For the record, condoms appear (from a quick websearch) to be about 0.001" to 0.008" thick. 30 molecules of glass would be about 0.00005" thick, if I've done my math right and we make some assumptions about what constitutes a "glass molecule". (I was surprised when I did the math: I'd thought 30 molecules would be *much* thinner.)

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    29. Re:winshield repair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also - Spray on shoes!

      Plus a pasta tornado and massive cheeseburgers...

    30. Re:winshield repair? by sjames · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, the fine dust is what causes silicosis, not the grains you find on the beach. The more fine dust there is in it, the worse for you it is. That's why sand blasting requires protective gear and throwing sand around in the sandbox doesn't.

      A nano-particle spray is going to be much worse than the dust from sandblasting.

      That's the elephant in the room for the various nanoparticle consumer products, just about any solid turned into a fine dust will destroy your lungs. The only thing special about asbestos is that the fibers have a natural tendency to break into tiny particles. If not for that, it would be harmless.

      To make matters worse, nano-size particles can potentially go from lungs to bloodstream, then cross the blood-brain barrier. Many substances are only safe (in small quantities) because they don't reach the brain.

    31. Re:winshield repair? by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      I am seriously doubting that this will be allowed to be applied by anyone except a licensed professional. While it might lead to some strange fettishes, I doubt most of us would want to get this on our skin.

    32. Re:winshield repair? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Silica is the most abundant mineral in the Earth's crust Silicon dioxide

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    33. Re:winshield repair? by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      UVR?? I've never heard of that. It's interesting that the suntan lotion companies always talk of UV, but not UVR. Coincidence? I think not!

    34. Re:winshield repair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the silicon dioxide found in "regular sand" was truly a health hazard, then every beach in California would be outlawed (or at least coated in warning stickers) telling you to keep away. Hasn't ever happened, and never will, since casual exposure from playing in sand is not a silicosis hazard in any way.

      This is especially impressive, given how eager this state is to slap a Prop 65 warning on just about anything. Even PG&E is required to include a yearly notice in my bill stating that the natural gas they pipe into my home contains materials known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.

  3. Very sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not sure how breathable glass is, I would limit my exposure. If its a durable surface (not prone to cracking), this could be an amazing breakthrough. I wonder what the durability is, how often between applications. Well, off to rtfa!

    1. Re:Very sweet by simcop2387 · · Score: 1

      wrong type of breathable. i believe they mean that if the surface needs to breathe (certain plastics, etc.) that the glass will let it breathe.

    2. Re:Very sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It is not referring that you can snort or sniff the substance

      Breathable in relation to permeable
      This allows air to pass through while being too compact to allow water drops to enter.

  4. Too Bad by BlueBoxSW.com · · Score: 3, Funny

    Too bad "ManInTheWhiteSuit" is too long of a tag.

    What a great movie.

    1. Re:Too Bad by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Alec Guinness was cool. His movies always seemed to be rather sad at the end, though... seems "it" never worked out. Man in the White Suit, Lavender Hill Mob, Ladykillers, and Kind Hearts and Cornets all ended rather badly for the main protagonist. Among others. :)

  5. All glass is liquid by Psychotic_Wrath · · Score: 0

    Technicaly all glass is liquid. IAAC (I am a chemist)

    --

    Doctors do Massage in Longview WA now, who knew?
    1. Re:All glass is liquid by nomadic · · Score: 5, Informative

      Urban legend. Glass is an amorphous solid.

    2. Re:All glass is liquid by EvanED · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wikipedia disagrees.

      In particular, the myth that glass in older houses is thicker at the bottom because it flowed definitely seems to be just that -- a myth:

      If medieval glass has flowed perceptibly, then ancient Roman and Egyptian objects should have flowed proportionately more but this is not observed. Similarly, prehistoric obsidian blades should have lost their edge; this is not observed either (although obsidian may have a different viscosity from window glass). ... If glass flows at a rate that allows changes to be seen with the naked eye after centuries, then the effect should be noticeable in antique telescopes. Any slight deformation in the antique telescopic lenses would lead to a dramatic decrease in optical performance, a phenomenon that is not observed.

    3. Re:All glass is liquid by Tebriel · · Score: 4, Funny

      Apparently, the parent's parent is a _bad_ chemist.

      --
      The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
    4. Re:All glass is liquid by tehniobium · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This guy doesn't entirely agree with you:

      http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/Glass/glass.html

      I quote:

      <quote>In terms of molecular dynamics and thermodynamics it is possible to justify various different views that it is a highly viscous liquid, an amorphous solid, or simply that glass is another state of matter that is neither liquid nor solid. The difference is semantic.</quote>

      --
      No kitty, this is my pot pie!
    5. Re:All glass is liquid by mea37 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So I'm all for moderation not being aligned with agreement, but I'm not sure how a factually incorrect post can be "Informative"...

      Oh, wait, I get it... the post informs us in that now we know chemists can fall for myths just like everyone else.

      (The reason old windows are thicker at the bottom is that they were built that way, for structural reasons.)

    6. Re:All glass is liquid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically, glass is solid. Its molecules are rigidly bound and it is a non flowing, hard material. IANAC (I am not a chemist.)

    7. Re:All glass is liquid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently, the parent's parent is a _bad_ chemist.

      Superimposed Caption: "A Less Naughty Chemist's"

      "Right, who's got a boil on his [liquid glass] Semprini, then?"

    8. Re:All glass is liquid by toastar · · Score: 1

      By this definition isn't plastic "a highly viscous liquid" as well

    9. Re:All glass is liquid by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Aesthetic reasons actually, and that doesn't mean that glass doesn't creep. Just that it won't creep anywhere near as dramatically as seen in old windows in time periods as short as millions of years, which is significantly longer than the age of most buildings with windows.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    10. Re:All glass is liquid by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      The reason old windows are thicker at the bottom is that they were built that way, for structural reasons.

      That's just something fat old windows say to make themselves feel better.

    11. Re:All glass is liquid by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      No, it merely demonstrates that those selected for moderation can be subject to various incorrect assumptions, biases or asshat inclinations.

      Can we now get off the idea that moderation is anything but "Someone finds me interesting,informative, trollish" etc.?

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    12. Re:All glass is liquid by iris-n · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nice trolling.

      --
      entropy happens
    13. Re:All glass is liquid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may be a chemist, but you are certainly mistaken.

    14. Re:All glass is liquid by tholomyes · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Neither structural or aesthetic; glassblowers made the window panes by spinning the glass into large circles which were then cut. The glass circles were thinner towards the outer edge and installed thicker-side down for stability. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass#Behavior_of_antique_glass

      --
      When did the future switch from being a promise to a threat? -C. Palahniuk
    15. Re:All glass is liquid by tholomyes · · Score: 1

      Sorry, it was the crown glass which was thinner on the outer edge. The link cited above says that, in general, it was the opposite.

      --
      When did the future switch from being a promise to a threat? -C. Palahniuk
    16. Re:All glass is liquid by nomadic · · Score: 3, Informative

      Doremus, R. H. (1994) Glass Science, 2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 339 pp. ISBN 0471891746, disagrees with web page man.

    17. Re:All glass is liquid by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember that the current hypothesis is that window glass is sometimes a bit thicker along the bottom edge of ancient windows simply because it was easier for them to be made that way back in the day.

      Occam's razor gets you every time.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    18. Re:All glass is liquid by EagleFalconn · · Score: 1

      I'm a PhD chemist. I work on the absolute cutting edge of extremely thin glasses. To say that a glass is a solid or a liquid is a mischaracterization. Solids and liquids are thermodynamic phenomena. Glasses are not thermodynamic. They are liquids that are prevented from crystallizing because molecular motion is inexorably slow. Also, this company is full of crap. Thin film silicon dioxide doesn't flow like a liquid.

    19. Re:All glass is liquid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither structural or aesthetic; glassblowers made the window panes by spinning the glass into large circles which were then cut. The glass circles were thinner towards the outer edge and installed thicker-side down for stability.

      Chicken meet egg? How can you say it was not structural? They may have elected that fabrication method because it had the desired characteristic - thicker on one side - for the aforementioned purpose, structural. Why not install the glass thick-side up if it is not a structural issue?

    20. Re:All glass is liquid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obsidian tools have retained razor sharp edges for thousands of years. Glass != liquid

    21. Re:All glass is liquid by EvanED · · Score: 1

      I think the point is that the glass was installed thicker side down for structural reasons, but the sheets of glass themselves weren't really manufactured to deliberately have the thicker bit. The fact that there even was a thicker end was a side effect of the manufacturing process that they took advantage of, but wasn't really a goal of the process.

    22. Re:All glass is liquid by shellster_dude · · Score: 1

      Glass behaves as a liquid with a high viscosity, but also has a crystalline lattice structure which is one definition of a solid. So it depends on your definition. and really, your application.

    23. Re:All glass is liquid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Window glass could also be made by blowing big "bottles", and then cut away the top and bottom, and flaten out pieces of the middle.(while it still is soft.)

    24. Re:All glass is liquid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broad_sheet

    25. Re:All glass is liquid by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Crystalline lattice structure would imply a proper, regular plane of cleavage exists or can be made.

      You're not going to find that in any glass object.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    26. Re:All glass is liquid by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "(The reason old windows are thicker at the bottom is that they were built that way, for structural reasons.)"

      Well, I see you're just as susceptible.

