Slashdot Mirror


Simple Method Yields A Wrinkly, Durable, Water-Repellent Coating (acs.org)

ckwu writes: Superhydrophobic coatings that make water droplets dance and roll off of a surface show promise for applications such as self-cleaning cars, buildings, and food processing equipment. A new method creates a durable superhydrophobic coating by combining two common materials -- Teflon and a shrinkable plastic -- in a few simple steps. The researchers took inspiration from work done with the polystyrene material found in Shrinky Dinks -- the children's crafting kit. They deposited Teflon onto a similar material called PolyShrink, heated it, and found that the Teflon formed a crinkled surface that caused water to bead and roll off easily. The best results came from polyolefin shrink wrap coated with a 10nm-thick layer of Teflon. What's more, the surface is durable, having about the same scratch resistance as an aluminum coating, and repels water even after being scratched. Update: 03/09 16:10 GMT by T : Note: That's nm, rather than mm; now fixed.

76 comments

  1. 10 nanometer, not 1 cm by EricDriggs · · Score: 5, Informative

    eom

    1. Re:10 nanometer, not 1 cm by RussellTheMuscle · · Score: 4, Informative

      Although 10 mm might give some dent protection to your new, wrinkly, water-resistant car.

    2. Re:10 nanometer, not 1 cm by chromaexcursion · · Score: 2

      rolf.
      and stop rust

    3. Re:10 nanometer, not 1 cm by fizzup · · Score: 4, Funny

      What's a factor of a million between friends?

    4. Re:10 nanometer, not 1 cm by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Was about to ask about this.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    5. Re:10 nanometer, not 1 cm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said anything about 1 cm?

    6. Re:10 nanometer, not 1 cm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said anything about 1 cm?

      No one (explicitly), but thee summary does say "polyolefin shrink wrap coated with a 10mm-thick layer of Teflon", and 10 mm happens to be equal to 1 cm

    7. Re:10 nanometer, not 1 cm by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      So basically they've created non-stick shrink-wrap.

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  2. 10mm-thick layer of Teflon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Do you write stupid shit on purpose to see if we're paying attention?

    1. Re:10mm-thick layer of Teflon by baker_tony · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think it's more the Americans trying to work out this whole crazy newfangled metric system. Base 10 is just so friggin hard to grasp when you've accidentally shot off a bunch of your fingers.

    2. Re:10mm-thick layer of Teflon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're a fucking moron.

    3. Re:10mm-thick layer of Teflon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fucking moron.

      Perhaps he is, but can you point a finger at him?

    4. Re:10mm-thick layer of Teflon by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      I think it's more the Americans trying to work out this whole crazy newfangled metric system. Base 10 is just so friggin hard to grasp when you've accidentally shot off a bunch of your fingers.

      That's a funny statement for someone from a British colony! (You do know that your ancestors were the ones that pushed the imperial system onto the US, right?)

      As an American, I always figured that we kept those imperial units after the revolutionary war to remind ourselves what happens when the Brits are in charge!

    5. Re:10mm-thick layer of Teflon by baker_tony · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's probably a smart idea ;-)

  3. PTFE in food? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I understand that it would make it easier to get rid of biofilms, but didn't we just go through learning that ingested PTFE isn't a good thing in the long run?

    I can see there a hydrophobic coating would be useful, but I would be leery of having it be something always in contact with food.

    1. Re: PTFE in food? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the absolute last thing we need two absolutely toxic substances on everything. These chemical companies need to be brought to justice. Teflon and more plastic have absolutely no business being spread further in our environment.

    2. Re:PTFE in food? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, moron, we did not. PTFE is one of the least reactive substances in existence and is not dangerous to anyone at all. One of the chemicals *formerly* used in the production of PTFE was found to be toxic. The resulting coating is not.

    3. Re:PTFE in food? by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      No, moron, we did not. PTFE is one of the least reactive substances in existence and is not dangerous to anyone at all. One of the chemicals *formerly* used in the production of PTFE was found to be toxic. The resulting coating is not.

