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."
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)
Because you really want to breed super germs on your counter top.
Too bad "ManInTheWhiteSuit" is too long of a tag.
What a great movie.
So, now, where is my liquid spray on diamond coating. That's what I'm waiting for...
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!
Urban legend. Glass is an amorphous solid.
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.
I always wanted waterproof lungs.
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
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:
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.
Apparently, the parent's parent is a _bad_ chemist.
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
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
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!
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.)
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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
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!
Well, Knot Wax is silicon free, for starters. Not sure if that makes much difference aeronautically.
1. Just spray this in my lungs to prevent me from ever getting a cold again!
2. ???
3. Profit!!!
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.
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?
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
I think that was his point and he's just not incredibly competent at communicating it.
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.
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.
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.
"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
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!
Finally, I can make my life size cut out of Colonel Sanders white-board marker safe.
Somewhere, Clark Griswold is smiling.
You can spray it? "They called it misted glass!"
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
I call it "Can o' Glass". Kids love glass, and kids love sprayin' stuff. We just give the kids what they want.
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."
By this definition isn't plastic "a highly viscous liquid" as well
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?!
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
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.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
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.
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.
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
Nice trolling.
entropy happens
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"
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.
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.
>"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??
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.
... welcome our transparent waterproof 15 to 30 atoms thick overlords.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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."
Doremus, R. H. (1994) Glass Science, 2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 339 pp. ISBN 0471891746, disagrees with web page man.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My webcomic
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.
He's pretty much credibly incompetent at it, in fact.
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.
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
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.
That would be my immediate need.
-=[ place
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
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.
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.
SO, he was likely bullied as a kid, eh?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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]
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.
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.
So light you won't feel they're on !!!
In this field no matter how much you know, You still don't know anything.
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.
Goodbye condoms!
Hivemind harvest in progress..
Spray your graffiti on a clean road sign, and then just spray this on your graffiti.
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.
"(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.
From your own citation:
and
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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."
"...people thought it was an good idea."
Partial credit. The full answer would be "...people thought it was a good idea for structural reasons."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Perhaps my focus on the old window myth was misplaced, but I don't feel I was being misleading.
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.
I don't think you were being deliberately misleading, just not selecting the best quotes to support your position
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.)
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
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
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
... 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
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?!
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
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.