      They didn't have glass rolling machines back then, it was mostly hand-blown and rolled on stone. It was thicker at one end because they simply didn't have the equipment to just roll out perfectly smooth and even panes of glass like we can.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    27. Re:All glass is liquid by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      From your own citation:

      Some people claim that glass is actually a supercooled liquid because there is no first order phase transition as it cools. In fact, there is a second order transition between the supercooled liquid state and the glass state, so a distinction can still be drawn.

      and

      The use of the term "supercooled liquid" to describe glass still persists, but is considered by many to be an unfortunate misnomer that should be avoided.

    28. Re:All glass is liquid by Steve525 · · Score: 1

      I suspect that the liquid is not actually silicon dioxide, but is a silicone that cures to silicon dioxide. Such flowable oxides (such as hydrogen silsesquioxane or HSQ) are often used in the semiconductor industry for a convienent planarizing layer.

    29. Re:All glass is liquid by EagleFalconn · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't really matter. If it ends the solvent evaporation step as silicon dioxide, its silicon dioxide. And this step seems unlikely to me too because they claim that its completely non-toxic...no solvent that evaporates that fast is non-toxic.

    30. Re:All glass is liquid by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that make it your grandparent?

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    31. Re:All glass is liquid by mea37 · · Score: 0

      Yes, and the thick end went down because...?

    32. Re:All glass is liquid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...people thought it was an good idea.

    33. Re:All glass is liquid by mea37 · · Score: 1

      "...people thought it was an good idea."

      Partial credit. The full answer would be "...people thought it was a good idea for structural reasons."

    34. Re:All glass is liquid by sjames · · Score: 1

      Actually, it DOESN'T disagree that glass is a liquid, it just disagrees that that fact is the reason for ancient glass panes being thicker at the bottom. (Which is actually an artifact of the way glass panes were formed before float glass was developed).

      There is enough justification to classify glass as a solid or as a liquid. If you call it a liquid, it is one so viscous that it will show no appreciable flow in the span of mere centuries.

    35. Re:All glass is liquid by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Because putting the thin side down would be monumentally stupid, as anyone with engineering experience would know.

      They were not designed thicker for structural purposes, they were just installed that way down for that reason.

      Go take some lessons from Josh Gelfand.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    36. Re:All glass is liquid by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Actually, it DOESN'T disagree that glass is a liquid, ...

      I never really said that the fact that the thickness of window panes is evidence that it is solid; just that it's not evidence that it's liquid. There are 'solid' claims based on other grounds, as the Wikipedia article describes a bit (as you seem to acknowledge).

      Debunking crappy negative arguments can be as important as making positive ones to arguing a position (see also: Moon landing 'conspiracy').

      If you call it a liquid, it is one so viscous that it will show no appreciable flow in the span of mere centuries.

      Or really dozens of millenia; that's also well-supported by observations.

    37. Re:All glass is liquid by sjames · · Score: 1

      It is important to be perfectly clear on exactly what is or is not debunked. By posting that wikipedia disagrees to a post claiming glass to be a liquid, you imply strongly that wikipedia claims that glass is not a liquid. However your quote only disagreed with the old myth that the varying thickness of centuries old glass is a result of glass being a liquid.

      The original poster never made reference to that myth in the first place.

      Further, to disagree, a quote would have to argue a contrary position, not merely argue an orthogonal position.

      Probably the best statement overall is that glass has many solid-like properties and a few liquid-like ones. For practical purposes it is usually best to treat it as a solid.

    38. Re:All glass is liquid by EvanED · · Score: 1

      By posting that wikipedia disagrees to a post claiming glass to be a liquid, you imply strongly that wikipedia claims that glass is not a liquid.

      The Wikipedia article does claim that glass is not a liquid:

      Glass is generally classed as an amorphous solid rather than a liquid. Glass displays all the mechanical properties of a solid. The notion that glass flows to an appreciable extent over extended periods of time is not supported by empirical research or theoretical analysis

      Perhaps my focus on the old window myth was misplaced, but I don't feel I was being misleading.

    39. Re:All glass is liquid by sjames · · Score: 1

      I don't think you were being deliberately misleading, just not selecting the best quotes to support your position

    40. Re:All glass is liquid by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I got the impression that the liquid in the "liquid" glass was more of a carrier either water or an alcohol per the article, and any material fluidized in a liquid carrier might be considered a liquid by the layman.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    41. Re:All glass is liquid by budgenator · · Score: 1

      ... so the ghosts of ancient glass makers could laugh at us trying to figure why the thick end was always on the bottom.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    42. Re:All glass is liquid by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      No, it's aesthetic. Look at the pictures that you have provided. The glass in those pictures demonstrates no particular affinity for lining up thick side down, merely for "cutting up a circle so that the pieces can be relatively efficiently reassembled into a square." My first guess would be that refiring the scraps was too wasteful compared to the clever jigsaw puzzle engaged in, and my second guess would be that it just looked cool and all "recycley" despite being hugely labor intensive.

      But the text of the article is the most damning on the "structural" theory: panes are often found "carelessly" laid thick side not-down. Yet those panes have survived the intervening years just as well as their "carefully" laid counterparts.

      I think the evidence is most supportive of the following assertion: ancient glass, for process reasons, tends to have a thick side, which was generally placed in windows with the thick side down, for aesthetic reasons.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  6. Let me be the first to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me be the first to say...

    sprayed on for a durable, easy-to-clean film on almost any substance, hard or soft.

    bow-chicka-wow-wow!

    1. Re:Let me be the first to say by toastar · · Score: 1

      Let me be the first to say...

      sprayed on for a durable, easy-to-clean film on almost any substance, hard or soft.

      bow-chicka-wow-wow!

      I'm not sure where you were heading with this, but just because it's waterproof doesn't mean you should use it as a spray on condom.

  7. diamond by confused+one · · Score: 1

    So, now, where is my liquid spray on diamond coating. That's what I'm waiting for...

    1. Re:diamond by Wizard+Drongo · · Score: 1

      Well, in theory it wouldn't really be that hard to do; we can already synthesise very small diamonds.

      Although, from my limited understanding of the field, you'd really want the glass instead, at the 100-300 molecule level.

      --
      The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
  8. New? Really? by wjsteele · · Score: 1

    I've been using a product called Knot Wax (from a company called LoPresti) for years on my airplane. It's a two part spray on process that coats the airplane in a glass shell.

    I'm not so sure this is any different, or new for that matter.

    Bill

    --
    It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
  9. Silicosis? by pwnies · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If it's that thing of a layer, wont it be prone to breaking off and becoming airborne? Sounds like silicosis-fun-times to me.

    1. Re:Silicosis? by pz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If it's that thing of a layer, wont it be prone to breaking off and becoming airborne? Sounds like silicosis-fun-times to me.

      Yeah. Silica-based glass is not very hard. Although this coating is reportedly flexible, I'm betting that it will be readily breached with a sharp edge, so that the example application, on food processing surfaces, at least ones that come in contact with knives, tools and containers, won't be that useful. Stainless steel works by more-or-less the same idea (a thin, hard oxide forms at the surface), except that it has the advantage that when -- not if -- the oxide layer is damaged, a new one automatically forms.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    2. Re:Silicosis? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Cutting boards made of glass are quite common. To be fair, though, I believe they are of somewhat different composition.

    3. Re:Silicosis? by Goldsmith · · Score: 1

      first thing I thought of too... these guys are going to have a fun time with European regulators.

    4. Re:Silicosis? by madbavarian · · Score: 1

      Is this going to be the new asbestos? Inhaling short silicon nanotubes doesn't sound like a very good idea.

    5. Re:Silicosis? by pz · · Score: 1

      Cutting boards made of glass are quite common. To be fair, though, I believe they are of somewhat different composition.

      And they're thick. Scratch the surface, and there is still glass beneath. With the waterproof coating, once the silica layer has been breached, all of the nice properties are lost and, as the great grandparent posting suggests, the coating will likely start to flake off. While the waterproofing characteristics are very interesting, I'm betting there is a lot of hard work left to make the coating durable enough for an industrial food processing setting.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    6. Re:Silicosis? by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Have you ever used one? I'm convinced glass cutting boards were invented to keep knife-sharpeners in business.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    7. Re:Silicosis? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Bamboo or that white opaque plastic stuff seems best.

      That said, if you are serious you should be using a steel on your blades before/after every use anyways.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    8. Re:Silicosis? by AfroTrance · · Score: 1

      A fine layer of silica is very minimal amount of material. Also, if it is scratched off, I doubt it would become airborne. I imagine it would come off in layers. You need a very fine powder to cause silicosis. Silicosis occurs in industries like mining where solid quartz is pulverised into a fine dust with drilling. Miners would be doing this everyday 8-12 hours a day, breathing in the silica and getting silicosis. This does not occur in modern mining operations as they use water to stop the dust becoming airborne. I believe some 3rd world mines are dry and I presume they would use dust masks when drilling.

    9. Re:Silicosis? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      You should not use a steel on your knife before or after every use. Every three uses is fine, you don't cause unnecessary blade wear, and you run less of a risk of putting a huge groove near the back of the blade that is caused by such excessive use of the steel.

      If you're serious, you should use a ceramic flatstone before any usage of the knife, to not only de-bur but reroll and create a much finer-grained edge than a typical diamond-dusted steel will.

      Man, those 3 years of working in an Oriental joint paid off today on Slashdot!