      As long as it isn't heated on the stove that is. Makes it pretty useless for frying pans though.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    4. Re:PTFE in food? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I prefer my fry pans to be either cast iron (well seasoned) or copper bottomed heavy stainless steel. I can use metal spatulas and really get the pan hot for searing meat. Plus if worse comes to worse I can always club a bear to death with my 12" cast fry pan when I am out camping.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    5. Re:PTFE in food? by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Yes! I recently discovered the awesomeness of cast iron pans from getting a cast iron camping dutch oven first. They are awesome and very non-stick. Even cheese on scrambled eggs refuses to stick and crisps into a nice golden brown. The only drawback is the weight. It can be hard to lift the pan for whatever reason. I guess keeping the seasoning good is a little effort also, but not bad. Small price to pay though.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    6. Re:PTFE in food? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      To keep the seasoning good I just put some oil in the pan, put a lid on it, and toss it in the oven when ever I am baking something. This way I am making better use of that heat. Also if you are going to fry something in a bath of oil (I do schnitzel or home made doughnuts) using a cast iron pan does wonders for the seasoning.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  4. It's about time! by BreandánHeiliger · · Score: 2

    I've always hoped someone would take the values of Shrinky-Dink seriously.

    1. Re:It's about time! by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      I've always hoped someone would take the values of Shrinky-Dink seriously.

      Scientists have been making discoveries with shrinky-dink for years now.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  5. Seems like. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would seem that they have rediscovered house wrap.

  6. coating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it also trump repellent? Will it keep the filthy residue of Dondolf trumpler off of our nation?

    1. Re:coating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you kidding? He's wearing the stuff, or he's made of it. Nobody can touch him. And he is kinda wrinkly. He is human-repellent. But he can still win. The people voting for him are sheep, not human.

    2. Re: coating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The people on both sides are sheep. I'm fucking tired of sheep calling each other sheep.

  7. C8/PFOA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Teflon is incredibly toxic. Teflon is worse than shit. Dupont execs need to be locked away FOREVER. See src=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid. Please god's sake no more. Stop playing with Teflon. Why so much hate for water? Water is life. Cleaning requires detergents for oils not superhydrophobic surfaces.

    1. Re:C8/PFOA by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Teflon is incredibly toxic. Teflon is worse than shit.

      Do you have a reference for that? I'd much rather cook in a teflon coated pan than a shit coated pan. Though admittedly I haven't done any testing.

    2. Re:C8/PFOA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PFOA persists indefinitely in the environment. It is a toxicant and carcinogen in animals. The studies concluded that there was probably an association between PFOA exposure and six health outcomes: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol), and pregnancy-induced hypertension.
      vs.
      See the uses section. I would much rather cook in shit than Teflon. Cooking >165 F / 10min would sterilize harmful microorganisms. No I would not drink shit dissolved fluid. Fluid would be removed and solids / cooked material would be edible, preferably washed.

    3. Re:C8/PFOA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since slashdot seems to be stripping the tag out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feces.

    4. Re:C8/PFOA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Teflon is incredibly toxic. Teflon is worse than shit. Dupont execs need to be locked away FOREVER. See src=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid.

      The reason Dupont was really bad there in terms of Teflon is not because Teflon requires PFOA, but because alternatives existed and Dupont still continued to use PFOA because it was cheaper (at least in the short run).

      Why so much hate for water? Water is life.

      Yes, water is life, which is why we want it to go some place more useful than soaking into inorganic surfaces.

    5. Re:C8/PFOA by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Informative

      Teflon is not PFOA. Teflon is PTFE. PFOA is used during the creation of PTFE, but is completely burned off during PTFE manufacturing, leaving no PFOA. Of course, lots of toxic things are used during the manufacturing of safe things all the time - that stainless steel staple used to hold your surgery together, or your frying pan/cooking utensils contains chromium, a nice and toxic heavy metal.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    6. Re:C8/PFOA by fnj · · Score: 3, Informative

      Teflon is incredibly toxic. [mumble] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [mumble]

      Perfluorooctanoic acid is not teflon, jackass. The process of MANUFACTURING teflon involves the process use of a toxic substance. So do a lot of substances. Chrome electroplating involves immersion a shockingly toxic bath. But finished chrome-plated items are not the least bit toxic, and neither are teflon-finished items, unless heated above 260 C, whereupon pyrolytic breakdown evolves toxic substances.

