UK-based P2i has developed a waterproof nano-coating that protects smartphones such as the Alcatel One Touch, and Motorola's RAZR and XOOM. We think the company should develop the technology for consumers who want to apply it to the devices they already own. (Source: P2i)
Battar, according to your statement, Asbestos is perfectly safe.
Nano materials do amazing things BECAUSE of their odd (non-intuitive) behavior, so any statement that they are safe is pure, unsubstantiated speculation. They are already finding bad health effects and environmental concerns for nano materials and the waste produced in their manufacturing. Perhaps not another "Love Canal", but who knows?
Perhaps an interesting related side question is: If they are hydrophobic, how do they react to fats and oils (as contained in human skin)?
This is a great idea - I'm surprised it hasn't come to market sooner. I, for one, could have used this a few years back, when my phone was drowned by the vigorous waves of the Atlantic ocean - blanket too close to the shoreline .... do the math. Of course, it will really be imressive when the technology is made and can be applied to your existing cell phone. Ann, any word from the company on that development?
I agree with every word of what eafpres wrote. They lost me when they claimed that the coating can never wear off and that it doesn't change the electrical properties of anything. All coatings wear off unless they're extremely hard (e.g. diamaond or SiC), in which case they're hard to deposit, hard to bond, and too brittle for use on even slightly flexible substrates. As for not changing the electrical properties, that means that the coating must "know", based on where it lands, whether it ought to be an insulator or a conductor. That, of course, is impossible.
Furthermore, once moisture gets inside an electronic device, it takes a very long time to get out. That gives it plenty of time to work mischief while it's in there. To really waterproof a camera or cell phone, it's necessary to keep water from getting in. If merely coating the PCBs was sufficient, there are plenty of good conformal coatings that will do that.
My impression is that what happened here is some chemist developed a neat way to put thin hydrophobic coatings on lots of materials, and then let his marketing guy loose with the idea. The marketing guy thought to himself "what's a large market of products that are familiar to the general public that could benefit from waterproofing?", and of course his answer was "cell phones". Unfortunately he knows nothing about electronics or even about manufacturing processes.
Something that is molecularly bonded can't be peeled off, but ordinary wear takes the surface off anything. How many computer keys have you seen that have become smooth and shiny with age? I am sure that a plastic layer a few nanometers thick is not going to survive any process that takes micrometers off its substrate. Ordinary wear will take this stuff off in very short order. The only things that will remain protected are those that are not subject to wear.
Of course, that is much of the inside of any device.
What does this stuff do to battery contacts and pushbuttons? Is it thin enough to keep its interference to a few milliohms?
Yes, Dave Palmer, I agree. I wasn't suggesting that this process could be marketed as "anti-cancer". I was putting the idea out there. It's a market that's waiting for the right product/attention.
The evidence isn't as weak as those in CE claim though. I'm sure it's not just cell phones placed in bras that has caused increased breast cancer in very young women. What I listended to on Pacifca radio was very compelling and gave good evidence that cell phones aren't entirely benign.
But, is there anything that's completely safe today?
I would define immersion as being under water for a few seconds. Dropping it in a bath tub full of water or in the toilet (as one reader described) would be an example. Can this technology withstand that? My guess would be no, because any connection to the outside world would take in water. Right?
A new service lets engineers and orthopedic surgeons design and 3D print highly accurate, patient-specific, orthopedic medical implants made of metal -- without owning a 3D printer. Using free, downloadable software, users can import ASCII and binary .STL files, design the implant, and send an encrypted design file to a third-party manufacturer.
A recent report sponsored by the American Chemistry Council (ACC) focuses on emerging gasification technologies for converting waste into energy and fuel on a large scale and saving it from the landfill. Some of that waste includes non-recycled plastic.
Capping a 30-year quest, GE Aviation has broken ground on the first high-volume factory for producing commercial jet engine components from ceramic matrix composites. The plant will produce high-pressure turbine shrouds for the LEAP Turbofan engine.
Seismic shifts in 3D printing materials include an optimization method that reduces the material needed to print an object by 85 percent, research designed to create new, stronger materials, and a new ASTM standard for their mechanical properties.
A recent study finds that 3D printing is both cheaper and greener than traditional factory-based mass manufacturing and distribution. At least, it's true for making consumer plastic products on open-source, low-cost RepRap printers.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.