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    10. Re:Silicosis? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Damn. I thought working in a meat shop was good, and I get bested by a damn fish-cutter :P

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    11. Re:Silicosis? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Duck-cutter, actually. We rarely served any fish meals at the place. When we did, it was always milkfish, which you simply do not cut apart, you slice it open along the sides and deep-fry it.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    12. Re:Silicosis? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Either way, a specialist I wouldn't have expected to find on slashdot came around and slapped me :)

      That said, we were heavy duty - nothing but cut, dress, and wrap.

      Nothing is as satisfying as running a full-size turkey through a bandsaw. By satisfying, I mean disturbing.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    13. Re:Silicosis? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Run half a cow thru one and you'll probably seek professional help just from how high of a pitch of delight you emit as you watch the bandsaw rip through the carcass.

      I started off at 15, kept at it for 3 years, made my way to second head chef for the attached catfish restaurant (actually helped mask the smell of the open-air oriental market that it was attached to, totally exposed.)

      I'm no pro, but I do forge my own blades. http://traintagspotter.deviantart.com/art/Newly-Forged-Sword-71353126 old pic but one of my better works.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  10. Breatheable? by Tebriel · · Score: 1

    I always wanted waterproof lungs.

    --
    The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
    1. Re:Breatheable? by minvaren · · Score: 1

      Heeeeeeey Aqualung....

      --
      Big! Strong! Wow! Tada-O!
  11. touchscreen by StripedCow · · Score: 1

    Ah now i can finally keep my touchscreen from getting greasy...

    (Or does it interfere with its operation?)

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    1. Re:touchscreen by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Somehow I doubt spraying a glass coating on your glass touch screen is going to do you much good. Probably the opposite since glass touch screens are supposed to have oil repellant coatings.

    2. Re:touchscreen by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised that it took this long for someone to bring this up. It was one of my first thoughts.

    3. Re:touchscreen by mr_snarf · · Score: 1

      http://gizmodo.com/5302097/giz-bill-nye-explains-the-iphone-3gss-oleophobic-screen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleophobic
      According to Bill Nye, the iphone 3GS has already has a special Oleophobic polymer that does just what you want, but the older iphone 3G doesn't.

      --
      printf("Goodbye cruel world!\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b");
  12. But will it get you high when you snort it? by Orga · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Inhaling finely divided crystalline silica dust in very small quantities (OSHA allows 0.1 mg/m3) over time can lead to silicosis, bronchitis or (much more rarely) cancer, as the dust becomes lodged in the lungs and continuously irritates them, reducing lung capacities (silica does not dissolve over time). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_dioxide

    1. Re:But will it get you high when you snort it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They mean it will allow air to penetrate to the surface that is being coated, not that humans can inhale it without harmful effect.

    2. Re:But will it get you high when you snort it? by Chyeld · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OP was pointing out that spraying a thin layer of a substance that is known to damage the lungs when inhaled over everything you own is a good way of ensuring said damage to your lungs.

      EROSION, people. Most mountains are made of solid granite a harder substance than glass a glass shell, yet they are scoured into sand over time by the simple act of the wind blowing particulate against them. A glass shell over your counter-top is going to be silicon dust in the air in a few months of use, if it lasts that long.

    3. Re:But will it get you high when you snort it? by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      Yes, but that is 0.0001 g/m3 * 1/60.0843 g/molecule * 6.02*10^23 molecues/mol = 10^18 molecules / cubic meter. at 10-30 atoms thick, and assuming a each molecule takes up about 10 pm square (is that right?) you get about 2*10^25 of atoms/meter. Wait, can that be right? I must have a bad assumption or math somewhere...

    4. Re:But will it get you high when you snort it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if you smoke the dust gets embedded in mucous that you then hack up. No worries!

    5. Re:But will it get you high when you snort it? by david.given · · Score: 1

      A glass shell over your counter-top is going to be silicon dust in the air in a few months of use, if it lasts that long.

      My house is full of windows. It's not full of silicon dust.

    6. Re:But will it get you high when you snort it? by penguinchris · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not that this is really relevant (your point stands), but you've got some geological details wrong (IAAG).

      Most mountains have a lot of granite, yes, so I'll start with that - first, your assertion that granite is harder than glass is perhaps technically true, but there are several things to consider. Granite is composed primarily of quartz (hardness 7) and feldspar (hardness 6) while plate glass is traditionally considered to be hardness 5.5. Fine. But - glass is structurally solid and homogeneous, while granite is composed of a bunch of different mineral crystals stuck together, some of which (like biotite) might be considerably softer. This heterogeneity likely weakens the overall structure of granite (though this is far outside my areas of expertise within geology and material science).

      Most erosion in mountains comes from water, not wind. Wind is significant but only in certain areas in certain types of rock - think Arches National Park in Utah, with those wind-blown formations in sandstone, a very weak rock. For water to do anything, you need either something that will react chemically (which pure silicon shouldn't as far as I know) or you need mechanical action. This can be freezing and thawing like what cracks the roadway, or water carrying particulate over the surface (like in a stream). Again, with such a smooth, homogeneous surface, I don't see this being a problem... you don't really see erosion on glass windows, for example, even sloped ones.

      Erosion over hard surfaces (such as granite) is a big part of my research. It is extremely slow. How much erosion happens to rock counter tops, for example? Not all of those are granite, by the way, though they may be called that at home depot - there's a very wide range of minerals that goes into counter tops, many of which are soft enough to be eroded quite easily.

      And anyway - the "particulate" you mentioned as eroding mountains is particles of rock and mineral. Hard stuff. Unless you cook with sand, I really don't see this being a problem.

      What I'd be worried about is what happens in an impact. If you drop something heavy and sharp-edged on it, is it going to break? Even small breaks give you the opportunity for erosion as discussed. If this stuff fractures easily, then my points are partially invalid. It doesn't seem like that's the case, though. Seems like pretty great stuff.

    7. Re:But will it get you high when you snort it? by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      Do you regularly slam items into your windows? Cause I sure as heck don't.

      But I do toss stuff onto my counters all the time. Abrasive stuff like my keys, heavy stuff like cast iron pots, and even just sharp and pointy stuff like a pile of silverware.

      How thick are your windows, is it possible they are more than 30 atoms thick? Cause if so, it's probable that they aren't going to shatter/splinter in the same fashion as this coating.

      In other words, Apples -> Oranges.

    8. Re:But will it get you high when you snort it? by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      Your last paragraph is in fact my concern. I'm not expecting this to slough off as you wipe it down with bleach, I'm expecting it to be shattered in the course of just normal every day use. This might be a good idea in limited situations, but it sounds like round two of the "revenge of asbestos" in terms of household use.

    9. Re:But will it get you high when you snort it? by Kozz · · Score: 1

      Thank you! This is one of the many reasons why I read Slashdot. For all the loudmouth and/or uninformed comments one can find on this site, it's worth it when I can read the offhand opinions of people familiar with the science of... well, whatever the topic happens to be... Geology, Rocket Science, Brain Surgery, Law, etc.

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    10. Re:But will it get you high when you snort it? by binarybum · · Score: 1

      I cook with sand you insensitive clod!

      --
      ôó
    11. Re:But will it get you high when you snort it? by david.given · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But I do toss stuff onto my counters all the time. Abrasive stuff like my keys, heavy stuff like cast iron pots, and even just sharp and pointy stuff like a pile of silverware.

      You mean similar to the way people slam cast iron pots and piles of silverware onto glass cooker tops, cutting boards, etc?

      We use glass a hell of a lot, and silicosis is not a problem. You're going to need evidence to back up your statement.

    12. Re:But will it get you high when you snort it? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      While I agree with the intent of your post, Arches isn't a great example of wind erosion (aka Aeolian erosion). It's primarily been formed by sandstone being cracked vertically by uplift from an underlying salt dome, and the resultant fins eroding from water and freeze-spalling. If you want a fantastic example of primarily Aeolian erosion you drive straight west about 100km from Arches (mind the half-km drop into the Colorado river...) to Goblin Valley. Another close-up image.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    13. Re:But will it get you high when you snort it? by Chyeld · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You really seem to be getting caught up on not being able to tell the difference between something that is 30 atoms thick and something that is a quarter of an inch thick and made of tempered glass rather than raw silica.

      Unless you think this process includes popping the coated object in a forge, again I say: Apples -> Oranges.

    14. Re:But will it get you high when you snort it? by david.given · · Score: 1

      Unless you think this process includes popping the coated object in a forge, again I say: Apples -> Oranges.

      And again I say, evidence please. You are making a statement based on no data other than your intuition. Yes, this coating is different from a big slab of glass. Does this then imply that all this bad stuff you're talking about will happen? No.

      The burden of proof here is on you. You must justify your statements, or else they will be rightly ignored.

    15. Re:But will it get you high when you snort it? by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      I would think the burden of proof here would be on the manufacturer, and it would be to prove that this wasn't a potentially hazardous substance.

      Unless you honestly think the "Asbestos model" of indiscriminately shoving this everywhere and then dealing with the fall out when people get sick is appropriate.

  13. pulmonary fibrosis & silicosis risks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just as asbestos is a great product *for select applications* so is "glass." IMO, this sounds like a horrible idea.
    Have the inventors never heard of Silicon Fibrosis? Due to abrasion Si fibers go airborne, where they imbed in the lungs and abrade, causing eventual cancer. Go have a look at the MSDS sheets. It's a nasty way to die.