      Since frying typically reaches up to 230 C, I don't regard the safety margin as adequate, and personally I would never fry in a teflon-coated pan. But no, teflon as a substance under ordinary conditions is NOT in the least toxic.

      Caveat - if the finished teflon is allowed to be contaminated by traces of perfluorooctanoic acid, then there is trace toxicity present in the finished teflon. But the acid is NOT an integral constituent of teflon, does not HAVE to be used at all, and is being phased out. Overall, teflon cookware is considered an insignificant exposure pathway to perfluorooctanoic acid.

    7. Re:C8/PFOA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

      Pyrolysis of PTFE is detectable at 200 C (392 F), and it evolves several fluorocarbon gases and a sublimate.

      While PTFE is stable and nontoxic at lower temperatures, it begins to deteriorate after the temperature of cookware reaches about 260 C (500 F). The degradation by-products can be lethal to birds, and can cause flu-like symptoms in humans. See polymer fume fever.

      Meat is usually fried between 204 and 232 C (399 and 450 F), and most oils start to smoke before a temperature of 260 C (500 F) is reached.

    8. Re:C8/PFOA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Teflon IS NOT PTFE. "Teflon" is the brand name of "PTFE-based" formulas by Chemours. Chemours is a spin-off of DuPont Co. What reference to do have that C8 is "completely burned off"?

      Pyrolysis of PTFE is detectable at 200 C (392 F), and it evolves several fluorocarbon gases and a sublimate.

      While PTFE is stable and nontoxic at lower temperatures, it begins to deteriorate after the temperature of cookware reaches about 260 C (500 F). The degradation by-products can be lethal to birds, and can cause flu-like symptoms in humans. See polymer fume fever.

      Meat is usually fried between 204 and 232 C (399 and 450 F), and most oils start to smoke before a temperature of 260 C (500 F) is reached.

    9. Re:C8/PFOA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your argument is reduced to calling me a jackass. Please downmod this ad hominen. I DID NOT STATE C8 IS TEFLON. Teflon IS NOT PTFE. "Teflon" is the BRAND name of "PTFE-based" formulas by Chemours and the "PTFE-based" formulas USE C8 AND PTFE, when heated > 200 C, creates C8. Chemours is a spin-off of DuPont Co.

    10. Re:C8/PFOA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Teflon is not PFOA. Teflon is PTFE. PFOA is used during the creation of PTFE, but is completely burned off during PTFE manufacturing, leaving no PFOA. Of course, lots of toxic things are used during the manufacturing of safe things all the time - that stainless steel staple used to hold your surgery together, or your frying pan/cooking utensils contains chromium, a nice and toxic heavy metal.

      its not even that simple. Trivalent chromium is a mineral found in lots of foods and required for human life. hexavalent chromium is a carcinogenic, toxic heavy metal that persists in the environment and causes disease wherever it goes (its what the movie Erin Brockovich was about)

    11. Re:C8/PFOA by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      and here I was thinking someone actually found something else teflon is good at (other than as pipe thread tape)....because pan coatings sure were a fucking flop.

      The entire generation of people who chose teflon pans over cast iron were, quite simply, wrong.

      Teflon is great non-stick, until you use it twice. Seasoned cast iron is constantly renewing its coating.

      I wont go back.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    12. Re:C8/PFOA by dywolf · · Score: 2

      its not Teflon that's toxic.
      its the manufacturing process.