  14. Anti-graffiti? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder if this could help make graffiti removal easier. Spray this on a clean road sign, and then just wash it with water if it gets tagged. Sure could help new drivers in Los Angeles.

    1. Re:Anti-graffiti? by pz · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wonder if this could help make graffiti removal easier. Spray this on a clean road sign, and then just wash it with water if it gets tagged. Sure could help new drivers in Los Angeles.

      The New York Subway system has been reportedly using teflon coating for exactly this reason for a very long time. Urban pinheads -- ah, I mean artists -- determined to make their mark despite the paint-shedding properties of teflon discovered that you can scratch the surface instead, thus creating what's called scratchiti, a horrible, far more defacing version of graffiti.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    2. Re:Anti-graffiti? by dwiget001 · · Score: 1

      This could lead to graffiti competitions!

      Set up some wall, complete with owner's permission, spray this product on it, have the graffiti contestants go at it. Pictures taken, scores noted, wipe it down and then the next contestant does his/her thang.

      There could be sponsorships, regional championships and the ultimate Graffiti Bowl (TM)!

    3. Re:Anti-graffiti? by supernova_hq · · Score: 1

      This could lead to graffiti competitions!

      Gah, and you got my hopes up. I was hoping for a competition where people try to graffiti a wall as fast as possible while another guy tries to wash the same wall. Give the painter a half-wall head-start and see who wins :D

    4. Re:Anti-graffiti? by cenc · · Score: 1

      Better yet, Graffiti artist can now insure that their work is never removed. It will be an arms race to see who gets to the surface first.

      Question comes to mind from that however. Can you spray this stuff on, paint on top of it, then spray another coat to make it permanent?

    5. Re:Anti-graffiti? by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      I'm sure there are similar things in other cities, but in Rochester, NY there's a privately-owned wall that the owner allows people to spray-paint whatever they want, whenever they want. Cool idea, but it's pretty much just 15-year-olds with long hair who get dropped off and picked up there by their mom in an SUV who actually paint it (meanwhile, graffiti thrives elsewhere in the city - such as in the abandoned subway tunnel).

    6. Re:Anti-graffiti? by sponga · · Score: 1

      Than they'll just start scratching it, they're scumbags.

      A lot of the tagging going on now is cheap crap you scratch into a surface with a flathead or something.

    7. Re:Anti-graffiti? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solution: Make the signs out of osmium!

    8. Re:Anti-graffiti? by noidentity · · Score: 1

      I wonder if this could help make graffiti removal easier. Spray this on a clean road sign, and then just wash it with water if it gets tagged. Sure could help new drivers in Los Angeles.

      Except that it'll get washed off by the rain, and taggers before they paint them.

  15. You've got me? Who's got you? by Shabazz+Rabbinowitz · · Score: 2, Funny

    If nothing sticks to it, how does it stay on?

    It reminds me of the old joke: a young man comes back from his first year as a college chemistry major. His father asks him what he is working on. "We're trying to create the universal solvent."

    "What's that?"

    "It's a liquid that will dissolve anything."

    "What're ya gonna keep it in?"

  16. OUCH! by bullok · · Score: 1

    If a sheet of glass 15 to 30 atoms thick breaks, I'd expect it to be extremely hazardous to clean up. The pieces would be incredibly sharp.

    1. Re:OUCH! by supernova_hq · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking it would turn to dust before it ever had a chance to cut you.

    2. Re:OUCH! by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yep. Waaaaay sharper than a snowflake, even. And we all know how many deaths-by-slash-wounds there are from those.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    3. Re:OUCH! by Duggeek · · Score: 1

      Sharpness is a matter of area, applied forces and proportions.

      A sheet of window-grade glass can be incredibly sharp, but you can't hold a piece larger than a few square feet by a single corner. It breaks under its own weight.

      Similarly, take the glass slides that you would use under a microscope; just a few mm thick. If a piece was made the size of a 4" x 6" picture frame, it would suffer the same, fragile fate as the window.

      So, thinking along those lines, how big of a shard of 30-atom-thick glass would it take to puncture/cut skin? Unless the forces involved were precisely applied (or you have incredibly bad luck) I'm thinking it would utterly shatter to dust.

      I'm more fearful of the Siliconosis, personally... or a skin-suffocation scenario a'la Goldfinger. (The gold paint may not kill you, but who says a .001 micron-thick layer of glass wouldn't?)

      --
      This post © Copyrite Duggeek, all rights reversed.
    4. Re:OUCH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but who says a .001 micron-thick layer of glass wouldn't?

      Every sane person who knows that people don't breath through skin.

  17. Think bigger by RingDev · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Forget your windshield, think YOUR ENTIRE CAR!

    No more clear coats, no more waxing, no more "rubberized under coating". If it is cheap, and light enough, you could coat every body panel and frame member with the stuff, virtually guarantying a rust proof existence.

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    1. Re:Think bigger by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Informative

      Dream on.

      While it might make a nice coat for the paint job, it is likely that a glass coating is not very suitable for parts that undergo sharp mechanical stresses, like the suspension.

      But more to the point: undercoats in general have been found to be a bad idea. They tend to encourage destructive corrosion wherever they are compromised, while parts without such an impermeable waterproof coating will rust more gracefully.

    2. Re:Think bigger by grepdisc · · Score: 1

      As we learned on Duck Tales, no glass is ever completely unbreakable.

    3. Re:Think bigger by mirix · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Maybe the yankee "tar" style undercoating, but the white rubberized undercoating on kraut cars lasts forever. I've got a 20 year old german car with the stuff on it, and it's like new under there. you need a torch to get the stuff off.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    4. Re:Think bigger by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you got lucky. (And by the way, modern undercoats today are usually plastic, not a "tar" material.) But Consumer Reports recommends against spending money on an optional undercoat, on the basis that they have a history of promoting corrosion.

    5. Re:Think bigger by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      No more clear coats, no more waxing, no more "rubberized under coating". If it is cheap, and light enough, you could coat every body panel and frame member with the stuff, virtually guarantying a rust proof existence.

      Clear coats and waxing don't prevent rust, they merely give you a stiffy because your car looks spiffy.

    6. Re:Think bigger by mirix · · Score: 1

      That could be half the problem with yank undercoating... the german cars ship with it, applied in (assumedly) pristine condition, whereas on American cars, you need the kid at the dealership to apply it.

      I could never understand why they do it like that... a make work project for the dealers?

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    7. Re:Think bigger by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, I admit that there is probably a qualitative difference between optional, after-manufacturing undercoat and one that comes standard.

    8. Re:Think bigger by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, I do not think it is justifiable to categorize it as "yank" undercoating. Many manufacturers around the world do it -- or not -- exactly the same way.

    9. Re:Think bigger by sincewhen · · Score: 1

      Perhaps your kraut car (like mine) has four rings on it?
      In which case the body is probably galvanised, so it will be a long time until it starts to rust.

      --
      -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
    10. Re:Think bigger by mirix · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, I should have said non-german.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    11. Re:Think bigger by ZosX · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you got lucky. (And by the way, modern undercoats today are usually plastic, not a "tar" material.) But Consumer Reports recommends against spending money on an optional undercoat, on the basis that they have a history of promoting corrosion.

      There are probably several reasons for this. One is that the undercoatings are not adequate or applied properly. Another is that people tend to not take care of their cars and a lot of northern communities use a lot of road salt in the winter. Coating or not, road salt will eat into anything if you don't run your car through a good car wash. Its like saying if you build a bridge and not paint it it will rust less than if you would have painted it. Does that make sense? No? Neither does saying undercoatings promote corrosion. Something has to be better than nothing, unless, of course, the coatings themselves are somehow causing corrosion.

    12. Re:Think bigger by mirix · · Score: 1

      That's definitely part of it. But I'd think without the gravel guard, after 20 years, the rock thrashing would have cleared through the zinc.

      Although I have a few different generation VW golfs, and I don't *think* they're galvanized, at least not to the extent of the audis, and the undercoating seems to hold up well on them, also.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    13. Re:Think bigger by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Then why don't all cars use this?

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    14. Re:Think bigger by mirix · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nickels and dimes add up, I guess.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    15. Re:Think bigger by Johnno74 · · Score: 1

      The great part about galvanising is it is still effective even if the galvanised surface is removed, exposing the steel underneath.

      Zinc is more reactive than iron, and acts as a sacrificial anode. In short, the steel won't really corrode until all of the zinc in contact has corroded away. Look up the chemistry of oxidisation and galvanizing on wikipedia or something.

    16. Re:Think bigger by kimvette · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've often wondered if a sacrificial zinc would help postpone corrosion on land vehicles. I don't think there would be enough conductivity to create a closed circuit and protect an automotive chassis and body. After checking on wikipedia I think my skepticism is valid.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrificial_anode

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    17. Re:Think bigger by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      Sometimes incomplete coatings will cause differntial oxygen concentrations around the metal, leading to a galvanic cell and subsequent increase in corrosion. But if you dont paint it it will probably corrode anyway.

    18. Re:Think bigger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget your windshield, think YOUR ENTIRE CAR!

      No more clear coats, no more waxing, no more "rubberized under coating". If it is cheap, and light enough, you could coat every body panel and frame member with the stuff, virtually guarantying a rust proof existence.

      -Rick

      Also would decrease air resistance on even surfaces. Therefore higher gas mileage and higher top speed.

      This would be great on planes as well, keeping the dust off of the wings.

    19. Re:Think bigger by phoenix321 · · Score: 1

      Dust is blown off ten seconds after applying full engine power.

      Ice and snow are much worse. If there's any chance in guaranteeing that snow will be blown off like dust when the plane starts accelerating, it could save some manual de-icing time and effort and increase airport capacity.

    20. Re:Think bigger by LBt1st · · Score: 1

      Because they want you to buy a new car in a few years.

    21. Re:Think bigger by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      That depends - the glass is water resistant - is it shatterproof as well? Drive down a dirt road, and there goes your shiny expensive coating.

    22. Re:Think bigger by RingDev · · Score: 1

      We're not talking about a 15 micron thick piece of glass being hit by road debris. We're talking about a 15 micron thick piece of glass that is bonded to steal. So shattering is not likely going to be an issue. Chipping and tearing maybe, but it sounds like some pretty cool stuff.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    23. Re:Think bigger by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Isn't that leaning more into conspiracy theory territory though?

      Is the primary cause of car scrappage because of rusty parts underneath?

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    24. Re:Think bigger by budgenator · · Score: 1

      No more like make obscene profits for the dealership.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    25. Re:Think bigger by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Glass is pretty flexible when it's thin, they even make automotive suspension springs out of the stuff.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  18. Possibly Risky But Highly Useful Nonetheless by resistant · · Score: 3, Informative

    I saw this news item as well, albeit at PhysOrg, which has linked a few interesting related articles. From the comments, it struck me that a concern is indeed the possibility that stray particles from applying this stuff might get into your lungs or on your eyes, causing all sorts of problems since it apparently binds well to organic substances. Also, one wonders what happens if the coating is degraded on food-handling surfaces. Do fragmented microparticles rip up your insides after being carried into your body within contaminated food?

    Even with these concerns, of course, I'd love to test this stuff on various less risky surfaces, such as bathroom tiles and shop tools, with appropriate respiratory and eye protection. Being able to use it on a kitchen countertop would just be a welcome bonus if it turns out to be safe for that use after all. (As an aside, I think that use wouldn't breed resistant bacteria since it simply discourages any bacteria at all from growing on the protected surfaces).

    --
    A truly excellent pizza parlor is a delight unto the heavens. Treasure the sauce and the toppings!
    1. Re:Possibly Risky But Highly Useful Nonetheless by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      It might make a good quick-clot type powder then. This same set of information has been spammed all over the place today. It smells like scam or BS like the Moller Air Car to me. REAL tech comes out in a less organized fashion. So, write it into the next SciFi short story or forget about it....

    2. Re:Possibly Risky But Highly Useful Nonetheless by Turken · · Score: 1

      Well, if you're scared of ingesting little bits of glass, I hope you're not one who uses powdered non-dairy creamer in their coffee. Glass dust has been uses as an anti-caking agent in creamer powder for ages. Don't believe it? Just check the nearest can of creamer, and you see it listed right there (as silicon dioxide) in the ingredient list.

      Really, with a layer as this as this product claims to make, I doubt anyone has to be that worried about tearing up their lungs or stomach. Silicosis is only a hazard when large amounts of silica dust are inhaled over a prolonged period of time. Asbestos is a hazard because it is formed of long crystalline fibers which keep it lodged in lungs when inhaled. And of course ingestion of small amounts is a moot point since these layers are so thin that applying enough force to cause a fragment to cut tissue would also be enough force to pulverize the shards into particles equivalent to what we eat and breath just from our environment every day.

  19. Re:New? Really? by e9th · · Score: 1

    Well, Knot Wax is silicon free, for starters. Not sure if that makes much difference aeronautically.

  20. Germ free lungs! by mseidl · · Score: 1

    1. Just spray this in my lungs to prevent me from ever getting a cold again!
    2. ???
    3. Profit!!!

  21. This Almost Sounds Familiar by camperslo · · Score: 1

    This product reminds of the one years ago that could provide a thin but very hard layer for vinyl records thus preventing wear (and the noise/distortion that goes with it).

    If this material doesn't come off or splinter, maybe it would be good for protecting glasses with plastic lenses?

    1. Re:This Almost Sounds Familiar by ProppaT · · Score: 1

      Really? If this is so, I want to buy stock in this company. Not that I disbelieve you, but I've never heard of this and it's very exciting news. Every record should come with a coat of this on it...and if the technology is there it could potentially change a lot of the music industry. The only con to a record is that it wears out. If you can give me a record for life (i.e., it gets dusty and skips around? throw it in the dishwasher), I'll pay a premium for it. And I'm sure the professional audio industry will too.

      --
      Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
    2. Re:This Almost Sounds Familiar by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      So you have this recording medium that is based on the idea that you'll make groves in it and run a needle along the groove. Within the groove, you'll have a number of bumps and dips which cause a vibration in the needle, which in turn is transmitted either mechanically or electronically to an amplification device, from whence the sound is actually produced.

      And you think it'd be a good idea to attempt to coat said medium with a protective layer of hardened substance, to prevent it from being scratched. Do you see where this idea fails?

      If you want a 'permanent' record, they already have the tech for that, ditch the (relatively) cheap material you are using to preserve the record in (vinyl) and replace it with metal.

    3. Re:This Almost Sounds Familiar by camperslo · · Score: 1

      I'm still drawing a blank on the name of the product and haven't had any luck with a search. It'll hit me in the middle of the night... It was a product over 20, possibly over 30 years ago. Besides cost, the main drawback I recall was that it could trap dust on a record, making any noise from that permanent. It was best used on new records for that reason.

      I never bought any or used it on records. I had far too many and tiny bottle was quite expensive. A friend once used some to repair a hard drive with a "stiction" problem. It was already discontinued then, and that was the era of the Mac SE and Quantum 40 MEG or so hard drives, but my friend still had a bottle. (the surface of the platters in the area where the heads parked was worn and had lost it's lubricating properties; heads could get stuck preventing drives from spinning up). It was not a spray, but was applied by wiping. Optical grade wipes were needed to avoid lint. I believe the product predated motor oil that formed a hard layer on metal.

      I'm sure that audio magazines of the era covered it. But what little pre-web material is online to search is pretty hard to find through all of the noise of newer commercial products.
      If there's a searchable archive of Stereo Review or other old audio magazines of that era, it should show up. It only got attention for a year or two. It might be worth checking to see if there was a related paper in the journals of the A.E.S. (Audio Engineering Society).

    4. Re:This Almost Sounds Familiar by camperslo · · Score: 1

      I guess my memory was a bit fuzzy after 25 years or so. The product I was thinking of, Sound Guard Record Preservative, leaves a dry coating of less than three millionths of an inch. But it is a lubricant, not a hard shell.

      The product was announced in Billboard magazine March 27th 1982 on page 86.

      http://books.google.com/books?id=wyQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT95&lpg=PT95

      I found a distributor listing products from the company, but the record preservative is shown as unavailable

      http://www.adelcom.net/SoundGuardRecordCare.htm

      It would be interesting to see how well the liquid glass performs in the same application.

  22. No information by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Informative

    Anybody else notice that the article has essentially no information on what the stuff is? One thing that it isn't is "we extract molecules of SiO2, and then we add the molecules to water or ethanol," which is what the article tries to imply-- you can't just "add" molecules of silicon dioxide to water, nor to alcohol. So, just exactly what is it?

    The actual press release from which this article seem to have been drawn is here.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:No information by skywatcher2501 · · Score: 1

      essentially no information on what the stuff is

      Although the company already has some patent, they might be reluctant to publish more details about their technology economic reasons, to strengthen their market position or something like that.

    2. Re:No information by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      So, just exactly what is it?

      I dunno, but it sounds pretty magical and revolutionary, if you ask me.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    3. Re:No information by mr_snarf · · Score: 1

      Its a paradigm breaking investment opportunity that is going to revolutionise the way we do everything!

      --
      printf("Goodbye cruel world!\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b");
    4. Re:No information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps they want to keep the details secret, at least until the patent is approved, to prevent competition?

    5. Re:No information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the name of the company it's most probably nanotechnology which also implies that no decent risk-assessment has been made about the possible harmful effects to humans and/or the environment at large.

    6. Re:No information by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      Given the name of the company it's most probably nanotechnology...

      "Nanotechnology" has become a buzz-word that no longer has any significant content. Biology is "nanotechnology". Chemistry is "nanotechnology". Even concrete is "nanotechnology". If you use the buzz-word right, anything made up of atoms is "nanotechnology."

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  23. here is my (serious) question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what happens when a piece of it is chipped off and put into the human body?

    im not one of those ultra health nuts that walks around with a respirator (do such people actually exist?), but, i do try to avoid the use of certain types of pots and pans if i can help it (as in, those pans that have non stick teflon type surfaces breaking apart into peoples foods as they cook which, if im not mistaken, have been shown to cause cancer--- is this a wild conspiracy theory or is it as well known as it seems to be?)

    either way. i dont expect that any testing of this nature will be done (seeing as how we have become so painfully backwards as a race that we would rather potentially harm humans than feed a couple of rats and dogs some tasty food with a few of these 'chips' in it).

    1. Re:here is my (serious) question: by Faerunner · · Score: 1

      It's well known that the airborne particles (fumes?) from high-heat cooking with nonstick pans CAN kill your pet bird, given a long enough exposure (a few hours, according to some bird owners).