      yes, the company has a long and disgusting battle and coverup over the toxicity of C8 and the damage they've wrought on the environment, and as a result no place on the planet is currently uncontaminated by it (they've found it everywhere they've looked for it, even found it on ice in both the ARtcic and Antarctic, and the tissues of deep sea fish)

      but C8 isn't present in Teflon itself.
      its part of the manufacturing process, but virtually none makes it into the final product.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    13. Re:C8/PFOA by dywolf · · Score: 1

      the problem is that C8 is incredibly bad, but went uncontrolled for so long its no everywhere on the planet, and DuPont covered it up for the longest time (and continues to), knowing full well it was responsible for thousands of problems amongst thousands of people, both its workers and people living in the area of its plants and its secret dumping grounds. and its only one chemical out of the many tens of thousands about which very little if anything is actually known by the public, or even the manufacturers, because little to no testing is required.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    14. Re:C8/PFOA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LynnwoodRooster is right about chromium see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_deficiency. Also C8 has boiling temp of 189 to 192 C and Pyrolysis of PTFE is detectable at 200 C. So it is may be possible for C8 to be completely burned off, but 8 C is a really thin margin given that maintaining STP conditions with volatiles is not going to be easy.

  8. a wrinkly car? by darthsilun · · Score: 1

    ...make water droplets dance and roll off of a surface show promise for applications such as self-cleaning cars, ...

    They almost had me.

  9. It's not 10mm by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1, Informative

    It's 10 nanometers. A 10mm thick layer of PTFE would be massive.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:It's not 10mm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that would be ... almost 1cm thick!

    2. Re:It's not 10mm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if it was only 10 nm wide.

    3. Re:It's not 10mm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have cutting boards that are 12mm thick so it's really not "massive".

    4. Re:It's not 10mm by The+Fun+Guy · · Score: 1

      That caught my eye as well - had to check the paper. A 10 mm coating would be... unimpressive.

      --
      The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
  10. Meeting aliens by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 0

    I know, right?

    Why can't we all use universal measurements like the meter (1 ten millionth the distance through Paris from the pole to the equator), or the second (1/86400 of the mean solar day), or the kilogram (mass of a lump of metal in Paris, with no relevance to anything), the degree Kelvin ( 1/273.15 the temperature of the triple point of water)?

    If we ever meet aliens, they would be totally confused by the American, which use traditional folklore measurements!

    1. Re:Meeting aliens by Zaelath · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, so if it takes 1 Calorie to raise 1cc of water 1K, and 1 Joule to raise 1cc of water 100m, how many Btus does it take to make an ounce of tea on Everest?

      You can pick if it's a US or imperial ounce, but of course you'll need to express that in your answer.

    2. Re:Meeting aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they had used the measure of one american dick they'd understand and it'd quite well be equal with 1 nm.

    3. Re:Meeting aliens by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      Why can't we all use universal measurements like the meter (1 ten millionth the distance through Paris from the pole to the equator)

      That's not the definition of a metre.

      or the second (1/86400 of the mean solar day)

      That's not the definition of a second.

      or the kilogram (mass of a lump of metal in Paris, with no relevance to anything)

      Okay, got me there... but they're working on it!

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    4. Re:Meeting aliens by GrumpySteen · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why can't we all use universal measurements like the meter (1 ten millionth the distance through Paris from the pole to the equator)

      That's not the definition of a metre.

      Yes, that actually was the original definition.

      From Wikipedia:
      "the commission â" whose members included Lagrange, Laplace, Monge and Condorcet â" decided that the new measure should be equal to one ten-millionth of the distance from the North Pole to the Equator (the quadrant of the Earth's circumference), measured along the meridian passing through Paris.

      The definition has been revised several times to base it on bars made of platinum, the wavelength of light and the speed of light, but that doesn't change the origin of the unit.

    5. Re:Meeting aliens by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "If they had used the measure of one american dick they'd understand and it'd quite well be equal with 1 nm."

      We don't talk about Donald Trump here.

    6. Re:Meeting aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, the kilogram was (is?) the mass of an object, but you can approximate it quite readily - one litre of water has a mass of one kilogram - water is fairly readily available.

  11. reduces contamination with dihydrogen monoxide by raymorris · · Score: 3, Funny

    > Mumble mumble mumble chemicals safe mumble mumble.

    On the other hand, the Teflon does reduce dihydrogen monoxide contamination on the surfaces, so it somewhat balances out.

    1. Re:reduces contamination with dihydrogen monoxide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      interestingly, he sourced his argument. You, not so much.