      The link to cancer in humans is, afaik, slightly less well supported. The coatings seem to be much safer at lower cooking temperatures, and anecdotal evidence suggests that as long as they're not scratched or peeling they shed very little particulate matter. I suspect this glass-like coating is rather the same. In the tiny amounts you'd possibly ingest, it's probably relatively harmless over the course of a day or even a few years. I'd be wary of immediately using it on my countertops, but I won't begrudge restaurants who decide to spray their tables with this stuff!

      There are so many things that are believed to cause cancer in this world; you really can't avoid all of them. We're gonna die one way or another; I'm all for a long and healthy life but I'll take my nonstick cookware as a trade-off: cancer risk 20 years from now, vs. 10 minutes less scrubbing pans today.

    2. Re:here is my (serious) question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It's well known that ... high-heat cooking with nonstick pans CAN kill
      > your pet bird, given a long enough exposure (a few hours, according
      > to some bird owners).

      Based on my personal experience as a bird owner, I can attest that cooking at high heat can lead to bird fatalities.

    3. Re:here is my (serious) question: by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

      Cooking birds, I had a pet turkey once and he was delicious. It was the cooking pot that killed her....

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  24. Or even bigger by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

    Or entire -train- cars. In europe, they all seem to be coated in stupid spray paint logos from lazy taggers.

    Several organisations are said to be testing the product, including a train company in Britain, which is using liquid glass on both the interior and exterior of the train,

    I'm guessing they're hoping this will prevent idiots from vandalizing trains, since why would you care about dirt being on your freight train. Then again, shipping companies might not care much about vandalism anyway.

    1. Re:Or even bigger by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      why would you care about dirt being on your freight train.

      Weight. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the weight of all the dust and dirt on a large freight train added up to hundreds of pounds, possibly coming close to a ton on some of the largest ones. Hauling all that extra weight cross-country adds to the fuel costs. If the dust and dirt don't cling to this coating very well, it may well pay for itself quickly in lowered fuel costs in a very short time.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    2. Re:Or even bigger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An extra ton is trivial to even a small freight train. However, dirt and dust can speed corrosion of the metal, so it would still be worthwhile to keep it off.

    3. Re:Or even bigger by Buelldozer · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that they don't care about dirt or graffit but are testing to see if it lowers the trains co-efficient of friction with the air that it's passing through.

    4. Re:Or even bigger by tsa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One ton on a 1000 or even more ton train is nothing. Even on one wagon it's not really something to worry about.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    5. Re:Or even bigger by Barryke · · Score: 1

      But parent had a point on lowered fuel costs, as i could imagine it would help on aerodynamics. A dirty surface equals resistance. The Borg know that. (a forcefield / energy-type hull is very smooth)

      --
      Hivemind harvest in progress..
    6. Re:Or even bigger by tsa · · Score: 1

      Sharks have rough skins to make them go faster through the water. Besides, have you ever seen a fraight train wagon? They usually have very non-aerodynamic surfaces, so a thin layer of dust would also not make any difference in that regard.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    7. Re:Or even bigger by YourExperiment · · Score: 1

      Or entire -train- cars. In europe, they all seem to be coated in stupid spray paint logos from lazy taggers.

      Why lazy ones? Do they simply move their hand up and down as the train goes by, thus saving the effort of moving from side to side?

    8. Re:Or even bigger by qubezz · · Score: 1

      >But parent had a point on lowered fuel costs, as i could imagine it would help on aerodynamics. A dirty surface equals resistance. The Borg know that. (a forcefield / energy-type hull is very smooth)

      ...because good aerodynamics are important in space??

    9. Re:Or even bigger by Nerdposeur · · Score: 1

      If their trains are like the ones that go past our office, they could do a lot more aerodynamic good by making the train cars rounder, smoother and pointier than by coating their surfaces with something like glass. Why worry about microscopic roughness when you've got ridges an inch deep?

  25. Chocolate hardening fat free coating for ice cream by Orga · · Score: 2, Funny

    Gain no calories from your dessert with our secret hardening spray on topping! Disclaimer: may cause minor irritation of gums, tongue, esophagus, stomach, intestines and whatever else is left.

  26. Hurrrr Durrrr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MSDS sheets.

    You're one of those douchebags that says "ATM machines" and "SPG guns", aren't you?

    Burn in flames.

  27. Meh by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

    Cracks up to a few inches long can be sealed already with existing resins that windshield replacement/repair companies use, and most insurance policies (at least here in the US) cover repair for free with no deductible; only full replacements incur such.

    1. Re:Meh by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Informative

      Part of the reason for this is that water tends to act almost like a "catalyst", encouraging cracks in glass to spread much more rapidly. According to an article in Scientific American, water causes glass to crack more easily because when a water molecule enters the crack, a reaction occurs in which a silicon-oxygen bond at the crack and an oxygen-hydrogen bond in the water are cleaved, creating two hydroxyl groups attached to silicon. As a result, the length of the crack grows by the size of one bond rupture. The water reaction reduces the energy necessary to break the silicon-oxygen bonds, thus the crack grows faster.

      Theoretically, any strong material that will fill the crack and prevent moisture from entering should stop the cracking process. I don't see why a film of silicon dioxide would not work as well as resin.

    2. Re:Meh by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Oh I'm sure it would work as well or better. My point was that this particular application would hardly be revolutionary. I'm more interested in the applications that will help create surfaces easier to keep sterile, or as another post mentioned whole-car coatings that will make it easier to keep one's automobile clean, etc.

    3. Re:Meh by budgenator · · Score: 1

      You do realize that glass is basically silicon dioxide.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  28. Hmmm... by mister_playboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "What're ya gonna keep it in?"

    In a magnetic field, as is done with plasma.

    --
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    1. Re:Hmmm... by dreamchaser · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What if the universal solvent is inert from a electromagnetic standpoint?

    2. Re:Hmmm... by Chyeld · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's a solvent, dissolve some iron into it :-P

    3. Re:Hmmm... by supernova_hq · · Score: 1

      Then you use small black holes to create an anti-gravity point and hold it there.

    4. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Quick, someone bring me an electromagnetic standpoint now! There's been a spill!

  29. it's not a conductor! by prgrmr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Think of the fun to be had spraying this stuff on the battery terminals of ipods, cell phones and other electronic devices of those you want to annoy. It's a party in can!

  30. Instant Whiteboard Anywhere by wonkavader · · Score: 1

    Finally, I can make my life size cut out of Colonel Sanders white-board marker safe.

  31. Finally, Non-nutritive food shellac by PinchDuck · · Score: 1

    Somewhere, Clark Griswold is smiling.

  32. how breakable is it? by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Funny

    You can spray it? "They called it misted glass!"

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:how breakable is it? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Wow. I never get movie references and I caught that one. +1 Unbreakable

  33. Irving Mainway by boristdog · · Score: 4, Funny

    I call it "Can o' Glass". Kids love glass, and kids love sprayin' stuff. We just give the kids what they want.

    1. Re:Irving Mainway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just spray it on -- but not onto anything flamable, because it's molten liquid glass.

      Hot!

  34. Pulmonary Saccharosis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget the dreaded Saccharosis, also known as Sugar Lung, caused by consuming Pixy Stix too fast.

  35. Re:New? Really? by reverseengineer · · Score: 3, Informative

    Products like Knot Wax are more like a plastic shell than a glass shell. The process takes two parts because first a coating of a resin is laid down (usually either a polyepoxide or polyurethane), and then an amine is applied to cross-link the resin molecules, leading to a very tough coating. The product discussed here appears to be a solution of short chains of silica, which when applied deposit actual glass on the surface. I'm curious about the strength of such a coating; there doesn't not appear to be any suggestion that the glass is bonded to the surface by anything stronger than van der Waals forces.

    --
    "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
  36. Condums in a can by xmousex · · Score: 0

    i win

  37. home in 2! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "these are not the grits you are looking for..."

  38. As the glass wears off/down by bigattichouse · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can feel my lungs beginning to itch, ahhh Silicosis - how nice that EVERYTHING will be covered in a fine layer of silicon that *WILL* wear away and add some lovely fine powdered glass to my daily breathing.

    --
    meh
  39. Re:Chocolate hardening fat free coating for ice cr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Do not process silicon dioxide with remaining kidney."

  40. Ouch by KingPin27 · · Score: 1

    So what happens when you get a fraction of a 30 atom thick splinter from this crap in your finger? or worse all over your body? I don't even want to imagine what would happen if the surface were to shatter or splinter.

    --
    "i lost my dignity on a slippery wiener"
    1. Re:Ouch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what happens when you get a fraction of a 30 atom thick splinter from this crap in your finger? or worse all over your body?

      Death of a thousand cuts?

    2. Re:Ouch by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think you're suffering from a lack of sense of scale. Here's something to help. Zoom down to the ribosome level to get a sense of "30 atoms thick".

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    3. Re:Ouch by Johnno74 · · Score: 1

      Thats a very cool link, thanks

  41. can't wait by charliemopps11 · · Score: 1

    I can't wait for all the hippies to start telling us this stuff causes cancer and crap. They'll ban it in Seattle, there will be protests to have restaurants put up signs if they use it, it's going to be hilarious.

  42. old fashioned silane chemistry ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    www.gelest.com has about a gazillion diff silane compounds, if the std ones from dowcorning or degussa are good enough for you
    In the presence of atmospheric moisture, silanes form silicone dioxide like networks...

  43. Water resistant? by markdavis · · Score: 1

    >"The spray forms a water-resistant layer, meaning it can be cleaned using only water."

    Last time I checked, that is NOT the definition of water-resistant. "Water-resistant" means just that- it resists being dissolved by or being penetrated by water. It does not mean it can be "cleaned using only water." ("Water-proof", means it can NOT be dissolved by or penetrated at all by water.) Who writes this stuff??

    1. Re:Water resistant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever it is coated on will still gather stuff that falls onto it. Because the coat is water resistant, you could wipe off anything on top of the coat with water and leave the film intact.

  44. I, for one,.... by mythunderstood · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... welcome our transparent waterproof 15 to 30 atoms thick overlords.

  45. Clean with distilled water I assume by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

    If you were to use tap water where I live (hard water area), you would quickly end up with a smear of limescale on the surface. So you would need to clean (or at least rinse) with distilled water.

  46. Any other uses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can it prevent the transmission of HIV?

    1. Re:Any other uses? by v1 · · Score: 1

      The layer formed by the liquid glass is said to be flexible and breathable.

      The spray, which is harmless to the environment, can be used to protect against disease,

      The versatile spray, which forms an easy-clean coating one millionth of a millimetre thick – 500 times thinner than a human hair – can be applied to virtually any surface to protect it

      Questioning the irritation in other places.. lets see, it's durable, waterproof, breathes, protects, flexible... spray-on condoms anyone?

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  47. Re:New? Really? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm curious about the strength of such a coating; there doesn't not appear to be any suggestion that the glass is bonded to the surface by anything stronger than van der Waals forces.

    If the short-chains bond to each other, some of them might bond to the surface (if its structure is appropriate).

    Even if not, unless the surface is mirror-smooth it will have irregularities. A liquid that cross-links into a solid will wrap such irregularities and form a mechanical interference bond - like a surface wrapped under a rivet, a mushroom-shaped extension into a void, or a root into a crack.

    Van der Walls forces are not trivial - especially between form-fitted irregularly-shaped solids. And if the "glass" and its substrate have any charge asymmetry the setting glass will also tend to settle into place with opposite charges nearby, forming something like a hydrogen bond.

    This might stick on to many surfaces very well.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  48. This is a quartz layer by Animats · · Score: 1

    Pure silicon dioxide, in its glass form, is quartz. This is a scheme for putting a thin quartz film on other materials. That's useful, but not revolutionary. The big improvement here is that it's apparently applied as a liquid solution in air at room temperature, rather than having to be applied at molten quartz temperatures or in vacuum.

    1. Re:This is a quartz layer by sensei+moreh · · Score: 1

      Pure silicon dioxide, in its glass form, is quartz.

      Sorry, but quartz, cristobalite, coesite, stishovite, tridymite are all crystalling forms of silicon dioxide. However, the crystals are colorless if pure

      --
      Geology - it's not rocket science; it's rock science
  49. Dubious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I first saw this reported here:

    http://www.physorg.com/news184310039.html

    at the end there was this drivel:

    Liquid glass spray is perhaps the most important nanotechnology product to emerge to date. It will be available in DIY stores in Britain soon, with prices starting at around £5 ($8 US). Other outlets, such as many supermarkets, may be unwilling to stock the products because they make enormous profits from cleaning products that need to be replaced regularly, and liquid glass would make virtually all of them obsolete.

    It doesn't quote a source, so maybe it's just bad, really bad, reporting, but it sure has the sound of a snake oil sales pitch converted into copy.

    1. Re:Dubious by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Yup. Grocery stores do not make tremendous profits on anything. Cleaning companies might but markup on groceries is very low. That's the old "someone is making a killing on product X! So it's ok that my shit seems overpriced!" gambit.

  50. Obvious application as CD repair fluid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This stuff sounds like it has obvious applications as a repair medium for scratched compact discs. As long as the scratches are not uber deep (or have been buffed off really well with a disc buffer), this stuff should be able to fill very tiny and superficial scuffs and scratches, and return the disc's surface to a nice transparent gloss.

    As an added bonus, it should make the surface less prone to being scratched again.

    I could easily see this being sold as an optical media repair fluid.

    1. Re:Obvious application as CD repair fluid by v1 · · Score: 1

      It's usually preferred to fill damage in an optical surface with a material with the same index of refraction so the light doesn't kink when it goes through the filler or when it crosses boundaries.

      Though I don't know how much it would matter at this small of a scale.

      I recall a light coating of vegetable oil being good enough to rip a bad CD, and from there simply reburn it.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    2. Re:Obvious application as CD repair fluid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While you are correct that it is prefferential to use a material with the same refractory index as the original material, this could be rather difficult, considering that different manufacturers use slightly different formulations of clear plastic for use with compact discs. (Especially true with CDR media.)

      Some are more scratch resistant than others, and some are more or less dense than others. This means that creating a perfect filler for this application would be... Pretty much impossible.

      Since we have already agreed that we won't be using it to fill the grand canyon when it comes to filling scratches on CD/DVD/whatever discs, but only minor and superficial ones, a perfect solution isn't required. (Hell, you admit to using oil, which has the same refractory index as pyrex, which would be very similar to the index for this silicon dioxide coating. I have even used buffed micro crystalline paraffin wax as a temporary patching medium with success before, and that would be radically different.)

      CDrom (and DVDrom, and related drives) automatically adjust the laser focal point while reading the media if the focus is poor. (This is why you can hear the lens assembly servo actuators clicking when you put in a really nasty CD.) These drives contain firmware, and read-ahead buffers to allow the drive to re-read bum sectors if the first attempt fails. (which even with brand new media is a common occurance, especially when reading CDR media with "incompatible", or "poor quality" dye types.)

      You don't need the disc to be repaired perfectly, just well enough that it can be read "reliably". (As in, it is able to read the sector without critical failures-- Recoverable failures are OK.)

      Since this stuff sounds like it is self-leveling, and gap filling to an extent, it should work sufficiently well as a disc patching medium under most circumstances. Also, since the solvent medium is water or alcohol, it wont pit or scald the plastic of the disc, making it safer than other clear coatings.

      I didnt suggest that it be used as a patching medium for high intensity laser light optical systems, like mirrors or lenses or anything. CDs are low intensity (Class III laser product) laser light, with a very short focal distance (1 to 2cm.) Any diffusion caused by refraction at the patch threshold would be very small at this distance, and well within the vast majority of most CDrom/DVDrom drives to handle without issue.

  51. Re:New? Really? by reverseengineer · · Score: 1

    there doesn't not appear to be any suggestion

    That should either be "doesn't" or "does not," and not my indecisive combination of the two, which alters meaning somewhat. On another note, I can't figure out how this liquid glass stuff is supposed to work as a product. The "liquid glass" manufacturers suggest it can be made into a spray in water or ethanol, but it apparently dries to form a waterproof coating. They claim to use no additives, but I'm not sure how aggregation of suspended silica is prevented- how is it stored in bottles without having a big slug of glass form at the bottom?

    --
    "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
  52. Bleach is not a base by Cyberax · · Score: 1

    Nitpick: bleach is not a strong base, it's a strong oxidizer.

    You're thinking about NaOH (which is a base) - good stuff as well.

  53. War on germs by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

    Let's say we have 8 different antibacterial products. Would it be wrong to think of a bacterium developing resistance to 7 of them, then losing one of those resistances in order to pick up the last one? I am assuming it is more accurate to think of it as a computer under attack, where it can be patched and potentially immune to all attacks.

    The only way I can see for us to "win" the war against germs is to have more antibiotics/antibacterials etc. than they can possibly be immune to, but the cynic in me is assuming that is not how the science works.

    1. Re:War on germs by jvkjvk · · Score: 1

      Well, as I see it, you have to put them in a Catch-22 bind to win.

      That is a set of destructors that are complementary.

      A destroys bacteria with trait X
      A' destroys bacteria without trait X

      Of course this works in novels, but I'm not sure how implementation in the real world would go.

    2. Re:War on germs by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 1

      In the real world, there is a large chance a "trait Y" would be discovered which also protects against one of those cases, allowing something to survive.

      The only way to guarantee killing bacteria is to use something that attacks the physical structure of the bacteria cells, e.g. oxidisers like bleach. Though it is theoretically possible that a bleach-resistant bacteria will be found eventually, which would be fun.

  54. meh... by nycguy · · Score: 4, Funny
    From TFA:

    the concept of spray-on glass is mind-boggling

    The concept of spray-on breasts is mind-boggling. The concept of spray-on glass is merely interesting.

  55. And who is spinning in their grave right now? by xactuary · · Score: 0

    That would be Billy Mays.

    --
    Say hello to my little sig.
  56. Nano materials risks? by blankoboy · · Score: 1

    I have a genuine concern about the influx of all these consumer grade products which contain Nano materials (as we all should). I get the distinct impression that corporations are putting the benefits of these materials way ahead of the potential health risks (surprised?). Just off the top of my head...Apple's iPhone has a coating comprised of nano materials, many skin creams and make up now contain nano particles, etc. Where are the real studies that show there are no risks in using these materials directly with your skin and body? How can there be any credible tests that show long term results? The sad thing is that 99.9% of the people don't know or care about this. I fear that these materials will be the Asbestos of the 21st century that people of the future will look back on and shake their heads. Can any Slashdotters provide some good feedback or linkage on this matter? Appreciate any feedback.