    2. Re:reduces contamination with dihydrogen monoxide by Incadenza · · Score: 1
  12. Wasn't there a superhydrophobic spray? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember that being all the rage a while ago.

    1. Re: Wasn't there a superhydrophobic spray? by ldobehardcore · · Score: 2

      It wears off quickly and is opaque. Also rather expensive. The spray on stuff is also pretty sensitive to temperature and pH. It dissolves in bases. I learned that trying to treat my shower so it'd stay clean. Turns out the coating dissolves in soap and shampoo.

      --
      Hectice, baby, Mercator says hello to you
  13. crinkles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    doesn't exactly sound ideal for a car's aerodynamics.. or are they going to engineer them into small dimples like a golf ball?

    1. Re:crinkles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As good a place as any to drop this...
      In 1987, Gary Mull proposed exactly this technique for the Golden Gate America's Cup challenge. It was in a symposium for Berkeley, LBL, and LLNL Scientists and Engineers, and America's Cup Technical members.
      It was among several other proposals that he made, all of which were subsequently Banned.
      The point was to decrease the Hull water resistance at the point where Laminar Flow turns into Turbulent Flow, known as Transitional Flow. The Livermore folks were involved in the Calculations, and Berkeley and LBL in prototyping the Film.
      It would find best use in Tacking Duels during Light Air events off of Australia, where the wind is typically around 5 Knots.
      The technique was known as "Sharkskin" earlier; the use of microscopic grooves on the surface of the hull. Mull and Tom Blackaller were playing with several Teflon compounds, and the right orientation of the grooves. "Dimpling", the random distribution of microscopic pits had already been tried and found wanting, because Sailboats naturally only want to go forward. (About that last bit, and at the core of these innovations- Mull and Livermore had been doing some time on Supercomputers modeling 12 Meter designs, and they found that under certain circumstances, these boats could go faster backwards. It was due to the position of the Rudder. Mull made a mule with the rudder placed near the bow, and the boat _was_ faster, but Blackaller found it very difficult to control in heavier air.)
      Most of this was written up in the AIAA "The Ancient Interface On the Aero/Hydronautics Of Sailing" journals over the next few years, but not all.

      Here is a part _not_ written up until now:
      The size and orientation of the grooves were accomplished using a LBL Scanning Ion Implanter, followed by an Acid Etch.
      I believe that Dow holds the Patents on the Films, Berkeley the Patents on the grooving, and as for Livermore... They ain't talking. They had other things in mind for these techniques.

      Here is another part not written up:
      The grooving was on _both_ sides. Fresh water Grooves on the inside, and the Ocean on the other, with microscopic holes connecting them. By the pulsed application of Fresh Water pressure over such a huge surface area, the hull could be momentarily "Lifted", which actually had a significant effect in Light Airs and moderate waves in a Wave Tank. The America's Cup Committee was horrified; this was considered a "Mechanical Aid".
      Mull and Blackaller died in 1993 and 1989 respectively, and few involved left know the whole story, except for me, and Livermore, and they ain't talking.

      One last thing:
      The Technique is a natural Antifoulant; even Bacteria aren't interested.

  14. We are all sheep by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 0

    The truth is ugly, very ugly, and it is something most of us find it very hard to swallow ---

    WE ARE ALL SHEEP

    No matter what nationality you have, no matter to which government you pay your tax to, you are sheep

    If you are not a sheep, why would you give away your hard earned money to some one else which has no relation to you?

    If you are not a sheep, why should you obey the many stupid laws on the book?

    If you are not a sheep, why should you obey the instruction from someone who call himself/herself a cop?

    Face it, we are all sheep

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  15. Napoleon and the Academy of Science by argee · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It went like this. A Meter (Metre in French, meaning step), was the distance stepped off by a french Legionnaire
    in the time of Napoleon. Then he told his scientists, "Make it have some relevance to Science" and they came
    up with this and that, eventually was the platinum bar at some temperature in the basement somewhere in
    Paris. Then the modern scientists came into vogue, and it was 134567368 x the wavelength of some light
    emited by an excited atom of some molecule.