    1. Re:Nano materials risks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My skin cells are a nano material, and people inhale them accidentally as a consequence of breathing all the time.

      Really single molecule particles have always existed in our environment, we're exposed to them constantly. but they don't appear to do anything to us which is why we didn't notice them until we started making them.

      I think the only credible tests that people like you will accept is if we just use them in our daily life for 50 years, if there are no flipper babies then you'll begin to feel more comfortable about them. Although that hasn't seemed to work with vaccines...

  57. Check the ingredients list of non dairy creamer by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    silicon di oxide is a common ingredient in many things we ingest. Notably non dairy creamer. But I have seen it in so many common food items surprisingly.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  58. Scratch resistant coating for plastic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think of this over screens and on cases and on cheap sunglasses and regular plastic lenses.

  59. Actually, this quite possibly could be useful. by orichter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know this was meant as a joke, but the way wind shields are repaired is essentially spraying in some clear liquid which hardens. It might be difficult to use this spray to get a clear windshield, but the key thing which causes cracks to run is the sharpness of the crack. If this could be sprayed in soon after the crack forms, it may keep the crack from running by blunting the crack tip.

    1. Re:Actually, this quite possibly could be useful. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Autoglass repair, Autoglass replace.

    2. Re:Actually, this quite possibly could be useful. by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      I know this was meant as a joke, but the way wind shields are repaired is essentially spraying in some clear liquid which hardens. It might be difficult to use this spray to get a clear windshield, but the key thing which causes cracks to run is the sharpness of the crack. If this could be sprayed in soon after the crack forms, it may keep the crack from running by blunting the crack tip.

      There is actually no "spraying" involved in window repair. They inject an epoxy into the chip. The epoxy has a refractive index that matches the glass so you can look through it without getting dizzy. In cases of a deep crack, they will pull a partial vacuum prior to injection in an attempt to get the epoxy to fully penetrate. Simply spraying epoxy on the window would not be enough to get the epoxy into the ding or crack without leaving an air gap.

      Also, there is no way a spray would blunt the crack tip. The only way to arrest a crack in a brittle material are to (1) either steer it back on itself, (2) drill a relieving hole to remove the stress concentration at the crack tip, or to (3) fill it with epoxy to keep the two edges of the crack together and prevent differential stress in the material.

    3. Re:Actually, this quite possibly could be useful. by orichter · · Score: 1

      It is quite possible this spray wouldn't work for the reasons you mentioned, but there are a couple of things you missed which I believe warrant a study:

      This spray is not an epoxy. As stated in the article, this spray adheres to virtually any surface in a layer which is 15-30 atoms thick. This implies to me that it has an extremely high wetting ability which may act to draw it into a crack. It is clear in some cases that capillary action can be stronger than atmospheric pressure for some substances. This is clearly not the case for any sort of epoxy. It's possible this spray is so wet that it would in fact be sucked into the crack, but have minimal impact on the sharpness of the crack. It's also possible that it would adhere well to the crack and have a substantial blunting effect. It's unclear how this spray would interact with the large particles left in the crack.

      As I said, it's quite possible this spray wouldn't be useful in this application, but it is a big mistake to think that what you know about how epoxies are used to repair windshield cracks has anything to do with how this spray would react. Further study might be quite interesting.

  60. fix scratched CDs and DVDs? by davygrvy · · Score: 1

    That would be my immediate need.

    --
    -=[ place .sig here ]=-
  61. Re:New? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just want to say, in all honesty, that this discussion is exactly what I want to read on Slashdot.

    Thank you.

  62. Glass is not a slow-flowing liquid by jms · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Window glass used to be made by blowing giant glass discs and cutting rectangles or diamonds out of them to piece together to make leaded windows. The method of blowing the glass discs resulted in glass that was often thicker on one side than the other. The person building the window would naturally orient the thicker side of each piece to the bottom of the window, to work with gravity to make the window stronger and longer-lasting.

    If the glass were really a flowing liquid, then the edges of the pieces would be rounded and deformed, but they are not. They are as sharp and straight as the day they were cut.

  63. Nanotech kills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is ecotech the new asbestos?

    How about we test radical new substances first before selling them instead of using the population as guinea pigs?

  64. Re:Let me be the first to say ENOUGH! by X'16435934 · · Score: 0

    Enough about Glass!

    Maybe we coud talk about Holden Caulfield for a change?

    --
    - Ecsad Essemal
    The Hexadecimal TV-REMOTE!
  65. Actually, it's not that simple. by Duggeek · · Score: 2, Informative

    That's all nice and well, but it's over-simplifying the problem.

    Laminated glass is actually two layers of tempered glass; one on the inside and another on the outside. The laminate (plastic sheet) is sandwiched between the glass layers. You can brush-up on it here.

    A crack doesn't normally form on its own with such glass, except in extreme heat/cold situations. The most common cause of cracks in tempered-glass laminates is “punctures” from high-speed flying debris. The puncture occurs as the debris breaks the outer glass layer. Even if the laminate isn't punctured, the inner glass may crack from the impact.

    A crack will form over a span of time—sometimes days, sometimes months—due to a combination of environmental extremes and torsion strain. These cracks form in both panes of glass simultaneously, since a crack in one half leads to a structural vulnerability in the other half. The crack will eventually “race” paths across the windshield until it finds an edge. Such cracks are not inherently dangerous, but the windshield is no longer as strong as it should be.

    So, there's two problems with this proposed spray-on “fix”: (1) The fluid may not actually penetrate into the crack, and even if it does, the laminate prevents it from filling to the other side; and (2) the dust, particles and residues would become permanently trapped in the shallow layer, only to reflect more light and make the windshield worse than before. (like dust/smears you can't wipe off)

    Best solution; just take your windshield to an on-the-spot crack repair. They use a pressurized applicator that injects fluid at the original “puncture”. It's cheap, it saves you from replacing the windshield in a year, and many comprehensive insurance policies actually cover it.

    As for the “liquid glass”, the purposes listed in TFA sound utterly sensible; a surface treatment that's easy to disinfect, durable and practically germ-proof. I can't wait to have my counter-tops done!

    --
    This post © Copyrite Duggeek, all rights reversed.
  66. Re: Think bigger, then smaller by Duggeek · · Score: 1

    Forget your windshield, think YOUR ENTIRE CAR! [...]

    -Rick

    You're on to something, but the other respondents have a point. It's just a few-dozen atoms thick, and I don't think it's going to stand-up to 50mph gravel being thrown at it.

    Still, there's huge potential for the “invisible bra” and clear-coat treatments. With a bit more R&D, I bet they could make a more abrasion-resistant form of the stuff for undercarriage.

    Keep thinkin' big!

    --
    This post © Copyrite Duggeek, all rights reversed.
  67. Spray on Condoms !! by Unclenefeesa · · Score: 1

    So light you won't feel they're on !!!

    --
    In this field no matter how much you know, You still don't know anything.
  68. Goodbye condoms!Goodbye condoms! by Barryke · · Score: 1

    Goodbye condoms!

    --
    Hivemind harvest in progress..
  69. Better yet by chocapix · · Score: 1

    Spray your graffiti on a clean road sign, and then just spray this on your graffiti.

  70. I have 9 years of experience w/ a similar product by mkstowegnv · · Score: 1

    For many years this company http://www.adsil.com/ has been applying 5-35 micron (depending on the application) 'glass' coatings to a variety of surfaces using contractors who typically spray it on using an isopropanol solvent. I live in FL and had had a bad problem with mold on the walls of my new house (probably due to drywall that was stored under moist conditions). After removing the mold and repainting, I had the adsil product applied to almost the entire interior of my house (they also do exterior applications and many other surfaces). 9 years later not a bit of mold and the walls look like they were painted yesterday. Smudges and splattered goo wipe right off. I am quite happy with the product. It was also applied to my fiberglass shower stall and, while it helps, it was not the miraculous protection against staining by high iron well water that I was hoping for. I was originally inspired to trust the process by my chemistry research experience with silanizing glassware. Something like this process has been around a long, long time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silanization

  71. Here's how much silica is in this coating: by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

    Silicon dioxide's bulk density is 2200 kg/m^3. Let's assume the density of this coating is comparable.

    One square meter of silica, one meter deep, masses 2200 kg.

    One millimeter deep, 2.2 kg.

    One micron deep, 2.2 g.

    One nanometer deep, 2.2 mg.

    If you dispersed a square meter of this coating uniformly into the air, you'd need to dilute it into a column 22 meters deep to meet the OSHA limit. But how are you going to disperse that much all at once? A crack or a scratch would likely disperse much less than a square millimeter worth of the stuff, and that wouldn't be enough to pollute half a shot glass full of air. (1 m^3 = 1000 L; 22000 L / 1000000 = 22 ml)

    More to the point, that volume is about 1/20 of a typical breath. In other words, you'd need to scrape the hell out of the surface in order to get one lungful of air above the OSHA limit -- and that limit is for chronic exposure (8 hours/day), not a one-shot acute exposure.

  72. Shingled roofs? by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 1

    Why bother with shingles.. just leave the plywood/chipboard exposed and spray it with this glass stuff... (paint the boards white/black/whatever for aesthetic purposes obviously.)

  73. Hold your breath. by EricTheO · · Score: 1

    So I hope they have a mask included with this product. Inhaling nano particles that stick to surfaces may not be so good for you.

    --
    -Eric