    I kinda like the Imperial better. Heaven has 360 degrees. 60 minutes in one degree. 1 minute of arc
    on the surface of the earth is 6000 feet. 6 ft per fathom. Thus a nautical mile is 1000 fathoms. Then
    the damn scientists got into it and said a nautical mile = 6079.7 feet, and fucked it all up. They could
    have changed the foot, or the meter, etc. but no.

    The final straw was the digital calculator in place of the balance scale. Now nobody remembers why
    we have 16 ounces to a pound (answer, divide by two on a balance scale: 16,8,4,2,1). Try that
    with a kilogram ...

    Napoleon lost his bid for world domination at Waterloo and St. Helena. They should have buried his
    meter with his sorry ass arsenicated body.

    1. Re:Napoleon and the Academy of Science by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Actually I think the best of the non-metric measurements is temperature. Sure, its true, the metric scale is better for many things. It is great for talking about boiling water, and freezing water, and relating them.

      However, its hard to talk about comfortable room temperatures in C without resorting to fractional numbers. The 0-100 range is just too wide for daily use.

      The F scale however is based around the normal sorts of human temperature ranges where 0 is around where we start talking about it being dangerously cold, and 100 is about where the heat is getting dangerous.... leaving quite a bit of room in the middle for discussing our daily comfort in simple whole numbers.

      The moment I need to do anything technical though....of course you want metric!

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    2. Re:Napoleon and the Academy of Science by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      However, its hard to talk about comfortable room temperatures in C without resorting to fractional numbers.

      No it isn't. There's only a conversion factor of 1.8 between C and F. How often do you have conversations that go "It's warm outside, feels about 90." / "Nah, feels more like 88 to me."?

      0 is around where we start talking about it being dangerously cold

      0 is around where it starts to snow instead of raining (very roughly) or where your water pipes might start freezing. That point seems a bit more practical and definite to me than a less well-defined "dangerously cold."

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  16. Can it be washed? by kevingolding2001 · · Score: 1

    Maybe I'm missing something, but all the praise seems to be around the ability to repel water.

    What if something gets dirty from something airborne like exhaust fumes or atmospheric haze or something?

    Am I able to wash that off?

    If not, it's not self-cleaning, not even 'cleaning-neutral', but actively 'cleaning-resistant'.

    1. Re:Can it be washed? by eam · · Score: 1

      If the material is hydrophobic, and the dirt is not, then it wouldn't be self-cleaning, but it would work much better than what we have now.

      Get some soapy water. Wash your car. Let it air dry. Do you see spots? That's the dirt that was mixed with the water droplets that were stuck to the surface of your car. If those droplets couldn't stick, they would have rolled off carrying the dirt with them.

      Imagine you're lazy and never wash your car. The first time it rains, anything water soluble dissolves in the rain and rinses right off.

    2. Re:Can it be washed? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Imagine you're lazy and never wash your car. The first time it rains, anything water soluble dissolves in the rain and rinses right off.

      Unfortunately, there is an absolute shitload of non-water-soluble stuff stuck to cars, as a result of other cars which burn and/or leak oil.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Can it be washed? by ripvlan · · Score: 1

      Good question. I wash all my teflon pans with a wet sponge - but stay away from scouring pads because they ruin the finish.

      But they did say it retains its hydrophobia even after scratches. The mirrors on my car are waxed to keep water off - but dirt sure does build up. So I can see in the rain but not on muddy/salty days (yeah - that's a thing up North).

      'course - this is just a proof-of-concept. It'll take "10 years" to bring it to market.

  17. "10mm thick"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not the Teflon that's thick, it's the author of the summary. What a cretin.

  18. Wrinkly? by rebelwarlock · · Score: 1

    I've always wanted a car that looked like a shriveled up ball sack, but I thought the demographic must have been too small.

  19. Aluminium scratch resistant? by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    could have fooled me...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    1. Re:Aluminium scratch resistant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The quote was "the same scratch resistance as an aluminum coating"
      We all know American aluminum is much tougher than pansy assed British aluminium .
      Thank god it isn't as hard as alumina.

  20. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if this would work with Teflon's more transparent cousin.